The URL can be used to link to this page

TR-2021-034 Stamped Plan Set Community Development Department Plari i- g Division - Cupertino CUPERTINO `- APPROVED July 28, 2021 NJ Case#AmftuwNKC Nancy Kao p n�liratinn N,imhpr(5) Quiring General, LLC TBARTLETT CONSULTING 5960 Stoneridge Dr. Suite 207 Approval Bbdy'T0ied+t:` &_,J1St6ff Pleasanton, CA 94588 Approva I Date 01/04/22 Subject: Forum Amendment -Additional trees and rerbigrafture Erika Poveda 23500 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertino Case Manager Dear Nancy Kao: Stephanie Truong asked that I evaluate anticipated impacts from construction of a proposed retaining wall adjacent to London plane#226. She asked that I prepare a letter summarizing my assessment and recommendations. Tree Condition and Evaluation of impacts London plane#226 was rated in good condition ;` with good form and structure, based on the ' r 2017 report prepared by HortScience. It was growing in a landscaped median, approximately 24"from the curb. In the 2017 report, it had been recommended for removal due to anticipated impacts from grading. I reviewed the document titled "Other Documents—Letter of Intent"dated 5-12-2021 and created by Quiring General to assess the tree. The documents included a photo of the II" tree's location relative to the proposed wall Photo 1). According to Stephanie Truon grading will be required due to the sloped conditions of the site. The construction of a wall and associated grading is proposed near the tree, I assume work will occur within 5' of the tree. At this distance (within 3-6 times the tree's trunk diameter of 11"), impacts will occur within the tree's critical root zone, with the potential to adversely affect the tree's long term viability " and stability. I anticipate approximately 50% of Photo 1 — London plane#226 was the tree's root system will be lost and impacts to located next to a proposed wall. the tree will be severe. Tree preservation recommendations Due to the proximity and severity of anticipated impacts associated with the proposed retaining wall and grading work near London plane#226, 1 recommend the removal of the tree. If possible, a replacement tree should be planted in this area after construction of the retaining wall is complete. Please contact me if you have any questions about my observations. Sincerely, Jillian Keller, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester ti— ISA Certified Arborist Utility Specialist WE-12057A HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case # TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/ Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager Arborist Repor* The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Cupertino, CA PREPARED FOR Greenbrier Development, LLC 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 1160 Dallas, TX 75204 PREPARED BY: HortScience, Inc. 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 March 28, 2017 HORT SCIENCE Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino Arborist Rep7INO APPROVED The Forum at Rancho S@p,4%tonio TR-2021-034 Cupertino, CA ApplicationNumber(s) Table of Conter#pprovaI Body: Director/Staff Approval I Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika P veda Muse Manager Introduction and Overview 1 Tree Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 4 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 10 List of Tables Table 1 . Tree Condition and Frequency of Occurrence 2 Table 2. Tree Suitability for Preservation 5 Table 3. Trees Identified for Removal 7 Exhibits Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Arborist Report Community Development Department The Forum Planning Division — Cupertino Cupertino, CAcuPLRT1N0 APPROVED Introduction and Overview Case# TR-2021-034 Greenbrier Development is planning renovations and new facility construction at,,yh1gV'8f NnS1er(s) Rancho San Antonio in Cupertino. HortScience, Inc. was as ed to r re n rborist R ort, . for the site as part of the application to the City of Cupertin Ppro�ia� oc y: erector f�ta Approval Date 01/04/22 This report provides the following information: 1. An evaluation of the health and structural conditionWthlAl° A 1A4i+hiF4rjhd @p d project area based on a visual inspection from the ground. case Manager 2. An assessment of the development impacts to the trees based on the drawings provided by the client. 3. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development. Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on January 27 and 30, 2017. The assessment included all on-site trees 4 inches and greater in diameter within the limit of work as identified by the client. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the species of tree; 2. Tagging each tree with an metal tag and recording its location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 —5: 5-A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4-Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3-Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2-Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 -Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as"high", "moderate" or"low". Suitability for preservation considers the health, age, and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in `high' category. Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 2 C�rrrmurrity-D-evetup nt Department Description of Trees Planning Division — Cupertino Two hundred seventy-nine (279)trees representing 23 sp L-WI-1-re Rr evaluated (Tabl��I A 11 majority of the trees were in good (58%) and fair(34%) con r on, with only 22 trees ((�$Y.) condition (Table 1). Tree sizes ranged from 4 to 26 inches i(jg�"ter, with an avTRg2&2dk-034 diameter of 11 inches (of 241 single-trunk trees). Descriptions of each tree can Wp n1RJA@e*) Tree Assessment and tree locations are plotted on the Tree Inventory Map (see Exhibits). Approval Body: Director/Staff Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency occurr ece of tre89/04/22 The Forum at Rancho San Antonid,ltopyW )d�e Signature Erika Poveda Common Name Scientific Name Condition 1 91M Manager Poor Fair Good (1-2) (3) (4-5) Bailey acacia Acacia baleeyana 1 - - 1 Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 1 - 4 5 Strawberry tree Arbutus unedo - 1 - 1 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - 5 5 10 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 3 2 5 10 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - - 3 3 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 6 8 - 14 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - 17 4 21 Australian tea tree Leptospermum laevigatum - 1 - 1 Brisbane box Lophostemon confertus - 1 3 4 Mayten Maytenus boaria - 2 1 3 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 2 13 14 29 Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa - 3 - 3 Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - 1 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - 1 11 12 London plane Platanus x hispanica - 1 69 70 Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 5 9 3 17 Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia - 4 - 4 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana - 4 2 6 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 2 12 24 38 Valley oak Quercus lobata - - 1 1 Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis - 1 - 1 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 10 12 24 Total 22 96 161 279 8% 34% 58% 100% The most common species evaluated was London plane, with 70 trees (25% of the population). Trees were concentrated around parking areas of the skilled nursing center, multi-purpose room, along Cristo Rey drive, and Via Splendor(Photo 1, next page). Trees were young to semi- mature, with trunk diameters from 4 to 15 inches. Overall, London planes were in good and excellent condition, with only one tree (#172) in fair condition. Trees had good form and structure and no visible signs of pests or disease. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 3 —Corn-mu-nit- -ev-ei-u t Department Planning Division — Cupertino ` -- CUPERT1N0 APPROVFD Case # TR-20ZI-034 ; ..r- 4�; 1pplicationNumber( �) ApprovaliBody: ff: Approval Date Signature -;z a L. Photo 1 (left): London planes along Cristo Rey Dr. (#216-219, I-r)were in good condition with good form and structure. Photo 2 (right): Coast live oak#74 was in good condition with good form and dense crown. The second most common species was coast live oak, with 38 trees evaluated (14%). Trees were grouped in four locations across the site, generally growing in natural, open areas, with the largest group at the northwest end of the site forming a dense screen. These trees were in fair and good condition, with crowded form. Trees given more space to grow had good form and dense crowns (Photo 2). Half of the oaks had single trunks ranging from 5 to 21 inches in diameter, with an average trunk diameter of 10 inches. Oaks with multiple trunks were semi- mature to mature, with the largest trunk measuring 26 inches. Twenty-nine (29)Aleppo pines were evaluated (10%). Most trees were located around the sloped grass field where the new memory care facility is proposed, with two trees (#271 and 275) on Sereno Way. Tree conditions ranged from poor(2 trees), to fair (13 trees)and good (14 trees). Many trees were growing in groups on the slope, contributing to crowded (one-sided)form and trunk leans. Trees in good condition had good form and dense crowns. Twenty-four(24)coast redwoods were evaluated at the site (9%). Trees were semi-mature, with trunk 4. diameters from 14 to 25 inches, with an average diameter of 19 inches. Trees were distributed in - 6..... G pairs throughout the site, with a circle of nine trees near the multi-purpose building, and a group of eight trees near the circular planter on Cristo Rey ,;r, Drive. Tree conditions ranged from poor to good, . . and was determined by foliage color and density. Trees in good condition had dense or thinning crowns; trees in fair condition had thin crowns xY' ` (Photo 3), and trees in poor conditions had very thin crowns with brown foliage and branch dieback. All but one tree #113 had good form and structure. Tree#113 was a multi-stem tree in fair condition. r r • ; :r r . Twenty-one (21) crape myrtles were evaluated (8%). Trees were young, with trunk diameters from Photo 3: Coast redwoods#240-244 3 to 9 inches. Most trees (17 trees)were in fair (1-r)were in fair condition with thinning condition with fair structure and small crowns. All crowns. trees had been heavily pruned. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 4 —C�mmunity-DevelupnTent Department Seventeen (17) purpleleaf plums, with trunk diameters ti Planning Division — Cupertino from 4 to 7 inches, were evaluated 6% . Trees were - ( ) r in poor(5 trees), fair (9 trees), and good (3 trees) � ,;• '-:y.� APPROVED condition. Many had been heavily pruned, and many T� 4 had severe trunk sunburn. Fourteen (14) red ironbarks were included in the assessment (5%). Trees were in fair and poor •� condition, with thin crowns, and many had been previously topped (Photo 4). u The remaining species were represented by 12 or fewer trees and included the following. • Twelve (12) Chinese pistache in good (11 , trees) and fair(1 tree) condition; • Ten (10) deodar cedars in good (5 trees)and Photo 4: Red ironbarks#104-107 (1- fair(5 trees) condition; r)were in poor condition with thin • Ten (10) camphors in good, fair, and poor crowns and they had been condition; previously topped. • Five horsechestnuts in good and poor condition; • Four each of Brisbane box and hollyleaf cherry in good and fair condition; • Three each of Italian cypress, mayten, and Ponderosa pine in good and fair condition; • One valley oak in good condition; • One each of strawberry tree, Australian tea tree, Monterey pine, and arroyo willow in fair condition; • One Bailey acacia in poor condition. The City of Cupertino defines Specimen tree as any from a list of 15 species with a trunk diameter of 10 inches for single-trunk trees and a cumulative 20 inches for multi-trunk trees. The following species evaluated at the site were on this list: Deodar cedar, coast live oak, and valley oak. Based on this definition, 37 trees were considered Specimen trees. Specimen trees are identified in the Tree Assessment(see Exhibits). Suitability for Preservation Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during development, it is important to consider the quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perform well in the landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-term health, structural stability and longevity. When development encroaches into existing plantings, we must consider their structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thrive in a new environment. Where development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and death should be allowed to continue. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: • Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 5 L-0 murrity-D-evetupm-ent Department • Structural integrity LEI Planning Division — Cupertino Trees with significant amounts of wood decay anr� � � r�jctural defects thOPM corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, red ironb&lesthdt had been preTiRrQN pW are not good candidates for preservation. Application Number(s) • Species response Approval Body: Director/Staff There is a wide variation in the response of individu jiF)-V@stru0rA4Q2cts and changes in the environment. In general, London p ane, coast redwood, and coast live oak are tolerant of construction impacts and site ch&&PegtMr�Ale Pr pines are relatively intolerant of site changes and root loss. case Manager • Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. • Species invasiveness Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. This site is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Purpleleaf plum is listed as limited invasive. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment and Table 2). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Table 2: Tree suitability for preservation The Forum at Rancho San Antonio, Cupertino CA High These are trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. One hundred one (101)trees had a high suitability for preservation. Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defects that may be abated with treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the "high" category. One hundred forty-seven (147)trees had a moderate suitability for preservation. Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Thirty-one (31)trees had low suitability for preservation. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 6 C-omn~ pity-D-ev z�p nt Department Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations in tionsAMEMocation �eserv�lt � e�ing Division — Cupertino Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match betu6 and inten it ROVED construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was he reference point for tree condition and quality. I referred to t1ce4ge4tet prepared bT5kM1h®34 Plan Review Submittal (12/14/16), which included site, grading, and utility sheet%p$iA§Y0ayAdrt 5) locations were included for most trees. Approval Body: Director/Staff The plans show improvements to various areas around the ite: a ne u ti-purl�f� and fitness addition; a new memory care center; a skilled nursir@pa��l�i�� 'a'n�i , ,..,, dozen new villas. Impacts to trees would occur with demoli&V'dtHiOng feCpftsPbV8dh'g construction, and utility installation. The most significant impacts would occur as a repAtQfanager grading for new buildings. The limit of work was clearly delineated on all plans. Most trees located within the limit of work would be directly impacted by construction activities, and trees located within 5 feet if the LOW would be impacted. Based on my review of the plans, 183 trees will be directly impacted by development and have would require removal. Seventeen (17)trees had low suitability for preservation, 92 were moderate, and 74 were high. Thirty-two (32)trees qualified as Specimen trees. A tree removal table is provided in the Exhibits. Ninety six (96)trees have been identified for preservation, most of which are outside the limit of work and at least 10 feet beyond grading limits. Preservation of trees is predicated on establishing and maintaining tree protection zones and minimizing root impacts. Trees that are relatively tolerant of impacts— London planes, coast live oaks, and coast redwoods —should have a minimum clearance of 7 feet. Tree protection zones for all other trees should be a minimum 10-foot radius or the edge of the dripline, whichever is greater. No grading, excavation, storage of materials, etc. is permitted within tree protection zones. Trees identified for preservation with canopy extending over construction or access areas may need to be pruned for clearance. Tree protection instructions are located in the Tree Preservation Guidelines (next section). Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 7 L-0 murTity-D-evetupnTent Department Tree Preservation Guidelines Planning Division - Cupertino The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival d �Jp r�tr glopment but mainXp?W9\ ED tree health and beauty for many years. Impacts can be minimized by coordinatin any construction activities Inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Case# gI R-2021-034 Application Numbers) The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, gARiP§CA JlcR0?IdWc15jrP0AWeAStaff Tree Preservation Guidelines Approval Date 01/04/22 The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival dur4�igidat Mmentlbdk�nla o0ance of tree health and beauty for many years. Impacts can be minimized by coordinating arAase Manager construction activities Inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, grading and construction phases. Design recommendations 1. Any plan changes affecting trees should be reviewed by the Consulting Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site improvement plans, utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans. 2. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ)shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. For design purposes, the TPZ is located at the dripline of the tree or 10 feet, whichever is greater. If necessary, the TPZ for construction-tolerant species may be reduced to 7 feet. 3. Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all plans. 4. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Fence trees to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by the City of Cupertino. Fences are to remain until all construction is completed. 3. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide construction clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker. Pruning shall adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices-- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture. 4. Tree(s)to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s)to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12" below ground surface. 5. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, March 28, 2017 Page 8 C�rrrmunity D-eveizFp nt Department pruning and removal should be scheduled outside : reed ingPA%Mffi&3i[$i3AM9)hird Cupertino surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. P `5 i iologists should b000CENIND establishing work buffers for active nests. Case# TR-2021-034 Recommendations for tree protection during construction Application Number(s) 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist atAppriteM I[ ddy:a[D►vat[toW s, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection r"Nospuovsa I Date 01/04/22 2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a manne �i�ta�r Ir�reventEdim geetodatrees to be preserved. ss Case Manager 3. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist. 4. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission from/discussion with the Consulting Arborist. 5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 6. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The consultant shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity. 7. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Consulting Arborist. 8. Any demolition or excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required. 9. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 10. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by construction personnel. Maintenance of impacted trees Any trees preserved at the Forum site will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of branches or entire trees failing will increase. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me. HortScience, Inc. 40,.,4-� Deanne Ecklund Certified Arborist#WE-9067A Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager Exhibits Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Tree Removals Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS 0 Application N ber(s) \ 241 tK p va B ire r/Staff w LO 24 _ — — — �' Signature,� rik ove _ Z Q / 0� Ca Man er U / \\ Of 0 1 1 / ` \ 00 O O Z N � • / o° Q l, � z I I / \ I- DQNN N (n3: 0) 0) LU \ � C 05 \\\ IL A- \ O / r l �� W LU Q \ O • \\\ Q �Q. 252 0 • 0 2 lbv / 0 � / \ CO ry LLI / Q � V I / h � \ Q I / Q / O U� Q O Q i Q /V1 6P I- 0 \ Q � \ 0 \ \ O / LL- ly / Q� z w \ Q / to 2 Ln �Q Tree Inventory Map Prepared for: Greenbriar Development Dallas,TX January 2017 z° Did SCALE O N - — — — 2 0 10 20 40 O O i Notes: N O 00 Numbered tree locations are approximate. cp N to (D of II U) Y O Trees with no survey point were approximately O1 0 / \ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. O E c o Z 0 — — — — — — Ch = 20 ft. \ o c°) a�i ° a ' N Q 0 HO °° IENCE 0 Drawing Number: RT SC "JO fE: L POTHOLING DONE BY SUBTRONIC ON 8-30-2016. 325 Ray Street TOP 0 0 BY WE' ON IS— -2016. Pleasanton, 94566 Q/ Phone 925.4.484.0 Fax 925.484.0596 596 � OF L --hortsciencexom r Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS / - - - - - - - — — — ase - + 49 / / A umber(s) • j= • y' " A val Bo rector o 241 o w / / I — / ` �° w u7 1 ' X A e • 2 I -- I 1 I I / X I I ignature E oveda 251 • 24 Q r— �_� case Manager a Z 3� a Q Y 4 J� \ wN 0. N 2 I I I I NN 2 0 00 oo a • _ I I I 23 � � � z � � 1 I • H I- DQNN I 23 Ncn3: rnrn 2 10 W LU F / — nch f 30ru IA o % to oI " o °note r �o A- W ❑ — Concrete — — — — — % % % Z - - � - _ - -- - - 0 I' 28 v Q - - ✓ �Q / 227 �� c� �� - o �- 0 0 - ,/ P \ - - - - - 26 - - - 224 _ _ - -- - - - - 222 — _ — > 21 z W o c o 0 _ _- � — Q i — ❑ / / U _ 0 U� Q Q Q Q TARGET PO? H E 1: C � DESCRIPTION: "BLA TAR COAT STEEL / /DEPTH:7'0" O ICOMMEN :M ETIC Q � 0 0 / LL- / / Lw PGE EASEMENT G) U / U TARGET POT HOLE 3: / DESCRIPTION:10"RED COATED S C TARGET POT HOLE 2:GAS DEPTH:4'5" DESCRIPTION:10" WHITE WRAPPED STEEL DEPTH:4'8" COMMENTS:FOUND AT BEND, APPENDAGE AT 3'9", MAGNETIC Tree Inventory Map N G G G G G l Prepared for: Greenbriar Development — — — G G ,GP G G G — G / Dallas, TX GAS LINE — \ R 147 81 G G G ---_ (� / January 2017 z i % _ — / Notes: cfl N Numbered tree locations are approximate. O N O � �_a._ ~ / Trees with no survey point were approximately — — (D N N �c�y��ry ` _, —�� / located in the field by HortScience.Inc. � T Y o _ \ II U) / % % x o > o -� 0, c o z 4" hoc } `�� o�� Q° \ - //' / i o (n ° a o C ^ I °C I r O• No SCIENC€ Drawing Number: N/ ° I �' 325 Ray Street / ! Q } N rE• Pleasanton,CA 94566 — I`_— +� / POTHOLING DON Phone 925.484.021, I I l —� 4.0596 �1 �� // www.hotscie ne.com T 0 P 0 �� q, } I � � I % 0 Z/zl/ 0— I 2 of 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTI140 APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS 0 254-- � pplication Number(s) AD a Body Director/Staff + �� • / / w ° pro ate 01` 04/22 \ �`� � "t • 257 � °' X 7n t r da Q 1 e Manager Y O a) LL] N N — - - i i 0 / / GO /; \ z N rn rn - - - - SERPN • �, � / I '� roL- aNN �- , � / � �� o � 279go 0 � � N �n � o� o� 0 LOM W 4:0- IL — 44 �/ 11 1 W LU C°ncfete — \ ` H S — \ - - U I 0 0 10 20 ao 80 � / �� U 1 1 Q ' Z U N FEET ) \\ O 1 inch 20 Mob ° _ — — ry 1 4 } / \ v A� Q LLI 1 � S \ / A p o 0 + _ / \ �\ �`' \ �� ' A- • c� O U� Q } / ems'' VIA VEN }� i i • TARGET POT Q, , C (7) DESCRIPTION- DE Gee , , P-''is 7'0'41Z �J 'r �� 1 �// • / / �� a_ 1 A- / } �^ qj c LL_ \ ° � \ W O o h a U � _ �' I 4^V 0 T) �' > Tree Inventory Map lb Prepared for: �^ �Q • Greenbriar Development Dallas, TX _ January 2017 z° -� N33°18'21"W 1392. CA 0^� f�= ( Notes: I C140 0 - - - - Numbered tree locations are approximate. O N II t/� Y p It` �_ - - - —� ❑ I o N o Trees with no survey point were approximately 0 p n� C.' �_ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. a 3 o Z _ �� a rn o CL Drawing Number: i _� �`� �__ ^^• �oC HOR7 SCIENCE J ot� II Pleasanton CA 94566 i 0PU C O� C� Phone 925.484.0211 CQ, _ Fax9scienc.com www.hortscience.com hoc — OF 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPLRTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS — — — -- ase - - \ \ p c onN b s \ \ \ \ _►p� o • Di r ff \ _ LLI --_ proval to 01 4 2 rn C° X - Signature E ve °` \ Q Q \ /� } z 0 se M ag 0��' — ---- -- �� WON N N N — — ---- / O\ �\� O O U� 00 zN � rnrn \ / I� wz I I N 0) 0) - - - - N \V O VD \ Z N1 LOM LU \\ r \ \ IL C' , - O , W r \ / : NNZ CO 4r i \` �L \ \ o \fib / • Ar \\ \ \ \ 8 69 \ \ LLJ r _ Q > \ \ U� \ _ 60 �\ \\�\ ^h O U Q 263 61 �\ ro - - - - Q Q a- + U, ' 25 255 258 _---- 0 257 \ 0 olb\ I II LL_ } A- II W o D CC0R0 �; 7 ��' \ I Z � w 279 0 \ \ - - - - - /r O� - i ! Ar�� — 1 1 �� — .0 Tree Inventory Ma / Prepared for: V Greenbriar Development ° \ \ Dallas,TX _ - \ �✓ I�\ January 2017 - \/ \ \ I Cor�rete � — — — — — — z° G PHIC E \ _ _ _ — / '� Notes: O N -00O _ Numbered tree locations are approximate. I N u7 20 0 0 20 40 \ 80 (0 N O \ I —� -1 — Trees with no survey point were approximately II c_n located in the field by HortScience.Inc. / / I FEET ^�. \\ / _ tom"' 1 i 20 ft. ^� \ \ HOR7 SCIENCE Drawing Number. \ � } } 1 121 Ray street \ \ Pleasanton, A 9456 Phone 8 925C 4.0211 T 0 P 0 Fax 925.84.0596 www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Planning Division - Cupertino CUf'LRTIN4 APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS ase - - _ �Tp lication umber(s) ro / Approva I Bo hector/ S`t \ ��o w rn Approval D 01/04/22 } � L0 \ / Signature / Erika Pov a \ Q \ �� /se Manager U N N \ ' + CNN G_ O U I I ��o O o 0 0 N�• Z � 't 't h z I I 1 �qj to T hj^ �o\ W All, IL A- i �^�� ,�' 0 09" \ / ----__ ewe + >>OOP owe �� \�� /VIA ESPLENDOR S ALE � concrete - — — — — \ _ 20 o 10 40 /\ so o x ( F ET oq) 1 nch 0 \ ` \ �� rAmil Z W \ 1 o 11 O u Z L_LJ 2 Q aaaaaoaa U U �I 7 4 Q ^ o ^�` • _ r r�� - � z O ,� _�-_- 43 PyQ Q 1 • ° U� A- P�Qro 1 24 • - --- —_- -_ - - - - - —� = O i 49 _ o - 241 0 251 2 24 / _ - - - - a ' / O � 1 li I 24 2 / W O • • CD z 238 LLJ 23 \ �1 I • / / U N ' \ O / N U - c \ �� • _ C/n Tree Inventory Map w ro• v 0 oncfete � Prepared for: o oc _ \ Greenbriar Development o Dallas, TX Q January 2017 Z N u7 ❑ _ r • -0N O O \ O PP Notes: of N Y o �' Qr 227 \\\ 28 Numbered tree locations area approximate. T -0 _, Trees with no survey point were approximately �p j p • \\�\ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. ai p� o Z — 26 \ 0 O Q o a \ • (N 0 0 Q --- - � T SCIENCE Drawing Number: 2 HOR 224 - � \ • 2 3 — TOPO // \ 325 Ray Street 21 222 - Pleasanton, 925.494.0211 Fax 925.494.0596 - -- / www.hor[science.com 8 -- OF Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS Case - • �\ \ I pprov*Bo ctor a / w Air a e 01/ x Signature Iv • a Poveda __ \ J Q � v \\ 62 Case Manager \ \ z U \ - - --- 6 \ = W N N • of00II • O O - O • • ZN � CAC7) p O O O Q / \ ` \ • \ l, wz I I Qy \ S • /X� I r- < C-4 cV C-4 (n 3: O O qj 1 / Goc 7 Iv IC L�. \ / LU LA 20 0 20 40 Z �--- �o \ • _ __� .— 12 1220 \ ". 68 \ \ 1 inch = 20 ft. is O \ 23• / \ — v - 124• / �y c �� / ��1 W c AJ \ 35 0 BW • \ 10 O o ��\ \ \ 40,E �� • 3 \ , LLI �.. / v v �� ❑ ❑ \ � \ \ Q Un qji 7 • Z � • 6 , 4 �� ❑ � — U U A- �� \ z \\ n �' I ro A- �o = z _./ , / l I Q +Qa •1/ �� \ 1 • �o�° I ►: \ 1 3 < / / • 1 38 1 1 — •4 J IV X •44 I I—i_I O -1q1 IV 945 / "4k 3 Ld �l 1 6 ° I .1 I 3 1 ° - / v 52 v \ �, 58 } 34 _ - - ramv 4 / 6 / , 3 I , v . , • U) Ln Tree Inventory Map 1 � � • ^� v X v 0� 1 / } Iv Prepared for: �— �- — • r° \ o \ \ Greenbriar Development 1 1 i \O ( � \\ P0q \\ Py�r 5 � \ Dallas, TX }"� 1 \ _ \\� \ � \ January 2017 / — rgte \ Notes: p o 6 Y COn� Numbered tree locations are approximate. N O 0 o� o F � 1 \ 0 \ \ \ o II cn Y o oC / Q L / \ \ \ Trees with no survey point were approximately � located in the field by Hortscience.Inc. / p> T / C S/ dj pi O Z \ t/J' } Q 0 \ \ 1 \\ X NOR Drawing Number: \ -- - - -- — 325 Ray Street PiA 94566 APhone 925840211 O Fax 925:484:0596 TOPO O / / www.hortscience.com Py 6 OF 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED oO BKF ENGINEERS S61°04 \a se100-85 at i103 -e�ar1 Boc r / �_ 0) r ate CLOW 22 • / J i � i • Case � � U � i \ • • I � N N • / Ofo � ll — 0 00 ' — �� • �� P �� ° GRA ALE ¢ cv cv 1 V ► N CY) M 01 10 20 40 80 FEET �''� W , \ 1 inch = 20 ft LU XIL W I 2 l/ rV • O 0 LL- jr LLJ 790 ` \ Q > I \� -- - - - - _ --- U� 122 Iv 23' , � z o � z o / 1 o �_ 1240 ,/ �� j)AL ° U _ / s LLJ �o A- A- A:) � P14 C h Qr 0 Ln 1 P o \�/roc Tree Inventory Map AD / �129 O / / \ � Pre aredfo r ® \ \ Z8 Greenbriar Development: }h ro Dallas, TX 13• ( ___�.� --� ��o• �� o vim# � // � � � \ i /i ❑ \ • , \ 0 / / January 2017 \A 1�7 \ �� Notes: p o }� Numbered tree locations are approximate. � LO Trees with no survey point were approximately II U) Y o AD xQ' located in the field by HortScience.Inc. rn _ � / �,� V / �� • (� Q 7) / HOR7 s`I Drawing Number: / • / �� C 325 Ray Street ..J \ Pleasanton,.4 94566 0211 1 / \ \ 1 \ Phone 925.484.0596 T 0 P 0 \ 1 \ \ I Fax9scienc.com - / \ www.hortscience.com \\\ \\\ \\\ \ 1 0 7 of g / Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS A"lication NuflDSer(s) A- � � o i Approva I Body: Director/Staff Q / �l / �- w lb In I �� pproval Date 01/04/22 P / .� Of A- Signature Erika Pov — , — --� 0 \ Q / c8_e1u1 Ina er— - - - - - - - - - \ F A Q U �. Lj 129` 1 I�°V w UN N 11 00 — p V ro � z I I 13 - I- U) QNN 1�7 v W \ Q / .135�, � IV / IL OJ ^'I I / v°c 0-10 AD } ) 18 _ IN 39 / \\ �� 147 �c� A-/ \ / / 14 / O 1 LL- 40 1 / !�• Q <' O � X 2 O ocfb \\ z �` — / �0 / O `V A- o4°1 <1 i 110 C, / v Q LLI Inu 153 vo U U Q \�� \ \ / \ \ �1 \ 8 Z Z Q / v / Z / �-- \ AjY 56 / `V / J74 �, 2 1 / / \ Ate' Aj� �� / GRAPHIC SCALE / W O A- / 20 0 10 20 40 80 \ 6 / w IN FEET ) \ a`ti \ • 1 inch = 20 ft. / f U 0 O — • ,,yyamp� O❑ ❑ O Ov O \ 7 c • O '�r h� O U) Ln $ Tree Inventory Map 1 0 A� \ \ \ I I I 1 Prepared for: / \ — Greenbriar Develo ment \\ \ \ \ 181 Dallas, TX \ \\\ 1'82 I X r°<e�e 83 I �° January 2017 1116 0 87 1 \ N \\ \ 1 Notes: O \\ 186 • 3 — Numbered tree locations are approximate. I _o Y o Q \ \ Trees with no survey point were approximately 1 -p T \ 1 8 located in the field by HortScience.Inc. �p j p 3 L o z \ HoR IENC€ Drawing Number: rb \\ 194 325 Ray Street ^C" Pleasanton, 94566 T 0 P 0 h� Phone 925.4.4 84.0211 j �—' Fax 925.484.0596 www.hortscience.com \\\ 9 v 8 8 OF The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 1 London plane 9 No 5 High Preserve - muA0pr6V011DjAqt4 at 6Q1j"2&rn and structure. 2 Purpleleaf plum 4,4,4,4 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Mugti; RgR ap8mentW.��';Fp,%�faorm, fair structure. 