The URL can be used to link to this page

1 - 2020 09-28-20 Vallco arborist inspection letterWalter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A 9/28/2020 Arborist Inspection Letter Inspection Time Period: September, 2020 Site: Vallco Town Center Period: Demolition Phase Work Zones: 1A/1 B/1 C Craig Bacheller, Rafael Vinoly Architects (RVA) cbacheller(avinoly.com Mike Rohde, Vallco Property Manager mrohde(a)vallcoshoppingmall.com , mrohde(cb_shpco.com (Sand Hill Property Co.) Paul Hansen, Sand Hill Construction Management phansen(a_shcmllc.com Clint Magill, Devcon Construction Site Supervisor (General Contractor of record) cmaaill(a)devcon-const.com To whom it may concern: The author Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist or "WLCA" visited the site on 9/28/2020 to re -inspect tree protection measures, tree irrigation, and signage installed by Devcon for demolition zone 1A (and surrounding areas as applicable), which involves removal of parking structures at the southwest corner of the site. WLCA also reviewed various other site areas that are in the process of being fitted with surface mulch, tree protection fencing, etc. This report includes some or all of the following reference items: • Full Tree Map / Tree disposition and location map sheet P-0602B by OLIN (new version May, 2020). • Photographs / Digital images representative of current site conditions archived in August, 2020 by WLCA. • Tree Data Table / The tree data table provided at the end of this report is the July, 2020 iteration. Trees removed from the site since start of project are noted on this Excel table with black hatching fill, and the rightmost column contains detailed, updated notes on tree condition, approximate removal date, etc. The database is updated to note all of the hundreds of permitted removals that have occurred since start of demolition. In this iteration, tree #429 is hatched out and noted as "signage posted for removal". • Updates per today's site visit (9/28/2020) are noted in non -bolded yellow highlight. • To-do punchlist items for SHPCO or other site personnel are noted in black bold yellow highlight. • New punchlist item for SHPCO: Per my last inspection report in August, 2020, the waterproof signage along the chain link fences at Vallco being used to protect the trees indicates my email address incorrectly as walterlevison(ab_yahoo.com instead of the correct: walterslevison]r(aD_yahoo.com This should be corrected. Author's Side Notes: WLCA noted that in the WLCA tree database there are a very large number of the trees in dead, very poor, or poor overall condition that may die outright due to natural causes (e.g. soil moisture deficit from extended droughty weather conditions in California between roughly 2011 and 2017, etc.) unrelated to the Vallco property redevelopment work. Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A As of today, most open soil tree root zone areas at Vallco are at roughly 80% to 100% field capacity soil moisture when probed with a Lincoln meter/probe, which is a direct result of our over -grade, heavy -flow type temporary irrigation system installed by SHPCO contractors. The system as of September 28, 2020, is timed to activate 2 days a week, for 45 minutes each run day, for a total of 1.5 hours per tree per week, with the bubblers activated for a full, single 45 minute period each of Tuesday and Thursday. WLCA did a volumetric test today with SHPCO, to determine actual irrigation water volume output per bubbler. The result was +/- 60 ounces volume water per each minute of activation, which when calculated at 1.5 hours per tree per week equals 125 gallons per tree per week, and 500 gallons per tree per month. This is roughly the "normal high" expected irrigation volume rate for temporary irrigation of landscape trees, which were somewhat standardized by Barrie Coate & Associates' back in the 1980's at the rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter per month for native oaks and other drought tolerant tree species, and 20 gallons per each single trunk inch for coast redwoods (i.e. for higher water use type species), which works out to about 600 gallons per month per tree for a 30 inch diameter ash or redwood and 400 gallons per month for a 20 inch diameter tree. Given that we are irrigating every single tree specimen on Vallco Property at this rate, this means that trees in relatively close proximity to each other with comingled root systems grafted together are essentially receiving much greater than their required minimum volume of irrigation water, again, far exceeding the minimum "standard" irrigation volume per tree per month for a high water use species. The interesting thing about this irrigation water volume standard is that, given the Bay Area's droughty conditions and the cost of water, almost no entity is typically willing to apply water at this high rate over a long period of time, especially if they are not working closely with an arborist over a period of years. Vallco Property Owner is probably my first client in 21 years of consulting that actually understood the situation, and achieved and exceeded the standard volume recommended, thanks to Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO. Most other WLCA clients will place small bubbler heads near trees and apply ridiculously low volumes of irrigation water such as 50 gallons per month per tree, which often has little or no benefit in terms of boosting tree survival rates of large stature mature trees. The new 9/28/2020 watering regime was meant to adjust the total output at any one activation period, in order to better "saturate" the upper soil profile area completely in a "saturation plume" below grade that would then cause gravitational flow of that irrigation water volume directly downward. Per various texts and per irrigation experts, the better saturated the uppermost levels of the soil profile are, the greater likelihood that this irrigation water will percolate directly downward vertically into the lower elevations of the soil profile to wet deeper roots that are below the typical elevation "reach" of shallow type irrigation.2 The theory is that the greater the volume of water applied in a single activation period, the greater the potential for that water to saturate the upper elevations of the tree root zone and flow via gravity downward into the deeper zones that are more difficult to saturate. Simply irrigating to "field capacity" soil moisture in the uppermost profile elevations is not adequate. The upper zone needs to be fully saturated before the water will begin to move downward via gravitational flow into the lower elevations of the soil profile where some deeper roots are located that may not have previously been wetted to the point where they could then uptake irrigation water as "plant available water". It is hoped that our new irrigation regime of 45 minutes twice a week will more effectively saturate the upper elevations of the soil, allowing for better and more effective water uptake by some of the deeper elevation tree roots, while simultaneously lowering the total irrigation water volume useage by Vallco Property Owner. Roots in the zone of highest root density, which is typically stated as the uppermost two feet of the soil profile elevation, will of course continue to receive high soil moisture via bubbler irrigation, as they were prior to the newly -adjusted September 2020 irrigation duration and frequency regime. ' Mr. Michael Bench, Consulting Arborist, currently the Contract City Arborist for City of Cupertino planning division, consulted for Barrie Coate and Associates for decades, and is very familiar with the 10 gallon/20 gallon irrigation standard developed and used by Coate. Z Lacan, Dr. Igor. University of California Cooperative Extension Agent. San Francisco Bay Area. September 2020 "Water and Trees" Seminar, via Zoom. 2 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO noted 6/25/2020 that an irrigation system contractor has been newly retained by SHPCO to visit the Vallco Property site 1 x/month and perform activation testing of all the various irrigation valves, inspecting the above -grade PVC pipes for cracks, leaks, etc. and to verify that the tree irrigation system is performing as designed. HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT Mike Rohde of SHPCO requested that WLCA visit the Vallco site during the shelter in place order, so that we could formally document activities by homeless persons living around the Vallco site trees on N. Wolfe Road. WLCA visited the site on 4/15/2020 and approached the homeless camp with two security officers and Mr. Rohde. We archived digital photos of the homeless encampment, and noted the tag number #428 (see digital images below in this report). As of September, 2020, the camp now consists of roughly sixteen (16) or more tents ranging from small to large family size tents that are set up on the tree planting strip between the public sidewalk and the public roadway (N. Wolfe Road), with accompanying cooking gear, gas powered generators, bicycles, and other items. In September, 2020, two (2) new family size tents appeared, one between street ash trees #435 and #437, and one between trees #437 and #440, as can be seen on the 9/28/2020 updated layout image below, showing the limits of the tent camp area. The southmost tent is adjacent to street ash tree #440, which was previously not impacted by the encampment. As of today, SHPCO can no longer hand -irrigate the street side ash tree specimens, due to the presence of new tent(s) extending farther southward than last month. The only area SHPCO can hand -irrigate is the area between #441 and #442, just north of the new portable toilet and hand- washing/sanitizing station. The activities of the camp are likely having a significant negative effect on the trees' root systems per the following: The open soil root zones are normally open to the air, and therefore would normally receive oxygen exchange with the atmosphere and natural rainfall. Placement of tents and other waterproof items over the ground results in loss of oxygen transfer between the roots and the atmosphere, causing the root zones of the trees to go somewhat anaerobic. HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT MAP • 428 (NOT TO SCALE) REV 9/28/2020 WALTER LEVISON NORTH 431 APPROX. LOCATION OF TENTS (MAGENTA) NOW EXTENDS ALL 432 THE WAY SOUTH TO TREE #440. F<_M ----~"FREEWAY 280 SIGN" 435 TWO (2) NEW LARGE 440 FAMILY SIZE TENTS APPEARED HERE IN SEPT. 441 AREA THAT SAND HILL 442 PROPERTY CO. IS IRRIGATING BY HAND GARDEN HOSE (BLUE), REDUCED TO ONLY #441 AND #442 (CANNOT GO NEAR TENTS) NEW LARGE -TYPE PORTABLE TOILET INSTALLED BY CITY OF CUPERTINO AS OF JUNE, 2020, ADJACENT TO TREE #442. EIGHT (8) STREET SIDE ASH TREE SPECIMENS NOTED ABOVE BY TAG NUMBER, ADJACENT TO NORTH WOLFE ROAD, CUPERTINO, CA. • With tents placed over the root systems of the street ash tree specimens (trees #428, 431, 432, 435, 437, 440), the trees are not receiving oxygen and irrigation water as they normally wood. At right is a map markup by WLCA showing the current conditions of the camp area as of 9/28/2020, with the expanded camp area in pink, now extending southward all the way to the trunk of tree #440, which means that irrigation of the trees by hand can only occur near the toilet area, and can only benefit trees #441 and #442. 3 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A A recent posted official sign by the City of Cupertino (see right) states that the camp is immediately ordered to be taken down as an illegal presence, as of September, 2020, but that the removal order has been "POSTPONED" due to an unknown situation involving finding a new location for the camp residents to move to. The trees' root systems are likely becoming unnecessarily compacted due to the extensive homeless foot traffic, homeless sleeping in tents, and weight of the various camp items over the ground, resulting in loss of natural oxygenated soil pore space that is necessary for tree roots to survive. It is difficult to restore the soil once compaction of pore spaces has occurred. Methods could include augering, water jetting, or Airspade air excavation to establish vertical decompaction channels in the soil profile inside which angular gravel can be placed to fill the voids. • Fuel dumping could be negatively impacting tree roots in a severe manner (e.g. spills of gasoline used for the camp's electricity generators, and/or spills of camp cooking fuels used by camp occupants). • Human wastes (feces, urine, etc.) are likely being released daily by the homeless camp occupants. These materials can have a severe negative impact on the roots of the streetside ash trees, given that the materials are being released over an extended time period, on a frequent and repeated basis, directly over the open soil tree root systems as highly concentrated organic materials that have not been pre -composted by any means. These human wastes are typically high in salt (ion and cation) content, and can cause root death due to what is sometimes referred to as "fertilizer burn" (i.e. a "high salt index"). • Physical damages to the trunks and/or roots of trees #428, 431, 432, 435, 437, 440, and #441 may also be occurring. • Tree Removals: WLCA expects that at least a portion of the camp and its occupants will need to be moved or removed in order to facilitate removal of tree #429, currently posted as to be removed per formal removal permit through City of Cupertino. The tree is located just east of the green clad chain link fence. However, the fence will need to be temporarily removed in order to facilitate tree removal, which means that the camp and its occupants will also need to be moved or removed. 5/15/2020 Root Protection Zone (RPZ) Fence Vandalism: WLCA noted during the May 2020 site inspection that the homeless persons living on or near to Vallco property have (apparently) cut through the chain link material of the "south gate" at the south end of West Perimeter Road (WPR) which is a locked consulting arborist access point for entrance into the root protection zone (RPZ) used to exclude persons from entering into our over -grade irrigation area running in a north -south orientation under the redwood and ash tree specimens being preserved and protected, parallel to West Perimeter Road. The RPZ fenced area that was recently vandalized is now accessible to passersby, and is assumedly being used by homeless persons to access the RPZ area due to its dense forest of redwood and ash trees, plus the green -clad chain link fence, which makes this hidden zone ideal for sleeping and for use as a transit route to walk to and from retail stores in Cupertino and the existing homeless encampment on N. Wolfe Road. 4 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A INSPECTION TABLE LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES REDWOODS ADJACENT TO 10356 NORWICH NEIGHBOR RESIDENCE: During WLCA's July 28, 2020 site visit, a reassessment of trees #592 through #602 was performed. The following are WLCA's rough estimated condition ratings for these 11 trees, as viewed from a poor vantage point from under the +/-JULY 3, canopies of the trees, standing just east of the trunks (the upper sections of the 2020 trees' canopies were not visible from my vantage point): Neighbor west Vallco trees Tree #592: 50% condition (Fair). of West adjacent to Tree #593: 40% condition (Poor). Perimeter Road 10356 Tree #594: 50% condition (Fair). residing at Norwich Tree #595: 50% condition (Fair). 10356 Norwich appear to be 1A Road claims redwoods o Tree #596: 20 /o condition (Very Poor). This tree should probably be removed. that trees #592 to #602 adjacent to along West Tree #597: 0% condition (Dead). This tree should be removed. It has been dead his/her property Perimeter for a number of years, as noted in WLCA's Vallco property tree database. are "dying" on Road. Vallco property. Tree #598: +/- 30% to 50% condition (Poor to Fair). This tree was previously Requested rated as "Very Poor" (20% overall condition). It appears to be improving in terms information on of live twig density compared to previous years, likely due directly to the heavy the trees. irrigation we are providing to all of the redwoods on a year-round basis. Tree #599: 50% (Fair). Tree #600: 30% (Poor). Tree #601: 30% to 40% (Poor). Tree #602: 30% (Poor). ASH #103 DECAY / LEAN SITUATION: WLCA noted on 7/28/2020 that the north side of the root crown of tree #103 was decayed, with approximately 12 inches of linear length as open cavity at grade Street tree elevation (see photos at end of this inspection report). JULY, 2020 #103 (evergreen The depth of the decay cavity (void) is not known, but it is highly likely that the Tree decay ash entire north side of the root plate has been compromised in terms of structural situation noted specimen), stability. 1 B by Sand Hill at west side Property Co. of N. Wolfe LEAN: Staff in July, Rd, where 2020 the old AMC The tree appears (visually) to be leaning further off vertical than any other ash movie theatre specimen growing in this row of street trees along the west side of N. Wolfe was located. Road. The tree currently leans southeast over N. Wolfe Road, and does not appear to have righted itself to vertical with any new vertical growth. This suggests that the lean is a new lean, related to root plate instability brought on by decay of and failure of the north side of root crown. 5 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES (TREE #103 LEAN CONTINUED) Note that the north side of the root late where the decay is located is the "tension side" of this tree's lean, which means that the leaning mass is tensioned against (pulling against) the north side of the root plate. Given that the decay is on that tension side, this necessarily means that the tree's ability to maintain an upright position against gravity is compromised, since the lean side of a root crown/root plate is the side that is most crucial to maintain in good, healthy condition free of defects or decay3. WLCA installed two (2) nails into the uphill side of the tree lean, approximately 18 inches apart, on the lower trunk, in order to measure degrees of lean off from vertical during each monthly inspection report period. The degrees of lean were measured using a straight edge placed over the two nails, and a digital Nikon Forestry Pro hypsometer placed over the straight edge. WLCA shot ten (10) digital readings. The average number of lean degrees as read on the instrument screen was 74.4 degrees actual angle (15.6 degrees off -vertical), which can now be used as a BASELINE LEAN reading to compare with each future monthly reading, using the same equipment on the same nail heads. UPDATE SEPTEMBER 28, 2020: WLCA re -measured the lean using the Nikon hypsometer and a steel straight edge. The average lean from 10 readings was 74.5 degrees actual vector angle, which is only 0.1 degrees difference from the original baseline reading: not enough to indicate significant difference as of today. Note also that the difference in lean was actually toward the uphill direction, which suggests data fluctuation due to differences in the measuring devices, and not an increase in the actual angle of lean. Per written standards on measuring change of lean, a change in lean of greater than 1.0 degree in the direction of lean during a follow-up site visit, compared to the original baseline angle of lean, would be the threshold for risk reduction action such as tree removal, reduction pruning, etc.4 Note the caveat per citation #3 below regarding change of lean angle: "Not all leaning trees that fail would be preceded by a measurable change in angle of lean. An abnormally severe weather event such as a hurricane, thunderstorm, freezing rain or heavy snow can cause the failure of a leaning tree that is otherwise stable, without being proceeded by a gradual change. Other times, a tree with only a slight lean may fail when a second factor such as decay or a root cut occurs". Given the high traffic occurring regularly on N. Wolfe Road at all hours, and the 3 Dunster, Dr. Julian. 2017. Tree Risk Assessment Manual, 2"d Edition. International Society of Arboriculture publications (USA). 4 Smiley, Thomas, Dr. Determining Change of Lean. Open source internet technical report by Bartlett Tree Experts (Bartlett Tree Research Laboratory), USA: https://www.bartlett.com/resources/determining change-of-lean.pdf 6 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES location of the subject tree adjacent to this roadway, leaning to the southeast directly toward the roadway, and the visible extent of decay, plus unknown additional extent of decay, WLCA suggests that we consider removal of tree #103. Note that the decay does not appear to have been caused by any particular factor. There has not been construction activity over the root zone, and there is no coverage of wood chips over the root crown flare. Similarly, the irrigation provided by SHPCO to the trees at Vallco Property does not spray onto the trunk of any tree, and therefore remains only as water applied to the root zone itself. Therefore, the actual cause of the root crown decay at the north side of tree #103 is unverified as of the date of writing. IN -GROUND HOLLY OAKS ON SITE: These trees are currently still in place in the ground, and have not been boxed up for transplant as of the date of writing. There is chain link RPZ type fencing protection around these five trees as of the date of writing, and additional protection consisting of trunk buffer wraps around #97, 98, and #99. As of today 9/28/2020, each tree is receiving 45 minutes X 2x/week, which means that assuming the pressure at these bubblers is the same as the location where I did my volumetric testing last month, each of the oaks should be getting 500 gallons of water per month (theoretically). If this is in fact the true output of irrigation water volume at those bubblers, then the trees are now getting good saturation of at least some portion of their remaining root systems, in close proximity to the trunk edges, which is where the bubblers are located, inside the fenced Tree enclosures, and away from construction activity). transplantation planning. #69, 70, Today's Lincoln probing here indicated the soil was at 70% to 100% field 1 97, 98, 99 capacity. However, these readings were limited to the uppermost Required elevations of the soil profile only, since the open soil areas around these transplants. former parking lot trees is so rocky and so densely populated with roots that the Lincoln moisture meter probe is not able to penetrate the soil profile more than about 6 to 12 inches below grade. WLCA will test soil moisture at these three holly oaks in October, 2020, which is the next scheduled site visit. Hopefully, after the three bubbler setup around each tree starts providing a large volume of water to the soil each month, the Lincoln probe will be able to penetrate to a lower elevation in the soil profile such that we can determine true saturation of the trees' root zones. See plume diagram from USDA in the digital images section of this report, for further reference. I spoke with Mike Rhode of SHPCO today 9/28/2020, and he will have the SHPCO Vallco site maintenance staff install wood chips in wide tall rings at roughly 3 feet to 4 feet radius offset around the trunks of trees #97, 98, and #99 this week, to further force irrigation water downward directly into the areas within the fence protection enclosures. The rings will act as pseudo "watering berms" to help 7 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED force irrigation water downward into the root zones of the three oaks to be transplanted. ---------------------------------------------------------------- Oaks #69 and #70 over at the east end of the parking lot demolition have piped heavy irrigation being applied from a T-line running off of N. Wolfe Road over -grade irrigation pipe systems. That portion of the irrigation system has been active and running for a relatively long period of time (greater than 1 year). Trees #260, 261, and #262 are currently set up with over -grade high flow irrigation via flex tubing, and trunk buffers have been wrapped around the trunks of each tree. Chain link fencing has also been erected around the trees. #414, 415, and #416 have trunk buffer wraps, but no chain link fencing or piped irrigation yet, as of the date of writing. They are being hand -watered. WLCA's soil moisture probe readings indicated this area was relatively quite dry. I had Tree SHPCO irrigate the trees as heavily as they could today (by hand), and they are transplantation aware there is a problem with getting irrigation water volume to penetrate down "island planning. #260, 261, into this raised elevation median" mound area. Water when applied to 2 262, 414, this island tends to simply sheet off as runoff into the street, due to the densely Discretionary 415,416 rooted surface, and due to the fact that droughty conditions have created a transplants. hydrophobic surface to the soil here which is almost impossible for irrigation water to penetrate. These three trees are completely defoliating as of the date of writing, which is a phenomenon occurring all over California right now with California sycamores (Platanus racemosa) in particular that I have observed in wildlands and at other clients' properties in addition to here at Vallco, due to the heat wave weather events we have experienced in June, July, and August, 2020. Mr. Bench, in his August, 2019 letter report, stated that a written set of transplanting specifications needs to be in hand at least 3 months prior to boxing Transplanting up trees for transplanting at Vallco. 