The URL can be used to link to this page

1 - 2020 10-28-20 inspection REV 11-16-20 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 10/28/2020 Arborist Inspection Letter Inspection Time Period: October, 2020 Site: Vallco Town Center Period: Demolition Phase Work Zones: 1 A/1 B/1 C Craig Bacheller, Rafael Vinoly Architects (RVA) cbacheller(c vinoly.com Mike Rohde, Vallco Property Manager mrohde vallcoshoppingmall.com , mrohde(@_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) cmagill(cDdevcon-const.com To whom it may concern: The author Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist or"WLCA" visited the site on 10/28/2020 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 October, 2020 by WLCA. • Tree Data Table/The tree data table provided at the end of this report is the October 28, 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 (10/28/2020) 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 September, 2020, the waterproof signage along the chain link fences at Vallco being used to protect the trees indicates my email address incorrectly as walterlevison(cbyahoo.com instead of the correct: waiters levisonir(a-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. 1 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A As of today 10/28/2020, 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 October 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. 2 Lacan,Dr. Igor. University of California Cooperative Extension Agent. San Francisco Bay Area. September 2020"Water and Trees"Seminar,via Zoom. 2of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 1x/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 HOMELESS ENCAMPMENT MAP Mike Rohde of SHPCO requested that , 428 (NOT TO SCALE) WLCA visit the Vallco site during the shelter in place order, so that we could NORTH REV 1 0/28/2020 WALTER LEVISON formally document activities by homeless persons living around the 431 APPROX. LOCATION OF TENTS site trees on N. Wolfe Road.WLC MAGENTA NOW EXTENDS ALL WLCA visited the site on 4/1/15/2020 ( } and approached the homeless camp 432 THE WAY SOUTH TO TREE#441 . with two security officers and Mr. Rohde. We archived digital photos of "` _ — "FREEWAY 280 SIGN" the homeless encampment, and noted the tag number#428 (see digital 435 images below in this report). As of October, 2020, the camp now 3' TWO (2) NEW LARGE consists of roughly sixteen (16) or 17 440 FAMILY SIZE TENTS tents plus all sorts of accompanying Ilew objects. The tents range from small to lei,.t large family size tents that are set up hereaso APPEARED HERE IN SEPT. Oct,2020 � 441 on the tree planting strip between the AREA THAT SAND HILL public sidewalk and the public roadway (N.Wolfe Road), with thousands of 442 PROPERTY CO. IS IRRIGATING pounds of cooking gear, gas powered BY HAND GARDEN HOSE (BLUE), generators, bicycles, and other items spread all over the tree root zones. REDUCED TO ONLY #441 AND In October, 2020, one (1) new tent #442 (CANNOT GO NEAR TENTS). appeared between #440 and #441, as NEW LARGE-TYPE PORTABLE TOILET can be seen on the e at right, INSTALLED BY CITY OF CUPERTINO AS OF updated layout image at right, showing the limits of the tent camp area. The JUNE, 2020, ADJACENT TO TREE #442. southmost tent is adjacent to street ash tree#441, which was previously not EIGHT (8) STREET SIDE ASH TREE impacted by the encampment. As of SPECIMENS NOTED ABOVE BY TAG today, SHPCO can no longer hand- irrigate the street side ash tree NUMBER, ADJACENT TO NORTH WOLFE specimens, due to the presence of new ROAD, CUPERTINO, CA. tent(s) extending farther southward than last month. The only area SHPCO can hand-irrigate is the area between the south side of#441 and around #442,just north of the new portable toilet and hand-washing/sanitizing station. 3of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A The activities of the camp are likely having a significant negative effect on the trees' root systems per the following: gm or CUP gtT 1N0 • The open soil root zones are normally open NOTICE TO VACATE ILLEGAL-CgMPSITE to the air, and therefore would normally Mo„E�a�n= u ,• °F,.,�.��F„•� receive oxygen exchange with theM�w� atmosphere and natural rainfall. Placement E - " °-- --:_ of tents and other waterproof items over the ground results in loss of oxygen transfer "da •• � �aM °. between the roots and the atmosphere, ,.,-„•;,�,,,�,•,•,,,��„�_„°,wmm. causing the root zones of the trees to go somewhat anaerobic. M _� • With tents placed over the root systems of ,�" the street ash tree specimens (trees#428, • p M""""4`w 431, 432, 435, 437, 440, and 441), the trees . are not receiving oxygen and irrigation water as they normally wood. - E T "�" e17-W30'tp �1S n..r ... 3S 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 during the ongoing COVID19 pandemic. • 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 4of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 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. INSPECTION TABLE LINE ITEM TREE TAG NUMBER DESCRIPTION NUMBERS NOTES / LOCATION AFFECTED 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 o 1A Road claims redwoods 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). 5of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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 elevation (see photos at end of this inspection report). The depth of the decay cavity(void) is not known, but it is highly likely that the entire north side of the root plate has been compromised in terms of structural stability. LEAN: The tree appears (visually) to be leaning further off vertical than any other ash specimen growing in this row of street trees along the west side of N. Wolfe 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. Street tree (TREE#103 LEAN CONTINUED) JULY, 2020 #103 (evergreen Note that the north side of the root late where the decay is located is the"tension Tree decay ash side" of this tree's lean, which means that the leaning mass is tensioned against situation noted specimen), (pulling against)the north side of the root plate. Given that the decay is on that 1 B at west side tension side, this necessarily means that the tree's ability to maintain an upright by Sand Hill of N. Wolfe position against gravity is compromised, since the lean side of a root crown/root Property Rd, where plate is the side that is most crucial to maintain in good, healthy condition free of Staff in Jullyy,, the old AMC defects or decay3. 2020 movie theatre was located. 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 OCTOBER 28, 2020: WLCA re-measured the lean using the Nikon hypsometer and a steel straight edge. The average lean from 10 readings was 74.4 degrees actual vector angle, which is only 0.0 degrees difference from the original baseline reading. 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 WLCA still recommends that this tree be removed. 6of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 Upon my October 2020 site visit to the West Perimeter Road row of coast redwoods along the west property line of Vallco property, I was immediately struck as to the increase in sunlight penetration to the forest floor along our chain link protected root zone area just west of the roadway. I peeked up over the property line retaining wall, and saw that a large number of the redwood specimens had been pruned. After investigating this further, the following were my findings: 1. Trees Affected: There were a total of 26 coast redwood specimens pruned, starting with #846 in the north, to#871 at the southmost end where the locked access gate portal is located. 2. Addresses: Twenty-six Pruning was performed by a contractor that appears to have been (26)trees retained by at least three or four separate homeowners, starting with West Perimeter with 10140 Denison Ave or 10130 Denison Ave at the northmost point, Road Coast #846 (north and ending with 10140 Wheaton Drive at the southmost point of pruning 1C Redwoods most (see WLCA's tree map markup below, showing the addresses of Illegally Pruned specimen) homeowners adjacent to the tree pruning area, and the approximate by Neighbor(s) #871 (southh most extent of pruning outlined in red highlighted dashed lines. specimen) The actual addresses will need to be verified by the Vallco team. 3. Type of Pruning: Pruning consisted of shearing pruning (i.e. "heading cuts"): a non- conforming non-standard type of pruning which is basically topping pruning but instead performed along the sides of a tree canopy"topping" pruning is actually illegal in many municipal jurisdictions in the Bay Area. Each tree was cut to approximately the property line airspace above the existing retaining wall, resulting in the formation of 20 to 50 stub-pruned scaffold limbs extending westward from the trunk of each tree, which are now 2 to 4 feet in residual length each. The pruning was performed from the elevation of the top of the retaining wall, to approximately 25 feet or 35 feet elevation above grade on each tree. The result of this work was a reduction in live biomass of 25% to 35%: a loss that is considered "severe" pruning. 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-chance-of-lean.pdf 7of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison AL CONSULTING ARR4R15T 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 Line#1(C) Continued 4. Utility Wires are All Low Voltage/ No Clearance Pruning Required: See Markup Below, Showing Approx. Area of Pruning Bounded by Red Dashed Line There are no high voltage PG&E overhead electrical wires in this area where the trees were pruned by the neighbors along Denison Ave. The only overhead utility wires existing in the pruned area are low voltage ✓ low elevation cable TV and telephone communication wires (black plasticized), at approximately 25 feet elevation above grade. Utility - companies do not normally ever prune around these wires, because there is no legal need in terms of"line clearance"for any lateral - clearance between the wires and tree parts of any distance. In the author's experience as a former contract PG&E line clearance assessor, the only time utility companies will prune around black plasticized low voltage wires is when a tree limb is physically pushing on the wires in a 1 manner considered to be a physical threat to the wires, which is almost never the case in the real world. The utility companies will almost never perform pruning around these black plasticized wires, unless as stated above there is very unusual situation such as a heavy limb pushing physically on a wire and threatening to cause disruption of utility service. Denison 95% of the time, there is no threat to the utility wires or services from tree parts, and the utility companies therefore do not prune to clear these low-voltage, relatively safe wires. Therefore, the pruning that was performed in October 2020 on the 26 Vallco-owned redwood specimens was most likely pruning requested by a consortium of homeowners that for some unknown reason were intent on removing the tree limbs extending over their rear yard areas (not verified). 5. Negative Effects of the Pruning: _ 140 Wheaton Dr The 26 pruning-affected redwoods are now going to have to use their " limited stored energy to seal every single pruning cut on every scaffold branch sheared back to the property line airspace (+/- 20 to 50 cuts per each single tree, between the top of retaining wall and up to an elevation of roughly 25 or 35 feet above grade elevation on the west side of canopy). This will result in the trees declining in overall condition rating, because their vigor will be lost as they divert their stored energy into sealing the pruning cut wounds. The increased sunlight penetration into the root zone area will result in an increase in soil temperatures and an increased need for irrigation due to the increase in evaporation from the soil surface. The sight line screening benefits of the trees' evergreen canopies that were previously blocking Denison Avenue neighbors' views of Vallco project development are now permanently gone: the canopy of a coast redwood cannot regrow to form new scaffold limbs once those limbs are pruned back. The result of the pruning will be the release of buds in the area of each pruning cut wound, and a profusion of short stem growth from those buds, which will appear as a tuft of green growth near the cut 8of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 (#5 Continued) Line#1(C) Continued end of each scaffold limb. The former canopy density, vigor(health), and original limb structure of each tree will never be restored, even if Vallco continues to apply thousands of gallons of irrigation water each year to each single redwood tree in this row of tree specimens, as we have been doing for multiple years. The redwoods will likely visibly decline in vigor(health) as a result of the Denison Avenue neighbors' shearing pruning, and are expected to lose additional twigs, branches, and limbs, mainly on the west sides of the canopies, as a result of the disruption to the trees' canopies. Branches on the west sides of the trees where pruning occurred may actually decline and die, while original branches remaining unpruned on the east sides of the trees may lose vigor(live twig and needle density). Some of the 26 trees may prematurely die. The canopies of the 26 pruned trees are now more susceptible to sun scorching on the west sides, which is where the intense afternoon sun naturally falls, because the limbs on that west side are each now only+/- 2 to 4 feet in length. The loss of photosynthetic capability of each tree due to loss of 25% to 35% of the canopy means that each tree now has less ability to produce sugars and starches and store that energy in its system. With reduced sugars and starches, there is now less available reserve energy in each tree to deal with wood production, as well as overall defense from insect pests, pathogenic fungi, and drought conditions. 6. Vallco Conditions of Project Approval / Maintain Redwood Screen Trees Along West Perimeter Road: The Vallco project was required as a condition of project approval to maintain the 26 pruning-affected redwoods, and all of the hundreds of redwoods and ash tree specimens in this west side row of trees along West Perimeter Road. Vallco has been irrigating the trees at great cost with roughly 500 to 800 gallons of irrigation water per each single tree per each month, year-round, for multiple years now, in an attempt to boost the trees' vigor and maintain the evergreen canopies as a viable sight-line screen between the project and the neighbor properties to the west on Denison Avenue. The trees have been increasing in canopy live twig and needle density throughout 2020 as a direct result of Vallco project heavy irrigation applications. The Denison Avenue neighbor pruning actions in October 2020 have now permanently damaged, and caused the permanent loss of canopy screen density of, 26 redwood trees which Vallco project is required by City of Cupertino legal condition to maintain as a sight-line screen. This means that the tree canopy sight-line screening Vallco is required to maintain was destroyed by the very same property owners for which 9of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 (#6 Continued) Line#1(C) Continued Vallco project is required to maintain that tree canopy screening function. It is likely that the trees' canopy live twig and needle density (TIDE) (i.e. their sight-line screening value)will never be able to be restored to the level of live twig density and live twig extension (TDE) that the trees exhibited prior to the recent October, 2020 pruning by the Denison Avenue neighbors. 7. Release from Planning Division Project Condition of Approval: It would be reasonable to expect, in WLCA's professional opinion, that the Vallco project now be released from its duty, at least in part if not in whole, to maintain the trees for the benefit of those neighbors west of West Perimeter Road, as currently required by City of Cupertino condition of project approval, given that nearby residents that benefit from years of expensive Vallco redwood tree maintenance (i.e. maintenance in the form of regular heavy irrigation water application year-round) have now caused irreversible tree damages to those very same tree specimens. This is a question for City Staff and Vallco team discussion. 8. Mitigation of Damages Caused by Neighbor Pruning: Given the October 2020 pruning damage to the 26 redwoods described above in this section 1C, WLCA suggests maintaining the heavy irrigation applications that we have already been providing to the trees, and monitoring the trees for declines in vigor that may result from the recent severe pruning. The trees may not physically express decline in canopy condition for some time, and declines in live twig density and live twig extension may eventually be expressed as physical symptoms of tree decline as far as 3 to 5 years or more into the future post-pruning date of October, 2020 (example: Decline symptoms resulting from October, 2020 pruning occurring as late as +/- October, 2025). 10 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 IN-GROUND HOLLY OAKS ON SITE: UPDATE 10/28/2020: As of the end of October, 2020, the Vallco project is getting prepared to transplant the oaks by boxing their root systems in wooden containers, and storing them with timer irrigation in a vacant parking lot at the east end of the site. WLCA will be coordinating this work with the Vallco team, and will be monitoring rootball soil moisture in the wooden transplant boxes on a regular basis to ensure that the trees are heavily irrigated on a very frequent basis to maintain high soil moisture at all times within the boxes. 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 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 elevations of Required the soil profile only, since the open soil areas around these former parking lot transplants. 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 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 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). 11 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 UPDATE 10/28/2020: As of October 28, 2020, the Vallco project is getting prepared to transplant the mandatory transplant specimens noted in row#1 of this table. WLCA has made it abundantly clear in both previous arborist reports and various other communications over the years that the six (6) California sycamore tree Tree specimens noted in this row#2 are poor transplant candidates, and should not transplantation be moved, due to the following reasons: planning. • The trees exhibit lean off from vertical, and exhibit lopsided canopies, which Discretionary makes moving the trees difficult or impossible in terms of keeping both the transplants. rootballs and the above-ground portions stable and contained. Trees#260, 0The trees are of very large diameter and older age, which means they are 261, and #262 far less likely to survive transplanting than would be smaller, younger tree are currently specimens. set up with over-grade high 0 It is also quite possible that tree moving contractors brought in to bid on this flow irrigation tree moving work will outright refuse to even consider transplanting the six via flex tubing, sycamore specimens, due to the lean/lopsidedness issue noted above. and trunk buffers have Many years of droughty soil conditions have caused the trees to decline in been wrapped condition to where they are suffering from early leaf fall, which limits the around the #260, 261, amount of photosynthesis occurring in any given year, resulting in the trees 2 trunks of each 262, 414, lacking adequate storage of sun-derived sugars which would otherwise tree. Chain link 415, 416 normally provide an "energy reserve"for the trees to help them fight off fencing has pests and diseases. During root ball cutting for transplant into boxes, the also been trees will lose a very large percentage of their root systems, which will erected around require that the trees use all of their stored energy reserves to help seal off the trees. root pruning wounds and contain their systems, fighting off water loss and other issues as they are moved into wooden boxes. It is likely that the trees As of will not be able to sufficiently contain their living systems adequately, and November, will probably succumb to internal system water loss, and die 3 to 12 months 2020, SHPCO after transplant. is currently in process if 0 Tree moving companies will typically not guarantee tree survival, which getting surface means that all monies spent on moving the trees may not result in any of the high flow trees actually surviving at new locations in the redeveloped landscape. bubbler irrigation set up 0 Costs to move large tree specimens were already$15,000 to$25,000 per around trees each tree, even back in 1999 when WLCA began consulting 22 years ago. #414, 415, and As of 2020, the costs are likely far greater than this, possibly as much as #416. $35,000 to $40,000 per each tree, though there may be an economy of scale for moving multiple specimens from the same location, which may or may not bring costs down considerably. • If the above-noted tree moving costs were instead used to purchase large box size trees such as 60" or 72" box size tree specimens, we could purchase them at+/-$3,000 to$5,000 each, respectively(wholesale costs). 12 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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 up trees for transplanting at Vallco. Transplanting WLCA actually prepared a Vallco transplanting specifications report back in 3 Plan Report by 12/7/2018, which was submitted to Craig Bacheller of RVA. This report can be WLCA used as a specification standard, or it can be updated as needed prior to use as 12/7/2018 the specification standard for our transplanting of existing site trees at Vallco. I resent this report to the team in early November, 2020 for reference, given that we are now preparing to have tree moving company reps visit the Vallco site for bid walks. Areas that now have active running temporary irrigation via over-grade PVC piping and Salco flexible UV-resistant PVC include the following: a. Stevens Creek Blvd. trees (evergreen ash trees along the landscape swale along the north side of the street), between North Wolfe Road and West Perimeter Road. 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 Temporary gallons per tree per month in Aug/Sept 2020), but increased the run time timer-activated significantly, such that the trees are receiving much longer activation run irrigation time durations, and less frequency, which should correlate to better soil 4 system (Various) pore saturation plume development below grade, and better drydown of installation the root systems in terms of gaps between irrigation. areas 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). 13 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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 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. 14 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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 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 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. 15 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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 currently exhibit improved TDE (live current season twig density and extension). 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 P0602B, from 2018. 1 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 16 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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 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: a. Trees along the east side of N. Wolfe Road (Alexander Steakhouse Areas being trees)#441 and#442. Other ash trees in this row(#428, 431, 432, 435, irrigated by 437, 440) are not accessible by the hand-irrigation crew as of October, 5 hand, 3x to (Various) 2020, due to the presence of a homeless encampment and a portable 4x/week during toilet. SHPCO notes that as of 11/16/2020, another tent has appeared, Summer& Fall. now blocking access to tree#441 root zone areas. The only tree still able to be irrigated by hand by SHPCO as of 11/16/2020 is tree#442 at the southmost end of the row of streetside ash tree specimens. b. Discretionary transplants#414, 415, 416. 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: Trunk Buffer a. West Perimeter Road trees that are adjacent to the west side of the 7 Wraps with Various roadway. Wood Board ( ) b. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old Alexander Steak Overlay House (east side of road). c. North Wolfe Road trees that are adjacent to the old TGI Fridays 17 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A restaurant(west side of road). 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: a. (Early 2019): West Perimeter Road trees being retained along the west side of the road (pruned earlier in 2019). b. (August, 2019): East perimeter Road trees being retained along the east side of the road. c. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. ash trees, the northmost row Pruning for overhanging the old Bay Club parking lot. Roadway& 8 Pathway (Various) d. (September, 2019): Trees along both sides of North Wolfe Road Airspace between Stevens Creek Blvd. and freeway 280. Clearance 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. 18 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 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) a. (September, 2019): West side of North Wolfe Road. Pruning Operations by b. (September, 2019): Stevens Creek Blvd. trees, between North Wolfe Tree Tech. 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. 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. Trees to monitor b. Ash tree#673 at the "bend" in West Perimeter Road where utility for trenching occurred in 2019. This tree was noted elsewhere in this report 10 decline/death See right as a specimen in decline that exhibits less than normal current season's over time, or g live twig density. simply remove outright. 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. 