3 Purpleleaf plum 5,4 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks a air psp ruc ure; stub cuts. 4 Purpleleaf plum 6,5,4,4 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 3'; good form, fair structure; stub cuts. 5 Purpleleaf plum 5,4,4,3,2 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 3'; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 6 Purpleleaf plum 4,3,2 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 3'; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 7 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; good form, fair structure. 8 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 5'; good form, fair structure; slight trunk lean over parking lot. 9 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 4 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 5'; good form, fair structure. 10 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 5'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 11 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 2 Low Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; fair form and structure; severe trunk sunburn. 12 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 5'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 13 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 2 Low Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; fair form and structure; severe trunk sunburn; girdling root. 14 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 7'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 15 London plane 12 No 4 High Preserve - In 7' diameter planter; codominant trunks at 15'; pruning cuts along trunk; good form and structure. 16 London plane 6 No 4 High Remove within new parking lot In 7'diameter planter; surface roots; codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure. 17 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new walkway Fair form and structure; pollarded. 18 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Remove 8'from walkway Fair form and structure; pollarded. 19 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bioretention area Fair form and structure; pollarded. 20 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 21 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 22 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; sprinkler head engulfed by trunk; pollarded. 23 London plane 13 No 5 High Remove within new bld. footprint In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure. 24 London plane 15 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint In 5' diameter planter; significant surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'; stub cuts. 25 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 26 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 27 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 28 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Fair form and structure; pollarded. 29 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Fair form and structure; pollarded. 30 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Fair form and structure; pollarded. 31 London plane 7 No 5 High Preserve - In 5' diameter planter; root flare buried; good form and structure. 32 London plane 12 No 4 High Preserve - In 5' diameter planter; ssco 3'from base; pruning cuts on trunk. 33 London plane 13 No 4 High Preserve - In 5' diameter planter; significant surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'. 34 London plane 14 No 5 High Remove within new parking lot In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; electric vault 3'from base; good form and structure. 35 Crape myrtle 9 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Fair form and structure; pollarded. 36 London plane 10 No 5 High Preserve - In 5' diameter planter; good form and structure. 37 Coast redwood 23 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. 38 Coast redwood 21 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. 39 Coast redwood 23 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. Page 1 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 40 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Go fpr�y\MicD*t*tureOslf6 1 ihin crown. 41 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Gos prg l strugy% HM%thin crown. 42 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Goo form and s ruc ure; igq,1%9�9gep; browning nee es. 43 Coast redwood 14 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; thinning crown; browning needles. 44 Coast redwood 15 No 2 Low Preserve - Crown almost completely brown. 45 Coast redwood 16 No 2 Low Preserve - Crown almost completely brown. 46 London plane 9 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint In 5' diameter planter; asymmetrical crown. 47 Crape myrtle 8 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; pollarded. 48 London plane 12 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; good form and structure; stub cuts. 49 London plane 11 No 5 High Preserve - In 5' planter; 18"from utility vault; good form and structure. 50 London plane 8 No 5 High Preserve - In 5' planter; 24"from utility vault; circling root; good form and structure. 51 London plane 5 No 4 High Preserve - In 5' planter; surface roots; Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure. 52 Brisbane box 8 No 3 Moderate Remove within 5' of construction Multiple attachments at 8'; narrow form; slightly thin crown. 53 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; on slope; good form and structure. 54 Brisbane box 12 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; on slope; good form; slightly thin crown. 55 Camphor 9 No 3 Low Remove within 5' of construction; low suit. Multiple attachments at 6'; twig and branch dieback. 56 Camphor 11 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 5'; fair form and structure; chlorotic. 57 Brisbane box 9 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 58 Brisbane box 8 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 8'; fair form, good structure; slightly thin crown. 59 Italian cypress 15 No 5 High Remove within 5'of construction No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 60 Italian cypress 11 No 5 High Remove within 5' of construction No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 61 Italian cypress 10 No 5 High Preserve - No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 62 Mayten 12 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 63 Camphor 13 No 2 Low Remove within 5' of construction; low suit. Multiple attachments at 6'; poor structure; thin crown. 64 Camphor 15 No 4 Moderate Remove within new patio Codominant trunks at 5'; fair form and structure; twig dieback. 65 Camphor 18 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6' and 8'; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 66 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; slightly thin crown. 67 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate Remove within new patio Codominant trunks at 6'; slightly thin crown. 68 Callery pear 14 No 3 Moderate Remove within new patio Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; fair form and structure; previously topped. 69 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate Remove within new patio Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; fair form and structure; previously topped. 70 Callery pear 11 No 3 Moderate Remove within new patio Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; grate girdling trunk; fair form and structure; previously topped. 71 Coast live oak 10,9,9,7 Yes 4 High Remove within new walkway Multiple attachments at 2'; good form and structure; surface roots. 72 Coast live oak 11,11,10,7 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 1'; spreading crown; slightly thin upper crown. 73 Coast live oak 11,10,10 Yes 3 Moderate Remove within new parking lot Codominant trunks at 2'; previous stem failures below attachment; slightly thin crown. 74 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 High Remove grading impacts Multiple attachments at 6'; spreading crown; good form. 75 Coast live oak 12,10 Yes 4 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 1'; good form; dense crown. 76 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 High Remove within 5'of grading Good form and structure; dense crown; branches to ground. 77 Coast redwood 23 No 5 High Preserve - Good form and structure; dense crown; branches to ground. 78 Red ironbark 23 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; slightly thin crown. Page 2 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 79 Red ironbark 19 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Co jP6 I'L[Dht,@t 7';00 0&4 topped; slightly thin crown. 80 Arroyo willow 11,11,10,E No 3 Moderate Preserve - In s gPRtyJrdjain in[5;A996�AMcture; dense crown. 81 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High Remove grading impacts On slope; multiple attach mere naoform; dense crown. 82 Red ironbark 7,7,5 No 3 Moderate Preserve - On slope; multiple attachments at 1'; asymmetrical crown; slightly thin crown. 83 Aleppo pine 18 No 3 Moderate Preserve - On slope; trunk swoops up; codominant trunks at 12'; fair form. 84 Aleppo pine 14 No 4 Moderate Preserve - On slope; minor corrected lean; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 85 Aleppo pine 12 No 4 Moderate Preserve - On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 86 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate Preserve - On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 87 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Preserve - On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 88 Aleppo pine 18 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Sinuous trunk; slightly thin crown. 89 Red ironbark 15 No 3 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 90 Red ironbark 19 No 3 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 91 Red ironbark 16 No 3 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Sinuous trunk; codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 92 Red ironbark 18 No 3 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Codominant trunks at 12'; previously topped; thin crown. 93 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Girdling roots; base outside of dripline; leans down slope. 94 Aleppo pine 11 No 2 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Codominant trunks at 7'; thin crown; leans down slope over path. 95 Aleppo pine 13,10 No 2 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Codominant trunks at 1'; thin crown. 96 Red ironbark 10,10,8 No 2 Low Preserve - Multiple attachments at 2'; thin crown. 