3 Plan Report by WLCA WLCA actually prepared a Vallco transplanting specifications report back in 12/7/2018 12/7/2018, which was submitted to Craig Bacheller of RVA. This report can be used as a specification standard, or it can be updated as needed prior to use as the specification standard for our transplanting of existing site trees at Vallco. Areas that now have active running temporary irrigation via over -grade PVC Temporary piping and Salco flexible UV -resistant PVC include the following: timer -activated 4 irrigation (Various) a. Stevens Creek Blvd. trees (evergreen ash trees along the landscape system Swale along the north side of the street), between North Wolfe Road and installation West Perimeter Road. areas 8 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES 3 bubblers per each tree, each emitting up to 60 oz/minute, per my volumetric flow testing 8/29/2020. As of Sept 28, 2020, timers are set for single run time events of 45 minutes, 2x/week, for a total of +/- 500 gallons of irrigation water application per tree per month. We have reduced the volume of output by 50% (originally was 1,000 gallons per tree per month in Aug/Sept 2020), but increased the run time significantly, such that the trees are receiving much longer activation run time durations, and less frequency, which should correlate to better soil pore saturation plume development below grade, and better drydown of the root systems in terms of gaps between irrigation. The differentials between saturated soil and completely dry soil were determined to be something on the order of 6 feet radius from each bubbler point, per WLCA's extensive probing with a Lincoln moisture meter/probe today 9/28/2020. WLCA expects the irrigation saturation plumes to be increased in radius laterally from each bubbler point, and increased in terms of depth to saturation, once the trees are accustomed to the new 45 minute activation regime which started today. See the USDA irrigation soil moisture plume side cut detail below in this inspection report, in the digital images section of this inspection report, for a sample of what might be expected as a result of the increase in irrigation run times (not to scale, and theoretical, but a good overview of how bubbler irrigation works, and probably the only graphic representation of this subject available on the internet as an open source image). I noted during my 8/29/2020 visit that turf grass has dried out for the most part along the tree swales that border Vallco, including Stevens Creek Blvd and N. Wolfe Road (see photos below in this report). However, given that the irrigation switched from sprinkler head type with wide coverage of the landscape, to high flow flood bubbler type with point source applications only, this is to be expected, and should not be considered a "red flag" in terms of "indicating a lack of irrigation water". See WLCA's discussion of this above on page 1 and 2, and note that each tree receives roughly 500 gallons of water per month, which is far beyond the typical irrigation volume provided to trees by a typical entity. b. North Wolfe Road trees, both west and east sides of street, between Stevens Creek Blvd. and freeway 280. (same 3-bubbler setup for each tree, and same timer -activated frequency and duration for water delivery as noted above). West side of N. Wolfe Road trees were noted to have roughly 70% to 100% relative soil moisture between Stevens Creek and the flyway, which has now been demolished as of April 15, 2020. Turf grass growth is seen in the planting areas surrounding the ash trees along the west side of N. Wolfe Road, indicating that excellent soil moisture is being provided by the over -grade irrigation system. As of 6/25/2020, the SHPCO team has spread wood chips as mulch skirts 9 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES around these trees. The skirts are 2 feet in width, and offset approximately 1 foot from trunk edges to avoid moisture buildup on the trunk bark surfaces. The only area still not yet set up with active running irrigation as of December, 2019, is the east side of street, between the flyway and freeway 280 (i.e. the "Alexander Steakhouse trees"). This area is being heavily hand -watered by Sand Hill Property Co. Staffpersons. Soil moisture is at 70% to 100% as of 4/15/2020. As of June 25, 2020, the N. Wolfe Road median between the old flyway (demolished) and freeway 280 is now being irrigated by sprinkler heads, 3x/week, for roughly 20 minutes per activation period, though this may have been changed to the new September, 2020 regime, which is 45 minutes 2x/week that all other trees are now receiving at Vallco. Note that the TGIF trees are being irrigated using a Netafim emitter lines built into parallel rows running lengthwise along the relatively narrow open soil planting strip in this area. Soil moisture is 100% field capacity in this area. Street ash tree #265 in this area (tag number not verified), to be removed at a later time, was noted to have sustained a three foot long bark tear at 12 to 15 feet above grade, on a mainstem measuring 8 inches diameter. (The tag number of this tree was not visible due to the trunk buffer wraps). c. Sycamore island grouping of trees #260, 261, 262 on N. Wolfe Road (west side). Soil moisture could not be confirmed in this area. d. West Perimeter Road (WPR) trees: multiple rows of evergreen ash trees and coast redwood trees along the west side of the roadway, between Stevens Creek Blvd and the north end of the Vallco project near the Freeway 280 southbound off -ramp. As of 8/29/2020, soil moisture was approximately 80% to 100% throughout the root zones of the double row of trees along the entire west side of West Perimeter Road, and profuse new green ivy groundcover and lush green weed growth, indicating that over -grade irrigation being emitted to the trees' root systems has significantly boosted soil moisture. In April/May, 2020, the project team cut down the thousands of sprouts arising from the bases of the trees from the bud burls (lignotubers). The profuse growth of these sprouts over the last few months may be yet another indication that the trees are being well irrigated and that the root systems maintain relatively high soil moisture levels. In WLCA's experience, removal of basal sprouts often encourages coast redwood specimens to expend additional energy in pushing new twig and needle growth in the canopies, and WLCA 10of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES expects this to occur at Vallco now that the basal sprouts have been removed. 5 As of 6/25/2020, the project team has gathered up Vallco site tree removal wood chips and spread them as mulch skirts around site trees along West Perimeter Road. The skirts are approximately 2 feet in width, and are offset from trunk edges roughly 1 horizontal foot to avoid moisture buildup on the trunk bark. The Lincoln moisture meter/probe used by WLCA to verify soil moisture at Vallco Property broke just prior to the 6/25/2020 site visit. WLCA therefore used the "scratch method" to remove dried soil surfaces in the trees' root zones, and physically feel the uppermost root zone zone for moisture determination. Root zones appeared to be at roughly the same relative soil moisture status as previously noted in past inspections (i.e. about 80% to 100% relative soil moisture). 6/25/2020 UPDATE ON REDWOODS #704 TO #724 (West Perimeter Road, East-West Section): Most of the trees in the group of redwoods #704 to #724 appeared to be in rapid decline due to soil moisture deficit directly related to the California drought situation, and were expected to die by 2020 or 2021 when re -assessed by WLCA a few years ago. However, given the regular heavy irrigation they have been receiving from the piped irrigation system installed by SHPCO, the trees are actually making a remarkable rebound in terms of growth vigor, as can be seen in the digital images from 6/25/2020 included in this inspection report. Original branches have desiccated and died, while new branches have arisen in profusion from the areas along the mainstems of most of these trees. Tree #711 is dead, but most of the remaining specimens along this east - west oriented row of redwoods on West Perimeter Road are currently exhibit improved TDE (live current UPDATE ON THE PROPOSED JOINT ELECTRICAL TRENCH AREA (I.E. NORTHWEST CORNER OF WEST PERIMETER ROAD): • The row of ash trees +/- #685 to #703 in the northwest corner of the Vallco site are leafing out better than previously expected, as of spring, 2020, due to consistent very heavy irrigation supplied by the Vallco team's over -grade irrigation system for more than one year. These trees are to be removed per plan, and are noted in "grey" color coding on the approved Vallco tree disposition plan sheet P060213, from 2018. 5 Professional experience test trial, Sunnyvale, CA. Mature redwoods with basal sprouts retained, and mature redwoods with sprouts removed, were all tracked over a period of roughly 1 calendar year to note new twig extension lengths in the trees' canopies over time. Coast redwoods with basal sprouts removed appeared to achieve better canopy twig extension lengths over time. 11 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A LINE NUMBER ITEM DESCRIPTION / LOCATION TREE TAG NUMBERS AFFECTED NOTES I did note on 6/25/2020 that ash #674 in the vicinity of past electrical vault conduit trenching root zone damage was exhibiting less than normal twig density and foliar density (see photos below). WLCA will continue to monitor this tree over time, for changes in stability and/or health (growth vigor). • Redwoods #611 through #621 were illegally pruned in the proposed joint trench area by a tree care company hired by one of the property owners living directly west of West Perimeter Road. The tree care company literally shaved off the entire west sides of the trees' canopies, from top of property boundary wall to the tops of the trees (as noted previously by WLCA). As can be seen in the digital images below in this 4/15/2020 report, the trees' regrowth to date since the illegal pruning has been pitiful at best, and the trees are expected to remain in a state of severe canopy damage with only minimal chance of recovery to their prior condition ratings. Decline of the trees' vigor (new growth) and/or a reduction in longevity in the landscape due directly to this illegal pruning is likely. e. East Perimeter Road (EPR) trees along the Apple Inc. property boundary are all now irrigated via flex tubing running along grade, as of October, 2019. Tree root zone soil here is 70-100% field capacity as of 8/29/2020, and visibly very moist. The trees appear to have better vigor (canopy twig and foliage growth) than in previous years, likely due to the heavy irrigation they have been receiving via the over -grade irrigation water supply system. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Author's Side Note: WLCA used a site -calibrated Lincoln soil moisture meter/probe today to test soil moisture of many of the streetside trees being protected and retained at the Vallco properties. Results indicated that the soil had generally 70% to 100% relative soil moisture in the vicinities of the high flow type flood bubblers which are activated multiple times per week along the ash and redwood tree root zones. As of the date of writing, These Areas Are Being Hand -Watered 3x/week by Garden Hose Until a Bubbler System is Built Over -Grade: Areas being irrigated by a. Trees along the east side of N. Wolfe Road (Alexander Steakhouse 5 hand, 3x to (Various) trees) #441 and #442. Other ash trees in this row (#428, 431, 432, 435, 4x/week during 437, 440) are not accessible by the hand -irrigation crew as of Summer & Fall. September, 2020, due to the presence of a homeless encampment and a portable toilet. b. Discretionary transplants #414, 415, 416. 12of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Areas with RPZ fencing now include all of the following: a. West perimeter road, west side of road (previously installed). b. Stevens Creek Blvd. between North Wolfe Road and West Perimeter Road (previously installed). Chain link Root c. North Wolfe Road, north -south oriented line of trees, (the westmost row 6 Protection Zone (Various) only), abutted up against the Bay Club parking lot. This is a new area of (RPZ) Fencing tree fencing protection. The City of Cupertino has apparently requested that we do not install protection along the sidewalk row of trees, in order to maintain the area with a natural, "non -industrial" appearance. The sidewalk along the west side of N. Wolfe Road is currently accessible by pedestrians almost the entire distance from Stevens Creek Blvd to the North end of the Vallco project. d. North Wolfe Road, both sides of road, between the flyway bridge and freeway 280 (i.e. Alexander Steakhouse trees, and TGIF trees). Areas with trunk buffer wraps and wood overlay now include all of the following: a. West Perimeter Road trees that are adjacent to the west side of the roadway. b. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old Alexander Steak House (east side of road). Trunk Buffer Wraps with c. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old TGI Fridays 7 Wood Board (Various) restaurant (west side of road). Overlay d. North Wolfe Road discretionary transplants 260, 261. e. North Wolfe Road street trees south of the flyway bridge (i.e. along the old AMC movie theatre and Dynasty restaurant area), west side of street, only as far south as the old Bay Club parking lot entrance. f. Required transplant oaks #97, 98, 99 at the southwest corner of the Vallco site. The following tree areas have now been pruned by Tree Tech of San Jose, a tree service contractor, for horizontal and vertical roadway airspace clearance: Pruning for a. (Early 2019): West Perimeter Road trees being retained along the west Roadway & side of the road (pruned earlier in 2019). 8 Pathway Airspace (Various) b. (August, 2019): East perimeter Road trees being retained along the east Clearance side of the road. c. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. ash trees, the northmost row overhanging the old Bay Club parking lot. d. September, 2019): Trees along both sides of North Wolfe Road 13of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A between Stevens Creek Blvd. and freeway 280. e. (October, 2019): Trees along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd, both the row overhanging the Bay Club parking lot and the row overhanging the westbound lane along the north side of Stevens Creek Blvd. f. (October, 2019): The N. Wolfe Road median trees. g. (May, 2020): Live wood and foliage in the lower elevations of the canopies of redwood and ash tree specimens along West perimeter Road is being removed as an on -going process to clear the airspace of the north -south oriented walking path that extends north -south in orientation, parallel with the roadway. During a site drive -through with Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO in September, 2019, the following areas were approved by WLCA as zones where chipper truck - derived natural wood chips can be placed over the open soil landscape as a mulch surface treatment, using natural wood chips from pruning operations on the Vallco property, in order to provide a moisture barrier that will enhance the look of the landscape, provide minor weed blocking functions, increase soil moisture retention, and force a greater percentage of irrigation water downward into the soil profile around existing trees being retained: Thickness approved: Up to 4 inches. After reviewing the speed of wood chip degeneration over time, WLCA may increase this thickness specification accordingly. Mulching with As of October and November, 2019, wood chip mulch skirts are approximately 2 Wood Chips to 3 feet in radius, from the root crowns of the trees outward. 9 Derived from (Various) Pruning a. (September, 2019): West side of North Wolfe Road. Operations by Tree Tech. b. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. trees, between North Wolfe Road and West Perimeter Road. c. (September and October, 2019): East perimeter Road, between freeway 280 and Vallco Parkway. Along the east side of road only. Mulch here covers the complete open soil root zones of the trees (see images below in this report). WLCA suggested to Mr. Mike Rohde of SHPCO on 4/15/2020 that excess wood chips on the Vallco site could be utilized by spreading them out as a 4 inch thick layer over the bare soil root zones of redwood and ash specimens at the "bend point" along West Perimeter Road (i.e. between roughly trees #704 and #724). This would act to reduce evaporation of soil moisture from the trees' root zones. This spreading activity was completed in July/August, 2020. 14of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A a. Ash tree #50 at the east end of the row of trees overhanging Stevens Creek Blvd recently declined (see photo below in this report). WLCA suggested that SHPCO prune out deadwood throughout the tree's canopy and monitor it to determine if it is still viable. The tree has now been pruned as of October, 2019. b. Ash tree #673 at the "bend" in West Perimeter Road where utility trenching occurred in 2019. This tree was noted elsewhere in this report as a specimen in decline that exhibits less than normal current season's live twig density. c. Ash tree #763 on West Perimeter Road. Decline in this tree was noted earlier in 2019 by WLCA. Tree Tech pruned the tree to reduce its height, and the tree is now "retrenching" with renewed vigorous sprout growth throughout the lower elevations (see photos below in this report). As of October, 2019, this tree is extending profuse new shoots and dense foliage as of October, 2019. As of 4/15/2020 the tree exhibits a dense canopy of new shoot and foliage growth. As of 5/15/2020 SHPCO plans to prune out lower elevation branches to clear the airspace around this tree. Trees to monitor d. Redwood #804 just northwest of #763 on West Perimeter Road is for developing a large number of dead and dying scaffold limbs throughout 10 decline/death See rig ht the canopy. The tree may need to be removed outright at some point in over time, or the near future. simply remove outright. As of 5/15/2020, the neighbor just west of this tree apparently pruned out a large number of the dead scaffold limbs without permission, and allowed those branches to fall into our Vallco property area where they are now laying in the pathway between the redwood tree row and the ash tree row (see photos at end of this report). e. Redwoods #628 and #668. West Perimeter Road. f. Various trees near the PG&E vault work recently completed along West Perimeter Road (see separate vault area table below). g. Redwood grove of trees #500, 501, and #502 ("standard trees") were noted in the past to be dead or almost dead in 2018. These trees may still represent a significant risk to persons driving, walking, or working around the East Perimeter Road area. Although they are already permitted for removal as of the date of writing, they are still standing in the landscape as of 1/24/2020, since this eastmost section of Vallco is scheduled for demolition after the west portions of the Vallco lands. I suggest removing them as soon as possible, per WLCA letter dated 3/2/2020. h. Per the WLCA letter dated 3/2/2020, three additional trees in the "east portion of Vallco" are also dead, and should be removed as soon as possible: Giant sequoia #430 (street tree), Giant sequoia #434 (street tree). and Coast redwood #479 (standard tree). Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A PG&E high (Various, per the 11 voltage vault separate Vaults along the north section of West Perimeter Road were completely along West le backfilled as of October, 2019. Perimeter Road below) The following is the table prepared by WLCA in January 2019 for the trees immediately surrounding the PG&E high voltage electrical underground upgrade work by Devcon that occurred in January 2019. The table was updated in April, 2019 based on WLCA's reassessment 4/26/19. Trees considered high risk or potentially high risk of failure and impact with ground targets are noted in the table with bold black and yellow highlight. PG&E VAULT AREA TREES / WEST PERIMETER ROAD Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (Measured in Feet, on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South Trench Face or Vault (updates) North)) Excavation Side 729 10 (feet) 727 8 724 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 722 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 721 6 10% Very Poor Potential removal 716 4 35% Poor Potential removal 714 3 15% Very Poor Potential removal 713 4 50% Fair 712 8 48% Poor 711 8 0% DEAD Suggest removal due to lack of vigor 710 8 50% Fair 708 6 25% Very Poor Potential removal 707 6 10% Very Poor Suggest removal due to lack of vigor 706 6 25% Very Poor Potential removal 734 (ash) 4 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 735 (ash) 4 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 736 (ash) 5 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 737 (ash) 6 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 738 (ash) 6 Potential removal. Monitor for decline. 739 (ash) 3 Potential removal. Monitor for decline or instability. 16of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (South (Measured in Feet, on (updates) WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree North)) Trench Face or Vault Excavation Side 673 _______ Very Poor live twig density/extension as of Monitor for continued decline. 6/25/2020. Very Poor. PGE excavation work encroached to within 1 foot of the root zone, within the I suggest we remove the tree at 674 (ash) 1 Critical Root Zone (CRZ), possibly resulting in this time for loss of roughly 30 to 40% of the original root safety purposes. system. I suggest removal of this tree for safety purposes. 65% Fair. Nice large redwood specimen of 30 inches diameter. Total root loss of as much as 20% or more, and recent trenching occurred within the 15 foot radius (Critical Root Zone) in 651 6-7 one quadrant of the root zone. Expect good survival, and little or no loss of stability, since excavation occurred only in the northeast section of the tree's root zone, and did not extend south of the trunk. 38% Poor. Tree exhibits extensive needle dieback 650 6-7 that is not related to the recent PGE vault excavation work within the east side of the tree's root zone. 649 7 50% Fair 648 10 30% Poor. Tree suppressed in shade of surrounding larger specimens. 65% Fair. Nice specimen of large proportions with 32 inch diameter trunk situated next to the Devcon Construction lockable chain link gate at the north end of Demolition Zone 1A. Critical Root Zone is 16 feet radius. Recent 647 8 to 10 feet trenching destroyed roots in the northmost half of this CRZ (i.e. within 8 to 10 feet of the trunk edge). Some possible loss of tree stability. Monitor tree for symptoms of decline or instability (e.g. soil cracking, trunk lean off from vertical, loss of vigor expressed as needle dieback, etc.). 646 7 40% Poor 17of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison Ate. CONSULTING ARBQRIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Tree Tag Actual Root Plate Number Radius Remaining Overall Condition Rating (South (Measured in Feet, on (updates) WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree North)) Trench Face or Vault Excavation Side) Suggest root crown excavation (RCX) using hand tools to remove excess soil piled over the buttress 645 6 to 7 feet 40% Poor root flares. This tree actually appears to be getting strangled by roots extending from ash tree #680 directly east from #645. Suggest remove tree for safety purposes. Tree is at southeast corner of the new north -south oriented vault excavation area. As of June 2020, this tree still 678 (ash) 1 foot High Risk remains in the landscape with 1 foot of radial root extension between the vault excavation face and the trunk edge, and exhibits very poor live twig density and extension. WLCA recommends removal of the tree. 679 (ash) 0 feet High Risk (Removed as of 2019). Potential removal for safety 680 (ash) 2 feet Possible High Risk purposes due to trench cut at 2 feet offset from buttress root edges. Remove now, or monitor. 18 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(o)vahoo.com Walter Levisnn CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Al #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Digital Images Archived by WLCA / September 28, 2020 Figure 7--12 Typical soil moisture pattern under surface drip irrigation, showing salt accumulation at the surface of the soil volume wetted by each emitter A 45 minute bubbler activation duration may result in a 15 minute irrigation bubbler fivation duration may result in a pothetical shallow soil moisture plume it looks something like this. Lateral spacing — Emitter Dry 4 Salt accumulation Flow line Moisture contour Wetted width �— Deep percolation 0 hypothetically better sail moisture plume that looks something like this, with deeper reach in terms of depth, due to better saturation of the uppermost elevations, resulting in a gravitational downward flow cf water that results in a deeper plume reaching further into the deepest section of the trees' notable soil volume, which is typically about 4 feet depth in clay soils algng the From USDA National Engineering Handbook (2013). Section on "Micro!rrigation". This marked -up image from USDA's National Engineering Handbook (2013) section on microirrigation is a good illustration of how "irrigation plumes" of moisture percolate downward from a flood bubbler, into various soil profile elevations. WLCA expects that the increase in irrigation duration to 45 minutes (as of today Sept 28, 2020) will increase the bubbler plume depths in terms of how deep water percolates via gravity. It is hypothesized that the longer run times and less frequent activations result in the Vallco site trees receiving more water to deeper depths than previously available to the lowermost elevation roots. The goal is to provide as much available water to the trees as possible, while simultaneously conserving water by reducing overall output given to the trees each month. Notice in the plume diagram how the surface stays dry between each bubbler, which means that when using a soil moisture meter probe between each bubbler, the readings may indicate relatively dry soil conditions, even though beneath each bubbler is a deep plume of moisture where irrigation water has percolated directly downward via gravity. Note that these plumes are not at all visible from the surface, as the actual coverage is minimal from any one point source of water (i.e. any one bubbler), limiting the ability for a person observing irrigation systems to "see" what is actually occurring below grade elevation. Thus, the former turf grass along N. Wolfe Road and along Stevens Creek Blvd. is all desiccated for the most part now, due to the spaces between the irrigation bubblers that do not receive regular water. The important thing to note is that, however dry the surface may appear in a bubbler -irrigated landscape, it does not indicate the actual subsurface soil moisture status of the tree root zone below ground. 