19 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 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. d. Redwood #804 just northwest of#763 on West Perimeter Road is developing a large number of dead and dying scaffold limbs throughout the canopy. The tree may need to be removed outright at some point in the near future. 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. UPDATE 10/28/2020: Redwoods#846 to#871 along West Perimeter Road which were illegally shear-pruned along the north-south property line retaining wall airspace in October, 2020, by neighbors on Denison Avenue to the west. See row#1 C of this table for full details. These trees are expected to decline over time as a direct result of this pruning work which severely degraded the west sides of the canopies of these 26 tree specimens. h. 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, especially since the Vallco team is now planning to schedule the boxing up of various transplant oaks, and store them in the parking lot just south of these redwoods. Any persons working within the target zone of these trees, including WLCA, would be at significant risk of injury if any of these trees were to fail structurally either in terms of a scaffold limb or the entire mainstem. 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. i. 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). 20 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A PG&E high (Various, voltage vault per the Vaults along the north section of West Perimeter Road were completely 11 along West separate backfilled as of October, 2019. Perimeter Road ble 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 to (updates) Trench Face or Vault 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. 21 of 31 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(a)yahoo.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 (Measured in Feet,on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South to Trench Face or Vault (updates) North) 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 system. I suggest removal of this tree for safety purposes. 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 22 of 31 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(a)yahoo.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 (Measured in Feet,on WLCA Suggests Removal of Tree (South to Trench Face or Vault (updates) North) 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. 23of31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A Digital Images Archived by WLCA/ September and October, 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 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, 15 minute irrigation bubbler Lateral spacing resulting in a gravitational downward flow cf water that results in a deeper plume reaching further into the activation duration may result in a Emitter deepest section of the trees'notable soil volume,which is hypothetical shallow soil moisture plume Dry SIII'18Ce typically about 4 feet depth in clay soils al ng the that looks something like this. eninsuka. Salt accumulation Flow line Moisture contour Deep percolation From USDA National Engineering Wetted width Handbook(2013).Section on "Micro!rrigation". This is a 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. 24 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison �� N CONSULTING ARBORIST .,„e,,..,.a......,.._ ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A 1 � r 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 View looking northward along ash trees being retained are present near the trunks of the trees where high flow along the west side of N. Wolfe Road. irrigation bubblers are active and running to provide very heavy volume of water at 500 gallons per month per tree, Note the turf grass browning through most of the former even though to the casual observer, the landscape turf areas that used to be irrigated by high coverage type appears "drought stressed". The surface condition has no sprinkler head irrigation. These areas are now irrigated via bearing on the actual subsurface soil moisture status, and bubblers, which create subsurface plumes of soil moisture grass browning does not translate to tree root zone soil that are not necessarily visible without extensive probing moisture deficit, especially when irrigation is applied from using a Lincoln moisture probe/meter. point source bubblers. 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 (i.e .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. 25 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A i ` , • 'hs � r,5 y� j i AY'A}' T P'f•Y a� .i _ V 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). f . 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. Holly oaks#97 98, 99 to be transplanted are maintaining The small diameter open soil areas immediately around incredibly good live twig density and extension, despite the trunks have become choked with dense tree root having been grown in asphalt parking lot conditions for growth that makes these areas somewhat resistant to many years, with no irrigation for most of their lives, and irrigation water applications. However, it is likely that the just a small diameter open soil planting pit zone around water will percolate downward in relatively close proximity the trunks. 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. 26 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison AL CONSULTING ARB4R15T ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A t .. - ....• Looking eastward at holly oaks#97 and #98 to be - ----T; transplanted. The holly oak trio of#97, 98, and #99 is now 4 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). 10/28/2020: Looking northward along the sheared side of the 26 redwood trees#846 (north end)to#871 (south end), which were severely pruned by neighbors along Denison Avenue in October, 2020 for unknown reason(s). As can be seen in this image, there is no high voltage wire anywhere along this utility right of way, and only low :- +. voltage black plasticized cable and phone communication wires run above ground here: wires which do not require any type of clearance from trees. The trees are expected to decline and may actually die as a direct result of this pruning. The screening benefit between neighbor residences and the Vallco project has also now been permanently compromised due to the neighbors' pruning Above: 10/28/2020: work. WLCA suggests that we request from City of Cupertino Looking north at the N. Wolfe Road homeless planning division to be formally released from our encampment. The folded bedding materials and folded condition of project approval that requires that we maintain tent in the center of this image are a new addition to the these trees with heavy irrigation and other maintenance, camp's southern end, which now extends to the south side given that the neighbor beneficiaries of the trees' of tree#440. The tree at the right hand side of this image screening were the persons who retained the tree care is tree#441. Only two trees along this section of N. Wolfe company that performed this severe pruning work. Note Road are able to be irrigated at this time: #441 located at that pruning along a property line airspace is not legally the right side of the image, and #442 located where the allowable, if that work causes a significant negative effect author is standing. in terms of tree condition, as it has in this case. 27 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A l 10/28/2020 NEIGHBOR PRUNING AT WEST PERIMETER RD. Close-up of lower elevation branches along the west side of a redwood specimen pruned illegally in October, 2020 by the neighbors to the west(property owners along Denison Ave.). There was a total of 26 trees pruned in this manner, for no apparent reason other than to clear the airspace above the neighbors' properties. The work appears to have spanned across at least 3 or 4 separate properties (see above in this report for more details). Each redwood that was pruned now has between roughly 20 and 50 stubbed scaffold limbs that each now exhibit a residual length of 2 feet to 4 feet along that west side of canopy, where the pruning was performed from the retaining wall, all the way up to approximately 25 feet or 35 feet elevation above grade on each tree, which resulted in an excessive loss of above ground live biomass. 28 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A R � x t - t, Ah r• 3 - 7 SEPTEMBER, 2020: 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). 29 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARRORIST 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. Signature of Consultant Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist 30 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 ISA Certified Arborist#WE-3172A DIGITAL BADGES: ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL: https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/dl805l5f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record view=true#gs.hpaw8u ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ): https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/dl805l5f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record view=true#gs.hpb30w Attached: 1. Tree Map (OLIN), Full Site (Latest Update: May, 2020) 2. Tree Data Table (WLCA) (Latest Update: 10/28/2020) 31 of 31 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(a)yahoo.com 1 1 I 2 I 3 I 4 1 5 1 6 1 7 1 8 1 9 1 10 1 — i LEGEND i" APPLE - - PROPERTY LINE (NOT IN SCOPE) - - PROPERTY LINE AFTER DEDICATION i / o — GARAGE EXTENTS STRUCTURE TOWN CENTER r-----—1 STRUCTURE ABOVE A L-----J TAG# ❑ EXISTING STANDARD TREE TO REMAIN 334 OWNER-VALLCO PROPERTY OWNER LLC. 965 PAGE MILL ROAD, PALO ALTO,CA 94304 TAG# T.650-344-1500 / %/ 0EXISTING STANDARD TREE TO BE REMOVED 374 ARCHITECTURE-RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS 50 VANDAM STREET, NEW YORK, NY 10013 1 i T.212-924-5060 TAG# EXISTING TREE 11 ARCHITECTURE-RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS TO BE TRANSPLANTED 1033 N.WOLFE ROAD,CUPERTINO,CA 95014 �C/��,`� T.408-627-7090 TAG# �Q C co 0D o> (N � M '1 DEVELOPMENT TREE TO BE REMOVED 90 LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE OLIN PARTNERSHIP LTD. "' I ci 04 Lo `9 `'' , `�".'I c' ,f�,' "' "' co ;� " "' "' `' `o `0 'o °° �' 1 1 ? 150 S, INDEPENDENCE MALL W.SUITE 1123, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19106 Lo N� LL — ��._.l ? J >� �.:=� --•— . — 0[ 77-77-77--a TAG# T.214-440 0030 \ 1 1 \f ! 1 1 1 l My EXISTING STREET TREE TO REMAIN 113 CIVIL-SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SURVEYORS PLANNERS, INC. Ncli V ��r T E T )N � � 1700 S.WINCHESTER BLVD,SUITE 200, CAMPBELL,CA 95008 — N M y v r` 0 rn o ,n N _� .a M co m o �i n o o TAG# co - x T.408-636 0900 co O O O M M M V CS) 0D co� M\ M X M M �i M `�' x�� x \ X y h \ f i to �) \ EXISTING STREET TREE TO BE REMOVED 73 TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERING-ARUP NORTH AMERICA, LTD. r M� M M c"2 M O 1� O ,T� .�� m coct. CO M M �t o r (v� M x � >r., �,_�� .. _ _ ® I � 560 MISSION STREET,SUITE 700,SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94105 lam �(x — ( x III T.415-957 9445 X X M LCJ M I • 6j' '� 0-) co I II o TOTAL TREE 995 04_ t t N v� 1 k LIGHTING -ONE LUX STUDIO �j' N a, o o Lo j `r 158 WEST 29TH STREET, 10TH FLOOR, NEW YORK, NY 10001 C14fo co x B r x "' T.212-201 5790 i coM — M x O o FOR DETAILS OF EXISTING TREE CONDITIONS,SEE ARBORIST REPORT, SIGNAGE-EX:IT / x (�M M X X BLOCK 1 1 DATED JUNE 14,2019,PREPARED BY WALTER LEVISON,CONSULTING 1617 JFK BLVD, SUITE 1665, PHILADELPHIA, PA 19103 N N 4JJ Lo x �, I ARBORIST(WLCA). T.215-561-1950 M x �, M _ I I I PARKING ENGINEERING-WATRY DESIGN, INC. x 127I 2099 GATEWAY PLACE, SUITE 550,SAN JOSE,CA 95110 X X �� x T.408 392-7900 M o MLo 1128 vi cl)— \ X ---- o — 129 �, STREET ~ 0 0 —�_ o NOT IN SCOPE 0 i t M I o 1130''' o N x 1 1 El M _ ~ co )( N � N M 0 co ❑ LL. LU� M�Lu < X x � � co co o w � 11a 00 a cl) Lu El El co ui BLOCK 10 M N ❑❑ ❑ c BLOCK 9 I I j / et N� M co M M x , ❑ El El I I J w ❑ ❑ Q X ❑❑❑❑ ❑ > El 1131 000��00El � HYATT HOTEL �0�000��0 co \ o O O N r� M 6) o 0 0 NOT IN SCOPE �_ r � o p p ( ) _ , rn o-v - o -`� -� �� - can o STREET MAdlbk V V 3,) o 0 0 f?) )) x i M 1132 ® • _____ M N O O CD N II Lo N x 7) BLOCK 8 BLOCK 7 ~ 133 Lu D A 0 U-, U \ x v 0 o 4 v �_ NV X 0 CO W M V • I I 1 1 O V M X O � ww O N V � CD O N V x Lo CO CO M V CD f� r- r- � icc • � � \ X c c < < < c r ' �, _�, _ _ Lo ,� o �, �, PROPERTY LINE it c c c c c c c It 0 PROPERTY LINE rn 0 �� e M o AFTER DEDICATION 0 0 0 0 0. � ......... --N �-' -- -__ -- - -___ -_ o, O o WOLFE ROAD 0 c GARAGE EXTENTS o o o~N A o'' • o X\ 1 J \\ = o 0 ----_- ----_-- N WOLFE ROAD o o --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- _ _ _ _ o o .__. __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ o 0 0 -_-- (V CV O o o W N N N r iF o '.. O M N M f0-_.--...___. 1 I I lA M Cfl --__-------- --------- --------- --------- ---------0 0 c r __ r -__ r___ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ --------- o. ---- __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ --- o C^ �7-► V M _- OD ti coCO (p O M o r i o o O O O O � _ lA tq --.--- -- - N cn -- Uc cXJ M N M M M r� O Ncli N► o x ) ) IIII M N N - N N N N M N _ o N N N \ - • • :u�� ----_ N �� N N � � l Iy 1 1. _ M � - '; o'� N X � x O 5 -,��"�.'�' t:4�' � � I I - X = - a __ _ 0 0 0 0 � co N o 0 PROPERT IN _ (E '`[ EDICA 10\ l' 11 1 ( L / cam - co K �I M \ — 4 �- 1 I 4 � — r. — -- � — — — — — — �� — — — — — — — � 0 r` � o � GARAGE EXTENTS — — • .. a ,, — — — — — — — N E I+�► _ \ N M O 6�N N - 2 co LC') / N N N N I`N M -� Fo' x x x O� N O 1 1 M x e-- N 6 f J�/CV Il Il � ----- N N i ACV N 1 1 �,'..n r M M M M F► � x p X O r r• i X- r r r r r r r X Mcy) N x N N r J 0 x M • r . �• / N N ` W o L~L.I V cfl o H W rn W \ N M .O .O rO N r\/ o N W 0 0 x r- w X_ co N W M M (O O l\ V N � � �� O x CO (\J) 6 x Wo o f co BLOCK 6 N X x BLOCK 5 LBLOCK 4 x x x X X r r ',. M X. O M 00 CD OM M X o N N CO BLOCK 4 �� I G: O N O M M (p M ti O X M X X ([)N N I_l lI_ 1 1 1 ® X Cfl• 0� M O x O X 1 1 _ _ 1 1 �� _ n NOT FOR CONSTRUCTION �I M e� � � I I n 1 _ N �� I O Ji..... � � co ^ M0 M O X N �� Lf) r n r❑ O (LOD r M X n DISCLAIMER N N N c� %(o y/ o o M � r x n THE ARCHITECT I ENGINEER SHALL HAVE NO RESPONSIBILITY ----. --- �J c� c$ o o c$ r c- r---- --------- r a$ 1 X X x r c$ c� o 0 0 o o o o 0 o M N c2 -- c>g c>g w o 0 FOR ANY E o �' o 0 ao FROM OR RELATING ING T00 ANY OUSE OF THGS DOCUMENT FOR ANY o �, STREET C 0 0 ► rk) 8) o �) ►' ', o T T �i O O i x 00000 o T co M w PURPOSE OTHER THAN ITS INTENDED PURPOSE ON THIS • O co PROJECT. THIS DOCUMENT IS TO BE CONSIDERED IN 000M � CONJUNCTION WITH ALL RELATED DOCUMENTATION.ANY 1 -� «, I DISCREPANCIES IDENTIFIED IN THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE CN REPORTED IMMEDIATELY TO THE ARCHITECT BEFORE F ° x 0 ( M M PROCEEDING. CONTRACTORS MUST VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS r °° co �a 1 "' L� PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.ONLY FIGURED w � x r 00 (x\ DIMENSIONS ARE TO BE USED FOR VERIFICATION. WOLFE PROPERTIES L O ! r N NOT IN SCOPE) I w N BLOCK 3 W , W. BLOCK 2 w �� BLOCK 2 M �IT) W W W N M _rn r x o ) F- Cn cn rn rn x h. W O N T) �X L LLJr � M m SB-35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION o 0 x p N r X _ _ :�- 1 -� 1 �- 1 �o a �a �o N N N N coce) cli M N - -- X� V N O 00 .0 ^ co CO - N❑ ❑ ❑ -� • x x x N N M N M M x 00 M M co r r N N r x x x O x N N r r r ^� X �� r X r r 0 �/ Jae x x :,` i� o o .�<2 M STREET B (r> ct o o ��ct cC — o o cc N w L.L., NO �= W x � x '. x �pOD � � _. v`"�� 1 X 1 _Jl X I x � � _ o -------- �-_ ____ ____ O ____ ......... ____ o o ____ __-__ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ ____ _ ___ ...... .....___- - ____-_ --_. ____ 0 0 _ � v i M $) )'D o 91) O &) 4 \ - — m _ r a > REV DESCRIPTION DATE C= N 8 i o o � x � N CD / co M W O OD co co M ?�- 0D r- c f� N M n X I f v .. v r \ f \ �r co ;, J n REV-0 SB 35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION 03127/2018 ' AA d 't 1 X \ x I x I X 1 X I (X 1 (x 1 Y f \ 1 /�\ � 1 - � 0 r w lw r n REV-1 SB 35 APPLICATION REVISIONS 08/06/2018 REV-2 SB-35 APPLICATION CONFORM SET 09/15/2018 N,VMN NCr)�tnCp f�00 6)O�NM (p C0 MO iT O M W r j n t`I�I�f� � �� I�CDCD DODO �'VMV�fJ(01�0o6)Or coVIfJCOI�ODOOrN �lC)(Cj r�0o0�0 �(OI�0o00rN lfJ CO Mal _ ,.- M V M n M MMM Cf') (f') to L!')(f')(f')Cf') �f')tntn(f')(f') coM00 a0 0o0o IT O 6)6�06)6�6)6)00 OOOOOOOrrr O•-N MV,.fl cD f�M r O Cf')L!')(f')tntn(f')(f') lf�Cf')(f')�Cf')�tnCOCO COCO(OCOCOCO(OCOCOCO (OCOCO co(OCOC'4 CO CVNCVNNMMM M M MM V•7V V�tV V VV 00 r1)rNCO"T �cor- 0D 6�OGNM V�(D~a00 ��CO(OCOCO(O(OCOCO (O Co CO CO CO (O CO(OCO CO CocoLnLn Lo Locococo-Z Co CO(O(O(O CO(O CCi CO CO(OCO COCO COM (O��r- �� OLIJ I H N CN CIO C) 114 o Cn p o Z 0 o Z. D, co w BLOCK 1 113 I LLl (n 11 o �\� 112 X o I 10 ❑ 9 0 0 LoC co J r� Low ® 7 ❑1220 f �, ° N.WOLFE ROAD M 01219 © 0 J M Y r w �1217 0I w Z - - 1 w N °O rn O 1216 o O r ti CO Lc") M (v O - O M V M co M M M M M M M M N r - 61 O M ^ �_._- --.CO CD r- `- N X M x X r N x X x xx x x X ❑0 X x X1215 x x j �o rn KEY PLAN AND NORTH ARROW M -� 11 � LLI N 04 04 r X o L STREET A(PERIMETER RD.) �r co �, i; 0 ti -___________-_ -------------_________________.__.--------_---_--- x X ARCHITECTS PROJECT NUMBER 708011 v r- r co o r- r� r_ (r> r� «' o v v w rx _:'� -- I n Y 1 1 I( 1 I i ! 11 1 f 1 ( 1 ( �r N /� 1 — — — — ----------L � ( C\`�_�\'w �C _ (\ PROJECT PHASE: SB 35 DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION } ( f ( f •( •l 1K ( ( ( I I 11 1 • 1 r'I1 1 t l I I I} 1 1 'Tl ) I l X—• I l I ) ( I— I I I T I 1 1 11 1 1 11 I U I I - v N N�ti_ IF THIS DRAWING IS NOT 36"x48"IT IS A REDUCED PRINT; ( — i w n CN REFER TO GRAPHIC SCALE r 6)O V r-r-r-OD 6)O-VM VCO r-0D6� M Vr.(JC01�0D6)Or NMV �(OI�00 rN M��(OI�aD OrNM�Y �(OI�OD OrN MVIfXO r` O� OrN M��(fll� 6�Or(v MV�(DI� 6) r CO CO CO r NM �� a000 0o 0oca 00000o O o-'mm6)6�000 000 0000 cD rrrrrr N(VCVCVCV CVNCVCV MMM MMMC`'M OM M VVV�VVVV VLoCoLo LOLOLOLOUl � M co � n tititi ti titi ti��ti��MaO 0D0DOD ODODODO0 Oo ODO0 000000000000 OoODODODOo 00000000 0D0D0D 00000000 00 M MMM o0 o0MMM MpaDM MMMMoO coaD n 0 32' 64' 128' 192' SCALE: 1/64"=1'-0" EAST WEST BANK DE NZA PROPER S ( OT IN SCO E) TREE DISPOSITION PLAN VALLGO rFn OT IN SCOPE O SHEET TITLE: O CD P � 0602B LLL SHEET NUMBER: I © 2018 RAFAEL VINOLY ARCHITECTS PCI Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 — @ o c — c cw a E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= q+ WLCA Notes from IpIatetl Overall Condlllon o& $o y r c —'o u Common Name _ .8 o n_ c - n m w m - a Ratings&NOTES 201T m E ur pu m c n _ _ _ _ _ _ £. o (Genoa,apooie.) a: m e,ii w c — c ° — u u Spring 2015 Survey _ g u d _ _ c d m'e— ONWARD m¢G . m .a me as ra gg xc c SEo = � 2 2 2 2 .Ed Za�'u4 ap S{{ e@'9 n@ 2 02 �•° E o X 13.0 13.0 Shamel..h Fraxlnua hdal M. M. poor ,.or 6 11 X Removed as of Jan,2020. 2 X 10.9 10.9 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnua hdal 2SQ0 s-s 40%poor mad... T Removedasof Jan,2020. 3 X 13.8 -a ShamelasM1 Fraxlnua hdal 3-s 60145 50%fair mad... Removedasof Jan,2020. 4 X 16.6 16.6 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnua hdal 3-0 55/60 ST%fair mad... Removetl as of Jan,M20. 5 X 22.0 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnua hdal —s 7-0 fib%fair good 12 Removedasof Jan,2020. 6 13.3 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnua uh- 3-15 sMs 43%poor mad.-- Removed as of Jan,Md. Monterey pine PM-mdhao 55/30 65165 65%fair mad.-- Removedasof Jan,2020. Tree.pp—to be d-miag in N.W.entivrelght live twig—at,tlue to 8 X Me Me ShamelasM1 Fnxinua uhdei SSYJO 70/60 64%fair motlerate W reduction pinning c ro prolonged Bay Al.tlugM ontlitiana.Current condition is approximately 40%or"poor'. 9 X 26.2 26.2 Shamel ash Fm-..uhdei 55/40 Bolso 55%fair poor to motl OR N.W.endweight rad,c-pinning Tree appears to be decllning In Ilve bole tlensity due to 10 27.0 27.0 Shamel ash F m..uh" smo Bolso 55%fair poor tomod N prolonged Bay=a d..ght and U....Current condition Is capproximately 40%or"poor". Tree appears to be decllning In Ilve twig d...R duo to 11 X 28.8 28.8 Shamel ash Fnxinua uh" smo 60160 60%fair mo,k— s OR prolonged Bay Area tlrougM ontlltlons.Current condition Is capproximately 37%or"poor". e apPeare o mngm live twig density tlue to prolonged Bay Area tlrougM 12 20.2 20.2 Shamel ash Fnxinua uh" sms 55/50 53%fair poor to motl E and itiana.Current...ditionic c approximately 25%or I., Poor'.Trees in very poor onditian are generally Tree appears to be decllning In U.twig tlensity due to 13 X 22.2 22.2 Shamel ash F inua uhdei —s 60/50 55%fair poor to motl S prolonged BayAmad1ou9M ontlltlons.Current condition Is capproximately 37%or"poor". 1 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ef rc• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name - o q; m upaatea overan conalolon t; x @@ WLCA Notes from m¢r9 o� -9 y d opW ggc dgo mlys� c �rc 'r '- m S Ratings&NOTE52017 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c4 uSovE g� m! oe �" �r88�W �_' a Gang zwssr..aey 2 2 S¢¢ pp r;lu 9 ONWARD iae bd �Zo° - 2- -Ag °2 ufc t4 24.T 24.7 ShamelasM1 FreXlnus AM Tree appear to be decliran9 in 60/26 60/60 60Y.Pair moderate N live twig d—ity tlue to prolonged Bay Area tlrought wntlitiana.Current contlition I. approximately 46%or"pear". 15 24.6 24.6 ShamelasM1 F.I—uhtlN 60/30 60/45 55X fa'v motlrate N 16 20.6 20.6 Shamel aeM1 Faxlnus OMTree appears to be declining in SSYdo Wes 55%fair nn d.b N live twig d—Ity d—e prolonged Bay Area tlrought aonditione.Current contlition m approximately 42%or"poor". 12 17.7 17.7 Tme appears to be d-inin Shamel aeM1 Fraxlnus uhdN 45/25 0/0 O%aead S live twig d—lty due W g in verlRea) prolonged Bay Area drought on s.ditia Cur co ent ntlition is capproX'lmately 35%or"Poor'. fS 91.6 9f.6 Shamel a6M1 Fazlnus OMTree appears to be tleclining in 60/30 6S/96 58X Pair motlerote N GR 10 to 12 live twig d—ity tlue to prolonged Bay Area tlrought ontlitians.Currentcondition is aapproximately 46%ar 18 18.2 18.2 Shamel ash Fazlnus OMTree appears to be tleclining in 45/25 6o/50 55%fair nn d.b S live We d—ity tlue to prolongetl Bay Area tlroug o ht nditians.Current contlition is aapproximately 35%or"poor". 20 21.5 z1.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN 60p5 5S/55 55%fair poor to motl 21 17.0 17.o Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN 35/20 50/60 SSX fair moMrate S GR m3 32.3 ShamelasM1 F—us uhdrM 55/50 75/65 TOX Sootl gootl NE 29 24.5 29.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN Tree appears to be tleclining in Swo 65/40 %%fair nl Mnft S 30 GR live twig d—ity tlue to prolonged Bay Area tlrought onditians.Current contlition is aaPproximately 45%or"poor". 29.7 26,7 Shl,Nash Fames uhPw 53/90 65/30 6o%fair moderate N GR 25 X 20.7 20.7 Shamel ash Fralnus uhaN Tree appears to he declining in 50/3o 55/45 50%hir nl Mnft SE 30 noua GR live twig d—ity tlue to prolongetl Bay Area tlrought pndmana amenlao.cndition is a approximately 50%or Pair-. 26 X 20 Tree appears to be tleclining in .2 202 Shamel ash Fralnus uh" 35135 5ww N%yh motlerata N live twig d—ity tlue to '� prolongetl Bay Ana tlrought ontli[ians.Current contlition is aapproximately 45%or"poor'. 2 Of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`m Eg oB S oc _ t $ m E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 m- q+ v 'c a c E y WLCA Notes from Updatetl Overall Condition as A. m 8 $c y¢ 1=c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ - c n m g - Ratings&NOTES 2011 psa E„ y a c c c c c c _m„ $m (Genoa,ajaschm) a: ¢ m u d mow c d o - c c g c E _ u Spring 2015 Survey m °�' miG $§$ m m �a gm as qa .Fa°w ppp - ns `off dEw ° ,�i ._ ONWARD dEE$ = E'er 2 2 2 2 2 2 ua 6Z'Ee3 go �a ids �2.� uf �' ¢cgawnm a$ �'c.A uO�Eo °z 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 Sham as Fi el h Mcs uh del MIS 66160 5T%fair moderate 8 —how.carred the lower trunk of thls tree(see Image Iu WLCA'.July,2019 Inspection report).However,the tree Is slated for removal anyway per the Veil-project team has disposition sheet. Tree appears to be declining In live Wild-sity 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"poor". Tree appears to be declining In live We density tlue to 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"fair". 30 29.5 29.5 Shamel ash Frosrume uh" 50140 60156 59%fair good NE Tree appears to be declining In live twig density due to prolklonged Bay Area drought ° ontlons.Current condition Is 31 It6.3 6.3 Shamel an FradmsuhdW 18110 40YJ0 35%puor moderate S BRC Slanted approzlmately 25%or"very poor".Trees In very poor overall condition are generally considered gootl carnlide es for annoval from 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 declining In live We tlensity 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 °approzlmately 40%or"poor". Tree appears to be declining In Tree mM of leaf. live twig density due to 34 24.0 24.0 Shamel ash Formes uh" Ons 50140 45%poor T S 9 Condition prolonged Bay Area tlrouaM .surround. ontll[lons.Current condition Is capproximately 40%or"poor". 35 23.3 23.3 Shamel ash Formes uh" ISMS 60/55 57%fair moderate N 36 1( 26.6 26.6 Shamel ash Formes uh" 5W46 65160 63%fair moderate 37 X 32.9 32.9 Shamel ash Formes uh" sons 70160 65%fair good N 3 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 upd-doneeran condition a E y c S c e + Bcientigc Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ m. c n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 Common Name yy id c u c — m.. g ec E u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`n�w (Genus,species) g e' w a W w W c f eE §¢'rc A°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 38 X 18.2 18.2 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhdN So/25 65/50 56%fair moderate 8 nee appem h be aeegmng h gee twig aenairy aue h GR Diameter estimatetl. prolonged Bay Area tlrought Frarinus uhdW 35/90 65/50 STX fair good N �3_g 23.0 Shemel ash conditions.Cunenl condition is 39 X approzimafely 45%or"poor'. Tree appears to be tleclining in live twig aenairy due to 25 OR op^olonged Bay Area drought 00 X 28.2 20.2 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM SW45 60/45 52%hir mode rate 8 aitiane.Current condition is capprozimately 35%or q1 183 10.3 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 50/20 60/50 "%hir moderate NE Tree appears to be declining in live twig aenairy aue to 28%vary 8 S op^olonged Bay Area aro.gM 42 6.5 6.5 Shamelash FraXlnus uhM 20/8 30/25 pony poor ditiFT Current cantlitionm cappro [ely 35%or"poar". qy 290 24.0 Shemel aeh Fraxlnus uhtlN 55pg 65/60 63%hir good N OR Diameter estimated. qq 90.7 90.7 Shamelash Fraxlnus uh" SM5 65/45 55%hir good 8 OR Tree appears to be declining in lice Is aenairy due to prolongetl Bay Area tlrought 45 180 180 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdef mo W50 SOX hir poor W mod N contlitione.Current condition is approximately 90%or"poor". 