97 Red ironbark 15 No 3 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 8'; fair form; previously topped. 98 Aleppo pine 13 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Slight lean west over bench; asymmetrical crown. 99 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 11'; narrow form; crowded. 100 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; crowded. 101 Aleppo pine 15 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; crowded. 102 Aleppo pine 14 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Asymmetrical crown; slight lean down slope. 103 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 104 Red ironbark 15 No 2 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 12'; previously topped; thin crown. 105 Red ironbark 20 No 2 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; thin crown. 106 Red ironbark 16 No 2 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 14'; previously topped; thin crown. 107 Red ironbark 12 No 2 Low Preserve - Narrow form; previously topped; thin crown. 108 Red ironbark 17 No 2 Low Preserve - Codominant trunks at 10'; previously topped; thin crown. 109 Coast live oak 13,14 Yes 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 4'; good form. 110 Coast live oak 12,5,5 Yes 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Multiple attachments at 3'; trunk canker; good form. 111 Coast live oak 9,8,7,6,5 Yes 4 Moderate Preserve - Good form, fair structure; spreading crown. 112 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 1'; small, slightly thin crown. 113 Coast redwood 8,6,3 No 3 Low Preserve - Multiple attachments at base; slightly thin crown. 114 Aleppo pine 13 No 4 High Preserve - Good form and structure; dense crown. 115 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 5'; dense crown. 116 Aleppo pine 17 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; crowded form. 117 Aleppo pine 22 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 6' and 8'with narrow attachments; good form. Page 3 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 118 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 High Preserve - Go fprtyvg* *t4turePd4Q6&3own. 119 Aleppo pine 14 No 4 High Remove grading impacts Gosydprg stwcpiej ftg� grown. 120 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at ; goqAf Rnager 121 Aleppo pine 17 No 4 High Preserve - Good form and structure; crowded form; dense crown. 122 Aleppo pine 15 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 9'with narrow attachment; crowded. 123 Aleppo pine 13 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Sinuous trunk; good form. 124 Aleppo pine 21,16 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 4'; fair form and structure; dense crown. 125 Aleppo pine 10,9,7,E No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 3' and 4'; spreading crown. 126 London plane 13 No 5 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure. 127 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove within 5' of construction Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure; 18"from walkway. 128 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 6'; pollarded. 129 London plane 4 No 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of construction Codominant trunks at 7'; asymmetrical crown. 130 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 6'; pollarded. 131 London plane 6 No 4 High Remove within new bid. footprint Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure. 132 London plane 7 No 4 High Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 8'; good form and structure. 133 London plane 7 No 4 High Remove within new bid. footprint Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 18"from curb. 134 London plane 6 No 4 High Remove within new bioretention area Multiple attachments at 8'; good form and structure. 135 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 6'; pollarded. 136 London plane 7 No 4 High Remove water line Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; circling root; 1'from concrete pad. 137 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove within 7' of bid. construction Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure. 138 London plane 8 No 4 High Remove within 7' of bid. construction Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure; heavy lateral limb. 139 London plane 7 No 4 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 6' and 8'; good form and structure. 140 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove within new parking lot Codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure. 141 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thinning crown. 142 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 143 Crape myrtle 6 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 144 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form, fair structure; trunk wound; previously pollarded. 145 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 146 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 147 Australian tea tree 6,4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Codominant trunks at 1'; leans away from building; asymmetrical crown. 148 Hollyleaf cherry 3 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Asymmetrical crown; twig dieback. 149 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 7'; good form, fair structure. 150 Hollyleaf cherry 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Asymmetrical crown; twig dieback. 151 Hollyleaf cherry 8 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at 7'; narrow form; close to building. 152 Strawberry tree 7,7,5,5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Multiple attachments at base 3' asymmetrical crown. 153 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Multiple attachments at 4'; poor structure; slightly thin crown. 154 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low Remove within new bid. footprint; low suit. Trunk damage; poor structure; thin crown. 155 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within new bid. footprint Good form, fair structure; slightly thin crown. 156 Camphor 6 No 2 Low Remove within new bid. footprint Poor form and structure; twig and branch dieback. Page 4 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 157 Coast live oak 26,19,18 Yes 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint MuA0prcdW0ip@lqt1a at 10V"?Zne stem horizontal; dense, spreading crown. 158 Bailey acacia 5,4,4,3,3,3 No 2 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. MuWti;pJBg�flppmentitk?a';Pf8�S�Torth; dead twigs; bark separating from trunk. 159 London plane 6 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Multip a attachments at ; gc pEWa&y structure. 160 London plane 7 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Multiple attachments at 8'; good form and structure. 161 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure. 162 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 10'; good form and structure. 163 London plane 7 No 4 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 9'; crowded by adjacent oak. 164 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 11'; crowded by adjacent oak. 165 Camphor 5 No 2 Low Remove grading impacts; low suit. Poor form and structure; trunk wound; twig dieback; crowded. 166 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form, fair structure. 167 Ponderosa pine 19 No 3 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. Asymmetrical, thin crown; good structure. 168 Ponderosa pine 23 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Group of 3 trees; asymmetrical crown; slightly thin crown. 169 Ponderosa pine 26 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Group of 3 trees; asymmetrical crown; slightly thin crown. 170 London plane 6 No 4 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; slightly crowded. 171 London plane 9 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 8' and 16'; good form. 172 London plane 11 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Large tearout wound on southwest; good form; surface roots. 173 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Preserve - Codominant trunks at 6'; good form. 174 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 5'; good form. 175 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 4 High Remove within new bioretention area Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 176 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 6'; good form and structure; dense crown. 177 Coast live oak 8 Yes 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 6'; slight lean north; dense crown. 178 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 5'; fair form and structure; dense crown. 179 Monterey pine 26 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Fair form and structure; Codominant trunks hic; slightly thin crown. 180 Valley oak 14,12 Yes 4 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 4'; heavy lateral limb; crowded. 181 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 Moderate Preserve - Codominant trunks at 13' and 15'; growing through valley oak; dense crown. 182 Hollyleaf cherry 6,5,3,2 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 4'; twig dieback; crowded. 183 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 7'; slightly thin crown; crowded. 184 Coast live oak 6,4,3,3 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Multiple attachments at 1'; crowded. 185 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Crowded form; dense crown 186 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Crowded form; dense crown 187 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 6' and 8'; dense crown; crowded. 188 Horsechestnut 9 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form, fair structure. 189 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 High Remove grading impacts Multiple attachments at 8'; slight lean north; dense crown. 190 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Good form, fair structure. 191 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Good form, fair structure. 192 Coast live oak 23,18 Yes 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 3'; large tearout wound on west; asymmetrical crown. 193 Horsechestnut 9 No 1 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. Mostly dead 194 Coast live oak 11,11,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of ret. wall Multiple attachments at 2'; spreading, dense crown. 