19of23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison AL CONSULTING ARBQRIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A View looking northward along ash trees being retained along the west side of N. Wolfe Road. Note the turf grass browning through most of the former turf areas that used to be irrigated by high coverage type sprinkler head irrigation. These areas are now irrigated via bubblers, which create subsurface plumes of soil moisture that are not necessarily visible without extensive probing using a Lincoln moisture probe/meter. In this image, note how there is green lush grass growth near the tree trunks where SHPCO's irrigation bubblers are located. This does verify that the bubblers are performing a function and providing deep irrigation in very high volume, which again, does not necessarily translate to lush green grass growth on the surface landscape area, because the water is being applied at small point sources (Le .the individual high flow type bubblers). Refer back to the side cut detail on page 19, snipped from the USDA engineering handbook showing how irrigation bubblers create subsurface soil moisture plumes in a tree root zone that are not necessarily visible at all when viewed from the surface. Ash #103 on N. Wolfe Road, which exhibits decay noted in earlier reports this summer. This tree is recommended to be removed. WLCA has been tracking the lean angle of this tree using a steel straight edge and digital angle meter mounted over two (2) nails in place on the tree's uphill side. The angle of lean has not changed significantly since WLCA started this monitoring activity, and the angle remains at roughly 74.4 to 74.5 degrees actual lean angle. Note in the image, as with the image at left, turf grass is browned out, though patches of lush green grass growth are present near the trunks of the trees where high flow irrigation bubblers are active and running to provide very heavy volume of water at 500 gallons per month per tree, even though to the casual observer, the landscape appears "drought stressed". The surface condition has no bearing on the actual subsurface soil moisture status, and grass browning does not translate to tree root zone soil moisture deficit, especially when irrigation is applied from point source bubblers. 20 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(cbyahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Holly oaks to be transplanted (#97, 98, 99) are now being irrigated with three (3) high flow type'/2" diameter flood bubblers, 1.5 hours each week in 45 minute run times, for a total of 500 gallons (assuming the volumetric testing of flow rate applies to this section of the piped irrigation system). We do not yet have mulch or watering berms around these three oaks. It is not clear whether the new heavy irrigation water regime will be able to penetrate the relatively impenetrable soil around the trunks of these oaks, given that the trees were previously located in pavement, with only small diameter open soil planting pits open to the air. The small diameter open soil areas immediately around the trunks have become choked with dense tree root growth that makes these areas somewhat resistant to irrigation water applications. However, it is likely that the water will percolate downward in relatively close proximity to the fenced -off areas, and boost soil moisture within the trees' remaining root zone areas, which are assumed to still be intact outside the fence perimeters. I spoke with Mike Rhode of SHPCO today, and he will have the maintenance staff install wood chips in wide tall rings at roughly 3 feet to 4 feet radius offset around the trunks of trees #97, 98, and #99 this week, to further force irrigation water downward directly into the areas within the fence protection enclosures. -11. A Holly oaks #97 98, 99 to be transplanted are maintaining incredibly good live twig density and extension, despite having been grown in asphalt parking lot conditions for many years, with no irrigation for most of their lives, and just a small diameter open soil planting pit zone around the trunks. 21 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com Walter Levison AL CONSULTING ARBQRIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Looking eastward at holly oaks #97 and #98 to be transplanted. The holly oak trio of #97, 98, and #99 is now being irrigated via a three bubbler per tree system, on the same timer as the entire Vallco site (1.5 hours per week, in two (2) 45 minute activations per week). View looking north along N. Wolfe Rd at the southmost tent of the homeless encampment that is adjacent to ash tree #440, visible at the right edge of this image. The SHPCO hand -watering by garden hose cannot occur around any of the ash trees near this camp, which limits watering by hand to the two southmost ash trees in the row, which are #441 and #442, not visible in this image (to the right of the photographer shooting this image). Close-up of the upper canopy elevations of California sycamores #414, 415, 416 at east side of N. Wolfe Road, which are becoming devastated in terms of live twig density due to repeated ongoing heat wave weather events, forcing the trees to go early -dormant in summer in terms of their foliar canopy. The SHPCO folks have been made aware of this situation, and are attempting to apply irrigation water by garden hose each week, as they have been doing for many months. However, much of the water probably ends up sheeting off as surface flow to the street, due to the fact that these trees have grown up over a raised median island that is well above street grade, which means that any water applied over the planter area simply runs off by gravity over the dense rootmass of the soil surface of the median island. It's truly a difficult situation in terms of tree root zone soil moisture management. I will continue to monitor these trees carefully. WLCA recommended the trees not be transplanted, and the City has given the Vallco project discretion over whether to remove or transplant these three trees (and their three (3) sister trees on the west side of N. Wolfe Road: California sycamores #260, 261, 262). 22 of 23 Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(@yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations. Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement. Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser. Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications. This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant's/appraiser's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless expressed otherwise: information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report Arborist Disclosure Statement: Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist's services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees. Certification I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith. at onsultant a ter Levison, Consu ting rborist Attached: 1. Tree Map (OLIN), Full Site (Latest Update: May, 2020) 2. Tree Data Table (WLCA) (Latest Update: 7/28/2020) 23 of 23 Walter Levisan WE-3172A MACWW,edwa� M run 2= MTree RiekRssessmw#OWNWed zz.wnzaa3 �t>� so�cyor Walter Levison © 2020 All Rights Reserved Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture Cell (415) 203-0990 Email walterslevisonir(ayahoo.com 2 A B C Fi7 E F G H 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 VALLCO TOWN CENTER OWNER - VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC. 965 PAGE MILL ROAD, PALO ALTO, CA 94304 T. 650-344-1500 ARCHITECTURE - RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS 50 VANDAM STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 T.212-924-5060 ARCHITECTURE - RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS 1033 N. WOLFE ROAD, CUPERTINO, CA 95014 T.408-627-7090 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE - OLIN PARTNERSHIP LTD. 150 S, INDEPENDENCE MALL W. SUITE 1123, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 T. 214-440-0030 CIVIL - SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS, INC. 1700 S. WINCHESTER BLVD, SUITE 200, CAMPBELL, CA 95008 T.408-636-0900 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING - ARUP NORTH AMERICA, LTD. 560 MISSION STREET, SUITE 700, SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105 T.415-957-9445 LIGHTING -ONE LUX STUDIO 158 WEST 29TH STREET, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10001 T.212-201-5790 SIGNAGE - EX:IT 1617 JFK BLVD, SUITE 1665, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 T.215-561-1950 PARKING ENGINEERING - WATRY DESIGN, INC. 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550, SAN JOSE, CA 95110 T.408-392-7900 NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION DISCLAIMER THE ARCHITECT / ENGINEER SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LIABILITY, LOSS, COST, DAMAGE OR EXPENSE ARISING FROM OR RELATING TO ANY USE OF THIS DOCUMENT FOR ANY PURPOSE OTHER THAN ITS INTENDED PURPOSE ON THIS PROJECT. THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELATED DOCUMENTATION. ANY DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE PROCEEDING. CONTRACTORS MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK. ONLY FIGURED DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR VERIFICATION. SB-35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION REV DESCRIPTION DATE REV-0 SB-35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 03/27/2018 REV-1 SB-35 APPLICATION REVISIONS 08/06/2018 REV-2 SB-35 APPLICATION CONFORM SET 09/15/2018 11 Y K 10 O 9 go ® 7 > N. WOLFE ROAD m Y 3 w w U N Z 1 N KEY PLAN AND NORTH ARROW ARCHITECTS PROJECT NUMBER 708011 PROJECT PHASE: SB-35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 36"x48" IT IS A REDUCED PRINT; REFER TO GRAPHIC SCALE 0 32' 64' 128' 192' SCALE: 1 /64"=1'-0" TREE DISPOSITION PLAN SHEET TITLE: P-0602B SHEET NUMBER: © 2018 RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS PCI Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD 11ir '11111MM MMMMjjjjj 0MjMjM R.--d.-1.n,2.2.- 1 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 L u E E o E c r $ f r y v - 'o c m Common Name Scientific Name G enoa, aeciea) (P _ n° o _ i i m 15 c C H a WLCA Notes from SPring 2015 Survey Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 201] po n w E i F Y Y Y Y x Y 8 m a em v U s? ,o S c -' ea raw ggc o ppy cy - u Y o u o w c 8° i o_d> q+q W fr u ONWARD ¢Ickawi: a8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ¢9 'c u4 ii•Eo�g$ u�Eo O as _ g{e ids t)cR mTo DLO n@ 2$ -= 0'2$ ufn5s Tree appear to be tleclining in live twig tlenaity tlue to 14 24.7 24.7 Shamel ash Fraalnus uhdW 60/28 60/60 60%fair motlerete N prolonged Bay Area tlrought conditione. Current cantlition m approaimately 40% or •'poor••. 15 24.6 24.6 Shamel ash Fraalnus uhdW 60/lo 60145 55%fair moderate N Tree appears t0 be tleclining in live twig tlenaity tlue W 16 20.6 20.6 Shamel ash Fraalnus uhM swo 55155 55%fair moderate N prolonged Bay Area tlrought onditia s. Current contlition is capproz'imably 42%or Tree appears t0 be tleclining in 0% dead (not live twig tlenaity tlue to 17 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW 45/25 WO verlRetl) S prolongetl Bay Area drought contlitions. Cwrent cantlition is ,pp roaimately 35% or Tree appears t0 be tleclining m live twig d—ky tlue to 18 31.6 31.6 Shamel ash Fraalnus uhM 60130 65148 58%fair moderab N OR 10.12 prolonged Bay Area tlrought ... Currcan ent tlition is approaimately 48% or Tree appears W be tleclining in live twig density tlue to 19 18.2 18.2 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM 45/25 60150 55%fair motlerab S prolonged Bay Area tlrougM ns. ontlitioCurrent cantlition is ... approaimately 35% or "poor'. 20 21.5 21.5 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM Sells 55155 55%fair poor to motl 21 17.0 17.0 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM 35I20 50/60 55%fair motlerab S OR 22 32.3 32.3 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM 55150 75165 70%good good NE Tree appeare to be tleclining in live twig density tlue to 23 24.5 24.5 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM 55130 65140 50%fair motlerale S 30 OR prolonged Bay Area tlrougM rre onditione. Cunt contlition is ... approaimately 45% or 24 28.7 28.7 Shamel ach Fraalnus uhM Ma OWN 60%fair motlerale N OR Tree appears W be tleclining in live twig density tlue W 25 X 20.7 20.7 Shamel ach Fnalnus uhM 50I30 5W45 50%fair motlerale SE 30 nous OR prolongetl Bay Area tlrougM wnditione. Current contlition is approaimately 50% or'Yair'. Tree app to be tleclining in live twig density tlue to 26 X 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fnalnus uhM 35135 SUN 50%fair motlerale N OR prolongetl torreBay Area tlroug ononeM diti. nt—dition is capproaimately 45% or ••poor•. 2 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ v `m Eg o c _ t m 8 E $ c E -6 c F m - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 m- - q+ c v g- m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 m Em „ y ¢ °�' y a m c c c c c c 1= _m „ u $ (Genoa, ajaschm) _ a: ¢ m u d mow c - c c `off g n m c E _ u ._sa Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE$= E miG as qa ppp ns UOo dEw°i,�i ¢cgawnm E'er a$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 ua �'c .A 6Z'Ee3 go uO�Eo �a gm ids �2.� n 2 -- °'2 A. to'°z J uf Tree was slgnMcantly damaged by a City -hired contractor performing directional bore and other electrical utility related work along Stevens Creek Blvd In June and July, 2019. The 27 1( 25.8 25.8 Shemas al h Fi Mcs uhdel MIS 66160 57%fair moderate 8 —how.c,rmd the lower trunk of thls tree (see Image Iu WLCA'. July, 2019 Inspection report). However, the tree Is slated for removal anyway per the Vallco project team has disposition sheet. Tree appears to be declining In live twig density due to 28 36.9 36.9 Shamel ash F inns uh" 60140 75145 60%fair good N GR prolonged Bay=a drought contllllon.. Current condition Is approximately 45% or "pone'. Tree appears to be decliningIn live Will density tlue W 29 32.3 32.3 Shamel ash F inns uh" sons 70150 60%fair good S GR prolonged Bay Area drought condition Current condition Is approximately 50% or 30 29.5 29.5 Shamel ash Frosrume uh" 50140 60156 59%fair good NE Tree appears M be declining In live twig density due to prolklonged Bay Area drought ° ontlons. Current condition Is 31 It6.3 6.3 Shamel can FradmsuhdW 18110 40YJ0 35%puor moderate S BRC Slanted approzlmately 25% or"very pace'. Trees In very poor ¢rail condition are generally considered ant carnlidees for anno"Ifrom the landscape, since oh'bill to recover to 32 17.9 17.9 Shamel ash F—nat uh" ISMS 60140 50%fair moderate N Tree appears to be decliningIn live twig tlenslty tlue to 33 26.0 26.0 Shamel ash F tons uh" ISMS 60150 57%fair moderate GR Dlamets—thusted. prolonged Bay Area tlrougM ontll[lons.Cu rrent condition Is capprozimately 40 % or "poor". Tree appears to be declining In Tree oM of leaf. live twig tlenslty due to 34 24.0 24.0 Shamel ash F—nat uh" Ons 50140 45%poor T S 9 Condition prolonged Bay Area tlrouaM .sumated. ontll[lons. Current condition Is capprozimately 40 % or "pooe'. 35 23.3 23.3 Shamel ash F—nat uh" ISMS 60/55 57%fair moderate N 36 1( 26.6 26.6 Shamel ash F—nat uh" 5W46 65160 63%fair moderate 37 X 32.9 32.9 Shamel ash F—nat uh" sons 70160 65%fair good N 3 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 .m WLCA Noted from updated Overall Condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c m .. g sc c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy id w a W c u c — w W c g E u 8 ._ s q —`n � w aE §¢'rc 2 2 2 2 A°wn aS 2 2 18.2 Shemelash Fraxlnus uhdN So/25 65/50 S6X fair mo4inete 8 38 X 18.2 nee appem h be aaegmng h gee twig aenairy due h GR Diameter estimamtl. prolongetl Bay Area tlrought 23.0 ShemetaM FreYlnus uhdW 35/90 6S/50 STX fair good N conditions. Cumenl condition is approzimafely 45%or"poor'. 39 X �3_g Tree appears to be tleclining in live twig aenairy due to Bay Area tlrought Shemelash Fraxlnus uhM SW45 60/45 52%h derate oderate mo S 25 OR capprozimately op^olonged aifiane. Current condition is 00 X 28.2 20.2 35%or 10.3 Shemelash Fraxlnus uhM 50/20 60/50 M%hir mo4ende NE q1 183 Tree appem to be declining in live twig aenairy due to Bay Area drought ng: Shemelash FraXlnus uhM 20/8 30/25 28%vary pony poor 8 S op^olonged dit Current cantlitionm cappro 42 6.5 6.5 [ely 35%or"poar". Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhtlN 55/ig 65/60 63% hir good N OR Diameter estimated. qy 290 24.0 90.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uh" SM5 65/45 M%hir good 8 OR qq 90.7 Tree appears to be declining in lice twig aenairy due to prolongetl Bay Area tlrought Shamel Fraxlnus uhdef mo W50 SOX hir poor W mod N contlitione. Current condition is "poor". 45 180 180 ash appro din-tely 90% or 30.5 Shamel ash Frazlnus uhtlN SSYdS 65/95 SSX hir gootl S OR 7.9 96 905 Diametertimatea. 26.0 Shamel ash Frazlnus uh" 35Yd0 70/60 67%hir good N 97 26.0 Tree ppee. to be tleclining in live twig density tlue to Be, Area tlrought Shamel ash Fne,,d.son" W30 60155 ST%hir mod to good 8 OR op^olonged ditiona. Current cantlition is capprozimately "poor". 98 Sig 31.6 35% or 24.5 Shemelash FYezlnus uAdw 55/25 55/55 55%hir moderate N qg 295 Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to p^ologetl Bay Area tlrought E el aeh Rwsuhdel 55AD 55/55 56%hir moderaous OR Shamazh Pte dionne. Current cantlition is cap.roeimafely "poar". gg 98S 995 35% or 4 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 v `e Eg oB S q adao & u a _ c _ a& E $ c E 'c c F o 'o Scientific Name L X c$ o n_ o= i 8 - - q+ v g m e p. 2 WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon N E y y rc po q c v n - - - - - - r £. - u ii Common Name (Genoa, aPeciea) _ u b m ii W c c - n c , r w w c E -_ �_ 8 u Spring 2015 Survey Ratings &NOTES 2011 ONWARD "ppFcF n� OG U00 om Ecru 5cE°d= ¢c4 a°wn e� a8 2 2 2 2 2 2 wa �'cs SEe3 go OO�Eo as ide �d 5L0 nQ 2$ -- ,2 TREE REMOVED. TREE REMOVED. 53 16.8 16.8 Sham,la,h Fraxlnua uhdW 4 s 65160 63%fair good E E 60% Falr. Sa..... das previously noted in past years. Tree appear¢ to be declining from prolonged Ray A— S' 31.6 31.6 Shamela,h Fraxlnua uhdW SW40 60150 55%fair moderate W OR —,M conditions. Current ondhion is approximately 35 % P..,". 55 21.8 21.8 Sham,la,h Fraxlnua uhdW ms 65160 60%fair good Tree declining moderately. 56 18.3 18.3 Sham,l ash Fraxlnua uhdW mo SSIS5 55%fair moderate W Overall contlition m new roughly 50%(Fair). 57 18.5 18.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55130 65160 63%fair good E 58 26.6 26.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55130 60155 %%fair .o nft W N 33.8 33.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55130 60110 55%fair good E 11 60 24.8 24.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 45as 65155 60%fair good W 61 24.4 24.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55135 60160 60%fair .o nft E 62 27.8 27.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55125 swso 50%fair poor. motl W 63 31.5 31.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW SSICO 70/65 68%fair good 5 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: s & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 a- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 Es N y ¢ 4444 y a o c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, specie.) _ a: ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c - c s n m c E ft u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE8_— >3E� x x x i x x mi0 ma o m �a as qEEa g YRpFco� UOo O E��o ¢12 A. lue e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo IS 22me iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ -- 02 of °z 60 20.8 20.8 Shamel a,h F7ax1nua uhtlel 40/25 50/50 50%fair poor to motl W 65 20.7 20.7 Shamel a,h F7ax1nua uhtlel Sens 65153 55%fair good E OR 66 37.8 37.8 Shamel a,h F7ax1nua uhtlel 60/25 70/63 68%fair good W 67 18.3 18.3 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel 55125 65165 65%fair moderate W possible bark 68 x 41.0 41.0 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel Mot 60/55 58%fair motl to gootl NW inclusion 68 to or..PNM 19A 19.4 holly oak Quercws Ilex 45/20 60/60 60%fair mw oto W 70% overall condition"good'. 70 totransplard 13.2 13.2 holly oak Quercws Ilex 25/20 60/60 60%fair moderate W 65% overall condition "fait'. 71 40.8 40.8 Shamelash F7ax/nua uhtlel 60145 65155 60%fair Sow 10 72 24.3 24.3 Sham.I ash F7ax1nua uhtlel 55125 Mot M%fair moderate E noua OR 73 26.2 26.2 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel 55135 50/50 M%fair poor W 16 74 28.0 28.0 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel 55130 60160 60%fair .o rote E 75 21.4 21.4 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel 40/25 50/50 M%fair .o rote W 76 20.2 20.2 Shamelash F7ax1nua uhtlel 50/18 40/50 47%poor poor to motl E 6 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 L u E E o E c r $ f r y v — 'o c m Common Name Scientific Name (Genoa, aPeciea) _ n° o _ i i m 15 c p H WLCA Notea from SPrinB 2015 Survey Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 201] mm ca4^ a S c ae =' ma raw ggc a ppy o_d> q+ a ONWARD ¢Ick o.wi: a8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ¢9 'c u4 ii`E�o�g$ uO�Ew as _g{e ids t)cR mTo nLO n@ 2$ -= 0'2$ ufn5s 77 15.8 15.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW 45115 40/30 35%poor poor W 78 17.0 17.0 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW M5 65140 50%fair moderate noua OR 79 21.2 21.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 55/25 55155 55%fair Poor to motl W OR 80 28.2 28.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM sws 60150 55%fair moderrte E 81 24.7 24.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 5W5 55150 53%fair moderrte W 82 19.0 19.0 Shamelash Fraxlnus uh" 55120 45150 48%poor Poor to motl E 83 17.8 17.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 55f30 60155 57%fair moderrte W 84 21.2 21.2 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM 3WO 5565 55%fair moderrte E 85 20.3 20.3 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM 55/30 65f60 65%fair mo9�ata to W 86 23.2 23.2 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM 55f36 651" 58%fair good OR 87 22.8 22.8 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM 55f36 Owls 60%fair motl to 9-d NW 88 X 5.9 5.0 4.9 15.8 Monterey pine Plnus dI.. 9111 65f65 65%fair moderate ID ofspeciaa not venfietl Canary Island pine Pinus canariensis Remevetl as of Jan, 2020. 4sf10 00(!s ]0% gootl goatl 0 to 9 F 7 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD �70 m ..- JIM11111111M ---d MMMMMjjjjjMMMjMM 8 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 a- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- a c E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE8_— as qEEa g UOo O 2 ¢122nwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c a4 SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8,? �Lti aQ 2$ of °z Ewimwed overall condition of 20%very poor as Of 7/23/2020 dne W e.tenaive decay on tensmn aiae In,rch side) of ram witM1 possible increasing clean toN. 103 X 24.7 24.7 Shamel a,M1 Fraxlnus uhtlel 55135 50/40 4S%pow motlarate E X 8 sa Amtaver Wolfe Rd.d. WLCinsalletliwo nails and monitoring of 20 lean angle - of 71 7l2&20. The baseline readi tlin.6 today Was 74.4 ( degrees off tlerd-) WL ical). WLCA suggests removal of free at [M1is time. 104 16.5 16.5 Sham,l a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 55/30 55/50 %%fair .o rate E E X Needs endvmight reductlon pruning 105 16.0 16.0 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 45/25 45/45 45%poor moderate E X 4 106 X 21.7 21.7 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW Seas 60150 55%fair good X X 107 X 19.4 19.4 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 50/25 60145 s5%fair .o rate S X 109 1s.9 15.9 SM1amel asM1 Faxlnus uhdel 55%fair rlo motl 7 Removetl as of Jan, 2020, 109 X 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdO 35/2s 40/40 40%poor poor to motl N Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 110 X 16.9 16.9 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM —0 4-0 35%poor poor 11 Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 111 X X 29.7 29.7 Monterey pine Plnus mdlata 45/35 60/55 57%fair moderate Measured at 2 feet. Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 112 X X 19.1 19.1 Monterey pine Plnus mdh. 25/15 0/0 0%—d Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 113 X X 2-Is. 43.0 Monterey pine Plnus mdlata 30/20 25125 25%very poor W Bark beetle issues and/or pine pitch Removetl as of Jan, 2020. poor cankerfungus. 9 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 -1 ONWARD UMMMUl AMMEMV-� limb 0111111MEMOMMENEI M-AMMEM IF, pom Its 14,111111mm MEMMINIEdIMEMEM pr jj� R.--d. -I.n,2.2.- I ML jlllllMM MEMMIllIJIMEl R,,-,,Il,n,2121- 110001"M'm IMM MEMMIllIJIMElE R.--d.-1.n,2.2.- IME11111111MM MEMMIllIMMENjo R.--d.-1.n,2.2.- 10 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MINUMMMES.. ONWARD 'T" , , on A IMEM .. Ir---- R..