96 905 30.5 Shamelash Frazlnus uhtlN SSY35 65/95 SSX hir good S OR Tto9 Diametertimated. qy 26.0 26.0 Shamelash Frazlnus uh" 35Y30 70/60 67%hir good N Tree appi ere to be tleclining in live twig density tlue to ST%hir mod to good 8 OR opr longed Be,Area drought 98 Sig 31.6 Shamelash Frazinus on" W30 60155 ditiona.Current cantlition is capprozimately 35%or"poor". qg 295 24.5 Shemel ash FYezlnus uAdw 55/25 55/55 55%hir moderate N Tree appears to be declining in live twig density due to ous OR p^olongetl Bay Area drought gg 98S 995 Shemel aeh Rxh awsuhdel 55AD 55/55 56%hir mod e erate E dltione.Current cantlition is cap.roeimafely 35%or 4 Of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S �q adao & u a _ oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Note,from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon a& $c y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n r w w g �_ Ratings&NOTES 2011 N E y po q c v n - - - - - - £. g o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b m ii W c - c , c E 8 u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD ggm'e app°i rn g "ppFcF n� OG om Ecru 2 5°E°d= 2 2 2 2 wa SEe3 go as ide �d �L� nQ 2$ 2 ¢c4 o°wn a8 �'cs OO Eo TREE REMOVED. TREE REMOVED. 53 16.8 16.8 Sham,l a,h Fraxlnua uhdW 4 s 65160 63%fair good E E 80%Falr.Same condRlon as previously noted in past years. Tree appears to be declining from prolonged Bay A— S' 31.6 31.6 Shamela,h Fraxlnua uhdW SW40 60150 55%fair moderate W OR tl-9—nditions.Current ondhion m approximately 35% P..,.. 55 21.8 21.8 Shamel a,h Fraxlnua uhdW ems 65160 60%fair good Tree declining moderately. 56 18.3 18.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW mo SSIS5 55%fair moderate W Overall—ditionm new roughly s0%(Fair). 51 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 60/10 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 SUN 50%fair poor.motl W 63 31.5 31.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW SSI00 TO/65 68%fair good 5 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB 'E _ C o c _ t 8 :: s E 'c F Scienffic Name m e p.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall0ondi[lon Es& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444 y a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,species) u b mow c — c s c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� o x x x i x x mi0 o m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o ft ._ ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢12 A.wo a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 60 20.8 20.8 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 40/25 50/50 SOX fair poor to motl W 65 20.7 20.7 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel Sens 65153 55%fair good E OR 66 37.8 37.8 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 60/25 70/63 68%fair good W 61 18.3 18.3 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 55125 65165 65%fair moderate W possible bark 68 x 41.0 41.0 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel SSISO 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'. TO totransplard 13.2 13.2 holly oak Quercws Ilex 25/20 60/60 60%fair no ote W 65%overall condition"fait'. 71 40.8 40.8 Shamelash Frax/nua uhtlel 60145 65155 60%fair Sow 10 72 24.3 24.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhtlel 55125 SSISO M%fair moderate E noua OR 73 26.2 26.2 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 55135 50/50 M%fair poor W 16 74 28.0 28.0 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 55130 60160 60%fair .o rote E 75 21.4 21.4 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 40/25 50/50 M%fair .o rote W 76 20.2 20.2 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhtlel 50/18 40/50 47%poor poor to motl E 6 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea E2. 8 crY itp E — $ _ u 8 - u= r c• H nscientific Name i g$ _ 8 E Q F $ -aIG--.P.cl..) - i o 8 a € q;x @@ WLCANotet9 q- .� -9 y d opW c dgo miy'� c �rc :m '- m s Ratings&NOTE52017 $c$ uo6E g� m! ae �" �r8 e.@ "@ 8�W aY c�8 gg Es�&� _'�_' a pang zwssar.ay 2 2 S¢¢ pp g lu 9 ONWARD IS ufc 77 t5.8 15.8 Sham.la.h FI.I.-uhael 45/15 40/90 35%poor poor W 78 17.0 17.0 Sham.la.h F.I.-uhaN SSY95 65/40 SOX h'v motlrah enous GR 212 212 Sham.l aeh F a.I..uhael SS/25 SS/55 55%fair poor to motl W OR 8s 28.2 282 Sham.lash FI.I.-uhael SSY95 60/50 55%fair motl.mte E 81 24.1 24.7 Sham.la6h FI.Inu.uhael SSY95 55/5p 59X hir motlemte W 82 19.0 19.0 Sham.I aeh Fazlnu.uhael SS/2p 45/50 0%poor poor to motl E Be 17.8 11.8 Shamel aeh F7 I.-uhael SSpO 60/55 57X hir motlnate W 84 212 212 Shamelash F7 I.-uhael 95p0 SSISS SSX hir motl.rate E 85 20.9 20.9 Sham.l ash Finalnu.uh" moaerab m 55/9p 65I60 65%hir good W 86 29.2 29.2 Shamel ash F7 I.-uhtlal SSY95 65I50 58%hir good OR 87 22.8 22.8 sh.m -h FI-b—'how 93Y95 6535 60%hir mod to good NW Be X 5.9 5.0 4.9 15.8 Monbmy pin. Plnu.mdhra 9111 65/65 65%hir motlarate 10 of species not veri}ietl Islantl pine Plnus canarlensls goW 0 fo 4 Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 7 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 a E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8e- q+ v '<`,_,- me Cy WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition z& $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ c - n >, A m E �_ a Ratings&NOTES 201T m E ur pu A c e. _ _ _ _ _ _ £. o (Genoa,aPeciea) a' ¢ m rn ii w c - c a _ u Spring 2015 Survey g u d _ v L c Oft o ONWARD x x x i x s :¢ro . m �a 22me wEEa ra g Yc n� o� o E� dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 yEdV SEe3 iae02 u>' Hn u°fH so ¢cq o°wi: a8 ¢GN uO6'E _ rcrc n_ ID of species not verlfletl.Tree 16.0 Monterey pine Plnus mdlate 1825 M. 90%pow m er OR appears to be Removetl as of Jan,202 Infected by pine pitch canker fungus. Tree has bark beetle 20A 20.4 Monterey pine Plnus mdiata 25/2s 40100 40%p r poortomotl W Issuesantllorpine Removed—Jan,2020 pitch canker Infection. mor000tl,o tcpanioPsiz 15%very 82 X X 1S.S 1S.S r ca btree an Mloldes,or 201is 25110 poor to poor motl W Removed—Jam2020 Cemronia silique rre000d,or Cup mpsis 89 X 11.6 11.6 ca bU.. anac Mloides,or 20/1s 50130 45%p..r ..d..te —7 Removetl as of Jan,2020 Cenronla silique rmo..d,or cupaniopsis 8a X 13.0 13.0 ca bU.. anac Mloides,or 20/20 4513s 40%p..r poortomotl 1-2 Removed—Jam2020 Cenronia silique Active crack Is cons Cupaniopsis • d.Tree 85 X X 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 5.0 35.0 .--.od,or anac Mloldes,or 20/20 fi5110 30%po0r risk"of gootl 1 Ietleretl carob tree Removetl as.(Jan,2020 Ceati silique "extrem failure.Remove ASAP. 86 X 34.0 34.0 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdO 40/2s 6-S ST%fair gootl X Removed—Jam2020 87 rotranspNM X 1..3 1S3 holly oak Quercus ilex 20/25 7-5 TS%good gootl 80%overal1 condition'gootl" 8e rotra..pi.. X 14.0 14.0 holly oak Quercus Ilex 2SI25 7.5 T ... gootl 70%overall condition-go-" S8 rotransphi. X 11.6 11.6 helly oak Quercus Ilex 22/20 TOM 70%good moderab 78%overal1 condition'gootl" 12.3 12.3 Monterey pine P/nus bdi- 1E/1s 50/50 50%fair ..d..te SE 13 ID ofspeeiasn Removetl as of Jan,202 verlfletl. Monterey pine P/nos mdi- 28120 50150 50%fair ..d..te Removetl as of Jan,2020 102 2&. 2S.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus A. .1 50135 401poor motlerate X 12 8 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Note,from Uptlatetl Overall Condition jS Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c o c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8,? �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ �'o ¢122mm� n8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z Estimated overall condition of 20%very poor as Of 1123/2020 dne m e.tensive decay on tensmn side(n,rch side)of ram t c to with possible increasing lean soul aver N. 103 X 24.7 24.7 SM1amel a,M1 Fraxlnus uhtlel 55135 50/40 4S%pow moderate E X 8 Wolfe Rd.d.WLCA m insalletltwo nails and starced monitoring lean angle of 712&2020.TM1e baseline (di.6 today was T4.4 tlerd-)15.(WL degrees off ical).WLCA suggests removal of free at[his time. 104 16.5 16.5 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW mo 55/5o 50%fair .o rate E E X Needs endwelght reductlon pruning 105 16.0 16.0 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/25 45/45 45%poor moderate E X 4 106 X 21.7 21.7 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW Seas 60/So 55%fair good X X 107 X 19.4 19.4 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdW Soms 60145 55%fair .o rate S X 108 13.9 13.9 Shamel asM1 Faxlnus uhdel 55%fair 7 rlo motl Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 109 X 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdO 35/25 40/40 40%poor poor to motl N Removetlasof Jan,2020. 110 X 16.9 16.9 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 45/30 4-0 35%poor poor 11 Removetlasof Jan,2020. 111 X X 29.7 29.7 Monterey pine Plnus mdlata 45/35 60/55 ST%fair moderate Measured at 2 feet. Removetl as of Jan,2020. 112 X X 19.1 19.1 Monterey pine Plnus mdh. 25/15 - D%—d Removetl as of Jan,2020. 25%very Bark beetle issues 113 X X 2- Is. 43.0 Monterey pine Plnus mdlata 30/20 25125 poor poor W and/or pine pith Removetl as of Jan,2020. cankerfungus. 9 of 95 R.I.g.&NOT S2017 ONWARD �JAMMM "]Mlo R.--d.J..,2.2._ MqMjM R.--dJ..,2.2._ limb 0111111MEMOMMENEI M-Amom IF, 11q11111mm mommill --ANNE 6 11111mm mommill �1010 wo mimillimm mommill .110010 1w, momollbodmosom pr jj� 111111MEMMEMMIllIlloolo R-d-J.,2.20- 1 J11111MM MEMMIllIllool T-..-.d.i.. 1L � RI-11-1,2120 110001"M'm R-d-J.,2.20- R.I.g.&NOT S2017 OMMD R...d..&J..,2020. R..—d—J.,2.2.. 16D WWI pr how Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 e- q+ v 'c m e t'.y WLCA Notes from uptlaa d Overall Coadlllon x Es S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n i`m g - a Ratings&NOTES 201T y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,specie.) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey rn �qc , n x x x i x x maG w m �a 22me qEEaY$5Pc EE ��o fr ._ ONWARD dE E' 2 ma ZIT go as iae 8a �Lti e.Q 20 02 U' & of�,$ ¢cq a°wn a8 �'c.A uO�Eo °z pr lor .e fi. W Ficus species Flcu IMMM ssp. 201U MD SSX fair m er ovod..&Oa0Nov2018per parking level. plan. .8 3.7 8.fi Ficue sp-m. Flcus sp. 20112 ]0150 55%fair mad.-- Located M P1 ovetl as of Od N.v 2018 per 7 parking level. plan. .0 4.3 8.3 Ficua epecm. Flcus sp. 20112 ] 0 55%fair mad... Located M P1 ovetl as of Od N.v 2018 per parking level. plan. 143 5.0 4.1 8.1 Ficus species Flcussp. 20112 7-0 55%fair moderate X Located al Pt ovetl as of Od N.v 2018 per parking W.I. plan. 144 X 5.. 4.6 4.4 14.0 Ficus species Flcussp. 20112 7-0 55%fair moderate Located M P1 -odasofOWNov2010per parking level. plan. 145 X 24.7 24.7 Monterey pine Plnus mdi.. 35125 fi0160 60%fair moderate Removedasof Jan,2020. 146 X 0.1 0.1 vergre..pear Pyrus kawakamll 2011s 6-0 ST%fair mad... Removedasof Jan,2020. 147 X 7.2 7.2 vergre..pear Pyrus kawakamll 15112 40140 40%poor poor W Removedasof Jan,2020. 148 X 42.2 42.2 ..straw Saquola sempervlrens 6-s 00180 00%good gootl X Removedasof Jan,2020. 149 X 28.0 28.0 oastretlwaod Saquola sempervma. 5511s 3514s 40%poor poor X X Removedasof Jan,2020. Need,root crown 0owerling cherry vation. 1S0 X 4.0 3.1 �'1 Pr^nos sermlata Cult 12I8 33-0 30%poor ?Out of leaf BRC ContlNion not Removed as of Jan,2020, Nlvar erifietl(tre out of leaf during survey). 151 X 27.7 27.7 oastretlwaod Saquola s—jaaMma. fi0120 .-a fib%fair goad 0 tc 3 X X Removetl as of Jan,2.20. 152 X 31.2 31.2 oastretlwaod Saquola sempe—a. 5511s 6-0 60%fair mad.-- X Removetl as of Jan,2.20. 12 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 a E " E'c F Scientific Name L WLCA Notes from URIaledal erll Condition x Ea S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ Rating&NOTEs 201] y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ns E� EE ��o ft ._ ONWARD dE Ija e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8e? �Lti e.Q 20 02 U' & of�,$ a ¢cq A°wn a8 �'c.A uO�Eo °z pr oast retlwootl uola sempervlrens M's 60/60 60%fair aner Removetl as of Jan,2020. t3.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempamimns sins ]01]0 70%9ootl mad... X 75%overall condition"gootl". Removed as of January 2020. 20.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens SOlis ]01]0 ]0%gootl matlera[e X 75%overall condition"gootl". Removed as of January 2020. 156 X 27A 27A oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens ii- ]51]s 75%gootl gootl X 65%overa11condlllon"falr". Removed 112020. 157 X 29.0 29.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempamimns 60116 ]01]0 70%gootl mad... X 65%overall contllflon"falr". Removed as of Jan,2020. Root system 55%overall condition"fair" 159 X 27.2 27.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6011s 50140 40%poor poor X enad tluring ADA removed as of Jan,2020. amp installation. Root system 35%overall contllflon"poor". 159 X 34.9 34.9 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens ]012s 6-0 46%poor poor to mod X enaddurmg ADA Removetlas of Jan,2020. amp installation. 160 X 16.2 16.2 fern pine Podocarpus gmclllor 55112 70120 35%poor mad..e X 3 50%overall contllflon"falr". Removed as of Jan,2020. 161 X 14.6 14.6 fern pine Pad ocarpus gmclllor 5016 40120 27%Very poor X 1] 45%overall contllflon"poor". poor Removed as of Jan,2020. 162 X 11.1 11.1 tree species out of Genus species 45116 5012s 32%poor poor s s At various R.-as of Jan,2020. leaf .1-1ons 163 X 21.5 21.5 sM1amel- Fraxlnus hdal 4-0 3-0 30%poor poor E 9 X Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 164 X 18.6 18.6 sM1amel- Fraxlnus hdal s-o 3513s 35%poor poor X Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 165 X 21A 21A sM1amel- Fraxlnus hdal 50130 3.30 30%poor poor 6 X Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 13 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S �q _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E " E'c F lcien0fic Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e C y WLCA Nptea from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Es S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 201T y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - 6.S a c E u Spring 2015 Survey miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ONWARD dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 20 °2 U' & of�,$ �'o Pr lor I=M oIr'- V -IOW X 2-2 16.9 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 35R5 25R5 poor moved as of January 2020 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-o 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 IW1875%overall condi0on. Reovetl as of 1I2020. 172 X 21.2 21.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 45/30 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 SM1ame1asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO S-o 3-0 30%po0r poor 0to7 X emoved as of January 2020 175 X 26.5 26.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdW S-o 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 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S �q adao & u a _ F' _ C oc _ u E " E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e E-2 WLCA Note,from U'Iafed Overall Condition a S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ g - a Ratings&NOTES 201] pr E y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$$Pc _ ns E� EE ��o ft ._ ONWARD 2 ma SEe3 go as ¢cq o°wn o.8 �'c str ,—rr,tree Arhums unedo 20/12 go go movetl as of January 2020 .2 21.2 SM1am—h Fraxlnus uhdO 55125 1S115 15/very verypoor 11 X movetl as of January 2020 poor 18t X 11.6 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 55/6 10/10 10%o*ry very poor X X movetl as of January 2020 182 X .2 21.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6S112 5/5 5%verypaor verypoor X emovetl as of January 2020 183 X X 13.8 13.8 SM1amel— Fraxlnus uhdO -16 20120 20%Very very poor GR X movetl as of January 2020 P., 189 X X 11.8 11.9 SM1amel— Fraxlnus uhdO -12 5/5 5%verypaor verypoor X emovetl as of January 2020 185 X X 13.l 13.3 SM1ame1— Fraxlnus uhdO 50/18 20/20 20%very very pom X emovetl as of January 2020 P., 186 X X 8.1 e.] SM1ame1— Fraxlnus uhdW 3.12 8/8 8%verypoor very pom X emovetl as of January 2020 187 X 34.1 31.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 55/25 60160 60%fair moderate X removetl as of January 2020 188 X X 12.2 122 dollar gum Euca/ypfus 50120 2gy2g 20%very m seedling palyanrhemos(seetllingJ poor very poor N N X ovetl as of January 2020 189 X X 18.1 18.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60120 40140 40%poor poor X movetl as of January 2020 180 X X 26.8 26.9 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 10/25 40/40 a0%poor poor X movetl as of January 2020 191 X i).5 175 dollar gum Euca/ypfus 60/35 6-0 58%fair moderate 5 movetl as of January 2020 seedling palyanrhemos(seetlling) 15 of 95 R.I.g.&NOT S2017 ONWARD elm IME11111111MEMEEMM111 -,15MME 1 11111MEMEEME1160 Elm lio 1 11111MEMEEMENIF6" Elm IF ib MEME09MEMEEMMIS" ins LANDSCAPE TRMR..OV..1RO. IMM11111111 LANDSCAPE ON Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 _ C o c _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x Ea 8 $e Ti rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ c - n `o n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,species) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Few g Y$$Pc _ ns o� EE ��o ft ._ ONWARD e'E go as iae t3 ez �Lti e.Q 2$ 02 U' & off z .6p uO� o °z pr oast retlwootl p-1.sempervlrens M. 7W5 75%good goad isope stability Removetl as of January Possible steep .1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 75/20 75/65 70%gootl goatl billslopestability Removetlasof January Possible steep billslope stability arboiNeetla st cabling oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlens 1-1 7-1 50%fair goatl 25 between e i— mstems,'rf retan Possible steep billslope stability. arboi.Neetla st cabling oast retlwootl sequoia sempervlens 00/25 75/40 50%fair goatl between Removetl as o(J—, a of lwo 209 TREE REMOVED FROM IANDSCAPE Possible sfablllry 210 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlren 05/25 75/60 65%fair moderate Roots maybavle1. Removetl as of January been severed. 211 14.9 oas[r—.d Sequoia sempervlrens 50/15 65/6s 0%fair moderate X X Removetl as of January 212 22.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 65/is 75/7s 75%gootl mOJerate X X Removetl as o(January tulip tree Tree appears deatl, (ID nol verNled- 0%tleatl but may simply be 213 X 16.0 tree out of leaf �Irlodendron fullpHere 35/30 0/0 (Confirm in W above grountl Removetl as o(January tluring survey) spring) tlor nt until spring maleafout. 214 X X 31.3 31.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 75/2s 75/6s 70%gootl mOJerate X Removetl as of January 215 X 20.3 20.3 (ern pine Podocarpus greclllor 50/20 00/60 70%gootl gootl W Removetl as of January 216 X t5A 15.4 fern pine Podocarpus greclllor 50/20 75/6s 70%gootl gootl W Removetl as of January 20 217 X 19.6 13.6 fern pine Podocarpus greclllor 50/20 75/6s 70%gootl gootl W Removetl as of January 2020 17 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S �q _ C oc _ t $ :: a E " E-E F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v '<`,_,- m e p.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition a& $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ c - n r A n E �_ a Ratings&NOTES 2017 N E y po A c ra _ _ _ _ _ _ £. o (Genoa,aPeciea) _ u Spring 2015 Survey g u d _ v L c d m'o ONWARD m .a me wa ra gg xggc - ,�i dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 Ed SEe3 gc ap ¢cq a°wn u8 9¢Gu4 UOGEn ide OK or dtlead on ocedy common A fiend—rullpHem M. om tre M1 e tree has leafed Removetl as of January 2020 tree out of leaf Iwhtl oul(or not)In tlurin9 survey) sPNng. Tree is in tlecline with an 219 x 20.8 20.8 Shamel-h Fraxlnus uhdW 50/25 40/SO 4J1poor poorb motl W x apparent overall contlhion of rougM1ly 30%(Poor). 220 x 26.8 26.8 Shamel-h Fraxlnus uhdW SS/35 60155 59%fair It Mrate Tree is in tlecline with an 221 19.3 19.3 Shamel-h Fraxlnus uhdW 50/25 ewso %%fair It Mrate apparent overall contlhion of rougM1ly 35%(Poor). Tree is in tlecline with an 222 x 19.5 19.5 Shamel-h Fraxlnus uhdW SS/35 6o/55 %%fair It Mrate E apparent overall contlhion of rougM1ly 30%(Poor). 223 x 30.4 30.4 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhdW SS140 70/45 55%fair gootl E E OR 12 x iii Removed per plan on Sha--h Fraxlnus uhdel 15 40/50 40%poor poor to motl W 1012212019 by Clint DEVCON. 225 x 25.4 25.4 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhdW SS/35 SW40 48%pow moderate E Roots severed on --Id.. 226 x 15.5 15.5 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhM 4S/25 50/30 37%pow moderefe E E 0 to 1 Roots severed on west sltle. 227 x x 18.5 18.5 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhM 4S/25 30/20 25%vary ppor E 0 to 5 14 Rook sawred on poor west side. 228 x 11.5 11.5 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/25 40/30 35%poar motlerefe E Rootssevered on west sitle. oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2.12 90/90 90%exce1len1 gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 8.8 OF7 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 30/14 90/90 90%excellent gootl Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 18 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 _ C o c _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Note,from Uptlared Overall Condition Ex S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ g - Ratings&NOTES 2011 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPecfea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c a�lF c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ns o� EE ��o ft ._ ONWARD SEeA go as iae 8a �Lti e.Q 20 02 U' & of�,$ �'a uO�Eo °z SM1amel-h Fraxlnus uhdO 18.9 7-5 Remotl s o Jan,2020. 42%poor poor to motlSM1amlsM1 FxlnuhdO 530 E Removetlasof Jan,2020. 19.6 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 55/30 50/40 4]%poor mOtlera[e E otoi Removetlasof Jan,2020. 236 x 15.1 15.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 50/25 35/35 35%poor poor E Removetl as of Jan,2020. 235 x 17.8 17.8 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 55/25 55/40 50%fair moderate Removetlasof Jan,2020. 236 x 17A 17.4 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhM 55/25 55/55 55%fair moderate Removetlasof Jan,2020. 237 x 6.5 6.5 SM1amel- Fraxlnus uhM 30/15 75/65 70%gootl mod to gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 238 x 9.2 9.2 SM1amel- Fraxlnus uhM 35/10 75/60 72%gootl mod to gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 239 x 6.8 6A SM1amel- Fraxlnus uhdO 30/10 7O/45 54%fair mod to gootl i-GR Removetl as of Jan,2020. 240 x 8" 8.1 SM1amel- Fraxlnus uhM 3.18 ]0/60 70%gootl mod to gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 241 X 6.4 6.4 oast retlwaotl Sequoia sempervlrens 3.10 05/85 05%gootl gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 242 X 5.4 5.4 oast retlwaotl Sequoia sempervlrens 3.10 05/85 05%gootl gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 243 X 5.7 5.7 oast retlwaotl Sequoia sempervlrens 3.10 05/85 05%gootl gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 19 of 95 R.I.g.&NOT S2017 OMMD R...d..&J..,2020. R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--.d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- R.--d.—J..,2.2.- Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S � a E " E'c F Scientific Name L X o= q+ v '1 WLCA Notes from llptlated Overall Condhlon x Ea 8 $e y rc r c —'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ `o Ratings&NOTES 201T y $a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c — c o c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$$Pc _ ns E� EE ONWARD eME 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti e.Q 2$ °2 ¢c4 a°wn n8uO�Eo °z g pear(ou calleryana Cult 90/15 BL35 fiSYe fair go 10 Removetl as of Jan,20 of lea ' 6T flowering Pear(out pyrua calleryana Cull. 30/15 05/60 fiT%fair gootl X X Removetlaaof Jan,202 of leaf 4.9 4.8 floweringNpaear(out pyruscalleryana Cult 2.12 85/65 68%fair gootl X Removetlaaof Jan,202 Tree Is In roughly the same tllscre[lonary LalMornla erall condition rating as not 260 transplant X 95.8 35.9 X ayaamore Milan-racemosa 6S145 6S/So 60%fair motlerat0 W W ov In prlor years.Tree to be transplanted per protect team. Bark sloughing at Tree is in roughly[he same 261 dlsoratlonary X 22.8 2t.8 44.T X Callfornla plafanus racemosa 6S145 ]S145 ST%fair motlarab N83 GR SeanoHs Al zero ft. mot crown possibly ovanall condition rating as not transplant sycamore at dght due to lNlgatl.n In prlor years.Tree to be water spray. transplanted per protect team. Tree Is In roughly the same 262 dlsaratlonary X 15A 15.4 X LalRornia plafanus raoemosa 4S/lo TMo TO%gootl moderate NE NE 1ft. erall condill-rating as not transplant sycamore vIn prlor years.Tree to be transplanted per protect team. Tree c.nditm.is roughly tM1e 263 X 13.5 13.5 Sham0l a,h Fraxlnus uh" 35/15 50145 47%poor moderate S S GR ame a a previously..ad in past years. 264 Shamel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 0 55/55 55%fair poor to motl 5 5 Removetl a a of Jan,202041 to.0 Shamel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 50/20 55140 45%poor mad.-- GR 25 Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 266 X 20.8 Shamel— Fraxlnus uhdat 55/30 50/30 35%poor poor to motl X Roots havadbaen Removetl a a of Jan,2020. —na267 X 23.7 2- Shamel— Fraxlnus uhdat 50/35 6-0 30%poor gootl SW SW GR Roots havtlbeen R.