195 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of ret. wall Codominant trunks at 10'; dense crown; crowded. Page 5 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrrNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal CO;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 196 Coast live oak 10,5 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of ret. wall Co V6Wd.(rir tqat 4' 0404;/dense crown; crowded. 197 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of ret. wall CoV05TV&unks Vrlia"oodsrown; crowded. 198 Horsechestnut 11 No 4 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks a ; g %Mager 199 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 6' and 14'; dense crown; crowded. 200 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 6'; narrow form; crowded. 201 London plane 5 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 202 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 203 London plane 7 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 204 London plane 6 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 205 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 206 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 207 London plane 9 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 208 London plane 7 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 209 London plane 6 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 210 London plane 6 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 211 London plane 7 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 212 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 213 London plane 9 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 214 London plane 10 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 215 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 216 London plane 10 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 217 London plane 10 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 218 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 219 London plane 14 No 5 High Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 220 London plane 15 No 5 High Preserve - Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb; 5'from utility vault. 221 London plane 11 No 5 High Preserve - Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 222 London plane 10 No 5 High Preserve - Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 223 London plane 12 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 224 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24" from curb. 225 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24" from curb. 226 London plane 11 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 6'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 227 London plane 14 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24" from curb. 228 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 2 Low Remove within new road/driveway; low suit. Fair form and structure; significant trunk sunburn along entire trunk. 229 London plane 11 No 5 High Preserve - In 5' planter; good form and structure. 230 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thinning crown. 231 Coast redwood 15 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thinning crown. 232 Callery pear 10 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Typical form and structure; Codominant trunks at T; mistletoe. 233 Deodar cedar 7 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Good form and structure; thinning crown. 234 Deodar cedar 5 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Good form and structure; thinning crown. Page 6 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 235 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint GoOqDfprU\Mttp4t*ture,()tfdB4Wcrown. 236 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Gosydpp l strugy%NtNiap crown. 237 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks afair qrgopAgructure. 238 Purpleleaf plum 6,5 No 2 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. Codominant trunks at 3'; severe trunk sunburn. 239 Purpleleaf plum 7,4 No 1 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. Codominant trunks at T; leans east; broken roots; severe trunk sunburn. 240 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 241 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 242 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 243 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 244 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 245 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Good form and structure; thin crown. 246 London plane 6 No 4 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; slightly suppressed. 247 London plane 8 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 6'from curb. 248 London plane 10 No 5 High Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; 6'from curb. 249 London plane 9 No 5 High Remove within 5'of construction Good form and structure; irrigation vault near base; 5'from curb. 250 London plane 12 No 5 High Preserve - Good form and structure; 4'from monument. 251 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Remove within new bld. footprint Typical form and structure; electrical vault T from base. 252 Coast live oak 17,13,11 Yes 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts; retaining wall Multiple attachments at 3'; good form; spreading crown; small trunk cavity. 253 Camphor 10 No 4 Moderate Remove within new road/driveway Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 254 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate Remove within new road/driveway Fair form and structure; slightly thin crown. 255 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate Remove within new road/driveway Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 256 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Remove within 5' of new curb Codominant trunks at 6'; good form. 257 Chinese pistache 8 No 5 High Remove within new road/driveway Good form and structure; spreading crown. 258 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Remove within new road/driveway Multiple attachments at 5'; crowded on east by coast live oak. 259 Callery pear 13 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Typical form and structure; multiple attachments at 6'. 260 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High Remove grading impacts; retaining wall Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; spreading crown. 261 Coast live oak 15,11 Yes 4 High Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at T; dense, spreading crown. 262 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5 High Preserve - Good form and structure; dense crown. 263 Coast live oak 13,12,11,9 Yes 3 Moderate Remove within 5' of grading Codominant trunks at 2' and 3'; spreading crown; slightly thin crown. 264 Coast live oak 12,9,7 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 1'with narrow attachment;/spreading crown. 265 Coast live oak 7,7,5,5,5,5 Yes 2 Low Remove within new bld. footprint; low suit. Multiple attachments at 2'; tearout wound at attachment; girdling root; thin crown. 266 Coast live oak 14,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within new bld. footprint Codominant trunks at 2' and 3'; spreading crown; trunk canker. 267 Deodar cedar 8 No 4 Moderate Remove within 5'of grading Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 268 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 4 Moderate Remove within 5'of grading Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 269 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thin crown. 270 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Corrected lean; slightly thin crown. 271 Aleppo pine 21 No 3 Moderate Remove grading impacts Codominant trunks at 8' and 11'with narrow attachments; slightly thin crown. 272 Chinese pistache 9 No 4 High Remove within 5' of grading Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; crowded by 271. 273 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Good form and structure; thinning crown. Page 7 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tu�eRrlNo APPROVED Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Tree Reason for Removal Co;Awn TR-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Disposition ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 274 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Go fpfM\M*¢4ttWtureflt>hl6i4hVcrown. 275 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Preserve - Co unks f m. �ica�i�r� �rl��s�ecP� 276 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Remove grading impacts Goo form and structure; t igq,1 gg9f\;�p. 277 Callery pear 12 No 4 Moderate Remove within 5' of grading Typical form and structure; multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 278 Chinese pistache 10 No 3 Moderate Preserve - Swelling and sap excretion around lower trunk; multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 279 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High Preserve - Multiple attachments at 6'; good form. Page 8 of 8 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 16 London plane 6 No 4 High Apol'tPiyig4E ykilG gWtor/Staff 17 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate AplahbiivaiE elkwaQ1/04/22 18 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Sigh jWW valkwP-1Yika Poveda 19 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new bioretentiortXWanager 20 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 21 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 22 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 23 London plane 13 No 5 High within new building footprint 24 London plane 15 No 4 High within new building footprint 25 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 26 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 27 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 34 London plane 14 No 5 High within new parking lot 40 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 41 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 42 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 46 London plane 9 No 4 High within new building footprint 47 Crape myrtle 8 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 48 London plane 12 No 4 High within new building footprint 52 Brisbane box 8 No 3 Moderate within 5' of construction 55 Camphor 9 No 3 Low within 5'of construction; low suitability 