—d—J.n,2.2.. 16D lie WWI M how 11 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 IN ONWARD ■ION 12 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MIN ONWARD 'T" - - - o n A mmmmosommmmmm R...d..&J..,2020. pp Flu- 6MEL 13 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 8 t :: u s S E " $ e E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name lcien0fic Name L X c$ o n_ o= iq+ - v i' g- m e C y WLCA Nptea from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings NOTE2017 E y y rc = a c c c c c c r _m „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c Y$5Pc - _ c a E� m c E ft a u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE'= x x i x x miG as qEEa g ns U' EE ��o �,$ ¢cR o°wn e� a8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma �'c$ SEe3 go uO�En 22me iae 8a �Lti aQ 20 -- °2 & of 121 Fraxlnus uhdO X 16.9 SM1amelasM1 =s =s moved as of January 2020 poor 167 X 21.6 21.6 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO —s 30130 30%poor poor X moved as of January 2020 168 X 12.1 12.1 SM1ame1asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 3-0 50140 45%poor poortomod GR X moved as of January 2020 169 X X 20.1 20.1 SM1ame1asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO —s 25125 25%very very poor X emoved as of January 2020 P., 170 X 25.9 25.9 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 5-0 55140 45%po0r poor were GR X moved as of January 2020 171 X 40.2 40.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens —5 00180 00%good moderate X X 11911875%overa11 condi0on. Reovetl as of 1I2020. 172 X 21.2 21.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO —0 55145 49%po0r poor 0 emoved as of January 2020 173 X X 27.2 27.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6— 45145 45%po0r poor X emoved as of January 2020 174 X 29.5 29.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO S-0 3-0 30%po0r poor 0to7 X emoved as of January 2020 175 X 26.5 26.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdW S-0 50160 55%fair moderate X moved as of January 2020 176 X X 22.5 22.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdW 55140 2-0 27%very very poor X moved as of January 2020 poor 177 X X 37.5 37.5 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6— 55160 58%fair poor to motl X X moved as of January 2020 178 X 5.7 3.8 9.5 strawberry tree Arhums unedo is"s 7-0 60%fair ..darate W W X moved as of January 2020 14 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 IN 1111111MISMMOMMUM ONWARD 'T" 15 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD Oslo= INE11111111MEMEEMN111 -,Ibmmmm ONE= F11111MEMEEN01116"m 16 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MIN ONWARD 'T" LANDSCAPE jr SEEM III 11111mmmommmIll SEEM 17 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 : `m `c @ € c `o a v 0 .m o= " WLCA Noted from Updated Overall Condition &NOTES 2017 e a E y c S c + Scienti0c Name U$ _ c g a di n O .. oc n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD Common Name (Genus, species( g e' yy n i et ii w c c — c g E u w w W B 1E3 m E u d W dd 4 g2me gg y @gg md'B n@ YY _q 02 ub 8 —°$ �°p o$ aE IT edfy condition tuNp tree cehee has leatod not In Removetl as of Janua (ID nolverifled- trout of leaf ee Lirlodendron 0/0 out spring' aurins sarveYl Tre I in decline with an X apparent overall condtion of Shame) ash Fraxlnus hdid 50/25 40/50 4JX poor poor to motl W roagM1ly 30°/. (Fowl. 219 X 20.8 20.6 26.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uh" SS/35 60/55 59X hir motlwate 220 X 26.8 Tree jI in tlecline with an apparent overall condNon of Shamel ash Fraxlnus uh" 50/25 50/50 50%hir in MndI roughly 35%(Pood. 221 18.3 19.1 Tree is in tlecline wim an apparent ov— condition of Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM M5 60/55 S1%hir mo nd,, E roughly 30%(Poor). 222 X 185 19.5 Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhdN 55/40 70145 55%fair goad E E OR 12 X 223 X 90A 90.9 Removed per plan on /012212019 by Gt. magiN, Shamel Fraxlnus hdel 50115 —0 40%poor poor to mod W DEVCON. X 189 igq asM1 IL Roots severed on Shamel Fraxlnus uhdel SW35 SW40 43%poor madam. E west side. 225 X 25.9 Y5.4 a,h Roots severetl on Shamel ash Fraxlnus oh" 45/25 50/30 37%pow moderate E E 0l01 west sitle. 226 X 15.5 15.5 Roots severed on Shamel ash Fraxlnus oh" 45/25 30/20 25%-- poor E 0 to 5 14 west sld,. 227 X X 18.5 18.5 Roots se :d on Shamel Fraxlnus uhdel 30125 40r30 sii% o moderate E west sitl. 228 X 11.5 11.5 ash oast redwood sequoia sempervlrens 2S112 g0/90 90%exce11ent g.nd Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 9.6 229 X 9.6 Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 8.9 oast redwood sequoia semporvkens .11, 90190 g0%excellent g.nd 230 X 8.9 18 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD AR.--d.—J.n,2.2.- 19 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MIN ONWARD 'T" A - - - mmmumm R...d..&J..,2020. i EMMEEMEll R.--d.—J.n,2.2.- �mm,, Flu— JIMElM R--d.—J.n,2.2.- 20 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD Rim INE11111111M.Y= MEEMMININIMMMIMM s-s --d IMMEMEMEMEM F WE Ilia MEMMIllIllonjo R.--.d--n,2.2.- ISIL 11111mm MMMMjjjjjjMMjM R.--d. -I.n,2.2.- 1101111111IMM MMMMjjjjjjMMjM R.--d.-n,2.2.- JINIIIIIIJIMM MEMMIllIMMENjo R.--d.-n,2.2.- JINIIIIIIJIMM MEMMIllIllonjo R.--d--n,2.2.- 21 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o . WLCA Notea from updated Overall Condition It NOTES 2017 a E y c o r5 c + 5cientigc Name U $ e n ._ f = m c m m n' v _ m c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o °sy E v E is r V µ°' ' ii Common Name (Genus, species) g e' n i u d re a W w W B d on E S i 8 ,c ._ q —`a w aE §¢'rca°wit 2 2 2 2 gad = aS 2 2 Ioe--E F u 10 Root system Tree ddnditian appears to be declining. Currentcdndition F-xlnus uhdN 60Y35 75/55 63%fair good asymmetrical rating is rougM1ly 46 % (Poor). 28.7 28.7 Shemel aaM1 276 X X 35.2 coast Mwoad Spools samparvinrrs 60/20 70f70 70%pad moderate 271 X 35.2 X 19.1 ...t nisdan,ad Spool-sampaMrens 10/12 68170 69%fair moderate 272 X 183 X 23.3 ...t nisdan,ad Spuo1-sa P wmns 60/12 70f70 70%good moderate .3 X 233 X 23.8 oast redwood spool-s—Pww ens 60/12 70fn) 70%good moderate 2. X 230 X 17.0 Shemel ash Fr-Masuh" 55116 65/65 65%fair moderate 275 170 Tree condltlon same as noted in E at root crown X pdor y»re. 15.9 Shemel ash Fr-Xlnus uh" 50/12 40/30 34%poor poor 276 X 15.9 Tree condition appears to be X declining. Current condition is Shemel ash Fr-xlnus uh" 50/25 W40 40%pow motlarets E E nous OR roughly 30%(Poor). 277 183 19.3 Tree condition appears to be d»tin nil- is .% Shemel ash Fr-zlnus uh" 60/25 60150 35%fair moderate W W OR r Y48 condition 278 X 210 21.0 Tree condltlon appeam to be declining. Cunen/condltion is roughly 70%(I.e. the low and of 26.7 ...t ratlwootl Spuola s—P.Wmn. 50/20 80/80 80%gootl g.ad "Good" condltlon rating range). 2'/8 X 26.7 Tree contlitian app.ans to be X daclion is Shemel ash Fr-pinus on" Wit 30145 37%poor Pni oor .ado.. OR gNy 30%conditi 280 16A 16A Condition same as noted In 20% vary 6 X Root. severetl. pdor y»re. 21.2 Shemel ash Fr-zlnus uhdai 50/35 30/20 poor very poor 281 X 21.2 Tree In same condition as GR X Roots ceveretl. previously noted In past years. 15.0 Shames»h flazlmrs uhdal Ms30rl0 90%poor poor E 282 15.0 22 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD m!- =-A LANDSCAPE 23 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 v `e Egoo _ u s S E " $ e E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name ScienOfic Name L c$ o n_ 8 e- - q+ n v `o g- m e t'. y WLCA Notes from uptlatod Overall CondIllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x E y y rc = a c c c c c c r _m „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ s: ¢ 2 u b m o w .Faw c c Y$$Pc - _ c a E� c E ft a u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE'= x x x i x x miG w m �a as qEEa g ns U' EE ��o �,$ ¢cq o°wn e� o.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma c .A SEe3 go uO�EoS.°z 22me iae 8ez �Lti e.Q 2$ -- °2 & of pr -I=Mml V 17.J w SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO Ms 3505 35%pow poor Removetl as of Jan, 2020 297 X X 12.1 12.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 25/15 35/20 20%very poor Removetl as o(Jan, 2020 poor 298 X X 18.8 18.8 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/12 15115 15% very pow X Removedasol Jan,2020 299 X 16.0 16.0 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 45/15 30/45 40%poor poor E Removed as of Jan, 2.2. 300 X X 23.3 23.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/15 20/20 20/very very pow X Removedasor Jan,M20 poor 301 X X 15.2 15.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 25/10 20/15 19tivory very pow X Removedasor Jan,2020 poor 302 X 26.9 15.0 41.8 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 70/25 6-0 60%fair moderate X Removed as or Jan, 2020 303 X 17.2 17.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 35/25 55160 55%fair mOJerate NW Removetl as or Jan, 2.20 3" X X 19.0 19.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens -10 5/5 5%very poor very pow X Removetl as or Jan, M20 305 X X 20.1 20.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 20/15 10/10 10�oerY X 6 Removetl as or Jan, 2020 306 X 17.5 17.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 45/25 50/40 40%po0r poor to mod W 8 Removetl as or Jan, 2020 907 X X 17.7 17.7 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 40/20 30125 29k very poor X Oto6 Removed as or Jan, M20 poor 308 X 21.1 21.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 50/15 7W5 75%gootl goatl Removetl as or Jan, 2020 24 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MIN ONWARD � mmmmom EmEm IMF- R...d..&J..,2020 MOIL .40 R.--d.—J.n,2.2. Ike 1111IME MEMMIlIjIllESIN R.--.d.-J.n,2.2. 25 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t E $ A E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i S- - q+ o. v `o ' i' g m e - p. y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢44 444p y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE m �a as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c .A SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8,z �Lti e.a 2$ -- 02 of °z 322 X 11.9 11.9 Sh—I a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/15 40140 40%poor poor X 323 X 9.4 9.4 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/12 30/30 30%poor poor X 3. X 12.8 12.8 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW W12 30140 35%poor poor X 325 X X 7.4 7.4 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 28/12 2g/2g 20%very very poor X poor 326 X 13.0 13.0 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/20 45155 48%poor poor X 927 X 11.8 11.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 4S112 90/30 30% poor poor E OR X Jill TREE HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 328 X 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 4S/20 35/40 38%poor poor S X 330 X 15.7 15.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 40/20 30/40 35%poor poor S X 331 X 10.1 10.1 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/20 40/35 37%poor poor S S X 332 X X 18.8 18.8 oact red -d Swluola s—PSMmns 55/12 S/5 5%very Poor very poor X 0%)Dead). 333 X X 18.4 18.9 oact red -d Sequoia s—Pervlmns SS/8 S/5 5%vary poor very poor X 0%)Deed). 334 X iB.S 18.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 4=5 45155 50%fair mod,rate X 26 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o `o a .m " WLCA Noted from updated Overall condition It NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c + 5cientigc Name U $ e n ._ f = m .. g sc c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v E c r? V ' ; Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy n i u d m a W c u c — w W c B g 13 m E u E S i 8 ,L ._ s q —`n m aE § 2 2 2 2 gad = <'rco°wn aS 2 2 ES� X g% (oeaal. 16.0 oact rstlwootl Spuola sampaMmns 50/12 5/5 5%vary poor very poor 335 X X 16.0 9.6 stun a -n FnndInus uhdW 25/10 10/10 10%vary Rom moderate ainetem X 336 X X 9.6 dine eon X 8.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdN 2Sfl 5/5 5%vary poor very poor 997 X X 8.8 Shamal ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/8 90/10 15,00ery poor ainetem X 338 X a,8.7 X 12.8 Shamol ash FraXlnus uhM 40/20 40/40 40%poor ,our W 339 X 12.8 X 14.3 Shamol aah F—Inus uhM 50/20 35/40 38%poor poor S40 X 143 10.9 Shamol ash Fraxlnus uh" 3" 10/10 io%v' very poor ainetem X 341 X X 10.9 12.0 Shamol ash Fraxlnus uh" 45/18 10/10 10 ,ry poo very poor ainetem X 342 X X 12.0 V,ft condition X ce tree leap out 13.7 Shamol ash Frazlnus uh" 45/18 35135 35%pocr poor in spring. 343 X 13.7 7.3 Shamol ash Frazlnus uh" 20/12 20/20 20%vary poor very poor X 3" X X 7.3 8 X 14.4 Shamol ash FraXinus on" sor20 4W30 35%P Poor 345 X 14.4 10%vary E 10.7 Shamel ash Frazlnus uhtlal 25/12 10/10 for very poor X 346 X X 10.7 17%vary 11.3 Shames »h flazlrws uhtlal 25I12 25I10 Poor poor X 347 X X 11.3 27 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 - q+ v g- m e P. y WLCA Notes from uptlaIod Overall Condlllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢ 4444 y a n c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ s: ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c YRpFc - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mitp o m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 348 X X 12.9 12.9 Shamel a,h Faxlnus uh" 45/18 252g 20%very very poor X poor 349 X X 12.2 12.2 Shamel a,h F7ax1nus OM 30/20 2525 25%very very poor X poor 350 X X 14.2 14.2 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW MIS 20/2g 20%very very poor X poor 351 X 14.6 14.6 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 30/20 40/25 18%wry poorb motl 6 X poor 352 X 11.1 11.7 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 25/20 10/10 10%vary very poor W W X poor 353 X 17.7 17.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 40/25 35/35 35%poor poor E X 354 X 13.4 13.4 Shamel ash F7ax1nus uhM 35/20 45as 40%poor poor X 355 X 12.5 12.5 Shamel ash F7ax1nus uhM 35/15 20/15 18%very very poor X poor 356 X 18.0 18.0 Shamel ash F7ax1nus uhM 45r30 20/10 15%very very poor W S X poor 357 X 20.8 20.8 Shamel ash F7ax1nus uhM 45145 40150 46%pow M X 358 X 10.9 10.9 Shamel ash F7ax1nus uhM 35/15 0/0 0%tleatl E E X 359 X 18.3 18.3 PI -species (not verlfletl) pinus P. 30/20 80/55 65%fair good N 010 1 foot X 40% overall condition "pool'. 360 X 24.4 24.4 Italian stone pine pinus plow 30/35 90/60 77% good eXcellent 65% overall contlition "fair". 28 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o `o a .m " WLCA Notes from Updm,d Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c + 5cientigc Name U$ tin ._ f = G .. g ec c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD °sygF Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy n i ti d m$ W c u c — w W c B g d on E u E on i 8 ,L ._ ;, Y m 8y5a q —`e q -R sl2it= eggg .E §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 gad �o�ES� ]2.ci = aS 2 2 X X Measured at2feel. 65%overall contlition"fait'. 26.6 ibiiinaton.pim. Plnus plow 30Y30 60/60 60%few moderate 361 X 26.6 X Mwaured et2fwt. 50%overall contlition "fait'. 25.6 nation ebna pima Plnus plus 25/35 Mrs 70%9ood good 362 X 28.6 Treeoutofleaf. n'Nery 10°/overalPl-e- Neetleng . 7.2 d Gumus mOre(nor verMed) 20/15 80/50 60% air good u,ing. 963 X X 72 Tree out of leaf. 5% overall contlition "very X 5 Neetls training Poo '. l 5.5 oak aP..i- Guemde P. 12/8 60/40 40%poor moderate pruning. 364 X X 5.5 10%wemll contlltlon'1rery X Poop. 7.3 ...tNmmagnolia Magnol/agmrrduitme 18/13 40/40 40%pocr poor to motl 365 X X 7.3 X M.... edat3.5f.et 50%ov.re11conditiom'Yeir. 17.0 Mien stoma pin. Pin-pinea 18/25 80/50 60%fair good N SG6 X 170 20%overall conditlon'Yery Italian abn. pin. Plnus pinea 25p0 80/35 4SX pow good N 5 X poor^, 367 X X 24.3 24.1 X Measured of Is 30% overall contlition"poor. 20.2 Mien ston, pine Plate; pima 25/30 80/35 45%pocr good N OR 7 feel. 968 X 20.2 Measured of 2.0 30% ov.rell contlition"poor. 23.8 Italian a ton. pine Plnus pinea 25/30 50/50 50%hdr poor to motl 10 feet 969 % 23.8 Vatdy,P.6.. in ,prime 4W, full trw spedee out of (Genus, species) 25/15 75/55 65%fair moderate I.afout. 370 X 5.7 5.7 leaf X C.d..In.nC 50% ov.rell conditiom'Teir. Pin. helepemde 30135 80160 T0%good good malmtams at Sfwt. X 26.3 16.3 AI.Ppo pine 971 X 6S%ov.nll contlition'Yeir. 40.1 Italian eWna Pin. P/nus pinea 90Y35 8M0 75X gootl good N 372 X 21.6 18.7 20%overall contlition "very 25%wry X Poor. poor vary 7.4 aoWMrn magnolia Magrmlk 9rendlRore 20115 25125 poor 973 X X 7.4 29 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o ' WLCA Notes from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c S c + 5cientigc Name U J; c$ O n^ i m c m m ce v m c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD IM on CommName (Genus. species) g e' u 8 ._ Eq Y m ggg5a q -R sgite A'ggg :c8 aL 2- 02 n -�$ of o� aE §¢'rca°wn 2 2 2 2 Sob - aS 2 2 F U In perking lot of Benikana near X X Hyatt construction Project. 7.2 tulip tre. Urbdend70n NIIPMam 12/8 20/10 15�oery very Poor N X Sindis#1225. 3. X X 7.2 In parking lot of Benikana near X X Hyan construction project. tu0ptr.. UrbobMron NIlPMam 1218 20/10 15P o�ry very Poor X Bandis #1224. 975 X X 5.6 5.6 10%overall 000dl0on'Yery 25%very X Poor". 5.6 aoutfprn magnolia Magnol/a gmMlgox 13/10 25/25 poor very, poor 976 X X 5.6 20%overall condition "very X pool'. 7.6 aoutMrn magnolia Magnol/a gmMHlOm 18/12 9Sp5 95X pow poor 377 X X 7.6 20%overa11 conditi- "voiY 20%vary X Poop. 7.0 ...tkern-g-iia MagnotMgmM cne 20/14 20/20 Roo, very poor 378 X X 7.0 20%overall condition "very 35%wry X pool'. 6.5 ...t.rnagnolia km MagnotMgmcne M 1//12 2S/25 po.r very poor ST9 X X 6.5 20%overa11 condition "very 1.4 ...tnornmagnolia Ma9n011a9mMlgOrs 20/10 20/20 20%very po.r very poor W X Poor. 380 X X 7.4 5 X 4J%overall contlition"poor. 37.7 Mien aton. pine Plnus pima, 25/30 75/55 64%feir moderate 381 X 23.0 10.7 X 53%ov.mll condition'Tair. 20.8 Italian abn. pine Plnus plrrea 25/25 70/60 6S%fair moderate 982 X 20.8 OR X NYe overall condition "pool'. 19.5 Italian atoi. pin. Pin-plrr.a 25/30 80/65 74%good g.w E 383 X 19.5 X Measured of 2.0 90% averall condition'Yair". 32.0 Italian a tone Pine Pinus pines 25r30 T0160 65%fair mode- S S feel' 984 X 22.0 9 X a% averall condition "poor. 33.2 Italian a tone pine P/nus plrrw 25/35 60/30 38%poor modeate 8 385 X 33.2 10%overa11 condi l-"very 15%wry 1 X X Pool'. 0.S aoWMrn magnolia "one 9mndlBom 1318 15115 poor vary poor 986 X X 0.5 30 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 Ea 8 �o E 8 off° __ 'm crY a ~ ^ F E — ¢ ' � Common Name Bciantific N— Z � i C uns i n m� c , ci a'c5 M, uOGE �O i8e SE S�8 nE 2@ 20%wry poor very poor 387 X X ].8 7.8 south.rnmagnolia MagnollagmMlgom 18/18 20/20 389 X X 7.5 7.5 southern magnolia Magnollagmndffl m 18/15 20/211 988 X 91.8 22.8 59.2 Iblm.'w.' pine Plnus plrrea 90/95 50/911 Do X 13.2 13.4 26.2 Iblian'Wna pine Plnus plrwa 25/15 80Y30 391 x 12,1 -o 24.4 Ilapan'Wna pine Plnus plrraa 25Y30 80/60 392 x 14.6 14.6 Umn'Wne pine Plnus plrrea 25/18 80/65 383 x 14.3 14.3 Icarian 'Wn' pine Plnus plrma 2020 70N0 989 X 10.1 10.1 tm spe.Ns out of leaf/Gen.., sP-ms) 35/20 80/65 985 X 9.8 8.9 tree species out of leaf (Genus, species) 3520 80165 986 X X 18.1 18.1 ...t r -d Sxluol8 semp"—S 65/12 7M0 397 X X 20.5 20.5 coast retlwaod Saquola sampwv/yens 65/12 ]S173 988 x 13.4 13.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uh" 4025 8M0 7 388 x 11.3 11.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uh" Ms 3grjp 75% 20%wry poor verypoor 47%poor mW.a 45% poor good N N 67%fair good E E 68%fair good E 70% good good E 75% pood good 75% good good w 70% good moderate good moderate 4% good good 9DX Poor Poor c n' u � m c t@i 5 gg WLCA Notes from UpdMed Overall Condition Y c y, W E E o W 3 Spring 20f5 Survey RatingsSNOTE52017 ONWARD X 30% overall'ondition"poor'. x 15%overall contlltlon"very poor". 2 x 44% averall'ondition"poor'. 3 x 3S%overa11 condition "poor'. 3 x 4S%owm11 condition "poor. x 40%owmll wndition "Poor. x 5S% overall...dition'T.ir. Sbep elope 15%overall contlltlon"very Poor". SbeP slope MI.. overall contlltlon "very poor. SbeP.Iope 31 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 o 'm WLCA Notes from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y° o S c N G o + Scientific Name U c g O n^ Z i S 9 m m ce v c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v E c r V °' ' u #« Common Name (Genus. species) g e' n i u 8 ._ >' mE 2 2 2 2 Sob = wn aS 2 2 a=iA Etc ~ 6 SfieP slope 21.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdN 40/25 60/50 0%fair moderate 400 X 21.5 8 10 On steep clops. 202 shorn -n Frerinus uhdW 45/20 5005 40%1,00r moderate W 40t X 202 g On steep clops. 194 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 45/25 60/45 55%hir good 402 X 164 6 8 On steep elope. 150 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 40/18 40/40 40%poor poor W A03 X 150 various On steep slope. Shamelash FraXlnus uhM M5 40/40 40%poor poor SW elevations 400 X 257 25.7 T On steep clops. 29.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 65/35 40Y35 40%poor poor S S 405 X 29.5 25% overall conditlon'Nery On steep elope Poor' 17.9 oast redwood iKools sampav/rerls 50/8 70f70 70%good moderafi /06 X X 17.9 0 to 10 o%IDead) Al southarnmagnolia Magnollagmrdlflora 15/1 5/5 5%vary poor very poor /07 X X 4.1 various 10 %overall condition "very soutnornma9nolia Magnollagmrdlflcm 18/6 10110 10 "oery very poor e levations Pool. 408 X X 5.9 0.8 9.7 X 50%overa11 condition'Tair. 18,2 oast redwood Sxluola s—P.W-.s 55/15 65/65 65%hir moderab COB X 180 X 50%overall candition'Yair. 20.7 oast redwood Sxluole s—Pewms s5N0 65%5 65No fiir moderate 410 X 20.7 X 40%overall condition "pool'. 22.4 coast redwood S"-la samPerv/rens 5M13 60/60 60%hir poor to mod 411 X 22.4 Removed Aug, 2919. MA SMme1 »h Fradnus hdel fi5r4 65Is5 412 X 32 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 Y. .......... AM 33 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ v `e Eg oB S q adao c _ t a s E $ c E 'c c F o 'o Scientific Name c $ - WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition m & E w y rc po q c v ° ra a _ _ _ _ _ _ r £. - u g Common Name (Genoa, aPeciea) _ a: m u d tin _ ra ii W c c - n c c u Spring 2015 Survey Ratings &NOTES 2011 ONWARD a _ x x x i x s E¢ri . m .a �°!' mac Sxx as ra° gg Ygc 5°E ¢Aq A°wLL 2 2 2 2-Ea aouwi SEe3 gc uOGEo H eTa ]2. t°f n@ 2L -= 02 ufin-. .6 X Inv 27.8 27.8 oast retlwe°d Sequoia sempwvlrens 55120 F ]5/66 Xgootl motlerab Removetl per plan A....12111, 627 X 17.3 17.3 Shame)asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 60/20 40140 poor E X Removetl per plan August 2019. 401pow Tree m declining. Appears t. bo in 40 % overall condition (Poor), 428 29.0 29.0 Shamelaah F m-uh" 60/35 5W50 50%fair poor to moil W with normal leaf senesce.. plus twig and bra..h dieback from d-9tht-i.d.—d decline. Cotlominant is tleclining. Appears to be In 45% overall contlition (Poor), Tree is to be removetl and May, 2020 Shame) asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO S-s 7055 65%fair go ineteme fork at a 13 (eel. postetl as such as of (approved by City.f CupeNno City Staff) in order to acco motlate unforseen ins[allation(s). Merasequaia TREE IS DEAD. TREE 430 X X 27.4 27.4 giant sequoia MIS 15 66145 55%fair poor b, m*d Tree was limb.d up. REQUIRES REMOVAL FROM THE IANDSCAPE. Tree In decline, with a current 431 27.9 27.9 Shame) ash F—m— uh" 66145 W10 40%poor poor to mod W E 9 oveall condition of 34Y or Poor". Tree In decline, with a current 432 24.0 24.0 Shame)ash F—m—uh" sms 50160 55%fair poor to mod W oveall condition of"Y. or Poot'. Tree in decline, with a current 433 16.9 18.9 Shame)ash Fr..m-uhde! Bons 75160 63%fair good E E overall condition of 50%or "Fait'. ("Fait' ranges from 50% Metasequoia 2S%very Roots were severed TREE IS DEAD. TREE 4S4 X X 29.3 29.3 glamspuola glypfosfroboldes 75b2 3=0 poor poor E X during lnsdlla0on REQUIRES REMOVAL FROM W ADAwalkway. THE LANDSCAPE. 25%very Roots.—btd 435 % 31.1 31.1 Shame)ash Fnxinus uhdei 85/45 "nopoor poor W GR during sld—.Ik replacement S...... dklon. previous. 438 23.0 12.0 35.0 oast redwood Sequoia aempervinns 65/18 76160 65%fair good 3 Di ... tere estimated. 437 27.7 27.7 Shame) ash F—m— uh" Bono 30M 30%poor poor W 9 Tree currently in th. same onditi0n as previ.u.ly.°ted. Roots severed 438 X X 23.5 23.5 Shame)ash F inua uh" 65/18 Bono 37%poor nud.— E during sld—.Ik replacement 34 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD 'Mmilrommommmobw MMAIIIIIIII&M, IF 35 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o .m WLCA Notea from updated Overall Condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c + Scientific Name U$ e n ._ f = m c m m n' v _ g ec c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o °sy E v E c r V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy d m a lu c u c — w g E u ;, q F Y m 8y5a q —`n m q - R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 aL 02 "n ai oa aE 2 2 2 2 gad �o"ES�of _ = wn aS 2 2 F u re Curnt cantlition rating is 0.2 ougM1ly the same as noted in Shamel aan Fiaxlnus uhdN SSr30 50/35 0%pow poor to motl W previous years. 452 X 21.5 21.5 150 6hametasM1 FinasaisuhdW 50/10 10/10 10 Rn�ry very poor 453 X % 15.0 Current condition rating is 12 Roots damaged. ougM1ly th. same as previously Shamel an Fi Imm am" 65/35 SW40 47%pow poor to motl noted in peat Yea.. a54 X 284 284 Roots damaged. 17.7 Shamel an Fi Imm am" 45/18 30/35 33%pow poor E ass "T Same sondl0on ratting w noted Shamel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdN 60/20 40/35 37% pow poor W W 1S In prior yw.. 456 X 22.1 22.1 May be declining in Condition. Cument condition is roughly Shamel ash Fi Imm uhM 65/35 SW60 W%Pair madwab W 45% (Poor). 45T X 28.5 28.5 Bark -sing all. Same condition rating as noted Sbamel ash Fiaxlnus uh" 60/35 30/40 35%pow poor to motl various elevations PMoemlb.rk disorder. In prior yea.. MIS X 25.1 25.1 Roots damaged. 31.9 Shamel ash Fi Imm uh" 75/45 60/60 0%Pair mstlerab 459 X 91.8 Roots damaged. 