—a a of Jan,Mo. 268 X 26.5 26.5 Shamel— Fraxlnus uhdat 55/25 75/55 0%fair gootl 5 X Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 269 X 27.1 27.1 Shamel— Fraxlnus hdal 55/25 75/45 55%fair goad nous GR 25 X Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 21 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated oeeran condition a Eyc r5 c e + 5cientigc Name U $ en._ of = Scm ran' v _ .mc n WLCA Notea from Ratings S NOTES 2017 o E d E is F V µ°'' d Common Name yy c w e - c G.. g L ec E o g F 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q-`a w (Genus,species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B d w E m 'c f °sy = ga Sod ESQ aE §¢'rca°wit aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 Root system Tree contlitian appears to be F u 10 asymmetrical declining.Currecondition 276 X 28.7 28.7 Shemel aaM1 Faxlnus uhdN 60Y35 75/55 63%fair good rating is nougM1lnty 46%(Poor). X 271 X 35.2 55.2 coast rstlwoad Spools samparvinrrs 60/20 70170 70%pad moderate X 272 X 183 19.1 ...t rsdwoad Spool.sempervlrens 10/12 68170 69%fair msdarste X .3 X 233 23.3 ...t rsdwoad Spools s—P wmns 60/12 70170 70%good moderate X 2. X 239 23.8 ...t rsdanad spool.s—Pww ens 60/12 70170 70%good moderate X 275 170 17.0 Shemel ash Fraalnus hdal 55116 65/65 65%fair moderate Tree condltlon same as noted in 276 X 15.9 15.9 Shemel ash F—Inus hdal 50/12 40/30 34%poor poor E at root crown X prior y»rs. Tree condition appears to be nous OR X declining.Current condition is 277 183 19.3 Shemel ash F—Inus uhdal 50/25 50/40 0%poar msdanste E E roughly 30%(Poor). Tree condition appears to be d»Iini-S. Yran condit D ion is 278 X 210 21.0 Shemel ash Fr I.-uhdal 60/25 60150 35%fair msdmate W W OR r Tree condltlon appears to be declining.Current condition Is 26.T ...t ratlwootl Spuola s—PWmn. 50/20 80/80 80%gootl '.ad roughly 70%(lies the low and of "Good"condltlon rating range). 2'/8 X 26.7 Tree contlitian appears to be .ado..OR X dellining.Cu.nt condition is 280 16A 16A Shemel ash Frasinus on" Wit 30145 37%Poos Poor ni gNy 30% vary Root.severetl. prior y»rs. Condition same as noted In 20% 281 X 21.2 21.2 Shemel ash F—Inus uhdal SM5 30/20 poor very poor 6 X Tree In same condition as E GR X Roots ceveretl. prevlously noted In past years. 282 15.0 15.0 Shames»h flazlmrs uhdal 35Ng Mist! 90%poor poor 22 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdalod Overall CondIIIon x Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n t'71 a Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPecfea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� s x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 yma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ -- 02 UOo ¢cgnwn a8 TEE 5 'E A z Tree In decline.Cu- 283 X 18.1 18.1 Shamelash Fra1—uhdW SO/20 WK, 35%poor poor-mod E OR X Roots severetl. c*"dM,"is roughly 26%(Very Poor).Suggest conslder removal of tree. 2" 14.4 14.4 Shamel ash F]a 1—uhdW 40/25 40140 0%poor poor OR X Tree In same condition as previously noted In past years. 285 X 18.4 18.4 Shamelash F]a1—uhdW SO/25 SW40 44%poor poor-mod E E OR X Roots severetl. 286 X 17.0 17.0 Shamelash F]a 1—uhM 40145 60160 60%fair nn Mrale N 287 X 24.3 24.1 oact r -d Sequoia s—P-1... 60/15 ]MO 70%good nn—rn X 15.7 iS.] oas[retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/15 70]]0 70%gootl motlera[e X Removetl as of Jan,2020 Apical meristem oast retlwaotl Sequoia sempervlren fi0/15 50/6s fi3%fair m.d..e X sympfo phm l di Removetl as of Jan,2020 290 X 14.8 14.8 Shamelash Frsxlnus uhtlN 40/20 4S/35 40%poor poor-mod W nous OR X Treelndecllno.Cument contll[lon Is 30%(Poor). 291 X 24.2 24.2 Shamelash Fra 1—uhM SW40 SW45 48%pow nn Mnft W nous OR 6 Treelndecll no.C.— contll[lon Is 36%(Poor). Tree is in d din.tlue to chronic 292 X 16.3 16.3 oastr -d SwluolasemPeMrens 35/10 ]MO 70%gootl modern- droughty conditions.Current ondi ion rating m 60%(Fair). 283 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. fern pine7--p..gmclllor 30/18 50/4o 45%poor moderate W Removetlasof Jan,202 8.6 8.6 southern magnolia Magnogagmndigora 1E/15 25/2s 2S%very very poor W 8 1017 Removetlasof Jan,202 P., 23 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S u E " E'c F 3cien0fic Name L 8 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall CondIIIon x Es S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n i'm g - a Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$$Pc _ ns E� EE ��o ONWARD dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.Q 2$ °2 U' & of�,$ �'o ¢cq o°wn o.8 cw pr lor I=M=l I .A uO�Eo °z 1 T.J SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO Ms 3505 35%pow poor Removetl as of Jan,2020 281 X X 12.1 12.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 25/15 35/20 20%Very poor poor Removetl as o(Jan,2020 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 or Jan,2.2. 300 X X 23.3 23.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/15 20/20 20/very very pow X Removed as or Jan,M20 poor 301 X X 15.2 15.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 25/10 20/15 19tivory very pow X Removed as or Jan,2020 poor 302 X 26.9 15A 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 Removedasol Jan,2g20 3" X X 18.0 18.0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens -10 5/5 5%verypeor verypoor X Removetlasor Jan,M20 305 X X 20.1 20.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 20/15 10/10 10�o°ry X 6 Removetlasor Jan,2020 306 X 17.5 17.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 45/25 50/40 40%po0r poor to mod W S Removetlasor Jan,2020 907 X X 17.7 17.7 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 40/20 30125 29A Very poor X Oto6 Removed as or Jan,M20 poor 308 X 21.1 21.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 50/15 ] 5 75%gootl goatl Removetl as or Jan,2020 24 of 95 R.I.g.&NOT S2017 N.R. R...d..&J..,2020 MOIL.40 R.--d.—J..,2.2. EEMEj§WjjjESjE R.--d.—J..,2.2. Ike IPPR.--d.—J..,2.20 P-e-. Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Note,from Uptlatetl Overall Condition E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - o. `o ' n i'm g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8,z �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢ngnwn o.8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 322 X 11.9 11.9 Sham,I,,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/15 40140 40%poor poor X 323 X 9.4 9.4 Sham,I,,h Fraxlnus uhdW 4S/12 30/30 30%poor poor X 3. X 12.8 12.8 Sham,I,,h Fraxlnus uhdW W12 30140 35%poor poor X 325 X X 7.4 7.4 Sham,I a,h Fraxlnus uhdW 28/12 2g/2g 20%very very poor X poor 326 X 13.0 13.0 Sham,I,,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 10/28/2020 updated ovaran condition a E y e S c e + 5cientigc Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ .m c n WLCA Noted from Ratings It NOTES 2017 o E v E c r? V ' ; Common Name yy c u c — c m.. g sc E u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`n m (Genus,species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B 13 1u E m 2 = ga Sod§ ESQ aE <'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X g%(oeaal. 335 X X 16.0 16.0 oast ratlwootl Spuola sampaMmns 50/12 5/5 5%vary poor very poor 10%vary moderate ainetem X 336 X X 9.6 9.6 sh um -n Frarinus uhdW 25/10 10/10 Rom 997 X X 8.8 8.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdN 2Sfl 5/5 5%vary poor very poor dine eon X 8.] Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdN 90/8 90/10 15�oery ine poor atem X 338 X 6.T X 339 X 12.8 12.8 Shamel ash F—lnus uhM 40/20 40/40 40%poor ,our W X S40 X 143 14.3 Shamol aah F—Inus uhM 50/20 35/40 38%poor poor 341 X X 10.9 10.9 Shamolash Fraxlnus uh" 3" 10/10 t0%o'ry very poor ainetem X 10 342 X X 12.0 12.0 Shamolash Fraxlnus uh" 45/18 10/10 poo ainetem X ,ry very poor Verily condition X ce tree leap out 343 X 13.7 13.7 Shamol ash Frazlnus uh" 45/18 35135 35%pocr poor in spring. 20%vary X 3" X X 7.3 7.3 Shamol ash Frazlnus uh" 20/12 20/20 poor very poor 8 X 345 X 14.4 14.4 Shamolash Frsxinus on" s0Y10 4W30 35%Poor Poor 10%vary E X 346 X X 10.7 10.7 Shamel ash Frazlnus uhdal 25/12 10/10 for very poor 17%vary X 347 X X 11.3 11.3 Shames»h flazlrws uhMl 25I12 25I10 Poor poor 27 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 a- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Note°from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon x E& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c — c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mitp n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnw° a8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z 348 X X 12.9 12.9 Shamelaah Faxlnus uh" 45/18 2MO 20%very very poor X poor 349 X X 12.2 12.2 Shamalash Faxlnus OM 30/20 2M5 25%very very poor X poor 350 X X 14.2 14.2 Shamalash Fraxlnus uhdW 50/15 20/2g 20%very very poor X poor 351 X 14.6 14.6 Shamalash Fraxlnus uhdW 30/20 40/25 28%wry poor pporb motl 6 X 352 X 11.1 11.7 Shamalash Fraxlnus uhdW 2S/20 10/10 10%vary very poor W W X poor 353 X 17.7 17.7 Shamal ash Fraxlnus uhM 40/25 35/35 35%poor poor E X 354 X 13.4 13.4 Shamal ash Faxlnus uhM 3S/20 45r35 40%poor poor X 355 X 12.5 12.5 Shamel ash Faxlnus uhM 35/15 20/15 18%very very poor X poor 356 X 18.0 18.0 Shamal ash Faxlnus uhM 45r30 20/10 15%very very poor W S X poor 357 X 20.8 20.8 Shamal ash Faxlnus uhM 45145 40150 46%pow M X 358 X 10.9 10.9 Shamal ash Faxlnus uhM 35/15 0/0 0%dear) E E X 359 X 18.3 18.3 pine species(not pinus P. 30/20 80/55 65%fair good N 0 to 1 foot X 40%overa11 condition"pool'. verlfled) 360 X 24.4 24.4 Italian stone pine pinus plow 30/35 9"0 11%good excellent 65%overall contlition"fair". 28 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 o a updm,d overan condition a E y° S c N G o + 5cientigc Name U $ tin._ o Z = .m c n WLCA Notes from Ratings&NOTES 2017 Common Name yy c u c — c G.. g me E 6 u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e (Genus,species) g e' n i ti d m$W w W B d w E m f Eyq Y m m¢8y5a q - R sl2it= eggg = gad Z'o w d ESc xn' ]2.ci aE §¢'rco° n aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X X Measured at2feel. 65%overall contlition"fait'. 361 X 26.6 26.6 ibliin stoma pine Plnus plow 30Y30 60/60 60%few moderate X Mwaured et2fwt. 50%overall contlition"fait'. 362 X 28.6 25.6 nation stun.pine Plnus pl— 25/35 70f70 70%pod good Tree out of leaf. jo%overall oontlitlon'YM Guemus more front Nestle training p-e- 2 7.2 retl oak verified) 20/15 80/50 60%fair good pruning. 363 X X ] Tree out of leaf. 5%overall contlition"very 5 Nestle training l 364 X X 5.5 5.5 oak sP..i- Guemde P. 12/8 60/40 40%Poo, moderate X pruning. Poo'. 10%overall condltlim"vary 365 X X 7.3 7.3 ...tNrnmagnolia Magnol/agmndplom 18/13 40/40 40%p o, poor to mod X Poop. X M....edat3.5feet 56%ov.rellconditiom'Yeir. SG6 X 170 17.0 Mien stoma pin. Pin-pl— 18/25 80/50 60%fair good N 20%overall conditlon'Yery 367 X X 24.3 24.1 Italian sbn.pin. Plnus pinea 25p0 80/35 4SX pow gootl N 5 X poor^, Measured of Is 30%overall contlition"poor. 968 X 20.2 20.2 Mien stone pine Plate;pluee 25/30 80/35 45%pocr good N OR T X feel. Measured of 2.0 30%ov.rell contlition"poor. 969 % 23.8 23.8 Italian a ton.pine Plnus pinea 25/30 50/50 50%hdr poor to motl 10 feet v.tdy sP.6..in ,prime aNer 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 condition'Teir. 971 X 26.3 16.3 AI.Ppo Pine Pin.helepemde 30135 80160 70%good good malmtams at Sfwt. X 6S%oven))contlition'Yeir. 372 X 21.6 18.7 40.1 Italian eWn.Pin. P/nus pinea 90Y35 8M0 75X gootl gootl N 20%overall contlition"very poor 25%powry X Poor. 973 X X 7.4 7.4 aoWMrn magnolia Magrmlk 9rendlfiore 20115 25125 or vary 29 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated o..mn condition a E y° S c N G o + 5cientigc Name U J; c g O n^ o Z i m 9 m pt ce v m' c n WLCA Notes from Ratings&NOTES 2017 Comm Name 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD on u SHE (Genus.species) g e' ;, °syp = F Y m m8¢ggg5a q - R sgite A''ggg :c'8 aL _ 02 "n - �$ oa = gad Z'od ESc x°'n' id`; �c' ]2.ci - 2- of .E §¢'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 In perking lot of Benikana near F U X X HyaX construction Project. 3. X X 7.2 7.2 tulip tre. Urbdendron NllPMam 12/8 20/10 15�oery very Ppor N X Sindis#122s. In parking lot of Benikana near X X Hyan construction project. 975 X X 5.6 5.6 tu0ptr.. UrbobMren NIlPMam 1218 20/10 15P o�ry very Ppor X Bandis#1224. 10%overall 000dl0on'Yery 25%very X pwo 376 X X 5.6 5.6 aoutnenmagn.lia Magnol/agmMlgow 13/10 25/25 poor verypoor 20%overall condition"very 377 X X 7.6 7X aoutkernne,,-Iia Magn0l/agmM-ne 19/12 35/35 35%poor Ppor X Pool'. 20%overa11 condition'1rery 20%vary X Poop. 378 X X 7.0 7.0 ...tkernmag-li, Magnol/agmM cne 20/14 20/20 Poor verypoor 20%overall condition"very 35%wry X Poor. k ST9 X X 6.5 6.5 ...t.rnmagnolia MegindMgmM cne 1//12 25/25 po.r verypoor 20%overa11 condition"very 20%very W X Poor. 380 X X 7.4 1.4 ...tnornmagnolia Ma9n011a9mnd low 20/10 20/20 po.r very poor 381 X 23.0 10.7 37.7 Mien aton.pine Plnus pima, 25/30 75/55 64%fair mod.rate 5 X 4J%overall contlition"poor. X 53%overall..ndition'T.ir. 982 X 20.8 20.8 Italian abn.pine Plnus plrrea 25/25 70/60 6S%fair moderate 383 X 19.5 19.5 Italian atoi.pin. Pin-plrr.a 25/30 80/65 74%good g.w E OR X NYe overall condition"pool'. X Measured of 2.0 90%overall condition'vair". 984 X 22.0 32.0 Italian a tone Pine Pinus pines 25r30 T0160 65%fair mode- S S feel' X a%overall condition"poor. 385 X 33.2 33.2 Italian atone pine P/nus pl- 25/35 60/30 38%poor mpdene 8 9 10%overa11 contlltlon"very 15%wry 1 X X Pool'. 986 X X 0.5 0.5 aoWMrn magnolia "one 9mndlBom 1318 15115 poor vary poor 30 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea o'8'Y 8 crY �p E — $ _ u 8 - u= r c• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name i g$ _ ° 8 E a= m P F $ - o ? Ic.npa,.peciea) - i oe' 8 a € q; m uptlatea Overan contlltlon t; x @@ WLCA Notes from iF y x x y m¢r9 `q- o� -9 y d erpW ggc dgo miy'� c Gd�rc :m '- m S Ratings&NOTES 2017 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c$ uSovE g� m! ae �" Cr8 e.@ "@ 8�W aY c�8 gg Es�&� _'�_' a pring zwssaraey 2 2 S¢¢ pp g Iu 9 ONWARD iae bd lZo° - 2- -Ag '2 t ufc 7.8 southern magnolia MagnWlagmMlgom 18/18 20/20 20%wry poor verypoor X 30%overall contlition"poor'. 389 X X 7.5 7.5 aQutharnmagn li, MagnWlagmnAlgom 18/15 20/20 20%wry poor verypoor X 15%overall contlltlon"very pool'. 988 X 91.8 22.3 54.2 Iblian atone pine Plnus plrraa 30/45 SW40 47%poor motlarab 2 X MYe overall condition"poor'. 390 X 13.2 13.0 26.2 Ibliansbna pine Plnus plrrca 25/15 80Y30 45X poor gootl N N 9 X 9S%overall contlition"poor'. 391 X 12,1 12.0 24.4 Iblian atone pine Plnus plrtaa 25Y30 80/60 67X bir gootl E E 9 X 45X owmll contlition"poop. 392 X 14.6 14.6 Italian abna pine Plnus plrtea 25/18 80/65 69%bir gootl E X 40X owmll wntlition"Pool', 983 x 14.3 14.3 Mii.n abna pine Plnus plrtea 20/20 TWO TOX gootl gootl E X SSX overall contlition'Y.il. 989 X 10.1 10.1 tm speebs out of leaf/Gen..,sP-ms) 35/20 80/65 75%gootl 9.w 985 X 9.8 8.9 tree spe.f out of (Genus,sPecles) 35120 80165 T5%gootl re.ar gpoa w 396 X X 18.1 18.1 oastr -d Sxluola semp"mns 65/12 TWO TO%gootl motlerab SbOp elope 15%overallcontlltlon"very Poor". 387 X X 20.5 20,5 coast retlwaotl Sequels sampwv/yens 65/12 ]W3 TSX gootl motlerab SbOP elope 25°/.overall contlltlon"vary poor". 988 X 13.4 13.4 Sha--ash Fr I.-uhtlN 40/25 8W0 74X gootl gootl Steep slope 988 X 11.3 11.3 Shamel ash 171-1 us uh" 35115 90/30 9DX poor poor 31 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated overan condition a E y° r5 c N G o + Scientific Name U c g O n^ o Z i S 9 m m ce v c'm n WLCA Notes from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E v E c r V ' u Common Name 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o #«>' (Genus.species) g e' n i u = gad Z'od ESc mE wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ 6 SbeP slope 400 X 21.5 21.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdN 40/25 60/50 SS%fair moderate 40t X 202 202 stop a-n Frazlnus uhdW 45/20 5005 40X pow moderate W 8 10 On steep clops. g On steep clops. 402 X 164 194 Shamelash Frazlnus uhM 45/25 60/45 SSX fair good A03 X 150 150 Shamelash Frazlnus uhM 40/18 40/40 40%Pow poor W 6 8 On steep elope. various On steep slope. 400 X 257 25.7 Shamelash Frazlnus uhM M5 40/40 40%Pow poor SW elevations T On steep clops. 405 X 29.5 29.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 65/35 40Y35 40%pow poor S S On steep elope 25%overall conditlon'Nery /06 X X 17.9 17.9 oast redwood sKoole samPav/rerls 50/8 7Of/0 TO%good nn,4.1 b Poor' 0 to 10 o%IDead) 07 X X 0.1 0.1 souther—g-lia Magnollagmrdlflora 15/1 5/5 5%vary poor very poor various 10%overall condition"very 10 408 X X 5.9 0.8 9.7 soutnornma9nolia Magnollagmrdlflcm 18/6 10110 "oery very poor levations Pool. e X 50%overa11 condition'Tair. COB X 180 18,2 oast redwood Sxluola s—P.W-.s 55/15 65/65 65%fair moderate X 50%overall candition'Yair. 410 X 20.7 20.7 oast redwood Sxluole s—Pewms 55N0 65%5 65No fair modeate X 40%overall condition"pool'. 411 X 22.4 22.4 coast redwood S"-la samPerv/rens 55113 60/60 60%fair poor to mod Removed Aug,2919. MA SMme1»h Frazlnus uhdel fi5r4 fi5I55 412 X 32 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 vas Egoo S u E " E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e t.'y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition s S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n i'm g - a Ratings&NOTES 2It pr x E y =a c c c c c $o (Genoa,aP-te.) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$$Pc EE ONWARD dEE' = 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae r3a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 U' & of�,$ �'a ¢cq A°wn n8 �'c.A uO�Eo °z .6 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel M. 50/4D 43X pow poor omo Removed Aug,2D1g Wlllneedendwelght Teamprop....to transplant discretionary California reduction pruning at tree.Current condition roughly 414 transplant X 22.5 22.5 X sycamore PlaWnus mcemosa SSIJO 50/45 5D%fair motlerate W W GR west side of the same as prevlously notetl In canopy past years. Team proposes to transplant 415 discretionary X 18.3 18.3 X LalMornla pl.--mcemosa 6./JO 50/SO 50%fair motlerate N GR tree.Curren[condi[lon roughly transplant sycamore the same as prevlously notetl In past years. Team proposes to transplant 416 discretionary X 1].8 1].8 X C.Iff nla p/afanus mcemosa 50/20 50/SO 50%fair .,drat E GR tree.Current conditlon roughly transplant sycamore the same as prevlously notetl In past years. 18.2 18.2 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus hdal 30/25 ]SIBS good good Removed per plan August.11. 418 X 11.5 11.5 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus hdal 30/15 45/bD 40%poor moderate GR Removed per plan August 2018. 17.3 17.3 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 35/bD fi0/5D 55%fair -ad.-- W GR Removed per plan August 2018. 420 X 11.1 11.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 35/25 ]SI]D ]0%good good W Removed per plan August 2018. 13.1 13.1 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus hdal 35/25 50/5D 50%fair poor to mad Removetl per plan August 2Di9. 422 X 14.3 14.3 SM1amelasM1 Fraxlnus uh- 30/3D 75/45 .0%fair good 8 Removed per plan August 2018. 423 X 28.1 28.1 ...at retlwootl Sequoia sempe-a. ]0/2D ]O/]D ].%good moderate Removed per plan August 2018. 424 X 33.6 33.6 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempe-a. 70/1. ... .0%fair moderate Removed per plan August 2018. 425 X 24.8 24.8 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6S115 7W]0 70%9ootl motlerate Removed per plan August 2018. 33 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S �q adao & u a _ oc _ t $ a E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 3°- q+ v '< S c E y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition s& $c y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n r w m �_ ° Ratings&NOTES 201] o m E w po q c v n _ _ _ _ _ _ £. o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: m ra ii W c - c c u Spring 2015 Survey _ g u d _ d L c d m'e i ONWARD a ° a x x x i x s E¢ri . m .a mac as ra° gg Ygc c� °� o E� - w¢',�i 5°E°d= � 2 2 2 2 2 2 -Ea SEe3 gc Sxx eTa n@ 2L o2 ¢Aq A°wLL aouwi uOGEo H s1 1it°f ufin-? .6 X 27.8 27.8 oast retlweotl Sequoia sempervlrens 55I20 ]5/66 Xgootl m.n. Removetlperplan August 2011. 427 X 17.3 17.3 Shame)asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO 60/20 40140 401pow poor E X Removetl per plan August 2019. Tree m declining.Appears to bo in 40%overall condition(Poor), 428 29.0 29.0 Shamelaah F loos uh" Boas ewso 50%fair poor to moil W with..—I leafsenescenco plus twig and bran.h dieback from d-9tht-ind—d decline. is tleclining.Appears to be In 45%overall condtion(Poor), Cotlominant Tree is to be removetl and Shame)asM1 Fraxlnus uhdO S-s 70/55 65%fair go ineteme fork at posted as such as of May,2020 a 13(eel. (approved by Clty of CupeNno City Staff)in order to acco motlate unforseen ins[allation(s). Merasequaia TREE IS DEAD.TREE 430 X X 2TA 2TA giant sequoia glyptosfroboldes ]5/15 66145 55%fair poor b,m*d Tree was limbetl up. REQUIRES REMOVAL FROM THE IANDSCAPE. Tree In decllne,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 decllne,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 swwed 435 % 31.1 31.1 Shame)ash Fnxinus uhdei 85/45 "nopoor poor W GR during sld—.Ik Same condklon as previous. replacement 438 23.0 12.0 35.0 oast redwood Sequoia aempervinns 65/18 76160 65%fair good 3 Diametere 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 previously noted. Roots severed 438 X X 23.5 23.5 Shame)ash F inua uh" 65/18 Bono 37%poor nuderab E during sld—.Ik replacement 34 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB 'E _ C If _ t 8 :: a E 'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m c p.y WLCA Notes from Ip oated Overall CondIIIon x Es& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'71 - Ratings&NOTEB 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� s x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of ¢cgnwn n8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z Crown raising 439 X 27.0 27.0 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlrens TS/i6 TWO TO%good good X ri pmnimngwtoIlmb as 4SY.overall condition"poor. P pe up Nils.tree. Condiumnestimated Tree currently In 28%overall .0 X 18.7 18.7 Sham0lash Fra1—uhdW 60Yd0 MS 3S%pow very poor W W 1 pri0r I.spring condhlon(Very Poor).Tree leafout. suggested by WLCA lobe removed. Roots severed Tree currently In 28%o—roll 441 X 21.2 21.2 Shame(ash Fra1—uhdW 60145 50/50 50%fair motlarat0 1 during sidewalk condition(Very Poor).Tree replacement sugg...d byVLCA to be d. Roots severed dudn9sidm- Tree appear to be in decline. 442 31.2 31.2 Shame(ash Fra1—uhdW 60145 60145 53%fair motlarat0 W S replacement.Will Cunentoverallcondifmnis4S need e,d—ight reduction pruning. 443 X 41.0 41.0 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlrens TWO 75/60 68%fair 9ood 5 CabolnstalMon 45%overall condition"poor. recommended. 4W 21.5 21.5 Shame(ash Fra 1—uhdW SS/30 70150 60%fair moderate W 15.4 15.4 ShamelasM1 F—Inus uhdel 60/18 50/50 50%fair moderate N X Removetl as of August 2019. 446 X 21.1 21.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervhens ]0/15 ]5/]s ]s%go.d gootl Removed as of August 2019. 17.s ShamelasM1 Fraxlnut uhdO 60/20 55/80 52%fair poor to mod N Removed as of August 2019. 15.7 oast redwood sequoia sempervlrens 70/10 6-0 60%fair moderate E Tree was limbed up. Removed as of August 2019. oast redwood sequoia sempervmns 70/10 6-0 60%fair moderate E Treewaslimbedup. Removedasof August2019. 45o X iS.S 15.5 oast retlwootl Sequo/a semperv/rens 70/10 60/SO 55%fair moderab E Trae was limbed up. so%overall condition"fair". 451 X 19.6 19.6 Sham.I ash Fro 1—uhdW SW5 70/55 60%fair 9ood W 35 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated o....n condition a E y c S c e + Scientific Name U $ e n = m c m m n' v _ .m c n WLCA Notea from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E d E c F V ' d Common Name yy .. Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e (Genus,species) g e' d ;, °sy q F Y m mgga q - R slit= egg ;c'8 aL _ 02 "n ai o� = ga Sod E wn of aE aS 2 2 2 2 2 Cur cantlition rating is F u 2 rent0.2 ougM1ly the same as noted in 452 X 21.5 21.5 Shamel aan Fraxlnus uhdN SS/30 SO/35 0%pow poor to motl W previous years. 453 X % 15.0 150 StremslasM1 Fnittla suhdW 50/10 10/10 10R"mry very poor Current condition rating is 12 Roots damaged. ougM1ly th.same as previously a54 X 284 284 Shamel an Fraxlnus am" 65/35 SW40 47%pow poor to motl noted in past Yea.. Roots damaged. ass tTT 17.7 Shamel an Fr Iona,uhM 45/18 30/35 33%pow poor E Sam sondl0on rating w noted 456 X 22.1 22.1 Shamel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdN 60/20 40/35 97X pow poor W W 1S In prior yw.. May be declining in Condition. C—m condition is roughly 45T X 28.5 28.5 Shamel ash Fr Iona,uhM 65/35 SW60 55%Pair mstlwate W 45%(Poor). various Bark slulsng all. Same condition rating as noted elevations PMoemib.rk In prior yea.. 458 X 25.1 25.1 Sbamel ash Fraxlaus uh" 60/35 30/40 35%pow poor to motl disorder. Root.damaged. 459 X 91.8 31.9 Shamel ash Fraxlaus uh" 75/45 60/60 0%Pair mstlerste Root.damaged. 460 918 91.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN 65/95 60/55 58X fair moderate Tree tleclining.Current ove.Il oon E. Is roughly SS%(Poor)Extensiv 1S e twig tlleback /61 255 25.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlN SS/90 50/50 SOX fair poor to motl apparent. Tree declining.Current overall onditian is roughly 2N%(Very Poor).Tissue necrosis and bark a inalu.ion at lwk noted.Tree.in 15.3 Shamelash Fxlaus.1a" oils W40 45%pow moderate vry poor cndit be ryec.11 481 X X 15.3 uggesl:d too d Tree appears to be in decline Roots damaged. due to chronic drought 21g Shamel ash Fnxinua uhtlei 55/45 ]5/80 ]0%good good W condiurm..Current overall 463 21.0 conditlm rougM1ly 55%(Fair). 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 464 X 34.1 34.1 centlition rougM1ly 4N%(Poor). 36 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea E2. 8 crY �p E — $ r c• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name i g$ _ °E 8 E a= m P F $ - o ? = a» a v (Gene.,species) - i oe' 8 a € q; m upaatea overan conahlon t; x @@ WLCA Notes from iF y x x y m¢r9 `q- o� -9 y d opW ggc dgo miys� c �rc :m '- m S RaUngs6NC1sS1.l1 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c$ p,;EO6P g� e'C ne pang zwsservey 2 2 S¢¢ pp 31u W 9 ONWARD 2:Zapiae bdas 465 EP.6 22.6 Shamel ash Frexlnus uhdN 60/30 SS/95 SO%fair motlwab W ree ie currently same 16 Roots tlamegatl. on tlNon as no[etl inn previous years. /66 29.3 29.3 Shamel ash Frexlnus uhdN Tree appears to be In decline 65Y30 60/45 WXfa'v mail to good E g dim to W.M.drought onal0 ove on,.Current rall common roughly 40%(Poor). ,167 Tres daclfni,g.current overan X 35.8 25.8 Shamelash F mae uhdei 65145 Rao 37% condition is roughly 26%(very poor motlaram OR 3.10 Poor).Tissue necrosis and bark Inclusion at fork noted.Trees in very poor condition are tyaioan suggested to be removed. Tree declining with apparent 468 extensive twig diebacI,Current )( 24.6 24.6 Shamel ash Fn ahms uhM me 40140 40% overall condition is roughly 26° pow poor Roots damaged. (Very P-m-).Tissue necrosis and bark inclusion at fork noted.Trees in vary poor condition are typically suggested to be removed. 469 25.2 25.2 Shamelash i7naches uhWl 60Y30 40p0 _ 98X pow poor W S OR 12 Rows damaged. o tlNon is�nBotetl in prevbue Y.- ding 27.7 27.7 Shamel ash Frexfnea as" tons 45/35 10%pow App to be expedencing poor ears ormal Falllea cence (leaf drop).nop). 471 14.9 14.9 Shamelash Fnxinua as" oils 45145 45%pow W W Appears to to be expedencing poor rrwmal Fail leafserrescerrce (leaf drop). 472 16.4 16.4 Shamelash Flaxfnua uI— Bono 45145 45%pow E Appears to be expedencing poor ormal Fall saf (leaf tlropdd,.pnescence ). 473 31.5 31.5 Shamel ash Frexfnea as" 60146 75165 66%fair Tree appears e,be somewhat good Ban ( not Roots damaged tleclining.Current ovamll condition Is roughly 57%(Fair). 474 25.3 0.3 Shamel ash Fnxfnua as" Bono 75160 65%fair to be om ree appears sewhat good E OR Tdeclining.Current overall condition Is roughly 59%(Fair). 475 36.7 Tree Is tleclining.with an 36,7 Shamelash Prates uhdef B0//5 7OH5 68%fah motlwate estimated d3%overall conditlo Roots tlamaged. rating(Poor).Leaf fall appears to be a combo of normal leaf fall plus twig antl branch aleback. 37 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Updated Overall CondIIIon Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go IS as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 416 X 15.2 15.2 ShamOlaeh Faxlnus uh" 30/2S 35140 38%poor poor to mod E 477 X X 13.9 13.9 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus OM 35120 20/2g 20%very very poor poor 478 X X 16.9 16.8 Oact redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 40/15 SO/50 %%fair poor 20%overall condition"very poor". 479 X X 22.1 22.1 Oact redwood Swluola s—Pervlmns SO/20 0/0 0%tl d 0%(Dead). "0 X 13.1 13.1 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 90/18 45145 45%poor poor SE 481 X 20.0 20.0 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 35125 45145 45%poor poor W 462 X 9.8 9.8 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM MO 30/2g 25%vary poor W poor 463 X 12.7 12.7 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 30/i6 SW40 SO%fair .o ra N GR 484 X 15.9 15.9 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhdW 90/18 60150 SS%fair .o ra 485 X 13.7 13.7 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 30/20 S5155 SS%fair .o ra E 466 X 22.3 22.1 oactr -d Swluola s—PS mns 50/18 HMO 70%gootl motlarat0 fib%overall condition 487 X 21.9 21.8 Oact redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 50/18 HMO 70%gootl motlarat0 70%overall condition"good". 468 X 12.4 12.4 Shame)ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/16 Seas 40%pow motlerat0 N 0 to 3 38 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall Condition E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � a x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn o.8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 48S X 8.9 8.9 Sham0laeh Faxlnus uh" 30/20 M5 45%poor motlarat0 .0 X 14.3 14.3 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus OM MS SS145 47%poor poor to mod W W 481 X X 9.3 9.3 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus OM 20112 40/20 27%wry poor W W 8 poor "2 X 9.1 9.1 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhdW 25118 5005 40%poor poor to mod E 433 X 12.4 12.4 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhdW 30118 tsao 35%poor poorb mod W W 484 X 13.8 13.8 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 3WO 40140 40%poor poor 435 X X 13.0 13.0 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 30116 2W20 22%wry poor poor W W 0 to 8 436 X X 7.9 7.9 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhM 25112 30/20 25%wry poor E poor 437 X X 10.2 10.2 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uhdW 30/20 2WO 23%very poor poor W W 438 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 wergreen peer Pyrus kawakamll 916 010 0%tl d No X X 21.4 21.4 oact rW-d Sequoias—Pervlmns SS115 010 0%tl d 0%Dead. 501 X X 19.0 19.0 oact rW-d Sequoia s—Pervlmns SS115 15115 15%very very poor X Sbep elope. 0%D.d. poor 39 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Note,from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon x Es& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'71 - Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ ¢cgnwn a8 Ha uO�Eo °z 502 X X 24.4 24.0 ....tr -d Swlrrola s—Pervlmns W12 0/0 0%d d X 0%Dead. 503 X 6.7 6.7 a m,,n pen Pyrus kawakamll 1X14 40140 40%poor poor S 5 504 X 9.9 8.0 18.8 oak,p,cie, Quemus P. 3WO 80/50 60%fair good 3 OR Sbep elope 505 X 32.3 32.1 ....tr -d Swlrrola s—Pervlm.. was TWO TO%good moderate X Sbep.lope 70%overall wndNon'gootl'. SO6 X 10.0 10.0 evergreen pear Pyrus kawakamll 25/15 40140 40%poor poor E E X FirebligM infection. SOT X X 7.6 7.6 wergreen peer Pyrus kawakamll 18/15 20/2g 20%very very poor N N X Firebli,M infectim poor we X 10.8 10.8 vergreen pear Pyms kawakamll 25/25 wM 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.s—Pervlm.. 6W5 80/80 80%good good X TO%overall...dNon'gootl". R—damag,d on 511 X 14.4 14.4 wergreen pear Pyrus kawakamll 2W5 40150 44%poor poor X grede.Fireblight 55%overall contlition"fail. infection. 512 X 6.0 6.0 ...thernmagn,lia Magnollag.r flom 15/8 Moo 37%pow moderate X X 30%overall contlition"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 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Note,from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 Ratings&NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a' ¢ m u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFc O o fr ._ ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 yma SEe3 go as iae t3,z �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn n8 TEE 5 'E R z 515 X X 10.5 10.5 evergreen pen Pyres kawakamll 2S/20 30/30 30% 20%overall contllt',,",,ry pow poor E E X FirebligM1[infection. per, 516 X X 10.6 10.6 wergreen pen Pyres kawakamll 2S/20 30/40 35% 20%overallcontlltl.."W,y pow poor E E X Fireblight infection. p-r, 51, X X 6.5 6.5 ,outh.rn magnolia Pyres kawakamll 1317 40/30 30%poor poorb motl E 41.T 15%ovnall contlltlon"very poor". Out of leaf.Overall 518 X 21.2 21.2 SM1amel a,M1 Fraxlnus uhtlel 50/30 55I60 SBX fair poor to motl W W contlNon verify in spring after leafout. 519 X 7.6 7.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlrens 40/10 0/0 0%DEAD Na TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE 521 X X 20.2 20.2 Sham,la,h Fraxlnus uhM MIS 30/25 28%very poor W poor 522 X 14.3 14.3 Sham,l ash Fraxlnus uhM 35/18 10/10 10%Very Poor very poor W 5 523 TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 524 10.6 10.6 Chine,eelm Ulm-Parvlblla 40/30 7S/15 75%good good E X 525 17.6 17.6 Sham,la,h Fraxlnus uhM 40/25 35/35 35%poor poor W W 526 6.7 6.7 Chine,eelm Ulm-Nmftlla 18/12 65150 55%fair mo nft E X 527 8.2 8.2 Sham,la,h Fraxlnus uhdW 20/15 70140 0%fair good 3 S 41 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Upd-d Oearan condition a E y c r5 c e + 3cienti6c Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ m. c n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 Common Name yy ud c u c — m.. g sc E u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e�� (Genus,species) g e' n i m a W w W c f aE §¢'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 528 tt.t tt.t CM1ine»elm Ulmus parvMvlla 25/35 70/60 66%fair moderate X 529 12.T 12.T ShemstaM Frarinus uhdW 30/20 mod 4S/95 43X poor poorb W W n0 10.4 10.4 CM1ine»elm Ulmuspi'lfoll. 30/30 75/65 73%good moderate S X 531 82 92 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 30/18 SW40 45%poor W 8 592 12.3 12.3 CM1ine»elm Ulm.N'Mclla W40 65f/0 70%good moderate SE X 533 13.2 13.2 Shamel aah Fraxlnus uhM 30/30 60/60 60%hir moMrate S94 10.2 10.2 CM1ine»e1m Ulmus NmHolla 40/20 70/60 70%good goad E X Sly 20.6 20.6 Shamel ash F—Inus uhd.1 35/35 60/50 M%hir good 06 X 12.1 12.1 SM1amel asM1 Frazlnus uhtlN 30/20 20120 20%-Ro.- -'poor 537 13.1 13.1 Chin—elm U/mus Parvdolla 35/35 60/55 60%hir motlarate E X 538 18.8 19.9 Shamel ash Fraxinus uhdN 3Si35 50143 SOX hir poor to mod 538 12.7 12.7 Chi—elm Ulm"NmIliolla 25/30 75/65 70%good good E E X 590 21.8 21.8 Shames»h Racfrws uhdal 4W45 GW55 60%hir moMrate OR 42 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea E2. 8 crY ito E — $ _ u 8 - u= r c• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name i g$ _ ° 8 E a= m Q F $ - o a IDena.,aPeclea) - i oe' 8 a € q; m uPaafea overan conalolon t; x @@ WLCA Notesfrom m¢t9 `q- o� -9 y d erpW ggc dgo miy'� c �rc :m '- m S Ratings&NOTE52017 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c$ uEJ So6E tie �" �r8 e.@ "@ 8�W aY c�8 gg Es�&� _'�_' a pang zwssarvey 2 2 S¢¢ pp g lu 9 ONWARD ufc 591 tz.s 12.5 Chinesealm ulmus parvlblla 30/30 60/50 55%fair motivate x "a 13.7 13.7 Shamelash FreXlnus AM 95/25 50/50 SOX fa'v motivate W W 593 152 15.2 Shamel aeM1 Faxlnus uhaN 40/25 55/90 34%pov motivate S OR 5 594 t9.1 14.1 Chineseelm ulmus Parvlsolla 40/35 70/60 67%fair motivab E E X 595 114 17.4 Sha 1,0 FreXlnus uhaN 40Y30 75/55 64%fair good W Tighl forks at 6 feel 596 11.2 11.2 Chineseelm ulmus NmImlla 30/35 70/60 66%fair motivab E E X 597 % 12.5 12.5 Shamel aah Fraxlnus uh" 40/20 25/2$ 25%vary poor very Poor W W OR TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. !IS 16.3 16.3 Shamelash F—us uhWl 4Sl30 65I55 61%fair motivate W 00 17.5 17.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhtlN SOY30 75/65 TOX Bootl good W 02 11.2 11.2 Chineseelm ulmus Nmftlla 25/25 60/60 60%hir motivate N N X 03 14.2 14.2 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhael 30/2D 7S/65 70%gooa good W W 43 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea o'8'Y 8 crY ita E — $ _ u 8 - u= r c• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name i g$ _ ° 8 E a= m p F $ - o ? q; m updated overdo conalolon t; x @@ WLCA Notes from iF y x x y m¢r9 `q- o� -9 y d opW ggc dgo miys� c �rc :m '- m S Ratings&NOTE52017 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c$ R. g� m! ae �" �r8 e.@ "@ 8�w aY c�8 gy Es�&� _mm Gang zwssr.rvey 2 2 S¢¢ 31u W 9 ONWARD iae b �Zo° - 2- -Ag '2 ufc S50 b.o Ao elm species ulmus P. 20/10 7W5 75%good good Tree out of leaf.ID not xerifietl at lime of wr ting. 555 X 8.8 8.8 Shamel,,h Fraxlnus uhM 20/15 10/10 10%wry poor verypoor Oto fO 556 16.8 16.8 Shamel aeM1 Fnxlnus uhaN 90Y30 SS/80 59%fair moMrate 0 to 1 Vehicle impact scar. 557 12.8 12.8 Shamel aeM1 Fraxlnus uhaN 50/25 95Y35 95X poor poor W W "a 13.8 13.8 Chmeaeelm ulmus parvMolla 35/35 TWO 73%good good N N X SS8 15.8 15.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhaN 50/25 SS/50 SOX fair poor to motl W 560 1f.5 11.5 Chineseelm ulmus parvlblla 30/30 MIR 68%fair moderate E X 561 13.7 13.7 Chineseelm ulmus parvlblla 30/30 70/50 60%fair good N X 562 1}8 1J.8 SM1amer aeM1 F...-uhW 30130 00/38 38%poor poor N X TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. SW X 10.8 10.8 a..ash Fraxnus uhdN 93/25 25/20 23%vary poor verypoor W W TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. S66 X 1T.5 17.5 Shamelaeh Fraxlnus uh" 06/35 40/I0 4pX poor moderate W W 44 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 z yg�*�, g g: " — •o — e €< t o a updated Ovman condition o + 6cienti0c Name U c g O n^ o Z i m 9 m m ca v 'm c n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 Common Name yy c u c — c m.. oc E u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD (Genus.species) g e' d m a W w W ' d on E m f= 0 °syp = F Y m gy5a q - R sitge Ag c'8 a _ 2 "n - �$ oa = gad Spd Egg xe n' id`; ISE 3 :2.ci aE §¢=rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 162 Shame,ash Fraxlnus uhdN 30/15 25/25 25%, wo,poor 567 I 16.2 we 18.0 18.0 ShemetaM Po Frarinus uhdW 45/35 TS/65 TO%gootl good W we 135 135 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 30/25 70/65 68%fair good W 5T0 12.T 12.7 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhM 18/10 swu 40%poor moderate W W % x 50%overa1lcondafo'Ur. ST1 22.7 22.7 oast r ooa Spuola sampwwmns 55/20 60/60 60%fa,r moderate 572 31.6 31.6 oast r oorl Spool.s—PeMrens 55/2D 60/45 55%fair moMrate 25 X 60%overall contlition'Yeir. 3c srx oaenn eomitmn••poor. 573 16.5 16.5 oast ni wood Spuola ssmpwWrens 50/15 60/50 S3X fair moMrate % 0%overall condition"poor. 574 256 25.6 oaet redwood Spools s—P.W—s SS/15 60/60 60%fair ni Mrate X 35%overall condition"Poor . 575 120 12.0 oast redwootl Spuola s—P.M—s 35/10 60140 47%poor mo4.nte % 65%avenil,condhion••rair. 576 32.1 13.4 12.2 $7.7 oast redwootl Spuola sampwWrens 55/25 MID 70%gootl poor vadou8 % 45%overall contlition"poor'. 577 27.6 27.6 oast red d Spuola sempeMrens SONS 40M 35%P Poor alavadons x 50%overall condition'Yair. 575 171 17.1 oaet redwood Spuola s—P.W—s 3V12 60/60 60%fair moderate X 40%overall condition"poor. 579 177 V.7 asi redwood Spuola semPervkens -12 65165 65%b,r moderate 45 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated overan condition a E y c S c e m+ Scientific Name U $ tin._ o f = m c m m n' v _ c n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E v E c r V ' u Common Name yy u d c u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD (Genus,species) g e' n i m a W w W B r3 w E m f = -gad Z•od ESc2 of aE wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X ss%overan conaigon••fair. no 315 80 40.5 oaetrWwootl Sprrola samparvinns 60/20 7WS 75%good moderate X q5X overall contlition"poor. 581 21s 10.5 32.0 coastr ood Spools samparllrans 60/15 60/60 60X fair motlwate X 60X overall contlition'Yeir. 582 31.1 31.7 oaet rW d Saquole sampervlmns 70/25 80/80 80X pootl Oootl 20% ondltion'.very 8,y oaet rW d Saquola s—P.Wmns 9S/6 20/20 30 ooery very poor X pooY'. 583 X 8.3 X 50%overall contlifion'Ur. 686 26.8 26.8 oast rW d Saquola samperv—s 10/20 65/65 65%Pair moMrate X 50%overall conaition'Yeir. 58s 15.8 7.3 23.2 oactr ood Spuola sampervlmns sells 65/65 65%fair moMrate X 45%—.it wndilion"PPor. 586 253 25.1 oaetr ooa SKwla samperv—s 50/13 65/65 65%fair mo,Wl t X 52%ovemll condition'Yair. SIT 18.8 18.8 oaetr ooa sprmla s—P.M—s 50/14 65/65 65%fair mo,Wl t X 47%overall condition"poor. 58e 210 21.0 oaetr ooa sagrmis samperv—s 50/12 60160 60%fair moaorab X 62%overall condition"fair. 58s 233 23.1 oaet redwood sprmis sampeMrens 60/12 65/65 65%fair moaorab X 35%overall conaitian•'poo!'. 58o 25.5 5.0 30.5 oactn ooa sprmla sampwvirens 60H0 30145 35%Poor pow X 50%overall condition"fair. "1 212 21.2 oaetr ooa sprmla sampaMrens 55/10 50140 45%pow poor ma rewotl Squoia 13s28%vry 51 X 25.0 25.0 Poor X SOX fair as of]I28I2020. vary poor 46 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'71 ; - Ratings&NOTES 201] N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢12& a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 583 14.4 14.0 eactr -d Sequoias-Pervlrons 40/10 30/30 30%poor peorb motl 3 Ot*, X 40%poor as of]I2812g20. 584 18.1 18.1 eactr -d Sequoias-P-1mns W13 6SIS5 50%fair ih MratO X 50%fair ae of 112312620. 585 18.2 18.2 Deaf rWwoetl Spools sempervlrons 25115 40/25 30%poor motlarate merisrom251aplcal X 50%fair ae of 112312620. ) 586 12.8 12.8 eact r -d Swluola s-P-1mns SS/8 SW40 t5%poor poor b motl S X 20%very poor u of 7/28/2020. 587 X 12.7 8.3 21.0 eact r -d Swluola s-P-1mns 35/10 0/0 0%d d deed 1 X Deatl as of]12812020. Shear crack May ba as high as 90%poor ae "a X 18.5 18.5 Deaf rWwoetl Sequoia sempervlrons 50/6 90/10 20%vary very poor X through the of]12w2020.But shear crack poor malnsromly. downgratles cenditicn rating. longitudinal no 27.0 27.0 eact rW-d Sequoias-P-1mns 75/25 65/65 65%fair .o rrte X 50%fair ae of 112312620. Cankerdevelaping 600 18.8 18.8 eact rW-d Sequoias-P-1mns 6518 SW40 t5%poor poor W X on trunk at 5 feet 30%peorasof112812g20. elwation. 601 25.5 25.5 eact rW-d Sequoias-P-1mns 70/14 40/40 40%poor poor X 30%poer as of7I2812g20. 602 13.7 7.7 21.9 eact red-d Sequoias-P-1mns 40/8 40/30 35%pow BRC X 30%overall condition"pool'. 603 X 17.3 17.3 eact red-d Sequoias-P-1mns 50/15 25MS 25%very 25%overall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X pool'. 604 X 16.7 16.7 eact red-d Sequoias-P-1mns W12 25MS 25%very 25%overall contlltlon"very poor very Poor W X poor". 605 X 6.6 6.6 eact rW-d Sequoias-P-1mns 3W 25MS 25%vary very poor X 0%)Deatl) poor 47 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 vas Eg oB S �q adao & u a _ F' _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 e. q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x Es& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - a Ratings&NOTES 201] N 4444 y a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,specie.) a' ¢ m u b ra o w c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 y:a SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢12nwa n8 TEE iA uO�Eo °z 606 X 26.4 26.0 ...t ra -d Sequoia sempervirens 60/18 2p/3p 25%vary n�dominant 25%overall contlltlon"very poor paor X i lam fork rt 20 pcer, feet 607 X 15.4 15.0 ...t ra -d Sequoia sempervirens W10 1S/2o 17%very 15%-wall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X poor". 608 X 22.0 22.0 Deaf ratlwoatl Sequoia sempervirens 60/14 90/30 30%poor poor W X 37%overa11 contlltlon"very poor". 609 27.1 27.1 ...t ra -d Swluola sempervirens 70/18 35/35 35%I,a" poor X 30%overall condib..'poor. 610 X 13.0 13.0 ...t ra -d Swluola s_Parvlrens 3" 40/20 28%vary pgorb motl X 35%overall contlitlon'Nery poor poor. 75%overa11...dhion'gootl'. Tree was severely pruned by property owner to the at, removetl all of Me 611 98.0 98A oast.—ad sequoia semcervirens ]5115 TMp TOX pond good X Cankers Bf at ertw on W nk at which facing.caffold limb,. wHealth and sWclural 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 oastr—ad Sequoia semcervlrens 25/4 0/0 0%dead dead the we—nd facing scald 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 ]5l]5 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—at, 614 32.3 32.3 oastretlwood sequoia sempervirens 65/16 ]0l/0 70%good mod to good X hi.h removetl all of Me and facing scaffoltl limb,. wHealfM1 and siroclural ratings significantly reducetl a o n po . Tree rely prunetl by property owner to the—at, 615 15.4 15.4 oastretlwood sequoia semcervirens 50/10 50/50 50%fair poor X .h removetl all of Me and facing scaffoltl limbs. wHealth and stroctural ratings significantly reducetl n poo . Tree •rely prunetl by property owner to the west, 616 24A 24A oastretlwood sequoia sempervirens 65/11 55/50 53%fair mod X hi.h removetl all of the and facing scaffoltl limbs. wHealth and siroclural ratings significantly reducetl a n pal. . Tree rely'pruned by rty owner prope to tho west, 61] 10.1 10.1 oastretlwood sequoia sempervirens 2s(9 65/46 55%fair mod X mh removetl 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 10/28/2020 v`m Eg oB S �q adao IT _ t $ m E E'c F Scientific Name L S m- q+ v 'c a c l°y WLCA Note,from U RI atetl Overall CondIIIan x Es S $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ g - Ratings&NOTES 201T „ y a c c c c c c _mm„ $m (Genoa,apaches) a: ¢ m u d _ u Spring 2015 Survey m °�' E m x x x i x x mit5 m m �a ggm ae qa .Fa°w g pppppp - ns `off dEEw ��° ,�i ._ca ONWARD 2 dE E$ = J. 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma zl go ma io?� �L� nQ 2 e'2 UOo & of ¢cgawnm a$ �'c sS uO�Eo °z can Treerty owner¢rely prunetl by prope to the west, 618 26.7 26.7 oact reotwead Sequoia s-Pee inns 70/18 SW60 58%fair poor to motl X which removetl all of the we facing scaffold Ilmbs. Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly reduced n Poo . Tree erelY Prunetl by property owner to the west, 619 12.5 12.5 oact reotwead Sequoia samparvlrens 45/10 SW40 50%fair moderate X which removetl all of the westward facing scaffold Ilmbs. Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly reduced n pmo . Tree ¢rely prunetl by property owner to the west, 620 15.3 15.1 oact reotwead Swlaola s-Pend- 35/10 SW40 50%fair moderate X which removetl all of the westward facing scaffold Ilmbs. Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly reduced Tree erelY Prunetl by property owner to the west, 621 12.6 12.6 oaet redwead Sequoias-Panel- 45/11 60150 55%fair moderate X which removetlall of he westward facing scaffoltl Iftn". Health and structural mtings w slgniflcantly reduced 622 23.4 23.0 oact reGwootl Sataola semparvlrens 7S/15 5W50 50%fair poor X 55%overall contlition"fait'. 623 25.1 25.1 oact reGwootl Sataola semparvlrens 7S/15 5W50 50%fair poor X 57%overall cmntlition'Yair". 6. 15.9 15.8 oact reGwootl Sataola semparvlrens 70/12 SW40 0%pow poor X 50%overall contlition"fair. 625 19.7 6A 26.1 oact retlwoad Sataola semparvlrens 65/10 5W50 50%fair poor X 50%overall condition'Yair". 626 19.6 19.6 oact retlwoad Sataola semparvlrens 60/10 60150 55%fair poor W motl X 50%overall condition"fair". 627 22.9 22.8 oact retlwoad Saquola semparvlrens 7S/12 60150 53%fair poor X 60%overall condition'Yair". 628 X 19.1 14.1 oast retlwood S la sem bens .1. 2W. I re emmend tree be removetl ¢quo pery Worry very poor X at [his lime.O will -CA).SHPCO will remove. 629 X 11.9 11.8 oast.-ad Sequoia sempervlrens a- 1.10 71- 630ry 0%(Dead).TREE REMOVED AS poor very poor X OF OCTOBER 2018. 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 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m c P.y WLCA Notes from Ip oated Overall CondIIIon x Ee& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n t 71 - a Ratings.NOTES 1111 N 4444 y a c c c c c c _mm„ g o (Genoa,specie.) u b mow c — c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go IS as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢12 A.m a8 ¢'Sa4 uO�E. °z 691 X 16.2 16.2 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 4S/15 2/20 20%vary very poor 2g X 20%overall condltlon"very poor poor'. 112 1" 15.5 oastr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 50/18 .0 35%poor po--d 30 X 30%overall condition"pool'. 20%overall condition"very X 9.9 oast redwood sequoia sempervlrens 40/10 35/35 35%poor i pool'.TREE REMOVED AS OF OU.SER 2018. 634 X 11.5 11.5 .actr ood Sxluola sampervlmns W12 2/20 20%very 10%overallconditlon'Nery poor very poor X 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 ood Sequoia sempervlmns 10/18 2M5 25%very 18%overall conditlon(very poor very Poor X poor). 637 X 13.8 13.8 .actr ood S la sem Imns 50/15 2M5 25%very Orn�ofms wa lwo equo pery poor very poor X movatas 5h overall condition(very poor) l at grad.. 638 27.9 27.8 .actr ood Sxluola samp.rvlmns 80/25 7WS 15%good mod to good X 68%overall...dition(fair). 638 X 10.8 10.8 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 3W 2M5 25%very vpor DlfRt t 18%verall condltlo po.r vllsuallY. "very poor'. 640 21.1 21.1 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 10/12 40140 40%poor poor W X 30%.verall...dition"poor. 641 19.6 19.6 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 60/12 65155 60%fair mo,ioroto N X t5%overall condition"pool'. 642 30.3 30.1 .actr ood Sequoia sempervlmns 1SI20 50/SO 50%fair mo,ioroto X 42%.verall condition"poor. 643 24.3 24.1 .act redwood Sequoia sempervlmns 10/18 60155 56%fair motlaroto X 50%.vera11 condition 50 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon x Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� o x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z 694 tt.t it.t oastr -d Swluola s—Pervlmns W12 SUN fair poor X 40%overall contlition"poor. 695 22.8 22.8 oast rWwootl Sequoia sempervlmns 7'0/12 40/35 39%poor poor X 25%overall contlltlon"very poor". 646 X 14.8 7.5 22.1 oact redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 50/10 4 O 27%vary SArunkformat 24%overall contlltlon"very poor poor W X cedaln heights. poor". 647 31.5 31.5 oact r -d Swluola s—PS mna 75/25 80/80 80%good good X 70%overa11 condNon 698 X 0.8 0.8 Deaf rWwootl Spools sempervlmns 25I5 90Y30 30%poor poor S X 17%overa11 conditlon'Nery poor". 649 25.7 25.7 oact rW-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/12 SUN 50%fair nn Mrs X 50%overall contlition 650 22.4 22.9 oact red-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/i6 SUN 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 contlition 652 15.9 15.9 oact red-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S/i6 40/40 40%poor 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 16%ovxall contlltlon"very poor very poor X pool'. 655 25.0 10.0 35.0 oact red-d Sequoias—Pervlmns MIS 50/50 50%fair poor.motl 3 X 50%overall condition'Yair. 656 27.3 27.1 oact red-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 7'S115 60140 50%fair poor.motl 6 X 56%overall condition'Yair. 51 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall Condition Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'71 Ratings&NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢12& a8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z 65T 19.8 19.8 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlrens TO/15 45145 45%poor poor W X 48%overall cantlition"poor. 658 30.8 30.8 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlrens TO/18 30/35 30%poor poor 4.8 X t5%overall cantlition"pool'. 659 X 10.0 10.0 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlrens 3514 0/0 0%d d dead X g%(Dead) 660 X 23.0 23.0 oactr -d Swluola s—P,-1mna TO/15 30/20 25%very S4..kform poor very poor X between 60 and 65 30%overall condition"poor'. 1-10vati0n. 661 X 12.0 12.0 oaetrWwootl Spools sempervlrens 90/8 SOY30 95%pow moderate 20 X 28%overall condltlon'Yery poor". 