91.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN 65/95 60/55 58X fair moderate 460 918 Tree tleclining. Current overall oon Is roughly SS%(Pr) oo 1S Extensiv e twig tlleback E. 25.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN SS/90 50/50 SOX fair poor to motl apparent. /61 255 Tree declining. Current overall onditian is rou91ly 2N% (Very Poor). Tissue necrosis and bark 15.3 Shamelash FImmua" oils W40 45%pow moderate a inclusion at lwk—aid Tree. in vry poor cnditryec.11 481 X X 15.3 uggest:d tood be Tree appears to be in decline due to chronic drought Roots damaged. condmirm.. Current overall 21g Shamel ash Fnxinua uhtlei 55/45 ]5/80 ]0%good good W conditlm rougM1ly 55%(Fair). 463 21.0 Tree app..m to be in tlecline do. to chronic tlrought Shamel ash Fnxinua uhtlei 55150 85145 48%pow moderate E 0 to 5 con tli ro. ghly 40 (Poo centlition rougM1ly 4N% (Poor). 464 X 34.1 34.1 36 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 az e Ea off° ° E A F V Common Name Sciar�5fic Name (Genus, aPeciea) i Z g $ & 8 i8 C uns i m d E c m �' 4 `e3 _ 9 rat ro Sgg^e u ci a'ca5 l±'E u 0 G E �O i8e SE S�8 nE 2@ 465 22.8 22.8 Shemalash Fraalnua uhM 60/30 SW45 50%fair moderate W 466 29.3 29.3 Shamel ash Fraalnua uhM 65Y40 60/45 /67 X 25.6 25.6 Shamel ash F mos uholai 66/45 Rao 468 X 24.6 24.6 Shamel ash Faalnus uhM me 40/40 469 25.2 25.2 Shemalash Faxlnus uhWl 60/30 40/30 470 27.7 27.7 Shamel ash Freafnus uh" 60/35 45/3s 471 14.9 14.9 Shamel ash Fnainua uh" 4h/15 45//6 472 16.4 16.4 Shamel ash Flaxlnua ua— 60/20 45//5 473 31.5 31.5 Shamel ash Fnainua uh" 60146 75/65 474 25.3 0.3 Shemalash Fnainua uh" 60/30 75/60 476 28.7 28.7 Shamel ash Fvnrus 1~ 60I/5 7O/65 I 50%fair motl to good E 37%poor moderate 40%poor poor 38% aeor poor W 8 10%poor poor 15%poor poor W W 5%poor poor E 18%fair good 5%fair good E M nah I modems 2c c _ na p c u ;.Ewa c � m c gg O@@ 5 WLCA Notes from Updated Overall Condition Y c y, W E E o W 3 Spring 20f5 Survey RatingsBNOTE52017 ONWARD c�8 �a E ufrF=? Treatiscurrently in same 16 Roots tlamaged. c tlNon as noted in previous years. Tree appears to be In decline 9 due to Wms. drought ove ons. Current rall ceondln ndmon roughly 40% (Poor). TFas declining. Current overall condition is roughly 26% (Very OR 3.10 Poor). Tissue necrosis and bark nclusion at fork noted. Trees in very poor condition are typi°an suggested to be removed. Tree declining with apparent extensive twig dieback. Current ovest, condition la roeghly 29" Roots damaged. (Very Pam-). Tissue necrosis and bark inclusion at fork noted. 7raas in vary poor pnditian are typically suggested to be removed. OR nreere urrendyme 12 ot Ros tlamaged. p o dN n noted in prev�o a " p. years. Appears to be expedencing omam Fall leaf senescence (leaf drop). Appears to be expedencing normal Fail leaf serrescerrce (leaf drop). Appears to be expedencing ormal Fall leaf senescence (leaf drop). 9 and 10 (not Tree appears to be somewhat vadrred) Roots damaged declining. Current overall condition Is roughly 57%(Fair). OR Tree appears to be somewhat declining. Current overall condition Is roughly 59%(Fair). Tree Is declining, with an estimated 41% overalll conditlo Roots tlamaged. rating (Poor). Leaf falappears to be a combo of normal leaf fall Plus twig and branch dleback, 37 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ n n _ o= i 9 - - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo°z IS 22me iae 8,z �Lti as 2$ of 476 X 15.2 15.2 Sham,l a,h Faxlnus uhdN 30/2S 35140 38%poor poor to motl E 477 X X 13.9 13.9 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus OM 35120 20/2g 20%very very poor poor 478 X X 16.9 16.8 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 40/15 SO/50 %%fair poor 20%overa11 co diftn"very poor". 479 X X 22.1 22.1 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlmns SO/20 0/0 0%d d 0%)Dead). "0 X 13.1 13.1 Sham,la,h Fraxlnus uhM 90/18 45145 45%poor poor SE 481 X 20.0 20.0 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 35125 45145 45%poor poor W 462 X 9.8 9.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM MO 30/2g 25%vary poor W poor 463 X 12.7 12.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/i6 SW40 SO%fair .o rate N GR 484 X 15.9 15.9 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW 90/18 60150 SS%fair .o rate 485 X 13.7 13.7 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/20 S5155 SS%fair .o rate E 466 X 22.3 22.1 oactr -d Swluola s—PSMmns SO/18 7WO 70%good moderate fib% overall c,nditi,n'Yai'. 467 X 21.9 21.8 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 50/18 7WO 70%good moderate 70% overall condition"gootl". 468 X 12.4 12.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/16 ms 40%pow moderate N 0 to 3 38 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 - - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_- ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8a �Lti as 2$ of °z 48S X 8.9 8.9 Sham,l a,h Faxlnus uh" 30/20 M5 45%poor moderate .0 X 14.3 14.3 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus OM MS SS145 47%poor poor to motl W W 481 X X 9.3 9.3 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus OM 20112 40/20 27%vary poor W W 8 poor "2 X 9.1 9.1 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 25118 SM5 40%poor poor W motl E 433 X 12.4 12.4 Sham,la,h Fraxlnus uhdW 30118 45130 35%poor poorb motl W W 434 X 13.8 13.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 3WO 40140 40%poor poor 435 X X 13.0 13.0 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30116 2W20 22%vary poor W W 0 to 8 poor 436 X X 7.9 7.9 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 25112 30/20 25%vary poor E poor 437 X X 10.2 10.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW 30/20 2WO 23%very poor W W poor "a X 11.8 11.8 wergreen peer Pyrus kawakamll 20/20 SW40 44%poor poor N 5 FirebligM infection. 435 X X 4.0 4.0 wergre,n peer Pyrus kawakamll 916 010 0%d d No X X 21.4 21.4 oact rW -d Sequoias—Pervlmns SS115 010 0%d d 0%D.d. 501 X X 19.0 19.0 oact rW -d Sequoia s—Pervlmns SS115 15115 15%very very poor X Sbep elope. 0%Dead. poor 39 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 8 If _ t :: a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 8 a- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Es N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-ie.) _ a' w m u b tin mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE8_- as qEEa g UOo O 2 ¢cgnwo e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma H a4 SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ of °z 502 X X 24.4 24.0.... tr -d Swlrrola samlwrvlmns W12 0/0 0%d d X 0%Dead. 503 X 6.7 6.7 a m,,n pen Pyros kawakamll 1X14 40140 40%poor poor S 5 504 X 9.9 8.0 18.8 oak,p,cie, a-.- P. 35/30 80/50 60%fair good 3 OR Sbep elope 505 X 32.3 32.1.... tr -d Swlrrola semPw m.. was 7M0 70%good moderate X Sbep.lope 70% overall wndNon'gootl'. 506 X 10.0 10.0 evergreen pear Pyros kawakamll 25/15 40140 40% poor poor E E X FirebligM infection. 507 X X 7.6 7.6 wergreen peer Pyros kawakamll 18/15 20/2g 20%very very poor N N X Firebli,M infectim poor we X 10.8 10.8 vergreen pear Pyrus kawakamll 25/25 40fM 35%pon poor N N X FirebligW infection. MR X X 7.2 6.0 5.5 10.6 ...thernmagn.h. MagnoliagmndMom 25/15 15/15 15%very very poor N X poor 510 X 28.0 28.0.... tr -d S"-I. semPw m.. was 80/80 80%good good X 70%overall... dNon'gootl". R— damag,d on 511 X 14.4 14.4 wergreen pear Pyros kawakamll 20/25 40150 44%poor poor X grede. Fireblight 55%overall conditi.. "M i . infection. 512 X 6.0 6.0 ...thernmagn,lia Magnollag.r flom 15/8 Moo 37%pow moderate X X 30% overall condition "pool'. 513 X 5.6 5.6 southern magnolia Magnollag.r flom 18/10 40140 40%pon poor E X 514 X 4.4 4.4 southern magnolia Magnollag.r flom 1816 40140 40%pon poor E X 40 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD LANDSCAPE 41 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 WLCA Noted from Updated Overall Condition & NOTES 2017 a E c o y S c m .. g ec m c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy n i ud m a W c u c — w W c g E u 8 ._ �� q —`e �� aE §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 aS 2 2 tt.t CM1ine»elm Ulmus parvMvlla 25/35 70/60 66%fair moderate X 528 tt.t 12.T ShemstaM FrnYlnas uhdW 30/20 4S/95 43X poor poor -mod W W 529 12.T 10.4 CM1ine»elm Ulmus pavifoli. 30/30 75/65 73%good modern- S X n0 10.4 92 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/18 SW40 45%poor W 8 531 82 CM1ine»elm Ulm. N'tiolla W40 a5f70 70%good modern- SE X 592 12.3 12.3 13.2 Shamel aah Fraxlnus uhM 30/30 60/60 60%hir ni Mnft 533 13.2 CM1ine»e1m Ulmus NmHolla 40/20 70/60 70%good goad E X S94 10.2 10.2 20.6 Shamel ash F—Inus uhd.1 35/35 60/50 M%hir good Sly 20.6 12.1 SM1amel asM1 Frazlnus uhtlN 30/20 20120 20%-- very poor 06 X 12.1 Chin —elm U/mus Parvdolla 35/35 ao/55 60%hir motlara- E X 537 13.1 13.1 Shamel ash Frax-us uhdN 3Si35 50143 50°hfair poor -mod 538 18.8 19.9 Chi —elm Ulm"NmIliolla 25/30 75/65 70%good good E E X 538 12.7 12.7 Shames »h Raxfrws uhdel 45/45 GW55 60%hir io Mnft OR 590 21.8 21.8 42 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 Tn E _ n' Sciar�Sfic Name — c C �ocE X $ co e e _ cZ Z c'a5 m �� n Qc_ x u ; w a m c gg @ Sy WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Contlhlon d �ppp opw 'F SS c gg do gg uW'm °"_ c�rc uY eG yW Ec�yy;;7��o� W� d � SPnng 2015 Survey RaOngs SNOTE6201) ONWARD Ufd17i 591 tz.s 12.5 Chinesoalm Ulmus parvMolla 30/90 60/so 55%hir motlarate x "a 13.7 13.7 Shemel a,h FreXlnus uhtlal 95/25 50/50 SOX h'v motivab W W 593 152 152 Shamel a9M1 Fravinus uhtlal 40/25 55/90 34% poa motlemte S OR 5 541 t9.1 14.1 Chinesaelm ulmus parvMolla 40/35 70/60 67%hir motlamte E E X 595 174 17.9 Shamel a6M1 Fiaxlnus uhtlN 40Y90 75/55 64% hir gootl W Tight forks at 6 reel 596 112 112 Chinesaelm ulmus parvlrolla 30/35 70/60 66%hir motlemte E E X 597 % 12.5 12.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uh" 40/20 25/Y5 F2��%-' vary Poor W W GR 595 16.3 16.3 Shamelash F—us uhW! SSo4Sl90 65I55 61%hir motl»aHte W 17.5 17.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhtlal —0 7W65 70%0ootl gootl W 02 11.2 11.2 Chineseelm ulmua parvMolla 25/25 60/60 60%hir motlerate N N 03 14.2 14.2 Shamelash FreXlnus uhdo 30/2D 7WO 70%U—I 9°P5 W W X TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 43 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 Ea 8 E o'8'Y crY ait�s ua - m= t; r c• ~ n -' c n Common Name Scientific Name (Genus, aPeciea) e i z g$ u � o o. _ 8 y+ 'E x � `; m � � @I WLCA UPtlatetl Overall Condi[lon B� EU- §a'0rc�neLL iF 2 y 2 x x y 2 m¢r9 `q- +� -9 y +e d opW dgo miy'� c�rc:m gg q '- 9 m S 015S.rom adng zwssr.rvay Ratings SNOTE52017 a8 2 2 2 $c$ u.O Egg m! S¢¢ �" ggc "@ 8�w aY c�8 g lu Es i � �_' a ONWARD 75%good good Tree out of leaf. l0 not verifietl lime 550 6.0 Ao elm specie, Ulmus P. 20/10 7W5 at of writing. 555 X 8.8 0.8 Shemel,,h Fraxlnus uhM 20/15 10/10 10%wry poor very Poor ato fO 556 16.8 16.8 Shamel aeM1 Faxlnus uhdal 90Y30 SS/80 59% fair moMrate 0 to 1 VeM1icla impact scar. 557 12.8 12.0 Shamel a6M1 Fraxlnus uhdN 50/25 95Y35 95X W poor poor W "a 13.8 13.8 Chmeaeelm ulmus parvMolla 35/35 TWO 73%good good N N X SS0 15.8 15.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdN 50/25 SS/50 SOX fair poor to motl W 560 1f.5 11.5 Chinesaelm ulmus parvlblla 30/30 6Sf70 68%fair motlamte E X 561 13.7 13.7 Chinesaelm ulmus parvlblla 30/30 70/50 60%fair good N X 562 1}8 1J.8 SM1amer aeM1 F xlnus uhW 30130 00/35 38%poor N poor X TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 560 X 10.8 10.8 3lwmel ash Fraxnus uhdN 93/25 2S/20 23%vary poor verypoor W W TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 566 X 17.5 17.5 Shamel a,h Faxlnus uh" 0505 00/00 4pX poor moderate W W 44 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e @ yg�*�,a g ^w >, —, o ,.• o ... @ € c `o a 'm " WLCA Noted from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y° o S c N G o + 6cienti0c Name U c g O n^ Z i m 9 m m c' v m .. g oc c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o ' u #« Common Name (Genus. species) es yy n i u d m a W c u c — w W c ° d on E u E m 8 ': ._ f= Eq Y m gy5a >' q -R sitge Ag c8 :2.ci a 02 n aE §¢=rco°wn 2 2 2 2 Spa Enb� ion id`; ISE 3 = aS 2 2 a 162 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdN 30/15 25/25 25% , Po very poor %7 X 16.2 18.0 ShemetaM Frerinus uhdW 45/35 7S/65 70%gootl good W we 18.0 135 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 30/25 70/65 68%fair good W we 135 12.7 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 18/10 SOY30 40%poor moderate W W % 570 12.T x 50%oven1IcondWf 'fair. 22.7 oast redwood Spuola sampwwmns 55/20 60/60 60%hir moderate 371 227 zs x sox ovemn PPnamon •T.ir. 31.6 oasts ood Spuola s—P"W-ns 55/20 60/45 55%fair ni Mn e 572 316 3c s7x Paennwmitmn••popr. 16.5 oast redwood Spuola ssmpwWrens 50/15 60/50 S3X fair moMrate 573 16.5 % 0% overall condition "poor. 25.6 oaet redwood Spools s—P.W—s 55/15 60/60 60%fair ni Mnte 574 256 X 35% overall condition "Poor . 12.0 oast redwood Spuola s—P.M—s 35/10 60140 47%poor mo4.nte 575 120 % 65% avenill condition"fair. $7.7 oast redwood SpuolessmPwvlmns 55/25 70170 70%gootl poor 576 32.1 13.4 12.2 vadou8 % 45%overall condition"poor'. 27.6 oast redwood Spuola sempsMrens SONS 40M 35%P Poor elevations 577 276 x 50%overa11 condition'Tair. 17.1 oaet redwood Spuola s—P.W—s 50/12 60/60 60%fair mo,Wnte 575 171 X 40% overall condition "pool'. asi redwood Spuola semPervkens -12 65165 65%bir moderate 579 177 1i7 45 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o .m WLCA Noted from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c + scientific Name U$ tin ._ f = m c m m n' v _ c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o °sygF E v E c ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' rg i u d 8 ._ ;, Y m 8y5a q —`e q -R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 a — 02 "n -�$ of oa aE 2 2 2 2 gad _ = wn aS 2 2 ES�2 X ss%overan conaigon ••fair. 40.5 oaetrWwootl Sprrola samparvinns 60/20 7WS 75%good moderate 58o 315 80 X q5X overall contlition "poor. 32.0 coastr ood Spools samparalnrls 60/15 60/60 60X fair motlwate 581 21.5 10.5 X 60X overall contlition'Yeir. 31.7 oaet rW d spuola sampervlmns 70/25 80/80 80X pootl Oootl %12 311 20%ondltion'.very 30 X pooY'. g,y oaet rW d Saquola s—P.Wmns 9S/6 20/20 ooery very poor 583 X 8.3 X 50%overa11c dhion'Yair. 26.8 oast rW d Saquola samperv—s 10/20 65/65 65%fair ni Mn e S84 26.8 X 50%overall conaition'Yeir. 23.2 oastr ood Sagrmla sampervlmns 50/15 65/65 65%fair ni Mn e 584 15.8 7.3 X 45%—.it wndtion"Poor. 25.1 oaetr ooa Segrmla samperv—s 50/13 65/65 65%fair moaerafe 586 253 X 52% overall condition'Yeir. 18.8 oaetr ooa sprmla s—P.M—s 50/14 65/65 65%fair moawafe 58] 18.8 X 47% overall condition"poor. 21.0 oaetr ooa sagrmla samperv—s 50/12 60160 60%fair mo4onft 58e 210 X 62%overall condition "fair. 23.1 oaet redwood sprmla sampeMrens 60/12 65/65 65%fair moaorafe ggg 233 X 35%overall conaitian•'poo!'. 30.5 oactn ooa sprmla sampwvirens 60H0 30145 35%Poor pow no 25.5 5.0 X 50% overall condition"fair. 21.2 osatr ooa sprmla sampaMrens 55/10 50140 45%pow poor 581 212 X SOX fair as of ]I28I2020. marewotl Squoia semPrvl28%vry vary poor 25.0 3Poor 51 X 25.0 46 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 a- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a n c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c c n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mi0 o m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢12& e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 583 14.4 14.0 oact r -d Sequoia s-Pavi... 40/10 30/30 30%poor poor. motl 3 0 to S X 40 % poor as of 112812020. 584 18.1 18.1 oactr -d Sequoias-Pavimns W13 65/55 50%fair ih Mrs X 50% fair ae of 712312g20. 585 18.2 18.2 oaetrWwootl Spools sempervlrons 25115 40/25 30% poor modara. merisrom25 )apical ) X 50%fair ae of 712-20. 586 12.8 12.8 oact r -d Swluola s-Pavimns SS/8 SW40 t5%poor poor. motl S X 20%very poor u of 7/28/2020. 587 X 12.7 8.3 21.0 oactr -d Swluola s-PwvOmns 35/10 0/0 0%d d deed 1 X Deatl as of 712812020. Shear crack May ba as high as 90% poor ae "a X 18.5 18.5 Deaf rWwootl Sequoia sempervlrons 50/6 90/10 20%vary very poor X through the of 712w2020. But shear crack poor malnsrom longitudina1ly. tlowngratles contlitlon rating. no 27.0 27.0 oact rW -d Sequoias-PwvOmns 75MS 65/65 65%fair .o ra X 50%fair ae of 712-20. Cankerdevelaping 600 18.8 18.8 oact rW -d Sequoias-PwvOmns 6518 SW40 45%poor poor W X on trunk at 5 feet 30%poorasof712812020. elwation. 601 25.5 25.5 oact rW -d Sequoias-PwvOmns 70/14 40/40 40%poor poor X 30%poor as of 712812020. 602 13.7 7.7 21.9 oact red -d Sequoias-PwvOmns 40/8 40/30 35%pow BRC X 30% overall contlitlon"pool'. 603 X 17.3 17.1 oact red -d Sequoias-PwvOmns MIS 25MS 25%very very Poor X 25% overall contlitlon"very poor Pool'. 604 X 16.7 16.7 oact red -d Sequoias-PwvOmns W12 25MS 25%very very Poor W X 25% overall contlitlon"very poor poor". 605 X 6.6 6.6 oact rW -d Sequoias-PwvOmns 3W 25MS 25%vary very poor X 0%)Deatl) poor 47 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ o c _ t a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 e- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Notes from uptlatetl Overall Contlltlon Rating. & NOTES 2017 x Es N y ¢ 4444 y a o c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, specie.) _ a: ¢ m 0 b mow .Few c c YRpFc - _ c c o� n m c E a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mit0 o m �a as qEEa g ns UOo O E��o 2 E8_— ¢cgnwe e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 y:a ¢Ga4 SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 606 X 26.4 26.0 ...t ra -d Sequoia sempervirens 60/18 20/30 25%vary poor X C.dominant i lam fork rt 20 25% overall contlltlon"very poor feet Poor, 607 X 15.4 15.0 ...t ra -d SequoI.s—Pavim.. SS110 1S/2o 17%very veryPoor X 15% overell contlltlon"very poor Poor,. 608 X 22.0 22.0 Deaf ratlwootl Sequoia sempervirens 60/14 90/30 30% poor poor W X 27%overa11 contlltlon "very poor'. 609 27.1 27.1 ...t ra -d Sxluola s—Pavim.. 70/18 35/35 35%poor poor X 30%overa11—diticn"poor. 610 X 13.0 13.0 ...t ra -d Sxluola s_Pervlrens 3" 40/20 28%vary poorb motl X 25%overa11 contlitlon'Yery poor poor. 75%overall ... dhion'gootl'. Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, 61t 98.0 98A oast redwootl sequoia semcervirens ]5115 7Mp 70% good good X Cankers on W nk at which removetl all of Me es Mfacing scaffold limb,. wHealth Bfwt and stroctural rating. significantly reducetl arbelow the condition rating n..d above. 0 % (Dead) Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the west, which removetl all of X 8.0 8.0 oastretlwood Sequoia semcervlrens 25/4 0/0 0%dead dead thew.—nd-.In....-Id Ilmbs. REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER 2018. Tree rely prunetl by property owner to the west, 613 26.5 26.5 oastretlwood Sequoia semcervirens 75/18 7WS 75%good goad X hhi.h removetl all of Me and facing scaffold limb,. wHealfM1 and stroctural ratings significantly reduced Tree rely prunetl by property owner to the west, 614 32.3 32.3 oastretlwood Sequoia sempervirens 65/16 70l/0 70%good mod to good X hi.h removetl all of Me and facing scaffold limb,. wHealfM1 and stroclural ratings significantly reducetl n poo Tree —rely pruned by property owner to the west, 615 15.4 15.4 oastretlwood sequoia semcervirens 50/10 50/50 50%fair poor X .h removetl all of Me and facing scaffold limbs. wHealth and stroctural ratings significantly reducetl on poo . Tree rely prunetl by rty owner propeto the west, 616 24.4 24.4 oastretlwood sequoia sempervirens 65/11 55/50 53%fair mod X hi.h removetl all of the and facing scaffold limbs. wHealth and stroclural ratings significantly reducetl on poo . Tree rely'pruned by rty owner propeto tho west, 61] 10.1 10.1 oastretlwood sequoia sempervirens 25/9 65/46 55%fair mod X mhremovetl all of the and facing scaffold limbs. wHealth and structural ratings significantly reducetl 48 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ IT _ t m S E $ c E 'c c � F m - - 'o 1 Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i S m- - q+ c v � � g m e �- E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 x m Es „ y ¢ °�' y a m c c c c c c - _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPaclea) _ a: ¢ m u d tin mow .Fa°w c d o - - c e `off g n m c E _ a u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE$= E x x x i x x mit5 m m �a ma ae qa g pppppp ns UOo dEEw ��oi,�i ¢cgawnm E'er a$ 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma �'c sS SEe3 go uO�Eo'°z ggm �L� nQ 2 -- e'2 & of,� Tree ¢rely prunetl by pmp.m owner to the west, 618 26.7 26.7 oact reGwood Swluola sa Pie,,1 ens 70/18 SW60 58%fair poor to motl X which removetl all of the westward facing scaffold Hat", Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly,,duc" n Poo . Tree erelY Prunetl by property owner to the west, 619 12.5 12.5 oact reGwood Sequoia sempervlrens 45/10 SW40 50% fair moderate X which removetl all of the westward facing scaffold Hat". Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly r.ducatl n poo . Tree ¢rely prunetl by propony owner to the west, 620 15.3 15.1 oact reGwood Swluola s-Pared- 35/10 SW40 50% fair moderate X which removetl all of the westward facing scaffold Hat". Health and structural mtings .-a Ignifta ntly reduce l Tree erelY Prunetl by property owner to the west, 621 12.6 12.6 oaet reCwood Sequoia s-Pared- 45/11 60150 55%fair moderate X which removetl all of he westward facing scaffoltl Ifta". Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly n.ducatl 622 23.4 23.0 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 7S/15 5W50 50% fair poor X 55%overall contlition"fait'. 623 25.1 25.1 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 7S/15 5W50 50%fair poor X 57% over all ... anion 'Yair". 6. 15.9 15.8 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 70/12 SW40 0%pow poor X 50% overall conanion "fair. 625 19.7 6A 26.1 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 6S/10 5W50 50% fair poor X 50% overall condition'Yair". 626 19.6 19.6 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 60/10 60150 55%fair poor W motl X 50%overall contlition 627 22.9 22.8 oact reohe-d Sati semparvlrens 7S/12 60150 53%fair poor X 60% overall condition'Yair". 628 X 19.1 14.1 oast redwood S la sem bens ¢quo pery .1. 2W. Worry very poor X I re emmend tree be removetl at [his lime.O will (WLCA/. SHPCO will remove. 629 X 11.9 11.8 oastr-.d Sequoia sempervlrens - 1.10 10%va7ry very poor X 0%(Dead/. TREE REMOVED AS poor OF OCTOBER 2018. 630 X 12.0 12.0 oaetrWwootl Spools sampeMrens 9S/10 9S/35 95%poor or X 25%overall condition "very poor. 49 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 u & E $ c E 'c c F o — 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e P. y WLCA Notes from uptlMod Overall Condlllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Ee N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, specie.) _ s: ¢ m u b tin wow .Few c c YRpFco� — c . n m c E a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEw g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_— ¢12 A. w' e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a ¢'Sa4 SEe3 go uO�E. 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 691 X 16.2 16.2 .actr o.d Sequoia sempervlmns 4S/15 2g/2g 20%vary very poor 2g X 20% overall contlltlon "very poor poor'. 632 1" 15.5 oastr o.d Sequoia sempervlmns MIS .0 35%poor po--d 30 X 30% overall cantlition"pool'. 20%overall contlition "very X 9.9 oast redwood sequoia sempervlrens 40/10 35/35 35%poor p. pool'. TREE REMOVED AS OF OU.SER 2018. 634 X 11.5 11.5 .actr ood Sxluola sampervlmns W12 2g/2g 20%very verypoor X 10%overallcondItlon'Nery poor Poor,. 635 X 18.4 18.0 .actr ood Sxluola sampervlmns W12 10/10 10%very verypoor X 0%(Dead) poor 636 X 20.9 20.8 .act r o.d Sequoia sempervlmns 70/18 2M5 25%very very Poor X 18%overall co.ditlon (very poor poor). 25%very Orn. of lwo 637 X 13.8 13.8 .actr o.d equo pery S la sem Imns 50/15 2M5 poor very poor X m bma was oval at grad.. 5%overall contlition (very poor) 638 27.9 27.8 .actr o.d Sxluola samp.rvlmns 80/25 7WS 75%good mod to good X 68% overall ... dition(fair). 638 X 10.8 10.8 .actr o.d Sequoia sempervlmns 3W 2M5 25%very verypoor X DlfRcult to assess 18% overall contlltlon"very po.r vlsuallY. poor'. 640 21.1 21.1 .actr o.d Sequoia sempervlmns 70/12 40140 40%poor poor W X 30%overa11 cantlition"poor. 641 19.6 19.6 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 60/12 65155 60%fair moderate N X t5% overall contlition"pool'. 642 30.3 30.1 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 7SI20 swso 50%fair moderate X 42% overall contlition"poor. 643 24.3 24.1 .act redwood Sequoia sempervlmns 70/18 60155 56%fair moderate X 50% overall contlition 50 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- q+ v g- m e p. y WLCA Notes from uptlatetl Overall Condlllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Ee N y ¢ 4444y = a o c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c YRpFc - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mit5 o m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_— ¢2&IN e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c aS SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 694 tt.t it.t oastr -d Sxluola s—Pervlmns W12 50/5O fair poor X 40%overall contlition"poor. 695 22.8 22.8 oast rWwootl Sequoia sempervlmns 70/12 40/35 39% pow poor X 25%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". 646 X 14.8 7.5 22.1 oact redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 50/10 4 O 27%vary poor W X Sdrunkformat 24% overall contlltlon"very poor cedaln heights. Poor". 647 31.5 31.5 oact r -d Sxluola s—PSMmna 75/25 80/80 80%good good X 70%overa11 condNon 698 X 0.8 0.8 Deaf rWwootl Spools sempervlmns 25I5 90Y30 30% pow poor S X 17%overa11 conditlon'Nery poor". 