662 17.7 17.7 oactr -d Sequoias—Pwv1mns 50/15 60145 %%fair modern. X 50%overall condition'Yair. 663 11.2 11.2 oactr -d Sequoias—Pwv1mns 50/10 55/SO 50%fair poor.motl X 40%overall contlition"poor. 664 11.0 11.0 oact redwood Sequoias—Pwv1mns 50/10 50/SO 50%fair poor X 40%overall contlition"poor. 665 20.4 20.4 oact redwood Sequo1as—Pwv1mns 6S/18 60155 58%fair and ra X 59%overall condition'-r". 666 20.9 20.8 oact redwood Sequoias—Pwv1mns 70MS 40150 45%poor poor X 45%overall contlition"poor. 667 16.7 16.7 oact redwood Sequoias—Pwv1mns 6S/18 40150 45%poor poor X 40%overall cantlition"poor. 668 9.1 9.1 oact redwood Sequo1as—Pwv1mns 4M 30/35 35%poor poor X 30%overall cantlition"poor. This tree has a PG&E guy strap and its trunk which may 10%overall contlition"very 669 X 9.9 9.9 oast redwood Sequoias—Pwv1mns Orr 30MO 30%poor poor X —t-fly g1mle the pool'. stem,possibly ausing loss of -1,111ty within the stem cross sedlo.. 52 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S �q adao & u a _ F' _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x Ee& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - a Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ft ._ ONWARD 2 dEE8_- eM 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of ¢122nwa n8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z US X 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Sarluola s—Pand... 4016 20/20 20%very 15%overall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X poor". 671 X 7.1 7.1 oactr -d Saquola s—Pandmns 3016 2525 25%very 15%ovwall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X poor". 672 X 14.8 14.8 oaetrWwootl Swluola sempervlmns 50/12 40/40 0%pow poor X 25%overall contlltlon"very poor". 673 22.2 22.2 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhtlel Sons 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 At all poor very Poor alavatlons. X 676 16.6 16.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65118 3WO 30%pow very poor Various X eNvztlons 677 X 17.6 17.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65118 10/10 10%very At all poor very Poor elevations. X 678 1 4 13.4 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 60/18 45/45 45%pow poor.motl E X sing re..-d in January 2019 tlue.requirement I.move 12.7 12.T Shamel asM1 Faxlnus uhtlel E PGE high voltage underground cult sad associatetl conduit toward this tree. 680 15.6 15.6 Shamal ash Frax/n-uhtlel 60/25 M's 40%pow poor.motl E X 681 17.3 17.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel 65125 45145 tS%pow motlera. E X 682 14.2 14.2 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhtlel ms 4SY30 9SX pow poor.motl E 8 X 53 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated overan condition o 'm+ 5cientigc Name U c g O n^ o Z i m 9 m m ca v c n WLCA Notes from Ratings&NOTES 201T o E v E E r V ' u Comm Name yy c u g 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD on u o #«>' (Genus.species) g e' n i d m a W w W ° d on E m f= = ga=iA Sob Enac ~ aE w ~ n aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 Possible 15X very to 6 deshbfllaed root 683 X 18.) 18T Shamelash Fraxlnus uhWl 65/30 25/10 poor verypoor E E 5 X plRemowktree. 5%vary X 684 X X 12.2 12.2 ShamstaM Fraxlnus uhWl 50/20 15/15 Pom very Poor 5%wry E E X 05 X X 10.5 10.5 Shamelash Fr Imm uhM 45/20 15/15 poor verypoor x 59X owmll contlition'Yeir. 686 X 0.0 0.0 oast rsdwood S"oole ssmparvlmns 15/6 50/50 SOX hir motlemte 687 x 114 114 Shamelash Fr Imm uhM 45/25 40/35 37%1oor poor to motl E E X x 65%owmll contlition'Yair. 688 x 0.5 0.5 oast mdlwoorl S"wle ssmio"Wmns 20/8 70M 70%good motlemte 10%very E E x 689 X X 15.8 15.8 Sbamel ash Fraxlnus uhWl 65/20 10/10 poor very poor x 65%owmll condition'Yair. 690 X 0.9 0.9 oact m lwootl Sarloole ssmwwmns 18/6 70M 70%good motlemte 5%vary E X x 681 X X 10.8 10.8 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhWl 95/25 1S/15 poor very poor 682 X 22.5 22.5 Shamel ash Fr Imm uh" 75/35 65/50 %%hir mod to good E E X 683 X 28.0 18.0 Shamelash Fmndmson" 70140 65158 57%hir modtogood E E 8 X 684 x X 21.3 21.3 Shelash Fr Imm uftW T0/35 40/40 40%poor poor 8 am Roots severetl with x assay,on west aiao 695 x 28.3 28.3 Shamel»h Finud s uhWl 70r35 60150 55%hir mmdarMm E E of root system. 54 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C IT _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - A `o ' n t'71 Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � n x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢ngnwn A8 $'c a4 5 'E E, z 696 X 23.9 23.9 Sh-lash Fraxlnua uhdW TWO SUN 50%fair poor.motl E X 697 X 25.3 25.3 Sh-I ash Fraxlnua uhdW TWO 45/35 43%poor poor.motl E OR 11 X 698 X X 8.2 8.2 oactr -d Sequo/a sempervirens 28/10 SW60 55%fair poor.motl X 10%ovxall contlltlon"very poor". X 8.4 8.4 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2.10 010T.%-d d-d X OY.(DOCTOBEMOVED. OF OCTOBEROVED. Poll 700 X X ].5 7.5 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2.10 0/0 0%d d d.d X OY.(D OCT REMOVED OF OCTOBER.,2018.. 701 X X 8.2 8.2 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 25/T 40/40 40%poor poor X 0%J( atl).REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER.,2018. X 8.1 8.1 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 25/T 1.10 10%very 0%(Deatl).REMOVED AS OF poor very poor X OCTOBER.,2018. dL 703 X 20.3 20.1 oact retlwootl Sequoias-Pervlrens 40/20 40140 40%poor poor.motl X 50%overall contlition 704 X 11.3 11.3 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 3W 0/0 0%d d dead x 0%(Dead). 4%overall contlition"vary T05 X 10.3 10.1 oaet r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 30/4 5/5 5%vary poor very poor X poor".REMOVED AS OF OCTOBER,2018. 706 X 11.0 11.0 oact retlwootl Sequoia sempervirens 30/8 10/10 10%very 13%overall contlltlon"very P.., very poor 1 X poor". 707 X 5.8 5.8 oaciretl d Sequoia sempervlrens 25/6 10/10 10%very T%overall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X poor". TOB X 11.5 11.5 Deaf retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 90/8 40/40 40%poor poor X 15%--H contlltlon"very poor". 55 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg at _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Note,from URIatetl Overall Contlltlon s& $c y rc r c —'o u Common Name _ c S tin_ c - n >, w w g �_ Ratings&NOTES 2011 N E y po q c v n — — — — — — £. g o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b E — 8 u Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD $ gm'e ap°i rn "pFc n� oG om Ecru 5°E°d= e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 "a 6Z'Ee3 go Wa ide �2 �2.� n 2$ °'2 UOo 5 u°fw« _ �a¢cq o°wn a8 �'cS uO�Eo TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. ]10 12.3 12.1 oactr -d Segtmla s—Pervlrens 3518 40140 40%pow X 35%overall contlition"pool'. ]it X 11.3 11.1 oactr -d Sxltmla s—Pervlrens 4014 Iwo 10%very very poor X 9%(Dead). poor 712 8.4 8.4 oactr -d Sxltmla s—Pervlrens 30/8 30Y30 30%poor poor X 30%overall condition"pool'. 713 11.4 11.0 oactr -d Sxltmla s—Pervlrens 3516 40140 40%poor poor X 40%overall contlition"poor. 714 X 7.3 7.9 oactr -d Segtmla s—Pervlrens 3016 15115 15%very 15%overall contlltlon"very poor very Poor X pool'. 715 19.5 19.5 oast rW-d Segtmla s—Pervlrens MIS 45145 45X poor poor X 35%overall contlition"poor. 716 X 0.9 0.9 oast retl d Sequoia sempervirens 1715 010 9%tleatl dead X 0%(Dead). Ti] oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 30l] 20120 20/very very poor moved by SHPCO In 2017, poor DEAD. 718 ].0 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 2- Om 0%tleatl tleatl X movetl by SHPCO In 2017, DEAD. 719 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens -Is - 0%tleatl tleatl X movedby SHPCOIn2017, DEAD. 720 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens SOI] 010 0%tleatl tleatl movetl by shp..2019 d-to death of tree. 721 X 15.3 15.3 °astredwootl Sequoia sempervirens 50/12 10/10 10/very very poor X 10%overa11 contlltlon"very poor pool'. 56 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 a- q+ v 'c m e e y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ li n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444 y a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aP-Ae.) e ¢ m u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey >33� a x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢12 A.lua a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z ]22 X 11.5 11.5 coactr -d Saq-la s—Parvlmns 50/10 20/20 20%vary very poor X 17%ovxall contlltlon"very poor poor". w%oxeren aandifix'poor. Montereypine Plnus mdlata 0 50140 48%poar madarata E Being removed December 2018 (or[ran.hing PG&E electrical. 7. X 13.8 13.8 oactr -d Saquola s—Pandmns S0/8 MIS 15%very Poor X 15%ovxall contlltlon"very poor very poor". Tree rem.ad as of 2014 by SHPCO due to propeny owner X 22.0 22.0 Monterey pine Plnus radlata 55/25 3.40 38%poor poor X to west request in order to stop Ixf litter from dropping into hie swimming pool. Trea....ad as of 2014 by 28%vary SHPCO due to property owner X 20.8 20.8 Montereypine Plnus rsdlaW 50/25 30125 poor very poor SE SE X to west request in oMar to s top Ixf litter from dropping into his swimming pool. 727 X 13.5 13.5 oae t n load Sao—sempervlmns 50/12 40/25 30%poar poor X 15%overall contlltlon"very pooY'. oast redwood Sequoia sempervlrens -10 10/15 13%very very poor movetl by SHPCO In Poor DEAD. 728 8.0 8.0 oactr -d Saquola sempervlmns 40/S fi0130 45%poor moderate X 35%overall contlition"poor. 730 14.0 14.0 oactndwootl Saquola s—Parvlmns S0/8 50/50 50%fair ma4.nda X DlRicult to assess 40�o overall contlition"poor. ..ally. 731 X X 14.7 14.7 Sham.I an Fraxlnus uhdW SS/23 23/25 25%vary very poor E E X poor mel sM1 a Fraxlnus uhdel ry death or tlue to propeny 24.1 24.1 SM1a owne poor vary poor E GR T X to west requesting removal to stop leaf litter falling into swimming pool. Removed by SHP-between 2014 and 2017 anh,due to tree SM1amel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdel 0 40Y35 38%poor lfoot(ca death or due to propeny owner to west requesting removal to stop leas litter caning into swimming pool. Circling roots. 7U 17.1 17.1 Shamal an Fraxlnus uhM 4S/30 3S/33 35%poor poor X Roots damaged on grade. 57 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated ovwan condition n WLCA Notea from Ratings It NOTES 2017 o E v E is r V µ°'' u Common Name 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e m (Genus,species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B d lu E m f = ga Sod ESQ aE in aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 ~ ve 1 foot(car X X 17S MmstaM 175 Shemel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdN SS/25 20/20 20%vary poor ry poor E 735 Impact) 35%vary ve Vadous X 18.1 S Frarinus uhdN 45/35 25/25 Pow ry Poor 736 X 19.1 alovatlons. 20 X Roots severed-d pg 7 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhM swo 30/40 35%Pow poor E damaged on grade. 737 20.) 738 211 217 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uhdN 50p0 40/90 0%pow poor S OR X 35%vary E X 738 X 23.) 29.) Shemel asM1 Fraxlnus uhdal 6Sp0 25/25 poor very poor Tog 26.0 26.0 Shemel aeh Fraxlnus uhdal 45Y35 65/50 56X hir flood X OR X X X X X 741 245 24.5 Shemel ash Fraxlnus uh" 5000 40/40 90%pow poor Various X X 742 272 27.2 Shemel ash 171-1 us uhdal SWO W40 0%pow motlwate elavatlon. X X 743 30.1 30.1 Shemel ash Frazlnus uh" SW40 60145 SO%fair moderate SSY30 50/90 4SX pow moderate X Inshm X X Roo..In-.near 799 X 25.2 25.2 Shemel ash Frazlnus uhdal . 745 X 14.2 14.2 Shemel ash F-,d.-on" awn 35130 35%p poor X g X X 796 291 14.1 Shemel aeh Frazlnus uhdN 50/25 60/50 55%hir moderate E X X GR various X 797 18.6 Me SMmal»h Finud s uhMf OW25 60r30 38%pow modeate E akvatlons 58 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Updated Overall CondIIIon E& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n g - Ratings S NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c — c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� s x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEa .Faw g YRpFc _ ns E� EE E��o fr ._ ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8 �Lti e.5 2$ 02 UOo & of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 $'c.A uO�Eo °z GR 748 21.7 21.7 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW SSI30 SM45 49%poor mw.® E X ontlitbn. 749 16.0 16.0 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW mo 3WO 30%poor poor E X X 750 17.3 17.3 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW Sms 40140 0%poor poor E X 751 15.8 15.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW SS125 2M5 25%very poor E E X circling roots. poor 752 18.5 18.5 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW SSI30 SW45 %%fair .o rate E E 8 X 753 19.8 19.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW mo SW45 48%poor poor E E X 754 21.8 21.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW 6S125 SS140 45%pow mW.nft E E X GR X 755 20.1 20.1 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW SS125 60150 55%fair .o nft E X 756 18.1 18.1 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW 60/30 SW45 48%poor poorb motl E E GR 6 X 757 16.8 16.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW 60/25 40140 40%poor poor 8 X 758 X 19.3 19.3 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdW SSI30 2=5 25%very very poor E E X poor 759 18.2 18.2 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW 60/30 35/35 35%poor poor E E X 760 20.8 20.8 Shamelash Fraxlnus uhdW Ows 40/30 35%poor poor E E X 59 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall GondIIIon E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201T N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � s x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o fr ._ ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢ngnwn a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °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 Sm0 10/10 10%very very poor E X poor 765 16.0 16.0 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW ems 3WO 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 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW SSr30 2g/20 20%very Roots damaged on poor very poor E E X grade. 769 23.8 23.8 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 65/35 55/35 40%pow mW.nte E E girdling 15 X root 770 16.3 16.3 Shamelash Fraxlnua uhdW 55/25 3WO 30%poor poor E 10 X TTi X 16.1 16.1 Shamel ash Fraxlnua uhdW 55/30 60145 55%fair .o n to E X 772 33.6 33.6 oast redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 7S/20 TWO TO%gootl W.rate X 757.overall condition"good". 773 16.4 16.9 oast redwood Sequoias—Pervlmns 60/13 60/60 60%fair motlsrate X 50%overa11 condition" e' 60 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdalod Overall Condition x Ee& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o ft ._ ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z TT4 18.5 18.5 oactr -d Sequoias—Pervlrens 6W15 75160 67%fair moderate X 60%overa11 condition"fail' 775 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Sequoia semPw mns 3016 60150 55%fair moderate X 05%overall contlition"poor" 776 34.2 34.2 oactr -d Swluola semPw mns 7S/25 TWO TO%good moderate X 75%overall contlition"gootl". TT] X 7.8 7.8 oaetrWwootl Spools sampeMmns 25I6 SSI35 40%pow moderate W W X 20%overa11 contlltlon"very poor" 778 28.8 28.8 oactr -d Swluola s—Pe mns 7S/25 TWO TO%good moderate X 7576overal1 contlition"gootl". 778 16.8 16.8 oact rW-d Sequoias—Pervlmns W13 65155 60%fair moderate X 7576overal1 contlition"gootl". 780 X 7.0 7.0 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlmns 95I6 SSI35 45%pow moderate X 28%overall contlltlon"very poor" 781 21.6 21.6 oact rW-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 6S115 60140 47%pow moderate 15 X 30%averall contlition"pool'. 782 32.1 32.1 oact rW-d Sequoias—Pervlmns 3S/20 TWO 70%gootl moderate X 75%overa11 condNon 783 26.0 26.0 oactr -d Swluola s—Pe mna 85/20 TWO 70%gootl moderate X 70%averall contlition"gootl. 784 16.1 16.1 oactr -d Swluola s—Pe mna 75/15 7O/65 TO%gootl moderate X 50%overa11 condition'We' 785 21.8 21.8 oact red-d Sequoias—Pervlmns TS115 TWO TO%gootl moderate X 66%overa11 contlition'fail' 786 X 11.0 11.0 Deaf redwood Sequoia 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 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n g - a Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,species) e ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn n8 Wax F, t E'E z 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 9W15 60160 60%fair poor motl X SO%overall contlition'fai!' 789 23.4 23.0 oastr -d Swlrrola s—Pervlmns awls TWO 73%good motlarate E X TO%overall contlition"gootl. 780 19.5 19.5 oastr -d SwlrrolasemPS mns awls 7W5 TS%gootl motlarate X 60%overall condition"fair' 791 17.1 15.1 32.2 oast redwood Swlrrola s—Pervlmns TWO 7O/60 65%fair 2 X 65%overall contlition"fair'. 782 28.2 28.2 oast red-d Segrrola s—Pervlmns 9W0 TWO TO%gootl motlarate X 70%overall contlition"gootl. 793 21.9 21.8 oast red-d Segrrola s—Pervlmns M5 65/60 62%fair modsrate X 58%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—PS mns 8S/20 TWO TO%good .o rate X 70%overall contlition"gootl. 796 t5.5 tS.5 oast red-d S"-I.s—Pervlmns Swo 7S/T5 75%gootl good X 78%overall contlition"gootl". 787 14.8 14.8 oast red-d S"-I.s—Pervlmns SO/8 SW40 47%pow .o rate X Supressetl in shade 31%overall contlition"poop. 788 12.6 12.6 Deaf redwood Segrrola sempervlmns 60112 60/40 48%poor poor E 20 X 25%overall contlltlon"very poor". 799 22.6 22.6 oast red-d Swlrrola s—PS mns 80/13 TWO TO%gootl modsrate X 65%overall condition'Uir. 62 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C IT _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIan x Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - a Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc _ ns o� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_— eM 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of ¢12&Ma n8 $'c a4 uO�Eo °z goo 21.8 21.8 oactr -d Saquola s—PaM... 6S/13 65165 65%fair mo4arat0 X 65%overall contlition'Yair'. 801 17.3 17.3 oactr -d Saquola s—PaMmns SS/8 SOMO %%fair poor W W X 30%overall contlition"poor. 802 32.5 32.5 oactr -d Saquola s—PaMmns 90/25 SOMO 50%fair poor X Dlfticult to assess 5g%overall contlilion'fai!' ..ally. 803 15.0 15.0 oactr -d SMluola s—PaMmns 60/8 30/30 30%poor poor X 30%overall contlition"poor. 20%overall contlltlon"very poor".Thls tree was Illegally pruned In April 2020 or May 2020 by neighbor to west of 804 X 32.4 32.0 oact r -d Saquola s—PaMmns g0/18 60160 60%fair poor.motl X West perlmeter Road,who apparently cut out a large umber of deatl Iimbs extending Into their properly airspace(see ph—In May 16, 20201nspeotion report). 805 13.0 13.0 oactr -d Saquola s—PaMmns SONS 40140 40%poor poor X S-tmnkform 30%overall contlition"poor. 806 16.8 16.8 oact redwood Saquo/a s—PaMmns 50/10 60155 56%fair modera. X 40%overall condiumn'poor" 807 X 12.1 12.1 oaetrWwootl Spools sampeMmns 60/12 50/S5 SSX fair poor.motl X Tree removetl.October 2018. 808 X 24.5 oast—ad Sequoia sempervlrens 90/20 40/30 33%poor poor SS X Tree removetl.October 2018. 809 X 11.0 11.0 oact redwood Saquola sempwvimns SS1Is 60/50 55%fair poor.motl X 37%overall—dition)poor) "a X 15.0 15.0 oact redwood Saquola s—PaMmns 7S/8 10/10 10%vary very poor X g%)Deatl) poor 811 X 5.6 5.6 oaetrWwootl Spuola sempwvlmns 90/6 40Y30 95%poor poor X 25%overall contlltlon"very poor". 812 X 23.2 23.2 oact redwood Saquola s—PaMmns 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 10/28/2020 v`a Eg oB S �q adao a _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 Ratings&NOTES 2011 N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a' ¢ m u a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � a x x x i x x mi0 a m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go IS as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢ngnwa a8 ¢'Sa4 uO�Eo °z 813 X 13.3 13.3 oactr -d Saquola s—Pand... 70/i6 10/10 10%very vary poor X ]%overall...dition(very poor) poor 814 X 724-4 24.0 oast-a! Saquola sempervlrens 85/20 0/0 0%—d daad X Tree removetl.October 2018. 815 X 8.0 9.0 oast-a! Saquola sempamim s 40/5 0/0 0%laad tlaad X Tree removetl.October 2018. 816 X 16.5 16.5 oastr -d Swluola s—Pandmns SW12 50/50 50%fair poor X 20%overall contlltlon"very poor". 81] X 11.8 11.8 oaetrWwootl Spools sempervlrens 95I6 50/90 43X poor poor X 15%overall contlition'-, poor". 818 25.4 25.9 oast rad-d Swluola s—Pandmns awls 60160 60%fair modara X 601.overall c..dition'fail' 819 12.4 12.9 oast rW d Saq—sampaWrens -13 -40 4S%poor poor X 301.overall contlition"pool'. 820 26.3 26.1 oast rod-d Saquo/a sAava 1... 90/25 SS/60 58%fair poor.motl X ]0%overall contlition"gootl. 12%overall contlition"very 821 X Deaf retlwaotl Sequoia sempervlrens 30/3 0/0 pool'.TREE REMOVED AS OF OCTOSER 2018. 822 23.4 23.9 oast rod-d Saquola sempervlrens 90/20 50/50 50%fair poor 18 X 55%overall contlition"fair' 823 17.9 17.8 oast rod-d Saquola s—Pandmns 100115 Boos 40%poor poor 70 X 40%overall contlition"poor" 824 29.3 29.1 oast rod-d Saquola s—Pandmns 100120 40140 40%poor poor.motl 25 X 757.overa11 contlition-9—d". 825 X 7.8 7.8 oast rod-d Saquola s—Pandmns 3W8 40/20 29%very 18%ovxall contlltlon"very poor poor X poor" 64 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdalod Overall DondIIIon Es& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n g - Ratings S NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 826 11.1 11.1 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlmns M2 60150 SOX fair poor to moil E X Bow form Wnk. 40%overa11 condition'pool' 827 X 10.7 10.7 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlmns 35/10 0/0 0%dear) dead X Bow form Wnk. 0%ID—d) 828 11.7 11.7 oactr -d Swluola semPw mns 50/8 30/30 30%poor poor 20 X 30%avera11 contlition"pool'. 829 27.2 27.2 oactr -d Swluola s—Pervlmns 9S/25 TWO TO%good motlarate X 70%overall contlition"gootl. 830 15.2 15.2 oactr -d Swluola samPw mns W16 45/30 37X poor poorb motl 20 X 35%averall contlition"pool'. 831 11.0 11.0 oactr -d Sequoia semPw mns 40/8 30/40 37X poor poor SW X 30%averall contlition"pool'. 832 13.0 13.0 oact re -d Sequoia semPw mns 4S/11 60155 58%fair motlsrate X 30%averall contlition"pool'. 833 26.6 26.6 oact re -d Sequoia semPw mns 7WO 7O/65 68%fair motlsrate 30 X 78%averall contlition"gootl". au X 5.8 5.8 oactr -d Sequoia semPw mns 3015 20/2g 20%very 6%overall c.nd'tl.n"very poor very Poor SE X Pool'. 835 15.8 11.0 26.8 oact re -d Swluola s—PS mna 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—PS mna 45/10 SW40 4SX poor poor to motl W NW X 30%averall contlition"pool'. 838 23.8 23.8 oact re -d Swluola s—PS mna 85/20 45145 4S%poor poor X 60%overa11 condition'fail' 66 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdalod Overall Condition x Ev& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ tin_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,species) a' ¢ m u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey mit0 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 yma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ -- 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnwn a8 ¢Ga4 5 'E 2 A z 839 26.1 26.1 oactr -d Sequoias-Pervlrens Sams 60160 60%fair moderate X TO%averall contlition"gootl. 890 X 10.8 8.0 18.8 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 60/8 9SI35 95%poor poor 20 X 20%overall condition"very poor". Sweep form tmnk. 891 21.2 21.2 oaetrWwootl Spools sampsrvlren 80/13 60/50 Sl%fair poor motl X Apicalmeriatem 95%overa11 contlition"poop. appearm gone. 842 21.2 8.5 35.7 oactr -d Swluola sempervlrens 9W15 TWO TO%goad moderate X 75%overall condition'goad". 843 X 10.8 10.8 oaet r -d Sequoia sempervlrens SSM 10/10 10%very Tree has been removed. poor very Poor 1S X October 2018. 899 16.4 16.9 oactr -d Sequoias-P-Imns 8am0 60/90 50%fair poorb motl X 757.overall contlition"gootl". 845 28.2 28.2 oact re -d Swluola s-P-Imna Sams TWO TO%good moderate X 30%averall contlition"pool'. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 846 X 14.7 14.7 oact re -d Sequoias-P-Imns 4516 SW45 98%poor poorb motl X SIDE IN OCTOBER, . EXPECT TREE DECLINECLINE OVER TIME, NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 897 11.5 9.5 21.0 oactr -d Swluola s-P-Imna 9S/10 50/SO 50%fair poorb motl X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 848 23.9 23.8 oact re -d Sequoia s-P-Imns 9am0 50/SO 50%fair poor W motl X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 849 20.5 20.5 oact re -d Swluola s-P-Imna 80/18 60150 5S%fair poorb motl X SIDEC TREE DECLINE EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 850 18.3 18.1 oact re -d Swluola s-P-Imna 80115 55150 59%fair poorb motl E X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 851 24.5 24.5 oact re -d Swluola s-P-Imna Sams 65150 60%fair motlpra X S-p imnk. SIDE IN OCTOBE . EXPECT TREE DECLINECLINE OVER TIME. 66 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t $ :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 9 - q+ v 'c m e E y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon 'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - o. `o ' n i'71 - Ratings S NOTES 2011 E o (Genoa,aPeciea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey mit0 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo ¢12&IN n8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 852 X 12.5 6.0 19.0 oactr -d Sxluola s-Pervlmns SSI18 60150 50%fair poor mod 1 X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 853 X 11.8 7.8 10.6 oactr -d Sxluola s-PS - 3S/18 ISIS 15%very SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. poor very poor 2 X EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 854 X 18.5 18.5 oactr -d Sequoias-Pervlmns 7W18 40/35 38%pow poor 30 X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME, NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST ass X 15.1 15.1 oactr -d Sxluola s-Pervlmns 7W18 55/50 53%fair poorb mod X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST R,2020 856 X 10.1 10.1 oactr -d Sxluola s-Pervlmns 4S18 40/35 40%pow poor X SIDEC TREE DECLINE EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 2020 857 21.1 21.1 oactr -d Sxluola s-PS - 8S/25 55/50 50%fair poorb mod X SIDE IN OCTOBER, . EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST R,2020 858 19.5 19.5 oactr -d SxluolasemPS - 85/20 60/50 5S%fair motlsrate X SIDEC TREE DECLINE EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST ass 9.8 9.8 oaetr -d Sxluola s-PS 50/10 40/35 38%pow poor X Supressed in-de SIDEIN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME, NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 860 22.2 22.2 oact rW-d Sxluola s-PS - 85/20 60/60 60%fair motlsrate X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2121. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 861 25.0 25.0 oact redwood Sequoia s-Pervlmns SO/30 60/60 60%fair motlsrate X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 862 20.6 20.6 oactr -d Sxluola s-PS - 80/25 60/60 60%fair motlsrate X SIDEC TREE DECLINE EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 863 31.5 31.5 oactr -d Sxluola s-PS 9020 75/75 75%gootl good X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 864 23.8 23.8 oact redwood Sequoias-Pervlmns 95/15 70/65 68%fair motlsrate X SIDE ER,2020. EXPECT T TREEREE DECLINE OVER TIME. 67 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e E y WLCA Notes from Updated Overall CondIIIon E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 - Ratings N NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� a x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae r3a �Lti aQ 2$ -- 02 UOo ¢cgnw° a8 $'c iA 5 'E E, z Sdmnkform. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 865 24.0 24.0 oactr -d Sequoias-Pervlmns Sets 60/40 47%poor motlerate W X Abnormal hunk SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. sec I.n thM Is EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER cankemd. TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 2020 866 31.0 13.3 44.1 oact redwood Sequoias-Pwv1mns 95me 60150 W%fair motlerate W 3 X SIDE IN OCTOBER, . EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 867 X 6.5 6.5 oactr -d Sequoias-Pwv1mns 3016 65145 5S%fair motlarate X Supressed in shade SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME, NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 868 16.3 16.1 oactr -d Swluola s-PwvImns 50/18 TWO TO%gootl motlarate X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 2020 868 16.0 16.0 oactr -d Swluola s-PwvImns 75/15 70160 68%fair motlerate X SIDE IN OCTOBER, . EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 2020 870 27.6 27.6 oactr -d Swluola s-P-1mns 8S/20 7S/T5 TS%gootl good SIDE SIDE IN OCTOBER, . EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. NEIGHBORS SHEARED WEST 871 25.8 25.8 oactr -d Swluola s-P-1mns SS/25 75/75 TS%gootl good X SIDE IN OCTOBER,2020. EXPECT TREE DECLINE OVER TIME. 872 23.7 15.6 38.1 oact redwood Sequoia sempervlmns Sm0 65155 60%fair motlsrate E 2 873 X 13.8 13.8 oact redwood Sequoia s-PwvImns 65/12 25/25 25%vary ppor poor 8T4 10.5 10.5 oact redwood Sequoia s-PwvImns 30/8 35/30 30%poor poor 875 14.1 14.1 oact redwood Sequoia s-PwvImns 4S/10 40140 40%poor poor AIL Lot (START OF 876 „West, "ALTERNATE LOT 31.0 31.0 oactr -d Sequoias-PwvImns 75/18 TWO TO%gootl motlarate WEST'SURVEY) 877 AIL Lot 23.7 23.7 oact r -d Sequoia s-PwvImns 65/18 6S/60 63%fair poor b mod X West" 68 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall Condition E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ �'° ¢ngnw° a8 $'c.A uO�Eo °z Ste All.L. 19.2 19.2 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlmns 7S/15 65160 63%fair poor b mod X "West" 878 AIL Lot 22.8 22.8 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pwvlmns 7S/18 65/65 6S%fair .o rate X West" 880 Alt.Lot 20.5 20.5 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns 7S/18 65/55 60%fair .o rate X "West" 88t AIL Lot 20.8 11.9 32.7 oactr -d Swluolasemp—Imna 75/18 60150 %%fair .o rate 3 X West" 882 AIL Lot 33.3 33.1 oact rW-d Swluola s—PwvImns 6S/20 60/60 60%fair .o rate X West" 883 AIL Lot 11.4 11.9 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 3W 3WS 33%poor poor X West" 884 AIL L,,[ 315 31.5 oact rW-d Sequoias—PwvImns 8W18 60/60 60%fair poorb mod W X West" 885 AIL L,,[ 32.1 32.1 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 95ms 7WS TS%eootl motlarate X West" 886 AIL Lot 9.8 9.8 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 4516 30/30 30%poor poor X West" 887 AIL L,,[ 25.5 25.5 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 7S/18 6S/65 65%fair poor b mod X West" 888 AIL L,,[ 29.0 29.0 oact redwood Swluola s—P-1mna 8=5 60155 58%fair poorb mod X West" 888 Alt.Lot T 15.3 15.l oacd Sequoia s—PwvImns qg/g 25 25%very "West" t redwood gM poor X poor 890 Alt.L. X 16.9 16.8 oact redwood Sequoias—PwvImns SW12 0/0 0%tlead X "West" 69 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E c F Scientific Name L X i i 8 - m+ v 'c w e C H WLCA Notes from Updated Overall Condition E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - 1 `o ' n i'71 Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti 1Q 2$ 02 UOo ¢141w° 18 $'c iA uO�Eo °z ag1 Alt.Lot X 28.5 29.5 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlrens 65/25 0/0 0%tl d X "West" 882 AIL Lot X 8.6 8.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 3016 0/0 0%tl d X "West" 883 AIL Lot 26.4 26.0 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns 75/20 7M0 70%gootl motlaraw X West" Bofryspherla fungal IMectlon noted as 884 Alt.Lot 18.3 18.1 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns 65112 40/30 35%pow motlaraw X along trunk.Monlltor progression over time. 885 AIL Lot 28.4 28.4 Italian awns pine Plnus plow 45/30 85175 78%gootl good E E West" 886 AIL Lot 26.2 26.2 Ialian awns pine Plnus plow 45/25 80/30 50%fair good 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 mod X West" 888 AIL Lot 11.4 11.4 oact rW-d Swluola s—P—Imna 45115 60140 50%fair motlsraw X Svreep-form trunk. "West" 800 AIL Lot 19.7 19.7 oact rW-d Sequoias—PwvImns 60/i6 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 motlsraw X Mainawm aplitout. West" 803 AIL Lot 14.7 14.7 oaet ra -d Sequoias—P-1— 45/15 65/65 65%fair motlsraw X West" 70 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updo,d Oearan condition a E y c S c e + Scientific Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ ;.E n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E v E is r? V µ°'' u Common Name yy .. g 4 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD SHEo q—`a (Genus,species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B d w E m f R slit= "n - 3 o� = ga Sod ESQ aE §¢'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X eo4 Alt Lot 129 12.8 ...t wootl Sequoia semperv/rens 65115 70f70 70%good moderate "West" X 905 Al,Lot 11, 14.T coast rW d Spools samparvlrans 55/20 6Sf70 68%hir motlerate "West" X 906 Alt.Lot 19.3 19.1 ...t rW d spuola sempommns 10/20 70f70 70%good ono inr "West" X 807 Alt.Lot igg 16.0 oast redwood Spuola s—P.Wmns 60/12 60/45 50%Pair poor E "West" X goo Alt Lot 64 6.4 oast rWwood segoola s—Pww ens 25/10 70/40 50%Pair nidWte E "WasC X 909 Alt.Lot 270 27.0 ....tr ood Sequola sampervbens 75/20 Wool 50%Pair poor "WasC X 910 Alt.Lot 22.9 22.8 ...t redwood spool.setup-m—s 75/18 65/65 65%Pair poor to motl "West" X 911 Alt.Lot 20.4 20.9 ....tr ood spools sempervlrees 7S/20 70f7U 70%good moMrate 9N.V X S-form flunk. 912 Alt Lot 255 25.5 ....tr ood spool.sampeMrens 75/18 60150 55%No, poorW motl "West" X 913 Alt.Lot 202 20.2 ...t redwood Spuola sa P.Wmn. 7118 70/70 70%good nidWte "West" X 914 Alt.Lot 23.5 23.5 ....tr ood spool.sempwvlrens 701,18 50160 54%fair Poor "Wort" X 915 Alt Lot 108 14.8 ....tr ood Saquola semparvberls 75/16 55/55 55%Pair poor "West" X 916 AN,Lot 16.2 10.0 26.2 coast radwaatl Spuola senonnvfens SSN6 TWO 70%good moderate "West" 71 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEa .Few g YRpFc _ ns E� O o ONWARD 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae t3 ez �Lti e.a 2$ ¢n4nw° a8 $'c.A uO�Eo 817 AIL Lot 14.5 14.5 oact r -d Swluola s—PeMmns 45/10 40140 40%poor poor X "Waal" 818 AIL Lot 28.8 28.8 oact r -d Swluola s—P—Imns 80/15 40140 40%poor poor X W°st" 919 Alt.Lot X 17.2 17.2 oact r -d Swluola s—PwvImns SN4 010 0%tl d X "West" 820 AIL Lot 24.4 24.9 oactr -d Swluola s—P—Imna 8W12 7W70 70%gootl motlaraw N X West" 82t AIL Lot 21.5 21.5 Italian awns pine P)nus plow 4S/20 85145 55%fair flood E E West" 822 AIL Lot 17.8 17.8 Ialian awns pine P)nus plow 4S/18 7WS 40%pow flood E E West" 923 Alt.Lot X 12.2 9.1 21.1 oact rW-d Sequoias—PwvImns SN4 010 0%tl d X "West" 824 AIL L. 12.1 12.1 oact rW-d Sequoias—PwvImns 7W10 60150 55%fair motlsraw N X West" 825 AIL Lo[ 20.8 20.8 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 65114 65/65 65%fair motlsraw X West" 826 AIL Lo[ 7.5 7.5 oact rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 3516 60140 50%fair motlsraw S X West" 827 AIL Lo[ 11.2 11.2 oac t rW-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 4SI8 SW40 47%„West" poor poorw motl 3 X 828 AIL Lo[ 18.7 18.7 oact rW-d Sequoias—PwvImns 6W10 70/65 68%fair motleraw S X West" 828 Alt'L. 25.4 25.9 oact red-d Sequoia s—PwvImns 75/20 7W70 70%flood .o raw X "West" 72 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Lawson,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated Overall condition a E y c S c e + Scientific Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ ;.E n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E v E is r V µ°'' u Common Name yy .. g ec E u g 4 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e (Genus.species) g e' n i u d m a W w W B d w E m f Sq�E= -�R slit= a�L "� "n -�5$ = ga Sod ESQ aE §¢'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X 930 AIL Lot 19.9 19.8 ...t radwootl Sequoia sempervirens 75118 70f70 70%good mw.'ete E "West" X 931 Alt.Lot 152 142 coast redwood Spools samparvlrens 65/18 60/60 6,%hir poorb—d E "West" X 932 Alt.Lot X 14.2 14.2 oast redwood segwla sempommn SS/8 5/5 5%vary Poor very poor "West" X 833 Alt Lot X 9.5 815 oast radon od sequoia sen wwmns 30/5 0/0 0%dead "West" X 9M Alt.Lot 23.5 23.5 Monterey pine Plnus mtlWlo 5=5 60/45 SOX fair motlerate SW sW "WaeC AIL Lot i1.2 13.2 oast radwoatl Segoola sempervlmns 4W 5/5 5%vary poor very poor E X 834 gyast" X X 936 Alt.Lot 29.2 29.2 ...t redwood spools sempervbens 70/20 70f70 70%good mWinate "West" X 937 Alt Lot X 60 6.0 ...t redwood spools sempervbens 30/5 0/0 0%deed 9N.r Alt.Lot 15.3 iS.l o..t retlwood spool.setup-m—s 60/10 2.12. 20%-po.- very poor X 838 gyest" X X 938 Alt Lot y3 4.3 Shamel ash Fr.Xlnus uh" 25M alms 85%good g.w "WesC X 940 Alt.Lot 20.1 20.1 oast rede-d spool.s—PeMre-s 65N2 40150 45X poor Pow "WasC X 941 Alt.Lot 20.0 20.0 ...t ned ood spool.sempendoens 75/15 70f70 70%good modmab "West" X 892 AN.Lot X 50 5.0 coael redwaatl Spuola setup—iens 65113 010 0%deed "West" 73 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 - Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae t3 ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo ¢cgnw° a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 843 All.L. 22.6 22.6 oact r -d Sequoia s—Pervlmns 6S/15 60150 55%fair poor b motl X "West" 844 Alt'L°r 17.1 17.1 oactr -d Sequoias—Pwvlmns 60/13 TWO 70%good moderate X West" 845 Alt.Lot 18.4 18.0 oactr -d Sequoias—PwvImns 6S/15 70/65 68%fair .o raw X Sweep-form trunk. "West" 846 AIL Lot 17.0 17.0 oactr -d Spools samlwrvlmns 65/12 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 23.0 23.0 Monbrey pine PI.-xdk,. 1S/2 0/0 0%dead X "West" (STOMP) 848 Alt.Lot X 12.2 12.2 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns SWS 0/0 0%tl d X "West" 850 AIL L,,[ 16.6 16.6 oactr -d Sequoias—PwvImns 6W18 7WS 75%good moderate X West" 851 AIL L,,[ 24.5 24.5 IWlien awns pine Plnus Plnw 1S/2 0/0 0%tleatl X West" 852 AIL L,,[ 18.5 18.5 IWlien awns pine Plnus Plnw 30/20 GWO 40%pow good E E Severe lean. West" 853 AIL L,,[ 22.7 22.7 oactr -d Swluola s—P-1mna SW15 SW45 47%poor poor w motl X West" 9, Alt'L. X 8.7 8.7 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 2515 S/5 5%vary poor very poor X "West" 855 Alt.Lot 7 17.7 17.] oae d Spuola samp—l— 40/18 2SMS 25%very „West" t ratl very poor X poor 74 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 updated Overall condition a E y c S c e + 5cientigc Name U $ e n._ o f = m c m m n' v _ .m c n WLCA Noted from Ratings&NOTES 2017 o E v E is r V µ°'' u Common Name yy .. g ec E u g 4 8 ._ Spring 2015 Survey ONWARD o q—`e (Genus,species) g e' r6 i u d m a W w W B d w E m f Sq�E= -�R slit= "� "n -�5$ = ga Sod ESQ aE §¢'rco°wn aS 2 2 2 2 2 2 X 956 AIL Lot 25.9 25.8 oacirWwootl Spools sampeMnns 65/20 50/50 SOX fair poorb motl "West" 957 Alt.Lot 14.0 13.3 27.6 coast rW d Spools samperWrens 55/13 ""0 90%pow poor 2 X "West" X 958 Alt.Lot 7 6.4 6.,t oaet rWwood Sequoia sempommns 40/4 5/5 5%vary Poor very poor "West" X SM Alt Lot 214 21.9 oact r ood Sequoia sempwvlmns 65/18 45/45 45%pow poor "West" 960 Alt.Lot 5.5 5.5 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhM 25/10 85/60 65%fair good 8 8 X "WaeC X %1 Alt Lot 215 21.5 oactr ood Spuola sempervlmns 60/18 30/30 30%pow "West" X 962 Alt.Lot 14.3 14.3 oaetrWwootl Spools sampeMrens 9S/14 90Y30 90X pow "West" AIL Lot 0.0 0.0 calNornia pepper Sohlnus maim 17f7 7W5 75%good gootl 963 ae 9N.V X Alt.Lot 17 9 17.8 oast r ood Spools sempwvlmns 40/6 0/0 0%deatl 864 gyest" X X 965 Alt.Lot 16.5 16.5 oact rW d Spools sempwvlmns 55/15 30/30 30%pow "WesC 35 X 866 AIL Lot 7 18.8 18.8 oaot redwood Spooia sempervinns W5 25125 pporry Pow "WasC X 967 Alt.Lot 6.8 3.7 10.5 Shamel ash Frazlnus ufal 35/14 85ff0 75%good gootl "West" X 968 AN.Lot 7 15.1 15.1 asi redwootl Spuola so.pervkens 3514 0/0 0%tleatl "West" 75 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`m Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: m E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 m- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon jIS E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g ; - Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $m (Genoa,aPeciea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c m c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� m x x x i x x mit5 m m �a 22m ae qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as x'a� t3 ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢cgnw° n8 Wax uO�Eo A 868 All.Lot 5.6 5.6 Shamelash 17-1 ua OM 35/12 7WS 75%good good X West" 870 AIL Lot 7 8.2 8.2 oact redwood Sequoia s—Pavlmns we S/5 5%vary poor very poor X "West" 871 Alt.Lot 7 7.7 7.] oacd Sequoia s—Pavlmns MIS 2g/2g 20%very „West" t redwood very poor X poor 872 AILot L 22.2 22.2 oact r -d Swluola s—Pavlmns 6S/20 65165 6S%fair .o ra X W.L. Alt.Lot Aplcal meds.m has 873 „West" 18.5 18.5 oact r -d Sequoia s—PwvImns 6S/20 40140 40%poor poor X been split out. 874 AIL Lot 18.4 18.0 oast redwood Sequoia sempervlrens 6=0 75/75 75%good moderate X "West" 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%hir .o ra X West" 877 AIL Lot 10.3 10.1 oast retlwootl Sequoias—PwvImns W12 6S/65 65%hir .o ra X "West" 878 AIL Lot 28.6 28.6 oast redwood Sequoia sempervlrens 70/1s 7M0 70%g.W moderate X "West" 878 AIL L. 23.8 23.8 oact r -d Sequoia s—wrvImns 80/18 60/60 60%fair poor.mod X "West" 880 AIL Lot 20.5 20.5 oast retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens MIS 60/60 60%fair poor.mod X "West" 881 AIL Lot 20.8 20.8 oact redwood Sequo1as—P-1mns awls 75/75 75%good .o ra X "West" 76 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Ea o'p'Y 8 crY ite E - $ u8 - u= r c• ~n -'c n Common Name Scientific Name - o a v Ic.na.,apeciea) - i q; m upaatea overan conalolon Notes from m¢r9 `q- a� -9 y d opW ggc dgo uWn c ��rc � �:m '- m S Ratings&NOTES 2017 2 §a'0rc�neLL a8 2 2 2 2 $c$ uSovE g� m! ae �r8 e.@ "@ 8�W aY c�8 gy Es�&� _mm'�_' a pang zwssar.ey 2 2 S 3 w W 9 ONWARD 882 Alt.Let "W-C 20.0 20.0 oast red—d Segoola sempervlrens 70/15 45/40 Ct% Sow poor x 983 Alt.Lot "West" 162 162 oact retlwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 80/15 60/60 60%h'v poor to motl x 984 At.Lot "Walt" 23.0 23.6 oastr -d Spool-sampervi— 70/18 65/65 65%fair .o ra NW X Sweep-(orm trunk. 985 Alt.Lot "WasC 28.8 28.8 oaet redwood Spools samprvlmns 7W18 45/45 45% pow poor X 986 Alt.Lot "West" 22.0 16.7 38.7 oast redwood Spool-sampervi—s 70/18 45/45 45% pow poor X 987 Alt.Lot "West" 19.2 19.2 oast retlwood Spools samprvinns 55/12 60/50 55%fair poor o motl X 888 Alt.Lot "West" 26.7 Z6.7 oasts -d Smloola sampwvlmns 70/15 45/45 45% pow poor X 989 Alt.Lot "West" 102 102 oasts -d Smloola sampwvlmns 35/12 60/50 55%fair motlera X 990 Alt.Lot 9WSC 27.3 27.3 oast redwood Spook sampervlrens 8Wi6 60/60 60%fair poor o motl X 991 Alt.Lot "West" 25.0 23.0 oast reawpd Smloola samp—tmns 80/17 45/45 45% pow poor X 882 Alt.Lot "West" 29.5 29,5 aoa.t reawooa sagool•samparWrans 6011e 4v50 46%pow poor to moo x 883 Alt.Lot "West" 20.7 20.7 oaetrWwptl Spuola sampervlrens 75/12 90/30 90%pow poor X 984 Alt.Lot "West" 93.1 93.3 oast retlwptl Spuola sampan-Imes 6W18 45/55 WX X 77 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Updated Overall CondIIIon Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 a Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $° (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go IS as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ .6 ¢122nw° a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 885 Alt.Ld 16.1 16.1 oact r -d Suoia s-Pervlrens VN12 35/35 35% "Weal" eq Poor poor X Stunk form. 886 AIL Lot 16.8 16.8 oact r -d Sequoia s-PwvImns 6S/i6 ISMS 55%fair poor b mod X West" 887 Alt.Lot 17.8 17.8 oact r -d Sequoia s-PwvImns 6S114 60160 60%fair .o ra 45 X "West" 888 AIL Lot 21.1 21.1 oactr -d Swluola s-wrvImns 6S/15 65165 65%fair .o ra X Stunk form. West" 888 AIL Lot 23.3 23.1 oact r -d Swluola s-PwvImns 6S/18 60/60 60%fair poor b mod X West" 1Wo Alt.Lot 12.0 12.0 oactr -d Sequoias-PwvImns 6Wi6 65165 65%fair motlarat0 X "West" 1W1 Alt.Lot 127 12.7 oactr -d Sequoias-PwvImns SW13 5S/5O 54%fair poorb mod X "West" 1W2 AIL Lot 16.8 16.8 oact redwood Sequoias-PwvImns 60/15 45/50 48%poor poor X West" 1Ws Alt.Lot 12.4 12.0 11.5 35.8 oact redwood Sequoias-PwvImns 6S/15 65160 6s%fair motlerate X "West" 1oe4 Alt.Lot 20.7 20.7 oactr -d Sequoias-PwvImns 7Wi6 40140 40%poor poor iS X West" 1W5 Alt'Lot 13.0 13.0 oactr -d Sequoias-PmvImns 35/14 50/45 0%poor mW.rat0 X West" 1W6 Alt'Lot 26.7 26.7 oastredwood Sequoia sempervirens 7WIS 30/30 30%poor poor X "West" 1W7 AIL Lot 16.8 16.8 oastredwood Sequoias-PwvImns 6S/18 30/30 30%poor poor X West" 1008 Alt.Lot 18.8 18.8 oactr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 7W18 60/60 60%fair poorb mod X "West" 1We Alt.Lot 7 16.6 16.6 oastredwood Sequoia sempervlrens MIS 1W10 10%very X Aploal medstem is "West" poor very poor gone. 78 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Iptlalod Overall CondIIIon E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g ; - Ratings&NOTES 2017 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- eM 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ �'° 1010 All.Lot 7 t redwood 17.7 17.) oacd Sequo/a sempervirens 6S115 15/15 15%wry „West" very poor X poor Ohaln around trunk Is a Mling if,.tree, 1011 Alt'Lot be must ntl 25%very 7 13.8 13.8 oact r -d Sequo/a sempervirens 65/15 25/25 verya "West" poor Poor X nd.ASAP In order to avold the ee Wain 1012 Alt.Lot 21.7 21.7 oact r -d Sequo/a sempervirens MIS 60/60 60%fair poor.mod X "West" 1019 Alt'Lot 26.0 26.0 Deaf redwood Sequo/a sempervirens 7S/18 90Y10 30%poor poor X West" I_ Alt.Lot 7 15.1 is.1 oactr -d Sequoia sempervirens 7W13 2q/2g 20%very „West" very poor X poor 1015 Alt.Lot 7 18.4 18.0 oact r -d Swluola sempervirens 65/14 2M5 25%very „West" very poor X poor Alt.Lot Apical meriatem 1016 „West" 16.6 16.6 oactr -d Swluola s-Pavlrens 70/16 wls 38%poor poor X tlegected oRfrom vertical. 1017 Alt.Lot 7 13.1 13.1 oact r -d Sequoia s-Pavlmns W13 30/20 25%very „West" very poor X poor 1019 AIL Lot 16.9 16.8 oact r -d Swluola s-Pavlmns W16 3q/2g 25%vary "West" poor X poor 1019 Alt.Lot 26.5 26.5 oast rWwood Sequoia semparvlrens 75/18 65f75 70%good W. X West" I_ Alt.Lot 7 6.8 6.8 oactr -d Swluola s-Pavlmns 2014 30/20 25%wry "West" poor X poor 1021 AIL Lot 9.7 9.7 oact r -d Swluola s-Pavlmns 35/12 75/55 65%fair moderate X "West" 1022 AIL Lot 21.0 21.0 oaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens SS113 95I40 98%poor poor X West" 1029 AIL Lot 24.9 24.8 oact r -d Swluola s-Pavlmns 7S/20 SW65 60%fair poor W mod X "West" 1024 AIL Lot 17.7 17.7 oactr -d Swluola sem mftns 6W14 60165 65%fair mW.nft X West" 1025 Alt'Lot 8.8 8.8 oast retlw°°d Sequoia sempervlrens 35/10 60145 0%fair moderate X West" 1026 Alt'Lot 16.5 16.5 oast retlw°°d Sequoia sempervlrens 4W10 60160 60%fair moderate X West" 79 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Ipdated Overall CondIIIon E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 ; ' Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae t3 ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢0gnw° 0.8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z 102T All.Lot 20.6 20.6 oact redwood Sequo/a sempervirens 6S/14 TWO 70%good W. X "West" lose Alt.Lot 18.8 18.8 oact r ood Sequo/a sempervirens 60/14 SW45 SOX fair poor.motl X "West" lose Alt.Lot T 16.4 16.0 oactr ood Sequoias-PavI... 60/10 2g/2g 20%very "West" poor very poor X Apical a.m is tlentl. 1030 Alt.Lot T 17.5 17.5 oact r ood Sequoia s_Pwvlmns 65110 S/5 5%vary poor very poor X West" 1091 Alt'Lot T 21.0 21.0 oact r ood Sequoia sempervirens 65110 5/5 5%vary poor very poor X "West" 1032 Alt.Lot 29.T 29.) oac t r ood Swluola sempervirens 70/18 55/40 47% „West" poor poor.motl 40 X 1033 Alt.Lot 18.5 18.5 oactr ood Swluola s_Pwvlmns W13 65/65 65%fair mW.rnte X West" I_ Alt.Lot 24.8 24.8 oactr ood Swluola s-PmvImns 70115 TWO 70%good mW.rnte X "West" 1035 Alt.Lot 17.0 17.0 oactr ood Swluola s-PmvImns TS114 70/35 SOX fair mW.rnte S X West" 1036 Alt.Lot 30A 30A oast rW d Sequo1as-P-1-- 85/25 7W5 75%good good X West" 1037 Alt.Lot 23.3 23.3 oactr ood Swluola s_Pwvlmns BW15 70160 66%fair modern. X "West" 1039 AIL Lot 22.0 22.0 oact r ood Swluola s_Pwvlmn TW 5 60150 55X fair poor.motl X Apl(blo m missing "West" (blown out). I.. Alt.Lot 25.9 25.8 oactr ood Swluola s_Pwvlmns SWO TWO 70%good moderate X West" 10W Alt.Lot 454 45.0 oactr ood Swluola s_Pwvlmns BWO 70/67 70%good moderate S X "West" 1pN AIL Lot 29.1 29.1 oactr ood Swluola sempervirens 80115 TWO 70%good moderate X West" 10u AIL Lot 175 17.5 oast retlw°°E Sequoia sempervlrens 8W10 70/60 65%fair moderate X "West" 10a9 AIL Lot 36.5 36.5 oast retlw°°E Sequoia sempomim s 85/18 TWO 73%good good X "West" 80 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name m e P.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201T N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c s c E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � s x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o ft ._ ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo of ¢cgnw° 0.8 $'c iA uO�EoA. °z 10u All.Lot ? 11.5 11.5 oast redwood Sequo/a sempervirens VON20/20 20%wry poor„West" very poor X 10a5 AIL Lot 33.7 33.7 oast r -d Sequo/a sempervirens 80/13 70160 63%fair moderate E X "West" 10W Alt.Lot 278 27.8 oastr -d Sequoia sampervlrens 80112 6siso 57%fair modem. E TO X "West" 104T AIL Lot 210 21.0 ..a trWwootl Sequoia sampervlrens 80112 70160 68%fair moderab E X "West" 10b AIL Lot 17.2 17.2 oast r -d Sequoia sempervlrens 60/12 70160 67%fair modem. E X "West" 1040 Alt.Lot 4.o 43.8 oastr -d Sxluola sempervirens 80/18 TWO 70%good good E X "West" loo, Alt.Lot 26.8 26.8 oastr -d Sxluola sampervlrens 80112 70/60 68%fair good W X West" loll Alt.Lot 27.4 27.0 oastr -d Sxluola sampervlrens 80112 70160 TO%good good W X "West" 1052 AIL Lot 29.6 29.6 ..a trWwootl Spools sampervlrens 80/12 70160 64%fair good W X west" AIL Lot Located on strop lots „West" 23.2 23.2 oast rWwood Sequoia samPervlrens 80/12 70/50 64%foir good 3 X slope.Possible stability issues? AIL Lot Located an steep 10& „West" 24.6 24.6 oastr -d Spuola s-Ponlm- 80110 70150 65%fair good 3 X Mode.Possible stability issues? AIL Lot Located on steep 1055 „West" 27.8 27.8 oastr -d Spuola s-Ponlm- 80/13 70/50 67%foir good 3 X slope.Possible stability issues? lo56 Alt.Lot 25.8 25.8 oastr -d Spuola s-Ponlm- 80/12 SW60 57%foir poor.motl X West" 1057 AIL Lot 27.0 27.0 oastr -d Sequoia semponlmns 75/15 TWO 70%good good X West" 1018 Alt.Lot 28.T 28.T oastr -d Spuola sempoml-s 75/18 TWO T0%good good X SbunkM 4-feet "West" elevation. 105e Alt'Lot 28.3 ..6 51.3 oast retlw°°d Sequoia sempervlrens 80/18 70/60 68X fair mod g.erate[0 2 X "West" Alt.Lot 20%very lower 1060 „West" X 7.6 7.6 wNXa altler Al-rhomOHolla iW 9W10 poor poor X tmnk X 81 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`, Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Opdawd Ov,rall Condition E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g ; - Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aP,ciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8e? �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ �'° ¢040.w° a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z All.Lot S-imnk form 1p61 „West" 18.6 18.6 Deaf radwootl Sequo/a sempervirens 6W12 TW55 6l%fair gootl W X batwe,n zere antl iS Teat. 1062 AIL Lot 8.8 8.8 oact r -d Sequo/a sempervirens 4S18 70165 TO%gootl gootl S X West" w63 Alt.Lot 18.0 18.0 aaetrWwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 6W12 TO/65 68%fair moderate gwtl[o X West" 106r Alt.Lot 122 12.2 Sham,lash Fraxlnua OM 3S/30 SWSO 50%fair poor.motl W X West" 1p65 AIL Lot 12.0 12.0 Sham,lash Frax/nua uhd.1 35/25 80160 6T%fair good SW SW X West" Requires entlwelght reduction pruning. w66 Alt.Lot 32.2 32.2 INlian awns pin, Plnus pines 30140 75/45 %%fair gootl S y No.tmnk re"West" ud.narrow mePolnt below Requires endwelght reductlon pruning. w62 Alt.Lot 257 25.T INlian awn,pin, Plnus plow 2WS 65140 52%fair motleraN S S 6 No.trunk re"West" ud.narrow meaoolnt below sta&M Wahl. Requires entlwelght reduction pruning. w68 Alt.Lot 24.6 24.6 INlian awn,pins Plnus plow MS 75/60 66%Nir flood 12 No.trunk re"West" ud.narrow meaoolnt below Requires entlwelght reduction pruning. I_ Alt.Lot 24.2 24.2 INlian sw-pine Plnus plow 30/35 75/60 68%Nir gootl N 18 NON tmnk re"West" ud.narrow me Point below w. Alt'Lot X 15A 15A Non.rey pin, Pl.-mdb. 20/20 30/20 25%wry poor poor S 1 X I- Alt'Lot 8.0 8.0 honey locust GNdgsla b—ffiw 2WIS 35140 37%poor poor X West" 1012 Alt'Lot 8.3 8.3 honey locust GNdgsla blacanMw MIS 40/25 33%poor poor W X West" 1013 Alt'Lot 8.8 8.9 honey locust GNdgsla W.