649 25.7 25.7 oact rW -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/12 50/SO 50%fair nn Mrs X 50% overall contlition 650 22.4 22.9 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/i6 50/SO 50%fair nntl ra X 50% overall contlition 651 29.6 29.6 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 70/20 60140 55%fair nntl ra X 67% overall condition'Yai'. 652 15.9 15.9 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/i6 40/40 40%pow poor X 45% overall contlition"pool'. 653 X 16.0 16.0 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 60/10 20/2g 20%vary very poor X 0%JN.d) poor 654 X 20.5 20.5 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns SS/6 30115 20%vary very poor X 16% ovwall contlltlon"very poor Pool'. 655 25.0 10.0 35.0 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 70/15 50/SO 50%fair poor. motl 3 X 50% overall condition'Yair. 656 27.3 27.1 oact red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 7S115 60140 50%fair poor. motl 6 X 56% overall condition'Yair. 51 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ o c _ t u & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E E WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings & NOTES 2017 Ee N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ a: ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c -1p0Fo� - c c n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_— ¢12&IN e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8,z �Lti as 2$ of °z 65, 19.8 19.8 oactr -d S"-M s—Pervlrens 70/15 45145 45%pow poor W X 48X overall cantlition"poor. 658 30.8 30.8 oactr -d S"-M s—Pervlrens 70/18 30/35 30%pow poor 4.8 X t5% overall cantlition"pool'. 659 X 10.0 10.0 oactr -d S"-M s—Pervlrens 3514 0/0 0%d d dead X 0%(Dead) 25%very S4..kfor. 660 X 23.0 23.0 oactr -d S"-M s—P,-1mna 70/15 30/20 poor very poor X between 60 and 65 1-10veti0n. 30%overa11 condition "poor'. 661 X 12.0 12.0 oaetrWwootl Spuola sempervlrens 90/8 SOY30 95%pow moderate 20 X 28%overall conditlon'Yery poor". 662 17.7 17.7 oactr -d S"-M s—Pwv1mns 50/15 60145 50%fair .odera. X 50%overa11 condition'Yair. 663 11.2 11.2 oactr -d S"-M s—Pwv1mns 50/10 5SI50 50%fair poor. motl X 40%overa11 contlition"poor. 664 11.0 11.0 oact redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 50/10 50/SO 50%Mir poor X 40%overa11 contlition"poor. 665 20.4 20.4 oact redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 65118 60155 58%fair .od,ra. X 59%overa11 condition "Mir". 666 20.9 20.8 oact redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 701 40150 45%pow poor X 45%overa11 contlition"poor. 667 16.7 16.7 oact redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 65118 40150 t5%pow poor X 40%overa11 cantlition"poor. 668 9.1 9.1 oact redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 4M 30/35 35%pow poor X 30%overa11 cantlition"poor. This tree has a PG&E guy strap and Its trunk 669 X 9.9 9.9 oast redwood S"-M s—Pwv1mns 407r 30MO 30%pow poor X which may —t-flygirtlle the 10%overall contlition"very a., possibly te pool'. ausing loss of s.bllity within the stem cross sedlun. 52 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: u & E $ c E 'c c F o — 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 e- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ee N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c YRpFco� — c , n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go 22me iae r3a �Lti as lo—of 2$ US X 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Sxluola s—Pervlmns 4016 20/20 20%very veryPoor X 15% overall contlltlon"very poor Poor". 671 X 7.1 7.1 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 3016 2525 25%very veryPoor X 15%overall contlltlon"very poor Poor". 672 X 14.8 14.8 Deaf rWwootl Sequoia sempervlmns 50/12 40/40 0% pow poor X 25%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". 673 22.2 22.2 Sham,l a,h Fraxlnus uhtlel S0/25 30/35 33%pow poor X 6. 24.2 24.2 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhtlel SS125 35140 36%pow poor X 675 X 15.0 15.0 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 50/15 20/00 25%very very Poor At all X poor elevations. 676 16.6 16.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65118 3WO 30%pow very poor Various X elevations 677 X 17.6 17.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65118 10/10 10%very very Poor At all X poor elevations. 678 -4 13.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 60/18 45/45 45%pow poorb motl E X ,ing removetl in January 2019 tlue to requirement to move 12.7 12.7 Shamel asM1 Shamel ash Faxlnus uhtlel Frax/n-uhtlel 60/25 Sons 40%pow poor w motl E E X PGE high vo , untlergr... d cult antl associatetl cenEuit toward this tree. 680 15.6 15.6 681 17.3 17.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65125 45145 t5%pow .o n to E X 682 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel ms 4S/30 9SX pow poor W motl E 8 X 53 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 o 'm WLCA Notes from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y° o S c N G o + 5cientigc Name U c g O n^ Z i m 9 m m ce v c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v E E r V °' ' u #« Common Name (Genus. species) g e' n i u 8 ._ >' aE 2 2 2 2 Sob Enac = wn aS 2 ~ 2 a=iA ~ Possible deshbfllaed root 15X very E E 5 to 6 X plRemovek tree. 187 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhWl 65/30 25/10 poor very poor 683 X 18.) 12.2 ShemstaM Fraxlnus uhWl 50/20 15/15 5%vary Pom very Poor X 684 X X 12.2 10.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 45/20 15/15 15%wry poor very poor E E X 05 X X 10.5 x 59X overall contlition'Yeir. t0 oast redwood S"oole semparvlmns 15/6 50/50 SOX hir moderate Gas X 6.0 114 Shamelash Fr Imm uhM 45/25 40/35 37%poor poor to motl E E X 07 x 114 x 65% overall contlition'Yair. q5 oast mdlwood S"wI8 semio"Wmns 20/8 70f70 70%good mW.m1m 688 x 0.5 15.8 Sbamel ash Fraxlnus uhWl 65/20 10/10 10%very poor very poor E E x 689 X X 15.8 x 65% overall condition'Yair. A9 oact m lwood Sarloole semwwmns 18/6 70f70 70%good mW.m1m 690 X 4.9 10.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhWl 95/25 iS/15 5%vary poor very poor E X x 681 X X 10.8 X 22.5 Shamel ash Fr Imm uh" 75/35 65/50 %%hir mod to good E E 682 X 22.5 Shamelash Fmndmson" 70140 65158 57%hir modtogood E E 8 X 683 X 28.0 18.0 8 x 21.3 Shelash Fr Imm uftW 70/35 40/40 40%poor poor am 684 X 21.3 Roots severetl with x assay, on west aiae Shames »h Finud s uhW( 70r35 60150 55%hir mmderMm E E of root system. 695 x 28.3 28.3 54 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ IT _ t a E $ A E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 e- - q+ A v `o ' i' g m e - p. y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢44 444p y a n c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c a n m c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >tg� x x x i x x mi0 o m �a as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_- ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c aS SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z 686 X 23.8 23.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW TWO S0/50 50%fair poor. motl E X 687 X 25.3 25.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW TWO 45/35 43%pow poor. motl E OR 11 X 688 X X 8.2 8.2 oactr -d Sequo/a swnpervirens 28110 SW60 55%fair poor. motl X 10% ovwall contlltlon"very poor". X 8.4 8.4 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2.10 010T.%-d d-d X OY. tDOCTOBEMOVED. OF OCTOBEROVED. 700 X X Poll ].5 7.5 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2.10 010 0%d d d.d X OY. (DREMOVEDOF OCTOBER., 2018.. OCT 701 X X 8.2 8.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2- 40140 40%poor poor X 0%J) atl). REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER., 2018. X 8.1 8.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 251T iw10 10%very very poor X 0% JD.d). REMOVED AS OF P., dL OCTOBER., 2018. 703 X 20.3 20.1 oact retlwootl Sequoias-Pwvlrens 4 0 40140 40%pow poor. motl X 50% overall condition'Yai'. 7" X 11.3 11.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 3W 01. 0%d d dead x 0%)Dead). 4% overall condition "vary 705 X 10.3 10.1 oast r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 30/4 sts 5%vary poor very poor X poor". REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER, 2018. 706 X 11.0 11.0 oact retlwootl Sequoia sempervirens 3M mo 10%very very poor 1 X 13%overall contlltlon"very P.., Poor". 707 X 5.8 5.8 oaciretl d Sequoia sempwvlrens 2516 mo 10%very very Poor X 7% ovwall contlltlon"very poor Poor". TOB X 11.5 11.5 Deaf retlwootl Sequoia sempwvlrens 90/8 40/40 40%pow poor X 15%ovwall contlltlon "very poor". 55 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD REM VED FROM rTREE F.., won ANN 11111mmmmmmmlm� Imamm OPP �mmmmmmmmmmmmlm e mumipmVIRES, 56 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD MM 0=04 DIID, 57 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o e a .m " WLCA Notea from updated Overall condition It NOTES 2017 a E y c o r5 c + 5cientigc Name U $ e n ._ f = v .. _ g ec c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o °sygF E v E is r V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B g d on E u E S i 8 ,L ._ ;, Y m 8y5a q —`e m q -R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 aL 02 ti "n -�$ oa aE 2 2 2 2 gad �o�ES� _ = in aS 2 2 ~ 20%vary E 1 foot (car Impact) X 175 Shemel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdN SS125 20/20 poor very poor ]l5 X 17S SMmstaM Frarinus uhdN 45/35 25/25 35%vary Pow very Poor Vadous alovatlons. X 736 X 19.1 18.1 Roots severed -it Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM Swo 30/40 35%pow poor E 20 X damaged on grade. 737 20.) pg 7 217 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhdN SOpO 40/90 0% pow poor S OR X 738 211 29.) Shemel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdal 6Sp0 25/25 35%vary poor very poor E X 738 X 23.) 26.0 Shemel aeh Fraxlnus uhdal 45Y35 65/50 S6X fair flood X OR X X Tog 26.0 X X X 24.5 Shemel ash Fravinus uh" swo 40/40 90%pow poor 741 245 Shemel ash 171-1 us uhdal SOY30 W40 0%pow motlwate Various eI vatlon. X X 742 272 27.2 X X 30.1 Shemel ash Frazlnus uh" SW40 60145 50%fair modereb 743 30.1 Roo 25.2 Shemel ash Frazlnus uhdal SSY30 50/90 4SX pow moderate X X X ..In-.near Instem . 799 X 23.2 X g X X 14.2 Shemel ash FraXinus on" awn 35150 35%p poor 745 X 14.2 Shemel aeh Frazlnus uhdN 50/25 60/50 SS%fair moderate E X X 796 291 14.1 GR various X shiono h Finud suhMf OW25 W130 38%pow modes E akvatlons 797 18.6 Me 58 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 - q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢44 444p y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Faw c YRpFc - _ c 0 E� c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE m �a as qEa g ns UOo EE 2 1E8_- ¢cgnwn e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8 �Lti e.5 2$ -- 02 & of °z GR 748 21.7 21.7 Shamola,h F7axlnua uhdW SSI30 SW45 48%poor mW.® E X ontlit.n. 749 16.0 16.0 Shamola,h Fraxlnua uhdW mo 3WO 30%poor poor E X X 750 17.3 17.3 Shamola,h Fraxlnua uhdW ms 40140 0%poor poor E X 751 15.8 15.8 Shamola,h Fraxlnua uhdW SS125 2M5 25%very poor E E X Circling roots. poor 752 18.5 18.5 Shamola,h Fraxlnua uhdW SSI30 SW45 %%fair .o ra E E 8 X 753 19.8 19.8 Shamol ash Fraxlnua uhdW mo SW45 48%poor poor E E X 754 21.8 21.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 6S125 SS140 45%pow moderate E E X GR X 755 20.1 20.1 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW SS125 60150 55%fair .o nft E X 756 18.1 18.1 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 60/30 SW45 48%poor poor. motl E E GR 6 X 757 16.8 16.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 60/25 40140 40%poor poor 8 X 758 X 19.3 19.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW SSI30 2=5 25%very very poor E E X poor 759 18.2 18.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 60/30 35/35 35%poor poor E E X 760 20.8 20.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW Ows 40/30 35%poor poor E E X 59 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t :: E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i S - - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢44 444p y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c YRpFco� - c 0 n m c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE m �a as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c .A SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8,z �Lti e.a 2$ -- 02 of °z 161 15.4 15A Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 50/30 60/35 40%poor mW.® E E 8 X 762 17.1 17.1 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW Seas MS 35%pow GR X 763 X 23.5 23.5 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 65/35 i5115 15%very very poor E 9 X poor 766 X 13.6 13.6 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 50/20 10/10 10%very very poor E X poor 765 16.0 16.0 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 50/25 30/30 30%poor poor E E X 766 18.5 18.5 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 50/30 40/40 40%poor poor E E GR X 767 18.8 18.8 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 60/30 35/45 40%poor poor E E X 768 X 14.5 14.5 Sham,l ash Fraxlnua uhdW SSr30 2g/20 20%very verypoor E E X Roots damaged on poor grade. 769 23.8 23.8 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 65/35 55/35 40%pow moderae E E girdling 15 X root 770 16.3 16.3 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 55/25 30/30 30%poor poor E 10 X 771 X 16.1 16.1 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 55/30 60145 55%fair .o nft E X 772 33.6 33.6 oast red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 75/20 7M0 70%good moderate X 757. overall condition"gootl". 773 16.4 16.9 oast red -d Sequoias—Pervlmns 60/13 60/60 60%fair moderate X 50%overa11 condition'fair' 60 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Ee N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c aS SEe3 go uOt E'E 22me iae S 8,z �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of 774 18.5 18.5 oactr -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens 60/15 75160 67%fair moderate X 60%overall... dition'fail' 775 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens 3016 60150 55%fair moderate X 05%overall contlition poor" 776 34.2 34.2 oactr -d Swltrola semlwrvlmns 7S/25 7M0 70%good moderate X 75% overall ... dition'gootl". 777 X 7.8 7.8 oaetrWwootl Sptrola sampsMmns 25I6 SSI35 40%pow moderate W W X 20%overa11 contlltlon "very poor" 778 28.8 28.8 oactr -d Swltrola s—Prvlmns 7S/25 7M0 70%good moderate X 7576overal1 contlition"gootl". 778 16.8 16.8 oact rW -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens W13 65155 60%fair moderate X 7576overal1 contlition"gootl". 780 X 7.0 7.0 oaetrWwootl Segtrola sempervlmns 95I6 SSI35 45%pow moderate X 28%overall contlltlon "very poor" 781 21.6 21.6 oact rW -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens 6S115 60140 47%pow moderate 15 X 30%averall contlition"pool'. 782 32.1 32.1 oact rW -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens 3S/20 70f70 70%good moderate X 75%overa11 condNon'gootl". 783 26.0 26.0 oactr -d Swltrola s—Prvlmns 85/20 7M0 70%good moderate X 70% averall contlition"good. 7" 16.1 16.1 oactr -d Swltrola s—Prvlmns 75/15 70/65 70%gootl moderate X 50%overa11 contlition'fail' 785 21.8 21.8 oact red -d Segtrola s—Pervlrens 7S115 7M0 70%gootl moderate X 66%overa11 contlition'fail' 786 X 11.0 11.0 Deaf redwood Segtrola sempervlmns 50/8 SOY45 0% poor poor W X 25%overall contlltlon "very poor". 61 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 u & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ e ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c , c E a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_- ¢cgnwo e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a Wax SEe3 go uO�Eo°z 22me iae 8,z �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of TBT X 17.8 17.8 oaetrWwootl Segrrola sempervlmns 65I10 60Y35 40%poor poor W X 25%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". 788 20.1 20.1 oastr -d Segrrola s—Pervlmns 90/15 60160 60%fair poormotl X SO%overall contlition'fai!' 789 23.4 23.0 oastr -d Swlrrola s—Pervlmns awls 7S/'r0 73%good moderate E X 70%overa11 contlition"gootl. 790 19.5 19.5 oastr -d SwlrrolasemPSMmns awls 7W5 75%gootl moderate X 60% overall condition" fair' 791 17.1 15.1 32.2 oast redwood Swlrrola s—Pervlmns 70/20 70/60 65%fair 2 X 65% overall contlition"fair'. 792 28.2 28.2 oast red -d Segrrola s—Pervlmns 90/20 7M0 70%gootl moderate X 70% overall contlition"good. 793 21.9 21.8 oast red -d Segrrola s—Pervlmns 70/15 65/60 62%fair mod,rate X 56% overall condition'Yair". 784 X 22.0 22.0 oaetrWwootl Sprrola sampsMmns 50/15 60/40 47%pow moMrate 0to2 X Apiul stem aplXout 27%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". 795 24.0 24.0 oast rW -d Swlrrola s—PSMmns 8S/20 70170 70%good .o rate X 70% overall contlition"gootl. 796 t5.5 tS.5 oast red -d S"-I. s—Pervlmns 9wo 7WS 75%gootl good X 78% overall condition"gootl". 797 14.8 14.8 oast red -d S"-I. s—Pervlmns m SW40 47%pow .o rate X Supressetl in shade 31% overall contlition"poop. 788 12.6 12.6 Deaf redwood Segrrola sempervlmns 60/12 60/40 48%poor poor E 20 X 25%overall contlltlon "very poor". 799 22.6 22.6 oast red -d Swlrrola s—PSMmns 80/13 7M0 70%gootl mod,rate X 65% overall condition'Uir. 62 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 u & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c , c E a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c aS SEe3 go uOt E'E 22me iae S 8,z �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of goo 21.8 21.8 oactr -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns 6S/13 65165 65%fair motlara. X 65% overall contlition 801 17.3 17.1 oactr -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns SS/8 50/5O %%fair poor W W X 30% overall contlition"poor. 802 32.5 32.5 oactr -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns 90/25 50/5O 50%fair poor X Dlfticult Wassess 56%overall contlition "fair' ..ally. 803 15.0 15.0 oactr -d Swluola semfwrvlmns 60/8 30/30 30%poor poor X 30% overall contlition"poor'. 20%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". Thls tree was Illegally p—od In April 2020 or May 2020 by neighbor to west W 804 X 32.4 32.0 oact r -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns 90/18 60160 60%fair poor. motl X West p,H—.r Road, who apparently cut out a large umber of deatl limbs e#ending Into their property airspace (see photos In May 16, 20201nspection report). 805 13.0 13.0 oactr -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns 50/S 40140 40%poor poor X S-tmnkform 30% overall contlition"poor. 806 16.8 16.8 oact redwood Sequoias—Pervlrens 50/10 60155 56%fair modern. X 40%overa11 condition"poor" 807 X 12.1 12.1 oaetrWwootl Spuola sampsMmns 60/12 50/S5 S3X fair poor. motl X Tree removetl. October 2018. 808 X 24.5 oast retlwood Sequoia sempervlrens 90/20 40/30 33%poor poor SS X Tree removetl. October 2018. 809 X 11.0 11.0 oact redwood Sequoia sempwvimns SS1Is 60/S0 55%fair poor. motl X 37%overall candition)poor) 810 X 15.0 15.0 oact redwood Sequoia semfwrvlmns 7S/8 1wIO 10%vary very poor X g%)Deatl) poor 811 X 5.6 5.6 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempwvlmns 90/6 40Y30 95%poor poor X 25%overa11 contlltlon "very poor'. 812 X 23.2 23.2 oact re -d Sequoia semfwrvlmns 80/20 0/0 0%tleatl dead X 3-trunk form. 0%)Dead) 63 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 a & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 e- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e p. y WLCA Notes from uptlatetl Overall Contllllon Ratings &NOTES 201] x Ea N y ¢44 444p y a a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c c n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >tg� x x x i x x mit5 o m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_— ¢ngnwo e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a ¢'Sa4 SEe3 go uO�Eolo-°z IS 22me iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ of 813 X 13.3 13.3 cact r -d Sequoia s-Pervlrens 7WI6 10/10 10%very very poor X ]%overall contlition (very poor) poor 814 X 724-4 24.4 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 85/20 0/0 0%tlaatl tlaatl X Tree removetl. October 2018. 815 IN mi X 8.0 9.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 40/5 010 0%tlaatl tlaatl X Tree removetl. October 2018. 816 X 16.5 16.5 cacti -d Swluola s-Parvlmns 80/12 SW50 50%fair poor X 20% overall contlltlon"very poor". 81] X 11.8 11.8 oaetrWwootl Spools sempervlrens 95I6 50/90 4JX poor poor X 15%overa11 contlition'-, poor". 818 25.4 25.9 oactr -d Swluola s-PS - awls 60160 60%fair .o rate X 601.overall contlitio-il 819 12.4 12.9 oact rWwootl Spools sempsMrens -13 -40 4S%poor poor X 301.overall contlition"pool'. 820 26.3 26.1 cact retl -d Spuo/a sempervirens 90/25 SS/60 58%fair poor I motl X ]0%overall contlition "gootl. 12%overall contlition "very 821 X Deaf retlweotl Sequoia sempervlrens 30/3 0/0 pool'. TREE REMOVED AS OF O.-.ER 2018. 822 23.4 23.9 cact retl -d Sequoia sempervlrens 90/20 50/50 50%fair poor 18 X 55% overall contlition"fair' 823 17.9 17.8 cact retl -d Sequoias-Pervlmns 100115 Boos 40%poor poor 70 X 40% overall contlition"poor" 824 29.3 29.1 cact retl -d Sequoias-Pervlmns 100/20 40140 40%poor poorb motl 25 X 757 overall contlition"goetl". 825 X 7.8 7.8 cact retl -d Sequoias-Pervlmns 3W8 40/20 29%very poor X 18% ovxall contlltlon"very poor poor" 64 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 u & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 e- q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 Es N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b tin mow .Faw c c -1p'0 - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c .A SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8,z �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z 826 11.1 11.1 oactr -d Swluola s—Prvlmns M2 60150 SOX fair poor to motl E X Bow form Wnk. 40%overall... dition'pool' 827 X 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Swluola s—Prvlmns 35/10 0/0 0%d d d,ad X Bow form Wnk. 0%)D—d) 828 11.7 11.7 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlrens 50/8 30/30 30%poor poor 20 X 30% averall contlition"pool'. 829 27.2 27.2 oactr -d Swluola s—Prvlmns 9S/25 7WO 70%good moderate X 70% overall contlition"gootl. 830 15.2 15.2 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlrens W16 45aO 37%poor poorb motl 20 X 35% averall contlition"pool'. 831 11.0 11.0 oactr -d SeOuola s—Pervlrens 40/8 30/40 37%poor poor SW X 30% averall contlition"pool'. 832 13.0 13.0 oact re -d SeOuola s—Pervlrens 4S/11 60155 58%fair mod,rate X 30% averall contlition"pool'. 833 26.6 26.6 oact re -d SeOuola s—Pervlrens 7WO 70/65 68%fair mod,rate 30 X 78% averall contlition"gootl". au X 5.8 5.8 oactr -d SeOuola s—Pervlrens 3015 20/2g 20%very veryPoor SE X 6% overall c.nd'tl.n"very poor Pool'. 835 15.8 11.0 26.8 oact re -d Swluola s—Prvlmna 85/18 60150 55%fair poorb motl 2 X 45% overall contlition"pool'. VX8.8 oas[retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 30/12 25/25 35�orry vary poor 3 Tree removetl. October 2016. 837 15.2 15.2 oact re -d Swluola s—Prvlmna 45/10 SW40 4SX poor poor to motl W NW X 30% averall contlition"pool'. 838 23.8 23.8 oact re -d Swluola sampavlmn. 85/20 45145 4S%poor poor X 60%overall... dition'fail' 65 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 - q+ v g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ev N y ¢ 4444y = a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a' ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_- ¢cgnwo e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c .A SEe3 go uOt E'E 22me iae S 8a �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of 839 26.1 26.1 oactr -d SeOuola s-Pervlrens 80/25 60160 60%fair moderate X 70% overall contlition"gootl. 890 X 10.8 8.0 18.8 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/8 9SI35 95%poor poor 20 X 20%overa11 contlltlon "very poor". Sweep form tmnk. 841 21.2 21.2 oactr -d Swluola s-Prvlren 80/13 60150 53%fair poormotl X Apical meri,tem 35% overall contlition"poor. appears gone. 842 27.2 8.5 35.7 oactr -d Swluola sampervlrens 80/15 7M0 70%9oad moderate X 75% overall condition'g,ed". 843 X 10.8 10.8 oaet r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 5319 10/10 10%very veryPoor is X Tree has been removetl. poor October 2018. 899 16.4 16.9 oactr -d Sequoia semlwrvlrens 80/20 60/90 50%fair poorb motl X 757 overall contlition"gootl". 845 28.2 28.2 oact re -d Swluola s-Prvlrena 80/25 7M0 70%good moderate X 30% overall contlition"pool'. 896 X 19.7 19.7 Deaf redwood Sequoia sempervlrens 45I6 50/95 48X poor poor b motl X 25%overall contlltlon "very poor". 847 11.5 9.5 21.0 oactr -d Swluola s-Pa M.. 9S/10 swso 50%feir poorb motl X 35% overall contlition"poor. 848 23.9 23.8 oact re -d Sequoia semlwrvlrens 80/20 swso 50%fair poorb motl X 35% overall cantlition"poor. 849 20.5 20.5 oact re -d Swluola s-Pa M.. 80/18 60150 55%fair poorb motl X 55%overa11 conditi,n"fail' 850 18.3 18.1 oact re -d Swluola s-Pa M.. 80115 55150 59%fair poorb motl E X 55%overa11 conditi,n"fail' 851 24.5 24.5 oact re -d Swluola s-Pa M.. 85/25 65150 60%fair mod,ra X Sweepfor-nk. 30%everallcondition"pool'. 66 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o ' WLCA Noted from Upd-d Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o S c + Scienti5c Name U$ e o ._ f i c on m ca v m .. g ac m c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy n i u d O1 S W w W B g d on E u E S i 8 ,c ._ s q —`a aE 2 2 2 2 gad �o�ES� = in aS 2 2 20% overall condNbn "very 1 X Poor 18.0 oaetrWwootl Spools samparvinns 58/18 60/50 50%fair Poor to motl 852 X 12.5 6.8 1S%overall n,ndition'Yery 15 2 X Poor' 18.6 coast rW d Spools sampaMrans 35/18 15/15 Ro�ry very Poor 853 X 11.8 7.8 15%overall oondlSon'Yery 90 X Poor, 18.5 oaet rW d Spools sampeMmns 10/18 40/35 38%pow poor BS4 X 18.5 25%overall condition "vary X Poor'' 15.1 oast rW d SKw1a samwwmns 10/18 55/50 53%fair poor to motl 855 X 15.1 25%ovem11coodltlon'1rery X Poor. 10.1 oast rW d Spuola sampervbens 45M 40/35 40%poor poor 886 X 10.1 X 50%overall condition Yair' 21.1 oactr d Sequoias—io-nnens 8S/25 55/50 50%fair poor to motl SST 21.1 X 55%o—n. condition Ime, 19.5 oactr d Spools sampeMrens 85/20 60/50 55%fair motlwrte ass 185 X Supresaetl in ehetle 4S%overall contlition "poor. 9.8 oastrMwootl Spools sampaWrens 50/10 40/35 98X pow poor 859 9.8 X 55%overa11 wndNoa Yair' 22.2 oast retlwood Sequoias—P.M—s 85/20 60160 60%fair motlereb 860 22.2 X 65%overall condition "fair. 25.0 oast retlwood Spool, s—P.Mmns 90/30 60/60 60%fair motlorefe 861 25.0 X TO% overall condition"gootl. 20.6 oast re d Sequoia sempeMrens 80P25 60180 60%fair moMrate 862 20.6 X 78 overall condition 'good". 31.5 oaetr ood Sarloola samP-W—s 90/20 78/75 78%gootl Sow 863 31.5 X 50%overall contlition "fair' ast redwootl Sequoia semperv0ens 95I15 T01fi5 fib%fair motlarate 864 238 238 67 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o .m WLCA Noted from Updatetl Overall condition S NOTES 2017 a E y c o r3 c + 6cienti6c Name U$ e n ._ f = m c m O .. g 'c c n Spring 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o °sygF E v E E r V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy d m a W c u c — w W c g E u ;, Y m 8y5a q —`e q -R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 aL 02 "n c$ - cz of oa aE §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 gad �OOe-E _ = aS 2 ~ 2 ~ X S4mnk form. Abnormal trunk 50%overall contlition "Fair' oaetrWwootl Sequoia semperv/rens MIS 60/40 47%poor mo4ina W roes section thM is cankeretl. 865 24.0 24.0 3 X q5%overall contlition"poop. 44.3 coastr ood Sequoia samparvlrerls 95/28 60/50 55%fair motivate W 866 31.0 13.3 26%ovarsll conMUon'Yery X Supresaed in shad. Ponr' 6.g oaet rod d Sequole sempommns 30/6 65/45 55%fair mo4ina 867 X 6.5 X 60%overa11 -nation Yair' 16.1 oaet rW d Sequoia--wwmns 50/18 70IT0 70%good mo4lin t 868 16.3 X 40"h Pverag contlition "poor" 16.0 oast rW d Sequole sempeMrens 15/15 70/60 68%fair ni Mnft 86y 160 X 70% overall contlition"good. 27.6 oastr ood Sequole semperv/rens 85/20 TWO 75%good good 8T0 27.6 X 70%_.it-rdition"good. 25.8 oaetr ood Sequoia sempervlrens 95/25 7Sf]5 75%good good 871 25.8 98.1 oaetr ood Sequoias—P.M—s 50/20 65/55 60%fair motlmate E 2 872 23.7 15.6 11.8 ode [real Sequola sempervlrens 65/12 25125 35%oery poor 873 X 13.8 10.5 ...[real Sequola sempommns 30/9 35/30 30%poor poor 874 105 14.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervirans 4SNp 40140 40%poor Poor 875 14.1 (START OF 91.0 coaetrWwootl Spuola sampeMrens MIS 70%good mods 876 AIL Lot "WIN" 'ALTERNATE LOT 'ALTERNATE 31.0 WEST. WEST. X ast and ood Sequoia sempervlrens 65/18 65160 63%bir poor to motl 877 AR Lot 29T 23T "West" 68 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c $ o n _ 9 - - q+ n v `o ' m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aPeciea) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0o� - c , n c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go 22me iae 8,z �Lti e.a 2$ -- 02 of 878 All. L. "West" 19.2 19.2 oact r -d SeOuola s—Pavlrens 7S/15 65160 63%fair poor b motl X 878 AIL Lot 22.8 22.8 oact r -d SeOuola s— wrvlmns 7S/18 65/65 6S%fair .o rate X West" 880 Alt. LW 20.5 20.5 oact r -d Swluola s— wrvImns 7S/18 65/55 60%fair .o rate X "West" 88t AIL Lot 20.8 11.9 32.7 oactr -d Swluola s—P-1— 75/18 60150 %%fair .o rate 3 X West" 882 AIL Lot 33.3 33.1 oact rW -d Swluola s— wrvImns 6S/20 60/60 60%fair .o rate X West" 883 AIL Lot 11.4 11.9 oact rW -d SeOuola s— wrvImns 3W 3WS 33%poor poor X West" 884 AIL L,,[ 315 31.5 oact rW -d SeOuola s—wrvImns 8W18 60/60 60%fair poorb motl W X West" 885 AIL L,,[ 32.1 32.1 oact rW -d SeOuola s— wrvImns 8S/25 7WS 75%eood moderate X West" 886 AIL Lot 9.8 9.8 oact rW -d SeOuola s— wrvImns 4516 30/30 30%poor poor X West" 887 AIL L,,[ 25.5 25.5 oact rW -d SeOuola s— wrvImns 7S/18 6S/65 65%fair poor b motl X West" 888 AIL L,,[ 29.0 29.0 oact red -d Swluola s—P-1— 8=5 60155 58%fair poorb motl X West" 888 Alt. Lot "West" T 15.3 15.l oact red -d SeOuola s— wrvImns qg/g 2gM5 25%very poor X poor 890 Alt. L. X 16.9 16.8 oact red -d SeOuola s— wrvImns SW12 0/0 0%deatl X "West" 69 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c $ _ 9 - - q+ 1 v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444y = a n c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e ¢ m u b tin mow .Few c c YRpFc - _ c ° o� n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dEE8_- >3E� x x x i x x mi0 n m �a as qEEa g ns UOo O Ei�o 2 ¢141w° e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go 5 t�'E 22me iae 8a �Lti 1Q 2$ of z ag1 Alt. Lot X 28.5 29.5 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlrens 65/25 0/0 0%d d X '01-c 882 AIL Lot X 8.6 8.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 3016 0/0 0%d d X "West" 883 AIL Lot 26.4 26.0 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns 75/20 7M0 70%good modaraw X West" SONyspherla fungal Imeation n°wa a: Se4 Alt. Lot 18.3 18.1 oactr -d Swluola s—PwvImns 65112 40ao 35%pow modaraw X alongtrunk.Monlltor progression over time. 885 AIL Lot 28.4 28.4 Italian awns pine P)nus plow 45ao 85175 78%good flood E E West" 886 AIL Lot 26.2 26.2 Ialian awns pine P)nus plow 45/25 awo 50%fair flood E E 18 West" 887 AIL Lot 9.6 9.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 25112 65/60 64%fair .o raw X West" 888 AIL Lot 17.8 17.8 oactr -d Swluola s—P—Imna 45/15 60/60 60%fair poor w motl X West" 888 AIL Lot "West" 11.4 11.4 oact rW -d Swluola s—P—Imna 45115 60140 50%fair modsraw X Svreep-form trunk. 800 AIL Lot 19.7 19.7 oact rW -d Sequoias—PwvImns 6Wi6 35/35 35%poor poor X West" 801 AIL Lot 4.1 4.1 oact rW -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 30/6 35/35 35%poor .o raw X West" 802 AIL Lot 9.5 9.5 oactr -d Swluola s—P—Imna 35/12 65/45 50%fair modsraw X Mainawm aplitout. West" 803 AIL Lot 14.7 14.7 oaet redwood Sequoias—P-1— 45/15 65/65 65%fair modsraw X West" 70 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o WLCA Noted from updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c S c + Scientific Name U$ e n ._ f = m c m m n' v _ ;.E Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v SHEo E is r? V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' yy n i u d m a W w W B d on E S i 4 8 ,c ._ 8y5a q —`n q - R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 a 02 "n - 3 oa aE §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 gad �o�ES� _ as = aS 2 2 12.8 ...tradwootl Sequoia semperv/rens 65115 70f70 70%good ono inr X 904 Alt Lot "West" 129 X 14.T coast rW d Spools samparvlrans SS/20 6sno 68%hir moderate 905 Al, Lot "West" 11, X 19.1 ...t rW d spool. sampervlmns 10/20 70f70 70%good ono inr 906 Alt. Lot "West" 19.3 X 16.0 oast redwood Spuola s—P.Wmns 60/12 60/45 50%hir poor E 807 Alt. Lot "West" 160 X 6.4 oast rWwood sagool. s—Pww ens 25/10 70/40 50%hir modamta E goo Alt Lot "WasC 64 X 27.0 oastr ood Saquole samparvbens 75/20 Wool 50%hir poor W19 Alt. Lot "WasC 270 X 22.8 ...t redwood spool. samp-m—s 75/18 65/65 65%hir poor to motl 910 Alt. Lot "West" 22.9 20.9.... tr ood spool. sampervlrees 75/20 70f70 70%good ni Mnte X 911 Alt. Lot "N.V 20.4 X S-form flunk. 25.5.... tr ood spool. sampeMrens 75/18 60150 55%Nor poor W motl 912 Alt Lot "West" 255 X 20.2 ...t redwood Spuola sa P.Wmn. 7118 70/70 70%good moderate 913 Alt. Lot "West" 202 X 23.5.... tr ood spool. sampwvlrens 701,18 s0160 54%hir Poor 914 Alt. Lot "Wort" 23.5 X 14.8.... tr ood Sequoia samparvbens 75/16 55/55 55%hir poor 915 Alt Lot "West" 108 X radwootl Spuola senonnvfens SSN6 TWO 70%good motlarate 916 AN, Lot 16.2 10.0 26.2 coast "West" 71 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c $ o n _ 9 - - q+ o. v `o ' i' g m e - E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings & NOTES 1111 E° N y ¢ 4444y = a c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aPeciea) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c , 8 F n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go 22me iae t3 ,z �Lti e.a 2$ of 817 AIL Lot 14.5 14.5 oact r -d Swluola s—PeMmns 45/10 40140 40%poor poor X '01-c 818 AIL Lot 28.8 28.8 oaci r -d Swluola s—P—Imns 80/15 40140 40%poor poor X West" 919 Alt. Lot X 17.2 17.2 oaci r -d Swluola s—PwvImns SW9 010 0%d d X "West" 820 AIL Lot 24.4 24.9 oacir -d Swluola s—P—Imna 8W12 7W70 70%hood moderate N X West" 82t AIL Lot West" 21.5 21.5 Imlian,w-pine P)nus plow 4S/20 85145 55%fair flood E E 822 AIL Lot West" 17.8 17.8 IWlian,bne pine P)nus plow 4S/18 7WS 40%pow flood E E 923 Alt. Lot X 12.2 9.1 21.1 oact rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns SW9 010 0%d d X "West" 824 AIL L. 12.1 12.1 oaci rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns 7W10 60150 55%fair mod,rate N X West" 825 AIL Lo[ 20.8 20.8 oaci rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns 65114 65/65 65%fair mod,rate X West" 826 AIL Lo[ 7.5 7.5 oaci rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns 3516 60140 50%fair mod,rate S X West" 827 AIL Lo[ „West" 11.2 11.2 oaci rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns 4SI8 SW40 47% poor poorb motl 3 X 828 AIL Lo[ 18.7 18.7 oaci rW -d SeOuola s—PwvImns 6W10 70/65 68%fair moderate S X West" 828 Alt' L. "West" 25.4 25.9 oaci red -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 75/20 7W70 70%hood .o rate X 72 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 e o WLCA Noted from Updated Overall condition & NOTES 2017 a E y c o r5 c + Scientific Name U$ e n ._ f = m c m m n' v _ ;.E Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v SHE E is r V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B d on E S i 4 8 ,c ._ 8yas q —`a q -R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 aL 02 "n -�$ oa aE §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 5a gad �o�ES� _ = aS 2 2 19.8.... t redwootl Sequoia sempervirens 75118 70f70 70%good mWinete E X 930 AIL Lot "West" 19.9 X 142 coast redwood Spools samparvlrans 65/18 60/60 11% fair poor. m,d E 931 Alt. Lot "West" 152 X 14.2 oast rede,00d segwla sempommn SS/8 5/5 5%vary poor very poor 932 Alt. Lot "West" X 14.2 X 815 oast redenod sarluola sempervlmns 30/5 0/0 0%dead 833 Alt Lot "West" X 85 Monterey pine Plnus mdIele 5=5 60/45 SOX fair motlerate SW sW X 9M Alt. Lot 23.5 23.5 "WasC X 13.2 oast redo ood Segoola sempervlmns 4W 5/5 5%vary poor very poor E 834 AIL Lot X i1.2 gyast" X 29.2 ...t rederuad spools sempendoens 70/20 70f70 70%good mWinate 936 Alt. Lot "West" 29.2 6.0 ...t rederuad spools sempendoens 30/5 0/0 0%deed X 937 Alt Lot X 60 94es1" iS.l o..t rederuad spool. setup-m—s 60/10 2.12. 20%-po.- very poor X 838 Alt. Lot X 15.3 gyest" X 4.3 Shamel ash Fr.Xlnus uh" 25M 8S/85 85%gow g.w 938 Alt Lot "WesC y3 X 20.1 oast rede-d spool. s—PeMre-s 65N2 40150 45X poor Pow 940 Alt. Lot "WasC 20.1 X 20.0 ...t redwood spool. sempendoens 75/15 70f70 70%good modmate 941 Alt. Lot "West" 20.0 X 5.0 coast redwootl Spuola semperv0ens 65113 010 0%deed 892 AN. Lot "West" X 50 73 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i S - - q+ o. v `o ' m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444 y a n c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aP-m.) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c ° n c E o u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mi0 o m �a as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go 22me iae r3a �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of 843 All. L. "West" 22.6 22.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlmns 6S/15 60150 55%fair poor b motl X 844 Alt'L°r 17.1 17.1 oactr -d Sequoias—Pwvlmns 60/13 TWO 70%good moderate X West" 845 Alt. Lot "West" 18.4 18.0 oactr -d Sequoias—PwvImns 6S/15 70/65 68%fair .o raw X Sweep -form trunk. 846 AIL Lot 17.0 17.0 oactr -d Swluola s—wrvImns 6S/12 30/30 30%poor poor X West" 847 AIL Lot 7.8 7.8 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns 3015 SWO 30%poor poor X West" 848 AIL Lot "West" 23.0 23.0 Monbrey pine PI.-xdk,. 1S/2 0/0 0 X )STTUMP)UMP) 848 Alt. Lot X 12.2 12.2 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns SWS 0/0 0%d d X "West" 850 AIL L,,[ 16.6 16.6 oactr -d Sequoias—PwvImns 6W18 7WS 75%good moderate X West" 851 AIL L,,[ West" 24.5 24.5 IWlien awns pine Plnus Plnw 1S/2 0/0 0%deatl X 852 AIL L,,[ 18.5 18.5 IWlien awns pine Plnus Plrrw 30/20 GWO 40%pow good E E Severe lean. West" 853 AIL L,,[ 22.7 22.7 oactr -d Swluola s—P-1— SW15 SW45 47%poor poor w motl X West" 9, Alt' L. "West" X 8.7 8.7 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 2515 S/5 5%vary poor very poor X 855 Alt. Lot „West" 7 17.7 17.] t red oaed Sequoia semp—l-,s 40/18 2SMS 25%very very poor X poor 74 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 .m WLCA Noted from updated Overan condition & NOTES 2017 o c Spring n 2015 Survey Ratings ONWARD o E v SHE E is r V µ°' ' u Common Name (Genus, species) g e' r6 i u d m a W w W B 3 w E S i 4 8 ,c ._ 8yas q —`a q -R sl2it= eggg ;c'8 a 02 "n -�$ oa aE §¢'rco°wn 2 2 2 2 5a gad �o�ES� _ = aS 2 2 25.8 oactrWwootl Spools sampervinns 65/20 50/50 SOX fair paorb motl X 956 AIL Lot "West" 25.9 2 X 27.6 coast rW d Spools sampenlrans 55/13 90Yd0 90%pow poor 957 Alt. Lot "West" 14.0 13.3 X Alt. Lot 7 6.4 6.,t oaet rWwood Spuola sampervlmns 40/4 5/5 5%vary Poor very poor 958 "West" X 21.9 oact r ood SaOuola sampwalmns 65/18 45/45 45%pow poor SM Alt Lot "West" 214 5.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 25/10 85/60 65%fair good 8 8 X 960 Alt. Lot "WasC 5.5 X 21.5 oastr ood S"-la sampervlmns 60/18 30/30 30%pow Win Alt Lot "West" 215 X 14.3 Deaf ratlwootl Spools sampwWrens 9S/14 90Yd0 90X pow 962 Alt. Lot "West" 14.3 DalNornla pepper Sohlnus maim 1717 7W5 75%good gootl 963 AIL Lot q.g 0.0 ree IN.V X 17.8 oast n ood Spools sempwalmns 40/6 0/0 0%deatl 864 Alt. Lot X 17 g gyest" X 16.5 oact rW d Spools sempwalmns 55/15 30/30 30%pow 965 Alt. Lot "WesC 16.5 18.8 oaet redwood Spool-sampervinns W5 25125 35 pporry Pow X 866 AIL Lot "WasC 7 18.8 X 10.5 Shamel ash Frazlnus ufal 35/14 Will 75% good gootl 967 Alt. Lot "West" 6.8 3.7 X 15.1 asi redwootl Spuola so.pervkens 3514 0/0 0%tleatl 968 AN. Lot "West" 7 15.1 75 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t m & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9 m- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444 y a m c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c , n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mi0 m m �a as ae qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢cgnw° e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma Wax SEe3 go uO�Eo 22m x'a� t3 ,z �Lti e.a 2$ of A 868 All. Lot 5.6 5.6 Shamol a,h 17-1 ua OM 35/12 7WS 75%good good X West" 870 AIL Lot "West" 7 8.2 8.2 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pavlmns we S/5 5%vary poor very poor X 871 Alt. Lot „West" 7 7.7 7.] oact r -d Sequoia s—Pwvlmns MIS 2g/2g 20%very very poor X poor 872 AIL Lot West" 22.2 22.2 oact r -d Swluola s—Pwvlmns 6S/20 65165 65%fair .o ra X 873 Alt. Lot „West" 18.5 18.5 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 6S/20 40140 40%poor poor X Aplcal meds.m has been split out. 874 AIL Lot "West" 18.4 18.0 oast retlwood Sequoia sempervlrens 6=0 75/75 75%good moderate X 875 AIL Lot 23.2 23.2 oactr -d Sequoia sempervlrens awls 65165 65%fair .o ra N X "West" 876 AIL Lot 10.6 10.6 oast redwood Sequoia sempervlrens W12 70165 68%fair moderate X West" 877 AIL Lot "West" 10.3 10.1 oast retlwootl Sequoias—PwvImns W12 6S/65 65%fair .o ra X 878 AIL Lot "West" 28.6 28.6 oast mtlwood Sequoia sempervlrens 70/1s 7M0 70%gootl moderate X 878 AIL L. "West" 23.8 23.8 oact r -d Sequoia s— wrvImns 80/18 60/60 60%fair poor. motl X 880 AIL Lot "West" 20.5 20.5 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens MIS 60/60 60%fair poor. motl X 881 AIL Lot "West" 20.8 20.8 oact redwood Sequo1as—P-1mns awls 75/75 75%good .o ra X 76 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 Ea E2.° 8 �o E crY ° E F V Common Name Sciar�Nfic Name (Genus, aPeciea) i z g $ O 6 & 8 C Uu� i a8 2 2 2 i 2 x 2 E d c m �' 4 `e3 v mt n u d �a r c gg = c ug ¢°rc�a—n 2 a''c$ Z'E OOGE �O ofg i8e SE d 982 Alt. Lot "West" 20.0 20.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 70/15 45/40 43% pow poor 983 Alt. Lot "West" 162 162 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 80/15 60/60 984 At. Lot "WasC 23.0 23.0 oastr -d Spuola samP—i— 70/18 65/65 985 Alt. Lot "WasC 28.8 28.8 oast retlwootl Spuola sampsrvlmns 70/18 45145 986 Alt. Lot "West" 22.0 16.7 38.7 oast retlwootl Spools samp—i—S 70/18 45/45 Alt. Lot 987 "West" 19.2 19.2 oast retlwootl Spools sampsrvinns 55/12 60/50 888 Alt. Lot "West" 26.7 Z6.7 oastm -d Smiuolo sampwvlmns 70/15 45/45 Alt. Lot 989 "West" 10.2 10.2 oastm -d Smiuolo sampwvlmns 35/12 60/50 Alt. Lot 880 9WSC 27.3 27.3 oast retlwootl Spuob sampervlrens 80/16 60/60 991 Alt. Lot "West" 25.0 23.0 oast retlwootl Smiuole sampwvlmns 80/17 45145 882 Alt. Lot "West" 29.5 29,5 =oa.t mdwootl saquol•samperWrans 6011e asrre 883 Alt. Lot "West" 20.7 20.7 oaetrWwptl Spuola sampervlrens 75/12 90Y30 9, Alt. Lot "West" 33.3 33.3 oast retlwootl Saquola sampan-Irens 6p118 gg./5g 60%fa'v poor to motl 6SX fair 90%pow moMra. NW 4S%pow poor 4SX pow poor 55%fair poor. motl 4S%pom poor 55%fair motlara. 60%fair poor. motl 4S%pow poor 46%pow poor. mod poor SDX hit poor. mod � c — 2c c c gg ' E m.� w a a c_ G 5 WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition n rc y _ s _ mm r° SPdng 2515 Survey Ratings & NOTES 2017 ONWARD X x X Sweep -form trunk. X X x x X x x x x x 77 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c $ o n _ 9 - - q+ n v `o ' i' g m e - p. y WLCA Notes from uptlIOod Overall CondlIlon Ratings & NOTES 1111 Ea N y ¢ 4444y = a O c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aPOciea) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0o� - c O 8 F n m c E o a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mit5 O m �a as qEEa g UOo O 2 E8_- ¢Ognw° e� 0.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo°z IS 22me iae t3 ez �Lti e.a 2$ -- 02 of 885 AIL Lot "Weal" 16.1 16.1 oact r -d Suoia sempervlrens eq 6W12 35/35 35% Poor poor X Stunk I. 886 AILot L OI 16.8 16.8 oact r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 6S/i6 SW55 5S%fair poor. motl X W. 887 Alt. L°t 17.8 17.8 oact r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 6S114 60160 60%fair mOd,rOt, 45 X "West" 888 AIL Lot 21.1 21.1 oactr -d Swluola sampervlrens 6S/15 65165 65%fair mOd,rOt, X Stunk form. West" 888 AIL Lot 23.3 23.1 oact rW -d Swluola sampervlrens 6S/18 60/60 60%fair poor. motl X West" 1WO Alt. L°t "West" 12.0 12.0 oactr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 6W16 65165 65%fair OOOderOtO X 1W1 Alt. Lot "West" 127 12.7 oactr -d Sequoia sempervlrens SW13 OWN 54%fair poor. motl X 10e2 AIL Lot 16.8 16.8 oact redwood Sequoia sempervlrens 60/15 45/50 48%poor poor X WOst" 10e3 Alt. Lot "West" 12.4 12.0 11.5 35.8 oact redwood Sequoia sempervlrens 6S/15 65160 6s%fair OOWOra. X 10e4 AIL Lot 20.7 20.7 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 70V16 40140 40%poor poor 1S X West" 1W5 Alt'Lot 13.0 13.0 oactr -d Sequoia sampervlrens 35/14 50/45 0%poor mW.rOt, X West" 1W6 Alt'Lot "West" 26.7 26.7 oast retlwood Sequoia sempervirens 7WIS 30/30 30%poor poor X 1W7 AIL Lot West" 16.8 16.8 °astredwood Sequoia sempervlrens 6S/18 30/30 30%WOr poor X 1 Wa Alt. Lot "West" 18.8 18.8 oact r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 70/18 60/60 60%fair poor. motl X 1WO Alt. Lot "West" 1 16.6 16.6 oast retlwo°d Sequoia sempervlrens MIS iW10 10%very very poor X Aploal meds.m is poor gone. 78 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name c $ o n _ - n `o ' m e E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444y = a n c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c O n c E ft u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mi0 n m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢12nw° eM Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo IS 22me iae t3 ez �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z 1010 All. Lot „West" 7 17.7 17.) t redwood oacd Sequo/a sempervirens 6S115 15/15 15%vary very poor X poor Chain around trunk Is a Mling Me tree, 1011 Alt' Lot "West" 7 ..f 118 118 Dea rWwootl Sequo/a sempervirens 6 S115 25/25 25%very p Or very Poor X and must be Quad ASAP In ortlar to avoid the ee beln 1012 Alt. Lot "West" 21.7 21.7 oact r -d Sequo/a sempervirens MIS 60/60 60%fair poor. motl X 1019 Alt' Lot 26.0 26.0 Deaf rWwootl Sequo/a sempervirens 7S/18 90Y30 30% poor poor X West" 1014 Alt. Lot „West" 7 15.1 is.1 oactr -d Sequoia sempervirens 7W13 20/20 20%very very poor X poor 1015 Alt. Lot „West" 7 18.4 18.0 oact r -d Sxluola sempervirens 65/14 2S/25 25%very very poor X poor Alt. Lot Apical meriatem 1016 „West" 16.6 16.6 oactr -d Sxluola sampervlrens 70/16 40as 38%poor poor X tle8ected oRfrom vedical. 1017 Alt. Lot „West" 7 13.1 13.1 oact r -d Sequoia sempervlrens W13 30/20 25%very very poor X poor 1019 Alt' Lot "West" 16.9 16.8 oact r -d Sxluola sampervlrens W16 3q/2g 25%vary poor X poor 1019 Alt. L°t West" 26.5 26.5 oast rWwood Sequoia sempe mns 75/18 65f75 70%good mW.SIS X IWO Alt. Lot "West" 7 6.8 6.8 oact r -d Sxluola s-PS vlmns 2014 30/20 25%wry poor X poor 1021 Alt' Lot 9.7 9.7 oact r -d Sxluola s-PS vlmns 35/12 75/55 65%fair moderate X West" 1022 Alt. Lot 21.0 21.0 oact r -d Sequoia s-Wn lmns W13 35140 38%poor poor X West" 1029 AIL Lot "West" 24.9 24.8 oact r -d Sxluola s-PS vlmns 7S/20 SW65 60%fair poor W motl X 1024 Alt'Lot 17.7 17.7 oactr -d Sxluola s-IOSMI-S 6W14 60165 6S%fair moderate X West" 1025 Alt' Lot 8.8 8.8 oast retlwo°d Sequoia sempervlrens 35/10 60145 0%fair moderate X West" 1026 Alt'Lot 16.5 16.5 oast retlwo°d Sequoia sempervlrens 4W10 60160 60%fair moderate X West" 79 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c S o n _ o= m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ $° u (Genoa, aP_iea) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFc - c 0 c E ft u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_- ¢2A.w° e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c .A SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae t3 ,z �Lti as 2$ of °z 1027 All. Lot 20.6 20.6 oact redwood Sequoia sempervirens 6S/14 70f7O 70%good motl®ate X West" IWO Alt. Lot "West" 18.8 18.8 oactr ood Sequo/a sempervirens 6W14 SW45 SOX fair poor to motl X IWO Alt. Lot "West" 7 16.4 16.0 oactr ood Sequoia s_POnlrens 6W10 20/20 20%very very poor X Apical stem i, tleatl. poor 1030 Alt' Lot 7 17.5 17.5 oact r ood Sequoia s_POn lrens 6S/10 S/5 5%vary poor very poor X West" I., Alt' Lot "West" 7 21.0 21.0 oact r ood Sequoia sempervirens 6S/10 5/5 5%vary poor very poor X 1032 Alt. Lot „West" 29.7 29.) oact r ood S"_h, sempervirens 70/18 55/40 47% poor poor to motl 40 X 1033 Alt. Lot 18.5 18.5 oact r ood Sxluola s_POn ho.. W13 65/65 65%fair moderate X West" 1034 Alt. Lot "West" 24.8 24.8 oactr ood Sxluola sampervlrens 70/15 7WO 70%good moderate X 1036 AIL Lot 17.0 17.0 oaetrWwootl Spools sampervlrens 7S114 70Y35 SOX fair moderate 8 X West" IWO Alt. Lot West" 30,1 30A oast rW d Sequoias Prvlrens 85/25 7W5 75%good good X IW7 Alt. Lot 23.3 23.3 oactr ood Spuola s_Pervlm.S BW15 70160 66%fair moderate X "West" 1038 Alt' Lot "West" 22.0 22.0 oact r ood Spuola s_Pervlmn 70/15 60150 55%fair poor to motl X Ml m missing (blo(blo wn out). 103e Alt. Lot 25.8 25.8 oactr ood Spuola s_Pervlm.S 30/20 7WO 70%good moderate X West" 10W Alt. Lot "West" 454 45.0 oactr ood Spuola s_Pervlm.S 80/20 70/67 70%good moderate S X 1pN AIL Lot 29.1 29.1 oactr ood Spools sempervirens BW15 7WO 70%good moderate X West" 10u AIL Lot 175 17.5 oast retlwo,E Sequoia sempervlrens 8W10 70/60 65%fair moderate X West" 10a9 AIL Lot 36.5 36.5 oast retlwo,E Sequoia sempervlrens 85/18 7WO 73%good good X West" 80 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t u & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name c $ o n _ - n `o ' m e P. y WLCA Notes from uptlUod Overall Condlllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 x Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0 - c s n c E ft u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x mit5 n m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢cgnwe e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma $'c .A SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae t3 ez �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z 10u All. Lot „West" ? 11.5 11.5 oasd t redwood Sequo/a sempervirens 60fr 20/20 20%wry very poor X poor 10a5 AIL Lot West" 3l7 33.7 oast r -d Sequo/a sempervirens 80/13 70160 63%fair motlerab E X 10W Alt. Lot 278 27.8 oastr -d Sequoia sampervlrens 80112 6siso 57%fair motlerab E 70 X "West" 1067 Alt. Lot 21.0 21.0 oast r -d Sequoia sampervlrens 80/12 70160 68%fair modem. E X "West" 10b AIL Lot 17.2 172 oast r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 60/12 70160 67%fair mw f E X West" IM Alt. Lot "West" 4J8 4J.8 oastr -d Swluola sempervirens 80/18 7M0 70%good good E X 1050 AIL Lot "West" 26.8 26.8 oastr -d Swluola sampervlrens 8W12 70/60 68%fair good W X 1051 AIL Lot "West" 27.4 27.0 oastr -d Swluola sampervlrens 80112 70160 70%good good W X 1052 AIL Lot " 23.6 23.6 oast r -d Swluola sampervlrens 80/12 70160 68%fair good W X West" AIL Lot Located on steep 105a „West" 23.2 23.2 oast rWwood Sequoia semParvlrens 80/12 70/50 69%fair good 3 X slope. Possible stability issues? AIL Lot Located an steep 10& „West" 24.6 24.6 oastr -d Swluola s-Pervlrens 80110 70150 65%fair good 3 X slope. Possible stability issues? AIL Lot Located on steep 1055 „West" 27.8 27.8 oastr -d Swluola s-Pervlrens 80/13 70/50 67%fair good 3 X slope. Possible stability issues? 1056 AIL Lot "West" 25.9 25.8 oast r -d Swluola s-Pervlrens 80/12 SW60 57%fair poor. motl X 1057 AIL Lot 27.0 27.0 oast r -d Sw2uola sempervlmns 75/15 70f70 70%good good X West" 1058 Alt. Lot "West" 28.7 28.7 oast r -d Swluola s-IOOMI-S 75/18 7M0 70%good good X Sbunk w C-feet elevation. 1059 Alt. Lot 28.1 22.6 51.