—thw 2S/20 40/40 40%poor poor X "West" 1w4 Alt'Lot 8.2 8.2 honey locust GNdgsla W.—Mw 25/20 40/40 0%poor poor X West" 1w5 Alt.Lot X T. .6 25%wry „West, 6 T wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll iW13 2S/25 poor very poor W X FirebligM inNction lo16 Alt.Lot X 8. .8 25%very „West" 8 8 wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll 20/20 2S125 poor very poor S X FirebligM mftc on 1012 Alt.Lot 12.8 12.8 „West" wergre,n pwr Pyrus kawakamll 90Y30 90140 95%pow motlaraN X FirebligM inNction 82 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C IT _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Updated Overall Condition Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 ; a Ratings&NOTES 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) u b mow c - c ° c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFco� O o ONWARD 2 dE E8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8e? �Lti e.a 2$ 02 UOo ¢cgnw° a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z +019 All.L. 9.2 9.2 honey locust Gbrllfsla W-fhos 22/25 65160 63%fair W. X "West" I_ Alt.Lot 6.7 6.7 honey locust Gbrllfsla Wacanfhw 161t5 65155 60%fair mWtl, X "West" +w0 Alt'Lot 8.5 8.5 honey locust Gkdsla Wacanbw 25120 65160 63%fair W.raw X "West" AIL Lot Will need endwei,l +w+ „West" 19.8 19.8 Iblienswn,pin, Plnus plow 30/00 8WT0 TS%good good E reduction pruning if retained. Will need endweigM AIL Lot reducion pmning if +ohs „West" 32.8 32.8 INlienabnapina Plnus pl- 35/30 80160 67%fair good 3 1s retained.Note: etl at 2 het aelevation. WIII need +oa3 Alt.Lot 221 22.1 Iblian awns pine Plnus pl.. 30/30 80165 69%fair good N N entivrelght "West" reduction pruning N retained. +oaa Alt.Lot 239 23.9 INlien awn,pin, Plnus plow 25125 75145 52%fair good 3 y Nob:measured at3 "West" feet elevation. +w6 AIL Lot 18.a 18.a INlien awn,pin, Plnus pl- 28130 solso 62%fair good 3 y feet elevatio Nob:ml-ti.n. "West" . +w6 Alt.Lot 17.6 17.6 INlien awn,pin, Plnus plow 30125 80/65 TS%good good S-k form. "West" Alt.Lot (dead standing (daadsNMlnB frwl 13/9 0/0 0%dwd X+w2 ^West" s.a as tree) +wa Alt.Lot 7.0 7.0 6.5 20.2 wet r -d Sequoia s-Pervlrens 25110 80/80 80%good good x ^wwt^ +we Alt.Lot 7.5 T.s wet r -d Sequoia s-P-Imns 25110 80/80 80%good good x ^west^ +w0 Alt.Lot 6.5 6.2 oact r -d Sequoia s-P-Imns 1818 80/80 80%good good X west^ +oN AIL Lot 12.5 12.5 wet r -d Sequoia s-P-Imns 30/10 70NO TO%good good x ^west^ +w2 Alt.Lot AT 4.1 8.8 oactr -d Sequoia sempervirens 2W13 80/80 80%good good x ^wwt^ +w3 Alt.Lot 5.7 5.3 11.0 oast redwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 25112 80/80 80%good good X "West" +Wa Alt.Lot ila 13.0 oast redwootl Sequoia sempervlrens 3W11 70160 66%fair moss X "West" 83 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`, Eg oB S _ C If _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdalod Overall CondIIIon E°& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n 71 ; - Ratings&NOTEB 201T N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aP,ciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFcE� O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae r3a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo �'- ¢0gnw° 0.8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z Trunk aiam,Nr Alt.Lot 20%vary wtimaroa.Tree has 1w6 "West" X 62.0 42.0 INlien abna Pin, PI.-P)wa 25Y90 80/0 pour gootl Nilaastructurelly, antl is lying the groans.. 1w6 AIL Lot 31.8 31.8 INlienabnapina Plnus plow 25/25 SO/SS 64%fair goon N N Tmnk measuretlM "West" grow-rovatlon. 1w2 Alt.Lot X 19.2 19.2 tulip tree Llrbtlendron mIipM 3W12 2M5 25%very very Poor X West" poor 1w8 AIL Lot T 12.6 12.6 Nlip tree Llrbdentlron mllpMere 2SI10 40/90 90%poor poor X West" I_ Alt.Lot 2T.9 2T.9 INlienabnapina Plnus plow 35/45 85/55 TO%gootl goon SW SW 20 Nwtls endw-Ight "West" reduction praning. Tmnk dlameror wtimarod.Tres has 110o Alt.Lot 26.0 26.0 INlien abna pin, Plnus pl.. 20/95 O/0 0%tl d fall-d shucturally, "West" antl Is lying on M- g-d as dead ood . pines appear to be falling I.... small dlameNr planter 11ol Alt.Lot T 18.9 18.9 INlien abna pin, Plnus plow wto solso 50%Nir goon NW NW as,due ro thelr "West" root d-lopm-nt having been -rely restdctw In terms of roterel Same as'notes'for 1102 Alt.Lot T 38.9 38.9 INlien abna Pin, Plnus plow 40/28 80/47 SO%Nir goon SW SW -re 101.Tmnk "West" 11. ..measuretl .11foot elevatlon. Same as'noros'for 'West t0%ory goon S S dlamar0mea-d 1109Alt [ X 24.T 24.T INlien abna pin, Plnus plow 30/25 60N M 2 Net-1-vat1on. Same as'noros'for I_ Alt.Lot X 28.0 28.0 INlien abna pin, Plnus Pl." 2=0 O/0 0%tl d -re 101.Tmnk "West" diameter measuretl at 2 Net elevwlon. Recommend -of two Alt.Lot Euwtyfpus mwtlominant 1106 „West" 5.0 4.5 8.5 river retl gum cama/au/enaia 90/10 80/45 60%Nir gootl 1 X malnstems at Me fork w 1 foot elevation. ou[hern Roots tlamagea on 1106 X 8.0 8.0 magnolia Magnola gmnd8iora 2WI6 50/SO 50%Nir poor N motl X gratle from mowing activities. ou[harn Roots tlamagea on 1102 X 6.8 6.8 magnolia Magnolia gmnd8iora 2WI6 Met) 50%Nir poor N motl X gratle from mowing activities. soutfwrn Roots tlamagea on 110a X g.0 8.0 magnolia Magnolia gnM)gox 29/20 SW55 SS%Nir poor N motl X gratle--mowing activities. Roots tlamaged 110e X 41.8 41.8 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdel 65160 80160 79%gootl goon E X hom recent cuM replac-m-n[ ac[Nltles. Roots tlamaged 111. X 10.5 10.5 Shamel a,h FY-I-uh" 3S/20 90/90 30%poor poor W X gr 6 X hom recen[cuM replacement ac[Nltles. 84 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientific Name L 8 - q+ v 'c m e p.y WLCA Notes from Opdabd Overall CondIIIon E& $A y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ c - n `o ' n i'71 - Ratings&NOTES 2011 N 4444 y a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPooio.) a: ¢ m ub mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYRpFc O o ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae, t3a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢12 A.w' n8 $'c iA 5 'E S, z Roo,tlamaged X 14.7 14.7 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdol 40/20 30/30 30%poor poor E X gr 10 X from rec.ntcurb replacement ac[Nltl.s. Roots tlamaged 1112 X 26.6 26.6 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnus uhdol 65/35 60160 60%fair mwooto SW gr X from rec.ntcurb replacement ac[Nltl.s. High dsk situation: Split"hanger"Ilmb 1- X 33.5 33.5 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnus.hold TWO 65/55 60%fair mW.roto 35 gr X n-d a[35 feet .l.oe.on nodh side of canopy needs to b. 19.2 19.2 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus.hold 35/35 85165 75%gootl Sow S S X X Roots tlamaged on (monNar the glrtlling a.dous Shod..Note souse 1113 root aXuatlon) 22.8 22.8 Shamel aeM1 Faxlnus.hold 9SY35 80/30 45X poor Sootl E E girrtlolibnS X gimilhg root sltuMlon. Roots 1-god on 1116 24.2 24.2 Shamel ash Faxlnus uhdol 40140 80/55 65%ftir Sow X gr X ghotlb,from mowing activities. throughout Roots tlamagetl on 24.7 24.7 ShamelasM1 Fraxlnus uhtlel 45I40 40/30 35%poor poor E nopy X grad.from mowing activities. Roots damaged on 111. 23.0 23.0 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdol SW40 60/50 55%ftir W.rob, W W X X ghotl.from mowing activities. Roots damaged on grade from mowing 111. X 18.6 18.6 Shamel ash Fraxlnus uhdol 4S/20 15/15 15�oery very poor X gr actwitl.s. Recommend ov.tree dn.to .hon Roots 1-god on 112. 26.7 26.7 Shamel aeh Faxlnus.hold SW40 75/65 70%gootl gootl N E X X ghotl,from mowing activities. Roots damaged on 1121 19.7 19.7 Shamel aeh Faxlnus uhdol 50/35 80/65 76%gootl gootl W W X X grad.from mowing activities. Roots damaged on grad.from mowing 21.4 21.4 Shamel a,h Fraxlnus uhdol 60/35 40140 0%poor poor W X 0 to 2 X aoth,lti-V.hlcl, collision c....d damage to trunk between x.ro.nd 2 Roots damaged on gr.d.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 .pp.,..daces are -P..tl. Roots damaged on gr.d.from mowing 15.5 15.5 Shamel aeh Faxlnus.hold 30/18 40/30 35%poor poor W X gr X activities.Root plate .pp.,..daces are -P..tl. Roots tlamaged on 1121 13.8 13.8 Shamel ash Faxlnus.hold 4W0 50/30 0%poor motlerab W S x giwliinS x grade from mowing. root Nob severe girdling roe situation. TREE REMOVED FROM LANDSCAPE. 85 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 vae Eg oB S _ C oc _ t 8 :: E E'c F Scientifl fic Name L r X o= P.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition E& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c S o n_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201] N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeaiea) a: n = u b mow c - c 0 c E u Spring 2015 Survey >3E� n x x x i x x miG n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o fr ._ ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 :a SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of ¢12 n lun a8 $'c iA uO�Eo °z X 2.7 2.7 red maple Aaa,rub— 1618 80/85 80%0ootl Gootl Chlarotic follage.Sall malstum deficit. 112a X 1.9 1.9 red maple Aaa,mb— 1316 60160 60%Fair Mod Chlorotic follage.Sall molsture deficit. 112. X 2.0 2.0 red maple Aaa,mb— 1316 55/55 55%Fair Mod Chlorotic follage.Sall molsture deficit. 113o X 1.8 1.8 red maple Aaa,mb— 1015 MS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic folla{p.Sall m.I-. denalt. 1131 X 1.9 1.9 red maple Aaa,mb— 11/5 MS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic folla{p.Sall m.I-. denclt. 1132 X 1.4 1.4 red maple Aaa,mb— 9/5 MS 35%Poor Poor Chlorotic follage.Sall molsture deficit. 1133 X 1.9 1.9 red maple A—rubrum 1316 37/45 39%Poor Poor Chlorotic follage.Sall molsture deficit. Purple Robe locust Rob/n/.'Purple Robe' 20/12 05/65 ]0%Gootl North 91.. 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 ]0%Gooa Mod Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1137 X 4.7 4.7 Purple Robe locust Robinla'Purple Robe' 20/13 ]0/50 60%Fair Mod 1 to 4I.M. Removetl as of Jan,2020. 113. X 3.6 3.6 Purple Robe locust Rob/n/a'Purple Robe' 20/12 M. ]0%Goad 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 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S �q adao & u a _ F' _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 c- q+ v 'c m e C y WLCA Notea from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon x Ea S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n ,ti m g - Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEaYp$5$c ONWARD 2 dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma Z'Ee3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2O °2 U' & of ¢cR a°wn a8 �'c.A UOIEa °z Fr A Rowering pear Pyius calleryana 1311D 40/6D 45%Poor Removetl as of Jan,2020. 0.4 4.4 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2115 1-1 55%Fair Pcor to Motl North 0to 5f0et. Removed-Jan,2020. 3.7 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 05170 701Gcod Motl Removedaso(Jan,2020. 11K X &4 5.4 Purple Robe locust Robini -rple Robe' 2-10 05/5s 65%Fair Motl to Good oto 6faet Removed as of Jan,2020. X 3.8 3.0 Purple Robe locust Robini -rple Robe' 2-12 70/60 60%Fair Motl Removed as of Jan,2020. 11K X 3.4 3.4 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-12 7-s 61%Fair Motl oto 8feat Removed as of Jan,2020. 11K X 3.4 3.4 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 1.13 7-7 64%Fair Motl oto 5faet Removed as of Jan,2020. X 0.1 4.1 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2&14 05175 00%Gcod Motl to Gootl Removed as of Jan,2020. 11K X 0.2 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 65/40 46%Pcor Motl oto to feet Removetl as of Jan,2020. 11K X 0.T 4.7 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.13 7-7 63%Fair Motl oto 6feat Removed as of Jan,2020. 1150 X &6 - Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 2- 70/58 66%Fair Gootl 0to 7faet Removed as of Jan,2020. 1151 X &0 &0 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 27/10 05/60 72%Gcod Motl to Gootl Removed as of Jan,2020. 1112 X 3.6 3.6 Purple Robe locuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 22110 s-s 40%Pcor Pcor to Motl West West Oto4faat Removed as of Jan,2020. 87 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo S �q adao & u a _ F' _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Note,from URIatetl Overall CondIIIon a S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c ,ti m g - Ratings&NOTES 2011 pr 2-2 E y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPecfea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c , c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , n x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Yp$5$c _ ns o� EE ��o f1 ._ ONWARD Z'Ee3 go as iae 8,? �Lti aQ 2O o2 ¢cR o°wn a8 �'c.A uO�Eo °z Purple Robe locust obinia'Purple Robe' 20/11 sMs 48%Poor Poor as ,et Removed as of Jan,2020. 2.T Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1N 50/50 50%Fair Mod W,at Removetlaaof Jan,2020. 3.0 Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 10l] 50/50 S0%Fair Mod Wect Removetlaaof Jan,2020. Various 3.8 Purple Robe locust Robinla'Purple Robe' 19/10 85/55 59%Fair Poor to Motl alev. Removetl as of Jan,2020. Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 1-10 ]5/60 6fi%Fair Mod W,at Removetlaaof Jan,2020. At.b,f et 4.1 4.1 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 1-12 00/60 60°o Fair and ten Removetlaaof Jan,2020. feet. X si si Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 20/10 BSI]0 00%Gaotl Gootl Removetlaaof Jan,2020. 1160 X 3.6 3.s Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 14/0 25/25 MVery Removetl a a of Jan,2020. Poor 1161 X 6.1 4.1 Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 12/9 50/50 5.%Fair Mod Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 1162 X 6.1 4.1 Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 13/9 40/40 40%Poor Poor Removetl a a of Jan,2020. 1166 X 9.8 3A Nowering pear Pyrus calleryana 13/8 00/80 00%Gootl Gootl Removed a a of Jan,2020. 11W X S.1 si Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-2 ]5/55 .3%Fair Mod 0to 6 feel. Removetl a a of Jan,2020. LL 1165 X 5.4 5.4 Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 30/20 00/60 ]5%Gaotl Gootl 1lo Steel. Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 88 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m c P.y WLCA Note,from U RI ated Overall C,ndIIIon Ee S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n ,ti m g .- Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPecfea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring Ms Survey 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ns H. EE JE.3o ft ._ ONWARD 2 2 2 2 ma Z'Ee3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ Al0 02 U' & of�,$ �'a ¢cR a°di a8 �'c.A uOV-Eo °z pr o Purple robe locust binie'Purple Robe' M. MD 64%Fair o0 o Removed as of Jan,2020. 8 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - 40/40 40%Poor Pao, Removedasof Jan,2030. 5.1 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1.12 —0 60%Fair Good Removedasof Jan,2020. 1169 X 6.7 4.7 Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.16 65/65 74%Good Good Removed as of Jan,2020. 1120 X b.T 4.7 Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.15 60/65 70%Good Mad Removedasof Jan,2030. 1171 X 5.2 5.2 Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 21116 65/60 70%Good Good At is feet Removedasof Jan,2030. X s. S.o Purple robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.16 0 69%Fair Good Nodh North w,,t 5to 6 feet. Removedasof Jan,2020. 1126 X 3.2 3.2 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - —0 60%Fair Good Removedasof Jan,2030. 1171 X 2.6 2.s Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 91s —0 30%Poor Pao, Removedasof Jan,2g20. 1126 X 6.3 - Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 2.16 60l]5 ]s%Good Good Removed as of Jan,2020. 1126 X 6.3 4.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 17112 6-s 6s%Fat, Good Removed as of Jan,2020. 1177 X 6.3 6.3 P,rple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-3 50130 30%Poor Good oto is feet Removed as of Jan,2020. 1129 X 5.1 S.1 Parple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-3 50130 30%Poo, Mod Oto Bfaet Removed as of Jan,2020. 89 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 c- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x Ea S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n ,ti m g - Ratings&NOTES 201] y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c c c E u Spring 2015 Survey miG 22me qEEaY$5Pc ��o ONWARD dEE' = e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma Z'Ee3 go as iae r3a 2Lti aQ 20 °2 U' & of�,$ ¢cR o°wn a8 �'c.A uO�Eo °z Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 12l] 40/4D 40%Poor Pcor to Removetl as of Jan,2020. 0.] 4.7 Purple Robe locust Robini-rple Robe' 24/15 00/fi0 70%Gcod Motl N-h Removedasol Jan,2020. 4.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-14 7-0 70%Gcod Motl Removedasor Jan,2020. 1182 X &1 5.1 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 23/1fi 05/60 70%Gootl Gootl At het. Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 1- X 4.0 4.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 22/13 00/fi0 fi]%Fair Good 3to 5het Removed as or Jan,2020. 11N X 3.8 3.0 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1- s0/50 50%Fair Mad Removed as or Jan,2020. 1188 X 2.3 2.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - s5/55 55%Fair Motl Removed as or Jan,2020. 1186 X 2.7 2.7 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - s5/55 55%Fair Mad Removed as or Jan,2020. 11.1 X 3.3 3.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana - 35/35 35%Poor Motl 0to 4 het Removed as or Jan,2020. 1188 X 5.5 s.s Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 28/10 ]5/30 35%Poor Gootl Oto Shot Removetl as or Jan,2020. 1- X &8 s.0 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-2 fi5/25 30%Poor Gootl oto 8het Removetl as or Jan,2020. 1190 X 0.4 0.4 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 3-10 s0/30 37%Poor Motl to Gootl At various Removetl as or Jan,2020. alev. 1181 X 6.8 6.8 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 35/23 fis/20 25p-dry Gootl Oto lO het Removetl as or Jan,2020. 90 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e o S �q _ C oc _ u .2 " E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 9 e- q+ v '1 m e C y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condi[lon ES $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n ,ti m g - Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aP-io.) a: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey m �qc , o x x x i x x miG w m �a 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ns E� EE ��o fr ._ ONWARD 2 dEE' = 2 2 2 ma Z'Ee3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 20 92 °2 U' & of ¢cR o°wn n8 �'c.A u0 1 S to Rowering pear Pyi.s calleryana 11RI M. 30%Poor Poor Removetl as of Jan,2020. 4 Rowering pear Pyi.s calleryana 1w s-s 55%Fair Pcor to Motl Removedasof Jan,M20. st Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' -8 smo 45%Poor Paor to Motl oto S feet. Removedasof Jan,M20. 1198 X 0.5 4.5 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.15 -0 50%Fair Motl 3to 4 feel Removed as of Jan,M20. 1196 X 5.3 s3 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' M18 6-s 40%Poor Motl oto1 Removed as of Jan,2020. 1192 X 5.0 5.0 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.18 S-o 37%Poor Motl oto 6 feet. Removed as of Jan,2020. 111. X 0.9 4.8 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.18 6-s 45%Poor Motl oto 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 oto 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 5.0 5.0 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2-2 7-s 45%Poor Good oto 5f m. Removed as of Jan,2020. 1204 lr A6 A6 Porple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 221i6 S-o 40%Poor Paor to Motl oto 5 feel Removed as of Jan,2020. 91 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Egoo _ C oc _ t 8 :: a E " E'c F Scientific Name L 8 a- q+ v 'c m c P.y WLCA Note,from U RI an Overall C,ndIIIon x Ee S $e y rc r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o n t'm g - Ratings&NOTES 2017 y =a c c c c c c _m„ $o (Genoa,aPecfea) s: ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey 22me qEEa .Faw g Y$5Pc _ ns o� EE JE.3o fr ._ ONWARD 2 2 2 2 ma Z'Ee3 go as iae 8,z �Lti aQ 20 02 U' & of�,$ �'a ¢cR a°di a8 �'c.A uOV-Eo °z Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' M1 55130 36%Paor Poor o Removed as of Jan,2020. S.2 1.2 Purple Robelocuat Robinia'Purple Robe' 1-1 1-1 6011.Fair Gootl 0to 9 feet. Removetlaso(Jan,2020. 4.3 Purple Robe locust Robini-rple Robe' -0 0 8 75%Gootl Gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1MB X .5 3.5 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' -16 BSI]0 ]]%Gootl Gootl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1Me X 6.5 4.5 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1-lo -s 45%Poor Matl Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1210 X 9.0 3.0 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1- 3-s 35%Poor Paor Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1211 X 2.9 2.9 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1- 40/40 40%Poor Paor Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1212 X 12 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.13 fi5145 49%Poor Motl to Gootl 0 to 3 feet. Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1211 X 6.2 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.15 50/30 37%Poor Motl 0to 4fe,L Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1211 X 12 4.2 Purple Robe locust Robinia'Purple Robe' 2.17 7-0 66%Fair Mod to Gootl 3to 4feet. Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1211 X 6.3 4.3 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 2-12 3-0 30%Poor Paor Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1216 X 3.2 3.2 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1- 70/65 68%Fair Mad Removetl as of Jan,2020. 1211 X 9.2 9.2 Rowering pear Pyrus calleryana 1]I] fi0/55 Sfi%Fair P.-to Motl Removetl as o(Jan,2020. 92 of 95 R.I.g.&NOT S2017 ONWARD .h.p.d.g'1223". Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 v`e Eg oB S _ C o c _ t $ :: E E'c F Scien fib,Name L m e P.y WLCA Notes from Uptlatetl Overall Condition x Ea& $c y¢ r c —'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n Ratings&NOTES 201T N 444p44 =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow E u Spring 2015 Survey >tg � n x x x i x x mi0 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O E��o fl ._ ONWARD 2 dEE8_— e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 ma SEe3 go as iae 8ez �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo ¢ngnwn n8 Was a4 uOt E'E c 1z91 Est.22 Est.22 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens awls 501so 50%Fair Poor to Mod 1232 ESL 2A ESL 20 oaet r -d Sequoia sempervlrens SOMO MS 35%Poor Poor 1233 Est.18 Est.18 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens MIS 40140 40%Poor Poor No access to bunk base.Tres was no[taggetl by WLCA. 1234 X Est.15 Est.15 ...t r -d Sequoia s—Pervlrens 4SI13 65165 65%Fair Mod This tree was"rough pl..d" by WLCA,and added to the Sandi.tree map sheets. 1235 ESL 22 ESL 22 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 75113 55155 55%Fair Poor to Mod Dense grovnh arountl base. Two wide-forked codominaM mist al 16 fret I.. Est.26 Est.26 ...t rWwood Sequoia—Prvlmns 60116 50145 48%Poor Poor to Mod ab.-g.d.. Dense growth arountl base. 1232 ESL 20 ESL 20 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 65I16 40140 40%Poor Poor Dena.grovnh around base. 123a ESL 22 ESL 22 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 68116 50150 50%Fair Poor to Mod Dena.grovnh around base. 123. Est.15 ESL 15 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 5,510 SOY!] 44%Poor Poor East Dena.grovnh around base. I- Est.32 ESL 32 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 70125 60160 60%Fair Poor to Mod Dena.grovnh around base. Est.22 Est.22 oaet retlwood Sequoias—Pervlmns MIS 45145 45%Poor Poor Dena,growth arountl base. ESL 12 ESL 12 ....tr -d Sequoia sempervlrens W12 60150 55%Fair Poor to Mod Dena.grovnh around base. I- ESL 2A ESL 20 oaetr -d Sequoia sempervlrens 60/15 40140 40%Poor Poor Dense grovnh around base. 94 of 95 Vallco Tree Data by Walter Levison,Consulting Arborist(WLCA) Revised 10/28/2020 _ C oc _ t 8 :: u E E'c F Scientific Name L X o= i 8 e- q+ v 'c m e P.y WLCA Notes from Ipdaled Overall CondIIIon Ea& $c y¢ r c -'o u Common Name _ c$ o n_ c - n `o ' n i'm g - a Rabnlls&NOTES 2011 N 4444y =a c c c c c c _mm„ $o (Genoa,aPeciea) e ¢ m u b mow c - c a c E u Spring 2015 Survey >36� u x x x i x x mit5 n m �a 22me qEEaYRpFc O ONWARD 2 dEE8_- e� 2 2 2 2 2 2 y:a SEe3 go as iae 8a �Lti aQ 2$ 02 UOo of�,$ �'o ¢cgnwn n8 ¢G.A uO�Eo °z X 15.5 1S.S oactr -d Swluola—P—I... M2 010 0%DEAD Na Podocarpus Tree south removed atwest the flyway Vew pine macropM1ylla 10/6 40/40 40%Poor Paor to Motl britlge comer on u241zozo. NOTES: 1.Neighta were determined using a Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer.Diameters were determined using a forestry D-tape whi.h converts actual circumference to averaged diameter in inches antl tentbs 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 grade),using round—,d tags M1 tbrougb N.For tree tag numbers above NN,race4ack—"d tags were used,up to tag p1125. 3.Trees—6 through#1105 were to-d in a triangular survey area known as"al[ema[e lot west". d.In a followup assignment in July,2D18,Walter Levison was directed by Vallco Properly Owner LLC to tag antl assess additi.-trees starting with tag#1126,many e(wbich m--d less than 4.0 inches diameter.Moat or all of these supplemental trees were excluded from the original tree study,due to trunk tliameter being below the study threabold of 4.0 inches,antllor location of—k.—id.the original proposetl Vallco project area. 5.Parking lot treec were inatalletl in plactic root barriers whicM1 severely etuntetl trees by limiting ibair root extension.Circular root barriers are consitleretl by arboriets to be a tlirecl cause of lack o(normal tree growlb pertormance antl tree stability. 6.Pedmeter trees bave not been receiving normal irrigation,antl are declining and dying prematurely due W coil moiahre deficit. 95 of 95