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens BW18 70/60 68%fair moderate [o 2 X "West" g-d 1p60 Alt. Lot „West" X ].6 ].6 wNXa altler Al- rhomOHolla i81T 9W10 20%very poor X lower X poor tmnk 81 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o l Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= m e E y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E° N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-iea) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFc - c , c E fr u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go 22me iae t3 ,? �Lti as 2$ of All. Lot S-tmnk form 1p61 „West" 18.6 18.6 oact redwood Sequo/a semperv/rens 60/12 70/55 63%fair good W X belwe,n ore antl 1STeet. 1062 AIL Lot 8.8 8.8 oact r -d Sequo/a semperv/rens 4S18 70165 70%gootl good S X West" .63 Alt. Lot 18.0 18.0 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6W12 70/65 68%fair moderate [o X West" gwtl 10W Alt. Lot West" 122 12.2 Shamel a,h 17-1 ua uhM 3S/30 50/50 %%fair poor. motl W X 1p65 AIL Lot West" 12.0 12.0 Shamel a,h 17-1 ua uhd.1 35/25 80160 67%fair good SW SW X Requires endwelght reductlon pruning. 1066 Alt. Lot "West" 32.2 32.2 I.lian,w-pin, pi.-pinpl..30140 75145 %%fair good S y No. trunk meud. narrow re Polnt below standard hel ht. Requires entlwelght reductlon pruning. IM7 Alt. Lot "West" 257 25.7 Itali,n,w-pin, pi. -plow 2WS 65140 52%fair motlera. S S 6 No. trunk meaud. narrow re oolnt below standard hel ht. Requires entlwelght reductlon pruning. 1068 Alt. Lot "West" 24.6 24.6 Itali,n,w-pin, Plnus plow MS 75160 66%.ir good 12 No. trunk meare ud. narrow oolnt below standard hel ht. Requires endwelght reductlon pruning. IWO Alt. Lot "West" 24.2 24.2 Itali,n,w-piw Plnus plow 30/35 75160 68%.ir good N 18 No. trunk me ud. narrow Pre oint below standard hel ht. 1070 Alt' Lot "West" X 15A 15A Mon.rey pin, Pl... mdb. 20/20 30/20 25%wry poor S 1 X poor 1071 Alt' Lot 8.0 8.0 honey locust G.dhsla blaoan.w MIS 35140 37%poor poor X West" 1072 Alt' Lot 8.3 8.3 honey locust G.dhsla blaoan.w MIS 40/25 33%poor poor W X West" 1073 Alt'Lot "West" 8.8 8.9 honey locust Gledgsla W.W..w 2S/20 40/40 40%poor poor X 1074 Alt'Lot 8.2 8.2 honey locust G.dhsla.lace..- 25/20 40/40 0%poor poor X West" 1075 Alt. Lot „West, X 7..6 6 7 wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll 1W13 2S/25 25%wry very poor W X FirebligM in.ction poor 1076 Alt. Lot „West" X 8..8 8 8 wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll 20/20 2S125 25%very very poor S X FirebligM m1WIon poor 1077 Alt. Lot „West" 12.8 12.8 wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll 90Y30 90140 95%pow motlara. X FirebligM in.ction 82 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 8 o c _ t a & E $ A E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= - n `o ' m e - p. y WLCA Notes from uptlatetl Overall Condlllon Ratings &NOTES 2017 Ee N y ¢ 4444 y a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-he.) _ a' ¢ m u b mow .Few c c -1p'0 n E ft a u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢120.wo eM 0.8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma Ha SEe3 go uO�Eo IS 22me iae r3 e? �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z 1ma AILLot "West" 9.2 9.2 honey locust Gledlfsla Wa MOS 22/25 65160 63%fair mW.SN X 107e AIL Lot "West" 6.7 6.7 honey locust Gledlfsla Wecanf OS 18115 65155 60%fair motlereN X 1w0 AIL Lot West" 8.5 8.5 honey locust GNrlgsla hN-M- 25/20 65160 63%fair moderate X AIL Lot Will neetl en-i,l 1w1 „West" 19.8 19.8 Itali,n awns pin, Plnus plow 30/00 8M0 75%good good E reduction pruning if retameE. Will n-d endweigM AIL Lot reducion pmning if 1002 „West" 32.8 32.8 INlien awn, pin, Plnus pl- 35/30 80160 67%fair good 3 1s retained. Note: d at 2 het aeelevation. WIII neetl 1003 Alt. Lot "West" 221 22.1 INlien awn, pine Plnus p)wa 3WO 80165 6g%fair good N N endmight retluctlo. pmning N retained. lava Alt. Lot "West" 238 23.8 INlien awn, pin, Plnus plow 25/25 75145 55%Nir good 3 y Note: measured at3 faetelevatlon. 1w5 AILLot "West" 18.a 18.a INlien awn, pin, Plnus pl- 2W30 8Wso 65%Nir good 3 y Nob:meNva[lo feet 1-ti.n. . 1w6 AILLot "West" 17.6 17.6 INlien awn, pin, Plnus plow 30125 80/65 75%good good 5-1, torn. 1w] Alt. Lot 6.a 6.a (dead sfandln9 fdaadsNrMing heel 13/0 0/0 0%tlwtl X ^West" _e) 1wa AIL Lot "West" 7.0 7.0 6.5 20.5 wet r -d Sequoia sempeMrens 25110 80/80 80%good Slow x 1We AILLot ^West" 7.5 7.5 wetr -d Sequoia semPervlrens 25110 80/80 80%good Slow x 1w0 AILLot ^West^ 6.5 6.5 oactr -d Sequoia semPervlrens 1W8 80/80 80%good Slow X 1w1 Alt. Lot ^West" 125 12.5 wetr -d Sequoia sempeMrens 30/10 70f70 70%good good x 1w2 AILLot "West" C7 4.1 8.8 oactr -d Sxluola sempervirens 20/t3 80/80 80%good Slow x 1033 Alt. Lot "West" 5.7 5.3 11.0 oast retlwood Sequoia sempervlrens 2WI2 80/80 80%good good X 1wa Alt. Lot ila 13.0 oast retlwood Sequoia sempervlrens 30/11 70160 66%Nir mW.rSN X "West" 83 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c $ o n _ 9- - q+ n v `o ' m e C y WLCA Notea from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings & NOTEB 2017 Ea N y ¢ 4444 y a s c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e ¢ m u b mow .Few c c YRpFco� - c c n c E fr u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >sg� x x x i x x mi0 n m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o �'- 2 E8_- ¢c2& e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c iA SEe3 go uO�E- 22me iae r3a �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z Trunk di-, Alt. Lot 20%vary wtimarod. Tree has 1w6 "West" X 62.0 42.0 INlien sbne Pine PI.-P)wa 25Y30 80/0 pour good feilwtl .t-lly, antl is lying on the groand. 1w6 AIL Lot "West" 31.8 31.8 INlien sbne pine Plnus plow 25/25 SO/SS 64%fair good N N Tmnk 2Met.1..Io.. rovatl _7 Alt. Lot X 19.2 19.2 tulip tree Ll7Mtlen-mIipM 3W12 2M5 25%very very Poor X West" poor 1W8 Alt. Lot West" 7 12.6 12.6 tulip tree Ll7Mtlen-mIipM 2WIO 40/SO 30%poor poor X _9 Alt. Lot "West" 27.9 27.9 INlien sbne pine Plnus plow 35/45 85/55 70%good good SW SW 20 Nwds endw-Ight reduction praning. Tmnk dlam-t-r wtimarod. Tree has 1100 Alt. Lot "West" 26.0 26.0 INlien sbne pine Plnus pl..20/S5 O/O 0%dsad fall-d structumlly, antl Is lying on M- g-d as dead ood. pines appear to be falling I.... small dlameMr planter 1101 Alt. Lot "West" 7 18.9 18.9 INlien sbne pine Plnus plow 40/SO solso 50%Nir good NW NW as, due W thelr root d-lopm-nt having been -rely restdctw In terms of roterel Same as'notes' Mr 1102 Alt. Lot "West" 7 38.5 38.5 INlien sbne Pine Plnus plow 40/28 80/47 SO%Nir good SW SW treeg1101. Tmnk 11. .. measured a[tfoot el-vatlon. Same as'noros' Mr 1109Alt [ 'West X 24.7 24.7 INlien sbne pine Plnus pl ow 30/25 60 N t0�ory good S S dlamar0mea-d M 2 Met-1-vat1on. Same as'noros' Mr 1104 Alt. Lot "West" X 28.0 28.0 INlien sbne pine Plnus Pl."2=0 O/O 0%dwd treeg1101. Tmnk diameter measured at 2 Met-1-vwlon. Recommend - of two mwdominant 1106 Alt. Lot „West" 5.0 4.5 8.5 river retl gum Euwtyfpus cama/du/enaia MO 80/45 60%Nir good 1 X malnstems at Me fork w 1 foot elevation. ou[hern Roots damaged on 1106 X 8.0 8.0 magnolia Magnola gmndBMra 2WI6 MO 50%Nir poor M motl X gratle from mowing activities. ou[harn Roots tlamaged on 1107 X 6.8 6.8 magnolia Magnolia gmndBMra 2WI6 MO 50%Nir poor M motl X gratle from mowing activities. soutlwrn Roots tlamaged on 110a X g.0 8.0 magnolia Magnolia gnM)gox 20/20 SW55 SS%Nir poor M motl X gratle--mowing activities. Roots tlamaged 110e X 41.8 41.8 Shamel a,h F7axlnus uhdel 65160 80160 70%good good E X hom rec-nt curb replac-m-n[ ac[Nltl-s. Roots tlamaged 1110 X 10.5 10.5 Shamel a,h FY-I-uh" 3S/20 30/30 30%poor poor W X gr 6 X hom rec-n[curb replacem-n[ ac[Nltl-s. 84 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 $ If _ t E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ o n _ o= i 9- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e C y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings & NOTES 2017 E& N y ¢ 4444 y a s c c c c c c r _m „ u $ (Genoa, aPooiea) _ e ¢ m 0 b mow .Few c c - c c n m c E u Spring 2015 Survey dE >3E� x x x i x x mi0 o m �a as qEEa g YRpFc UOo O Ei�oONWARD 2 E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go 22me iae, t3a �Lti as 2$ of Roots damaged X 14.7 14.7 Shamol aeh Fraxlnus uhdol 40/20 30/30 30%poor poor E X gr 10 X ir°m recen[curb replacement ac[Nltles. Roots damaged 1112 X 26.6 26.6 Shamol a,h Fraxlnus uhdol 65/35 60160 60%foir mwooto SW gr X ft.recant curb replacement ac[Nltles. High Nsk sltuatlon: Split "hanger" Ilmb 1- X 33.5 33.5 Shamol a,M1 Fraxlnus uhdN TWO 65/55 60%fair moderate 35 gr X notod a[ 35 feet ebvatlon on north side of canopy needs to be 19.2 19.2 Shamol aeM1 Fraxlnus uhdN 35/35 85165 75% good Sow S S X X Roots damaged on 111a (monNar the glrtlling 22.8 22.8 Shamel aeM1 Faxlnus uhdN 95Y35 80/30 45% poor Sootl E E aedous girNoli X grade. Note souse root situation) bnS girdling root situMlon. Roots 1-god on 1116 24.2 24.2 Shamel a,h Faxlnus uhdol 40140 80/55 65%ftir Sow X gr X grade from mowing activities. throughout Roots tlamagetl on 24.7 24.7 Shamel aeM1 Fraxlnus uhtlel 45I40 40/30 35% poor poor E nopy X grede from mowing activities. Roots damaged on 111. 23.0 23.0 Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhdol SW40 60/50 55%ftir mW.rrte W W X X grade from mowing activities. Roots damaged on grade from mowing 111e X 18.6 18.6 Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhdol 4S/20 15/15 15�oery very poor X gr actwitbs. Recommend ova tree due to eren Roots 1-god on 1120 26.7 26.7 Shamel aeh Faxlnus uh" SW40 75/65 70%gootl good N E X X grade from mowing activities. Roots damaged on 1121 19.7 19.7 Shamel aeh Faxlnus uhdol 50/35 80/65 76%gootl good W W X X grade from mowing activities. Roots damaged on grade from mowing 21.4 21.4 Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhdol 60/35 40140 0%poor poor W X 0 to 2 X aoth,lti- Vehlcle ,olllslon causetl damage to trunk between uro and 2 Roots damaged on grade from mowing 1121 18.5 18.5 Shamel aeh Fraxlnus uhdol 55/30 65155 58%f tir mw oto W X gr X activities. Root plate upper.,of- -P..". Roots damaged on grade from mowing 15.5 15.5 Shamel aeh Faxlnus ohm 30/18 40/30 35%poor poor W X gr X activities. Root plate upper.,of- -P..". Roots damaged on girdling grade from mowing. 1121 13.8 13.8 Shamel aeh Faxlnus uh" 4W0 50/30 0%poor moderate INS x x Nob severe girdling root roe situation. TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 85 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 & E $ c E'c c F o - 'o Common Name Icientific Name L r X c $ o n _ o= i 9 - q+ v g me - Ey WLCA Not -from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings &NOTES 2017 E N y ¢ 4444 y a n c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: n = u b mow .Faw c c YRpFc - c 0 c E fr u ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >3E� x x x i x x miG o m �a as qEEa g UOo O E��o 2 E8_- ¢12 A. lue e� Ea 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a $'c iA SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ -- 02 of °z X 2.7 2.7 red maple A - rub- 1618 80/85 80%Good Good Chlorotic follage. Soil molsture deficit. 1- X 1.9 1.9 red maple A-mb- 1316 60160 60%Fair Mod Chlorotic follage. Soil molsture deficit. 112. X 2.0 2.0 red maple A-mb- 1316 5S/55 55%Fair Mod Chlorotic follage. Soil molsture deficit. 1130 X 1.8 1.8 red maple A-mb- 1015 3WS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic folla{p. Soil molsture denclt. 1131 X 1.9 1.9 red maple A-mb- 11/5 3WS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic folla{p. Soil molsture aenalt. 1132 X 1.4 1.4 red maple A-mb- 9/5 3WS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic follage. Soil molsture deficit. 1133 X 1.9 1.9 red maple A-nbrum 1316 37145 39%Poor Poor Chlorotic follage. Soil molsture deficit. Purple Robe locust Rob/n/.'Purple Robe' 20/12 05/65 7.%Gootl North 9f.. Removetl as of Jan, 202 X 4.5 Purple Robe locust Robinla 'Purple Robe' 20/12 05/65 ]0%Gootl North Oto2feet. Removetl as of Jan, 2020. X 3.2 Purple Robe locust Rob/n/.'Purple Robe' 25/12 ]0l]0 70%Good Mod Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 1137 X 4.7 Purple Robe locust Robinla 'Purple Robe' 20/13 ]0/50 60% Fair Mod 1 to 4I.M. Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 4.7 113. X 3.6 3.6 Purple Robe locust Rob/n/a'Purple Robe' 20/12 M. 7.%Gootl Mod Removetl as of Jan, 2020. X 3.7 3.7 Purple Robe locust Rob/n/,'Purple Robe' 20113 7WO 70%Gootl Mod West Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 86 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 x rn 2 a S E y dEE'= $ e y rc �qc , ¢cR o°wn = a n e� a8 c x 2 c x 2 c x 2 c i 2 c x 2 c x 2 r c _m „ miG ma �'c aS F - 'o u $ o w m Z'Ee3 go 5O�Eo°z Common Name Fr Dowering pear Scientific Name (Genoa, aP-m.) Py.. calleryana _ e �a as L ¢ m 22me iae c$ u b qEEaYp$5$c 8e? o n_ mow �Lti c aQ c 2O 8 c- - - -- A q+ n c °2 v `o c U' & n ,ti m g- c E of m e P. y u WLCA Notes from Spring 2015 Survey Updated Overall CondItI,, Ratings & NOTES 2017 ONWARD Removed as of Jan, 2020. 13I10 "60 45%Poor 0.4 4.4 Purple Robe locust Robinia 'Purple Robe' 2115 1-1 55%Fair Pcor to Mod North 0to 5feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 3.7 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 05170 701Gcod NI- Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11K X 5.4 Purple Robe locust Robini -rple Robe' 2-10 05/5s 65%Fair Mod to Good 0to 6faet Removed as of Jan, 2020. &4 X 3.8 3.0 Purple Robe locust Robini -rple Robe' 2-12 70/60 60%Fair Mod Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11K X 3.4 3.4 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-12 7-s 61%Fair Mod 0to 8feet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11K X 3.4 3.4 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 1.13 7-7 64%Fair Motl 0to 5faet Removed as of Jan, 2020. X 0.1 4.1 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2&14 05175 00%Gcod Mod to Good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11K X 0.2 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 65/40 46%Poor Mod 0to 10 feet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11K X 0.7 4.7 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.13 7-7 63%Fair Mod 0to 6feet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1150 X &6 5.6 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 70/58 66%Fair Good 0to 7faet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1151 X &0 &0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 27/10 -0 72%Gcod Mod to Good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1112 X 3.6 3.6 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 22110 5-s 40%Poor Pcor to Mod West West Oto4faet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 87 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 MIN ONWARD 'T" - - - --- on A mmmommil j ME R.--d.-J.n,2.2.- �mm,, l�� + r MW� ElljIllonjo R.--d. -J.n,2.2.- MEMMIllIllonjo R.--d.-J.n,2.2.- 88 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 o'T" n A MIN mmmummil j NEON q=F ONWARD R...d.—J..,2020. - - - --- ME jo R.--d.—J.n,2.2.- 89 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 v `e Egoo S o c _ a a 8 E " $ e E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L c$ o n_ 8 c- - q+ n v `o g- m e P. y WLCA Note, from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ratings & NOTES 2017 x E y y rc Y a c c c c c c r _m „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ a: ¢ m u b mow .Faw c c Y$5Pc - _ c c E� n ,ti m c E u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD miG as qEEa g ns U' EE ��o �,$ ¢cR o°wn a8 �'c .A Z'Ee3 go uO�Eo°z 22me iae t3 ,? �Lti aQ 20 -- °2 & of 12/7 40/40 40%Poor Pcor to Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 0.7 4.7 Purple Robe locust Robini -rple Robe' 24/15 00/60 70%Gcod Motl N-h Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 4.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-14 7-0 70%Gcod Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1182 X 5.1 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 23/1fi 05/60 70%Gootl Gootl Athet. Removetl as o(Jan, 2020. &1 1- X 4.8 4.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 22/13 00/60 67%Fair Good 3to 5faet Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11N X 3.8 3.0 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1- 5-0 50%Fair Mad Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1188 X 2.3 2.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - 55/55 55%Fair Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1186 X 2.7 2.7 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - 55/55 55%Fair Mad Removed as of Jan, 2020. 11.1 X 3.3 3.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - 35/35 35%Poor Motl 0to 4 het Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1188 X 5.5 5.5 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 28/10 75/30 35%Poor Gootl Oto Shot Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 1- X &8 5.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-2 fi5/25 30%Poor Gootl 0to 8feet Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 1180 X 0.4 0.4 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-10 5-0 37%Poor Motl to Gootl At various alev. Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 1181 X 6.8 6.8 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 35/23 fi5/20 25p-dry Gootl Oto lO het Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 90 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 m 2 v `e u S E y dE Egoo E " $ e y rc �qc , E' ¢cR o°wn E 'c = a o n8 c x c x c x c i 2 c x 2 c x 2 r c -m „ miG ma �'c .A F - 'o u $ o w m Z'Ee3 go u0 Common Name Rowering pear Scientific Name (Genoa, aPeclea) Pyi.s calleryana _ a: �a as L ¢ m 22me iae 1 S c$ u b qEEa 8ez o n_ mow .Faw �Lti g aQ c Y$5Pc 20 9 e- - _ -- q+ n ns °2 v `o E� U' to _ E I� '1 n ,ti m g- c E JAIJ of �,$ m e !I C y u ._ WLCA Notes from Spring 2015 Survey Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings &NOTES 2017 ONWARD Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 11RI M. 30%Poor Poor 4 Rowering pear Pyi.s calleryana 1017 s-s 55%Fair Pcor to Motl Removed as of Jan, M20. 5.3 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' -8 smo 45%Poor Paor to Motl 0to S feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1198 X 4.5 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.15 -0 50%Fair Motl 3to 4 feel Removed as of Jan, M20. 0.5 1196 X 5.3 5.3 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' M18 6-s 40%Poor Motl 0to1 Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1197 X 5.0 5.0 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.18 5-0 37%Poor Motl 0to 6 feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 111. X 0.9 4.0 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.18 6-s 45%Poor Motl 0to 5 feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 119. X 3.6 3.6 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.16 6-0 60%Fair Paor to Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 120o X 0.3 4.3 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 21118 6-s 40%Poor Motl 0to 6 feel Removetl as of Jan, 2020. 1201 X 3.8 3.8 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2V18 6-0 60%Fair Paor to Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1.2 x 0.3 4.3 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' M18 7-0 66%Fair Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1.3 X &0 &0 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-2 7-s 45%Poor Good 0to 5f m. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1204 lr A6 A6 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 221i6 55140 40%Poor Paor to Motl 0to 5 feel Removed as of Jan, 2020. 91 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 m u ES y dE E " $ e y rc �qc , ai.2 ¢cR a°di E'c = a n e� a8 c x 2 c x 2 c x 2 c i 2 c x 2 c x 2 r c _m „ miG ma �'c .A F - 'o u $ o w m Z'Ee3 go uOV Eo Common Name Purple Robe locust Scientific Name (Genoa, aPeciea) Nobini -rple Robe' _ s: �a as L ¢ m 22me iae c $ u b qEEa 8,z o n _ mow .Faw �Lti c go aQ Y$5Pc 20 8 a - - _ -- q + c ns °2 v a E� U' - EE & I. t - n i' m g- c E ��o of �,$ °z 8 m c fr __ :: C 1 u ._ WLCA Note, from Spring 2015 Survey up d aced Overall C, ndIIIon Ratings & NOTES 2017 ONWARD Removed as of Jan, 2020. 24/20 55130 36% Paor Pooro Purple Robe locust Rob/nia'Purple Robe' 1-1 1-1 6011.Fair Good 0to 9 feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. S.2 1.2 4.3 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 25/20 05/68 75%Gaotl Good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1MB X .5 3.5 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 25/16 05/70 77%Gaotl Good Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1Me X 6.5 4.5 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1-10 45/45 45%Poor Matl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1210 X 9.0 3.0 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 10/6 35/35 35%Poor Paor Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1211 X 2.9 2.9 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 12/0 -10 40%Poor Paor Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1212 X 12 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.13 65/45 49% Poor Mod to Good 0 to 3 feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1211 X 6.2 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 20/15 50/30 37%Poor Motl 0to 4fe,L Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1211 X 12 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.17 7-0 66%Fair Mod to Good 3to 4feet. Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1211 X 6.3 4.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 2-12 3-0 30%Poor Paor Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1216 X 3.2 3.2 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 15/7 70/65 68%Fair Mad Removed as of Jan, 2020. 1211 X 3.2 3.2 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 17/7 60/55 56%Fair Paor to Motl Removed as of Jan, 2020. 92 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 ONWARD 93 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 & E $ c E 'c c F o - 'o Common Name Scientific Name L X c $ _ o= i 9 a- - q+ n v `o ' i' g- m e P. y WLCA Notes from uptloIod Overall Condlllon Ratings & NOTES 2017 x Ea N y ¢44 444p y a a c c c c c c r _mm „ u $ (Genoa, aP-m.) _ e ¢ m u b tin mow .Faw c c YRpFco� - c a n m c E a u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD dE >tg� x x x i x x mitp o m �a as qEEa g UOo O Ei�o 2 E8_— ¢12 A.wo e� n8 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma Was a4 SEe3 go uO�Eo 22me iae 8ez �Lti as 2$ of °z 1z91 Est. 22 Est. 22.... tr ood Sequoia sempervlrens awls 50150 50%Fair Poor to Mod 1232 ESL 24 ESL 24 ...t r ood Sequoia sempemk— SW40 MS 35% Poor Poor 1233 Est. 18 Est. 18 ...t r ood Sequoia sempemk— 75115 40140 40% Poor Poor No access to bunk base. Tres was not taggod by WLCA. 1234 X Est. 15 Est. 15 ...t r ood Sequoia s—Pervlmns 4SI13 65165 65% Fair Mod This tree was "rough plotted" by WLCA, and addod to the Sandi. tree map sheets. 1235 ESL 22 ESL 22.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— 75113 55155 55%Fair Poor to Mod Dense gr,lharountl base. Two wide -forked codominaM I.. Est. 26 Est. 26 ...t rWwood Sequoia—Pervlmns 60116 50145 48%Poor Poor to Mod maislal 16 fret ab.-g.d.. Dense growth arountl base. 1231 ESL 20 ESL 20.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— 65116 40140 40%Poor Poor Dena. groanh around base. 123. ESL 22 ESL 22.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— 68116 50150 50%Fair Poor to Mod Dena. groanh around base. 123. Est. 15 ESL 15.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— 55110 M7 44%Poor Poor East Dena. groanh around base. I- Est. 32 ESL 32.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— 70125 60160 60%Fair Poor to Mod Dena. groanh around base. Est. 22 Est. 22 oaet retlwood SequoI.s—Pervlmns MIS 45145 45%Poor Poor Dena, growth arountl base. ESL 12 ESL 12.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— W12 60150 55%Fair Poor to Mod Dena. groanh around base. I- ESL 24 ESL 24.... tr ood Sequoia sempemk— GWIS 40140 40%Poor Poor Dense gr.Mh around base. 94 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist (WLCA) Revised 07/28/2020 u E x Es & $ c y ¢ N 4444y >33� 2 dEE8_- ¢cgnwn E 'c = a u e� n8 c c c x x x 2 2 2 c i 2 c x 2 c x 2 F r c - 'o u _mm „ $ o mi0 n m y:a SEe3 go TEE uO�Eo Common Name Scientific Name (Genoa, aPeciea) _ e �a as L ¢ m 22me iae X c $ u b qEEa 8a o n _ mow .Faw �Lti o= c g aQ c YRpFco� 2$ - - n c If `o a UOo _ ' O t n i' m g- c E Ei�o of °z 8 m e :: E y WLCA Notes from a u Spring 201E Survey Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon Ratings & NOTES 2011 ONWARD X 15.5 1S.S oastr -d Sxluola —P—I... M2 010 0%DEAD Na Podocarpus Tree removed atwest the flyway Vew pine macropM1ylla 10/6 40/40 40%Poor Paor to Motl south britlge comer on 112412020. NOTES: 1. —,—were tleterminetl using a Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer. Diameters were determined using a forestry D-tape which converts actual circumference to averaged di --in inches antl [sorbs of incbes. 2. In the original 2015 assignment, Walter Levison tagged antl surveyed only trees 4.0 incbes tliameter antl greater (at 4.5 feet above gratle), using rountl—,d tags M1 tbrougb N. For tree tag numbers above NN, race4ack shaped tags were usetl, up to tag p1125. 3. Trees —6 through #1105 were located in a triangular survey area known as "al[ema[e lot west". d. In a followup assignment in July, 2018, Walter Levison was directed by Vallco Properly Owner LLC W tag antl assess additi.- trees starting with tag #1126, many e(wbich measured less than 4.0 inches tliameter. Moat or all of these supplemental trees were eacluEetl from the original tree stutly, due W trunk tliameter being below the stutly threshold of 4.0 inches, antllor location of tronk.—id. the original proposetl Vallco project area. S. Parking lot tree, were installed in plastic root barriers which severely stunted trees by limiting their root extension. Circular root bamiere are consid—d by arborists to be a direct cause of lack of normal tree growlb p—rmance antl tree stability. 6. Pedmeter trees have not been receiving normal irrigation, antl are declining and dying prematurely due W soil moiahre d0iicil. 95 of 95