56 Camphor 11 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 57 Brisbane box 9 No 4 High within new building footprint 58 Brisbane box 8 No 4 High within new building footprint 59 Italian cypress 15 No 5 High within 5' of construction 60 Italian cypress 11 No 5 High within 5' of construction 63 Camphor 13 No 2 Low within 5' of construction; low suitability 64 Camphor 15 No 4 Moderate within new patio Page 1 of 7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 67 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate APWrt9i)4g4E yioDirector/Staff 68 Callery pear 14 No 3 Moderate App hbiiValeDi,-t#-io 01/04/22 69 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate SigRgfi ew pa�9ika Poveda 70 Callery pear 11 No 3 Moderate within new patio Case Manager 71 Coast live oak 10,9,9,7 Yes 4 High within new walkway 72 Coast live oak 11,11,10,7 Yes 4 Moderate within new building footprint 73 Coast live oak 11,10,10 Yes 3 Moderate within new parking lot 74 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 High grading impacts 75 Coast live oak 12,10 Yes 4 High within 5' of grading 76 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 High within 5' of grading 81 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High grading impacts 91 Red ironbark 16 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suitability 92 Red ironbark 18 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suitability 93 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suitability 94 Aleppo pine 11 No 2 Low grading impacts; low suitability 95 Aleppo pine 13,10 No 2 Low grading impacts; low suitability 109 Coast live oak 13,14 Yes 4 Moderate grading impacts 110 Coast live oak 12,5,5 Yes 3 Moderate grading impacts 115 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 119 Aleppo pine 14 No 4 High grading impacts 120 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 125 Aleppo pine 10,9,7,E No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 127 London plane 11 No 5 High within 5'of construction 128 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 129 London plane 4 No 4 Moderate within 5'of construction 130 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 131 London plane 6 No 4 High within new building footprint 132 London plane 7 No 4 High within new building footprint Page 2 of 7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 133 London plane 7 No 4 High Apt4rtpi)4a4E lydir�retl%rinf Staff 134 London plane 6 No 4 High Apphbivla-IEDAtiereterQiiQ4Q3 135 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate SigRpfl ew buinq @Oqt 136 London plane 7 No 4 High water line Case Manager 137 London plane 8 No 5 High within 7'of building construction 138 London plane 8 No 4 High within 7'of building construction 139 London plane 7 No 4 High grading impacts 140 London plane 8 No 5 High within new parking lot 141 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 142 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 143 Crape myrtle 6 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 144 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 145 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 146 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 147 Australian tea tree 6,4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 148 Hollyleaf cherry 3 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 149 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High within new building footprint 150 Hollyleaf cherry 5 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 151 Hollyleaf cherry 8 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 152 Strawberry tree 7,7,5,5 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 153 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate within new building footprint 154 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 155 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate within new building footprint 156 Camphor 6 No 2 Low within new building footprint 157 Coast live oak 26,19,18 Yes 3 Moderate within new building footprint 158 Bailey acacia 5,4,4,3,3,3,3 No 2 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 159 London plane 6 No 5 High grading impacts 160 London plane 7 No 5 High grading impacts Page 3 of 7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 161 London plane 8 No 5 High Apg,r ig-j &sDirector/Staff 162 London plane 11 No 5 High AppiraWaj iDqDtets 01/04/22 163 London plane 7 No 4 High Si jj impaePika Poveda 164 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate grading impacts Case Manager 165 Camphor 5 No 2 Low grading impacts; low suitability 166 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 167 Ponderosa pine 19 No 3 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 168 Ponderosa pine 23 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 169 Ponderosa pine 26 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 170 London plane 6 No 4 High grading impacts 171 London plane 9 No 4 High within new building footprint 175 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 4 High within new bioretention area 176 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 High within new building footprint 177 Coast live oak 8 Yes 4 High within new building footprint 178 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Moderate within new building footprint 179 Monterey pine 26 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 183 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 185 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 186 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 187 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 188 Horsechestnut 9 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 189 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 High grading impacts 190 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 191 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate within new building footprint 192 Coast live oak 23,18 Yes 3 Moderate within new building footprint 193 Horsechestnut 9 No 1 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 194 Coast live oak 11,11,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate within 5' of ret. wall 195 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate within 5' of ret. wall Page 4 of 7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 196 Coast live oak 10,5 Yes 4 Moderate APRI'tgi14aj,gAdy.\&Qjlrector/Staff 197 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate App tbiViA'&@rt*. wall)1/04/22 198 Horsechestnut 11 No 4 High Sig!dfgt61q impacgika Poveda 199 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 High grading impacts Case Manager 200 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 201 London plane 5 No 5 High grading impacts 202 London plane 8 No 5 High grading impacts 203 London plane 7 No 5 High grading impacts 204 London plane 6 No 5 High grading impacts 205 London plane 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 206 London plane 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 207 London plane 9 No 5 High within 5' of grading 208 London plane 7 No 5 High grading impacts 209 London plane 6 No 5 High within 5' of grading 210 London plane 6 No 5 High within new road/driveway 211 London plane 7 No 5 High within new road/driveway 212 London plane 8 No 5 High within 5' of grading 213 London plane 9 No 5 High within 5' of grading 214 London plane 10 No 5 High within 5' of grading 215 London plane 11 No 5 High within 5' of grading 216 London plane 10 No 5 High grading impacts 217 London plane 10 No 5 High grading impacts 218 London plane 11 No 5 High within 5' of grading 219 London plane 14 No 5 High within 5' of grading 223 London plane 12 No 5 High within new road/driveway 224 London plane 11 No 5 High grading impacts 225 London plane 11 No 5 High grading impacts 226 London plane 11 No 5 High grading impacts Page 5 of 7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 227 London plane 14 No 5 High ApRr ig-j &sDirector/Staff 228 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 2 Low ApRhbiiVaAE@G ated/drQ4QV,4w suitability 230 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Si&fgt619�impacl!�ika Poveda 231 Coast redwood 15 No 4 Moderate grading impacts Case Manager 232 Callery pear 10 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 233 Deodar cedar 7 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 234 Deodar cedar 5 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 235 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 236 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate within new building footprint 237 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 238 Purpleleaf plum 6,5 No 2 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 239 Purpleleaf plum 7,4 No 1 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 240 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 241 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 242 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 243 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 244 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 247 London plane 8 No 5 High grading impacts 248 London plane 10 No 5 High grading impacts 249 London plane 9 No 5 High within 5' of construction 251 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High within new building footprint 252 Coast live oak 17,13,11 Yes 4 Moderate grading impacts; retaining wall 253 Camphor 10 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 254 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 255 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 256 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High within 5' of new curb 257 Chinese pistache 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 258 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High within new road/driveway Page 6of7 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Community Development Department January 20170 HORT SCIENCE Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINo Tree No. Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Reason for removfk-2021-034 Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Case# (in.) 5=excellent Application Number(s) 260 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High A p U,rgV4 ffl 8d 'sP�j@WAg�v&aff 261 Coast live oak 15,11 Yes 4 High Applr aJ BWbets 01/04/22 263 Coast live oak 13,12,11,9 Yes 3 Moderate SigRgor,�;of gr"Rq Poveda 264 Coast live oak 12,9,7 Yes 4 Moderate within new building foCdK anager 265 Coast live oak ',5,5,5,5,5,4,, Yes 2 Low within new building footprint; low suitability 266 Coast live oak 14,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate within new building footprint 267 Deodar cedar 8 No 4 Moderate within 5' of grading 268 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 4 Moderate within 5' of grading 269 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 3 Moderate grading impacts 270 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 4 Moderate grading impacts 271 Aleppo pine 21 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 272 Chinese pistache 9 No 4 High within 5' of grading 273 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 276 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate grading impacts 277 Callery pear 12 No 4 Moderate within 5' of grading Page 7of7 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case # TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/ Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager Arborist Repor* The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Cupertino, CA PREPARED FOR Greenbrier Development, LLC 3232 McKinney Ave., Suite 1160 Dallas, TX 75204 PREPARED BY: HortScience, Inc. 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 April 20, 2017 HORT SCIENCE Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino Arborist RepT1N° APPROVED The Forum at Rancho S@p_ AiNtonio TR-2021-034 Cupertino, CA ApplicationNumber(s) Table of ConterA+IsprovaI Body: Director/ Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika P veda se Manager Introduction and Overview 1 Tree Assessment Methods 1 Description of Trees 2 Suitability for Preservation 5 Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation 6 Tree Preservation Guidelines 7 List of Tables Table 1 . Tree Condition and Frequency of Occurrence 2 Table 2. Tree Suitability for Preservation 6 Exhibits Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Tree Removals Arborist Report Community Development Department The Forum Planning Division — Cupertino Cupertino, CAcuPLRT1N0 APPROVED Introduction and Overview Case# TR-2021-034 The Forum is planning renovations and new facility construction at The Forum a4'KMFf` NWT er(s) Antonio in Cupertino. HortScience, Inc. was asked to prepare an Arb st ep rt for the e part of the application to the City of Cupertino. Approva�' o y: Sirector tA# Approval Date 01/04/22 This report provides the following information: 1. An evaluation of the health and structural conditionWthlAl° A 1A4i+hiF4rjhd @p d project area based on a visual inspection from the ground. case Manager 2. An assessment of the development impacts to the trees based on the drawings provided by the client. 3. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction, and maintenance phases of development. Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on January 27 and 30, 2017. The assessment included all on-site trees 4 inches and greater in diameter within the limit of work as identified by the client. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1. Identifying the species of tree; 2. Tagging each tree with an metal tag and recording its location on a map; 3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade; 4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 —5: 5-A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4-Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3-Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2-Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1-Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 5. Rating the suitability for preservation as"high", "moderate" or"low". Suitability for preservation considers the health, age, and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in `high' category. Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 2 C�rrrmunity B-evefulanTent Department Description of Trees Planning Division — Cupertino Several thousand trees exist on the site totaling 51.5 acre rdance with directj,Qn t up pp RTIN City of Cupertino to The Forum, the survey of trees includes t�iose?rees in the areas o ' u development, as trees in the areas outside the developmertgr�#,rill not be impaTRdd20n`lcil-034 hundred seventy-nine (279)trees representing 23 species were evaluated (Ta �kp ;.c ;Ai'-NpA Y' the trees were in good (58%)and fair(34%)condition, with only 22 trees (8%) in poor condition (Table 1). Tree sizes ranged from 4 to 26 inches in diameteA gt �p'B6� intDRr�6€ 7t99t8fF 11 inches (of 241 single-trunk trees). Descriptions of each tree can b and the �22 Assessment and tree locations are plotted on the Tree In�� ►� ($ FYh"r_i c Si nature Erika Poveda Table 1. Condition ratings and frequency opoccurrence of trees Case Manager The Forum at Rancho San Antonio, Cupertino CA Common Name Scientific Name Condition Total Poor Fair Good (1-2) (3) (4-5) Bailey acacia Acacia baleeyana 1 - - 1 Horsechestnut Aesculus hippocastanum 1 - 4 5 Strawberry tree Arbutus unedo - 1 - 1 Deodar cedar Cedrus deodara - 5 5 10 Camphor Cinnamomum camphora 3 2 5 10 Italian cypress Cupressus sempervirens - - 3 3 Red ironbark Eucalyptus sideroxylon 6 8 - 14 Crape myrtle Lagerstroemia indica - 17 4 21 Australian tea tree Leptospermum laevigatum - 1 - 1 Brisbane box Lophostemon confertus - 1 3 4 Mayten Maytenus boaria - 2 1 3 Aleppo pine Pinus halepensis 2 13 14 29 Ponderosa pine Pinus ponderosa - 3 - 3 Monterey pine Pinus radiata - 1 - 1 Chinese pistache Pistacia chinensis - 1 11 12 London plane Platanus x hispanica - 1 69 70 Purpleleaf plum Prunus cerasifera 5 9 3 17 Hollyleaf cherry Prunus ilicifolia - 4 - 4 Callery pear Pyrus calleryana - 4 2 6 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 2 12 24 38 Valley oak Quercus lobata - - 1 1 Arroyo willow Salix lasiolepis - 1 - 1 Coast redwood Sequoia sempervirens 2 10 12 24 Total 22 96 161 279 8% 34% 58% 100% The most common species evaluated was London plane, with 70 trees (25% of the population). Trees were concentrated around parking areas of the skilled nursing center, multi-purpose room, along Cristo Rey drive, and Via Splendor(Photo 1, next page). Trees were young to semi-mature, Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 3 C�rrrmunity B-evetcFpTyTent Department with trunk diameters from 4 to 15 inches. Overall, London pl sere in AQ(hA &eVE101@rin — Cupertino condition, with only one tree (#172) in fair condition. Tree upERTiNo form and structure.�nRd,C�VoBD visible signs of pests or disease. F'COU Case# TR-2021-034 Appkaticn Number( ) Approval Body: Director/ Staff Approval Date Signat, t V7 Photo 1 (left): London planes along Cristo Rey Dr. (#216-219, I-r)were in good condition with good form and structure. Photo 2 (right): Coast live oak#74 was in good condition with good form and dense crown. The second most common species was coast live oak, with 38 trees evaluated (14%). Trees were grouped in four locations across the site, generally growing in natural, open areas, with the largest group at the northwest end of the site forming a dense screen. These trees were in fair and good condition, with crowded form. Trees given more space to grow had good form and dense crowns (Photo 2). Half of the oaks had single trunks ranging from 5 to 21 inches in diameter, with an average trunk diameter of 10 inches. Oaks with multiple trunks were semi- mature to mature, with the largest trunk measuring 26 inches. Twenty-nine (29)Aleppo pines were evaluated (10%). Most trees were located around the sloped grass field where the new memory care facility is proposed, with two trees (#271 and 275) on Sereno Way. Tree conditions ranged from poor(2 trees), to fair(13 trees)and good (14 trees). Many trees were growing in groups on the slope, contributing to crowded (one-sided)form and trunk leans. Trees in good condition had good form and dense crowns. blow Twenty-four(24)coast redwoods were evaluated at the site (9%). Trees were semi-mature, with trunk :. diameters from 14 to 25 inches, with an averagew diameter of 19 inches. Trees were distributed in pairs throughout the site, with a circle of nine trees : near the multi-purpose building, and a group of eight trees near the circular planter on Cristo Rey a Drive. Tree conditions ranged from poor to good, r and was determined by foliage color and density. ; Trees in good condition had dense or thinning crowns; trees in fair condition had thin crowns - (Photo 3), and trees in poor conditions had very { thin crowns with brown foliage and branch dieback. All but one tree (#113) had good form and structure. Tree#113 was a multi-stem tree in fair condition. AR- Photo 3: Coast redwoods#240-244 (1-r)were in fair condition with thinning crowns. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 4 FW—C-UmManity-D�vei-upm-ent Department Twenty-one (21)crape myrtles were evaluated (8%). Planning DivisionCupertino Trees were young, with trunk diameters from 3 to 9 - � APPROVE �i . inches. Most trees (17 trees)were in fair condition pr P,Tlfy with fair structure and small crowns. All trees had Case# ' been heavily pruned. ' ,I,ppjj, [I NLII 111.1 Seventeen (17) purpleleaf plums, with trunk diameters t,. from 4 to 7 inches, were evaluated (6%). Trees were Approva I Body: Director/ Staff in poor(5 trees), fair (9 trees), and good (3 trees) condition. Many had been heavily pruned, and many Ep - v had severe trunk sunburn. ft Fourteen (14) red ironbarks were included in the assessment (5%). Trees were in fair and poor condition, with thin crowns, and many had been previously topped (Photo 4). Photo 4: Red ironbarks#104-107 (1- The remaining species were represented by 12 or r)were in poor condition with thin fewer trees and included the following. crowns and they had been • Twelve (12) Chinese pistache in good (11 previously topped. trees)and fair (1 tree) condition; • Ten (10) deodar cedars in good (5 trees)and fair(5 trees)condition; • Ten (10) camphors in good, fair, and poor condition; • Five horsechestnuts in good and poor condition; • Four each of Brisbane box and hollyleaf cherry in good and fair condition; • Three each of Italian cypress, mayten, and Ponderosa pine in good and fair condition; • One valley oak in good condition; • One each of strawberry tree, Australian tea tree, Monterey pine, and arroyo willow in fair condition; • One Bailey acacia in poor condition. The City of Cupertino defines Specimen tree as any from a list of 15 species with a trunk diameter of 10 inches for single-trunk trees and a cumulative 20 inches for multi-trunk trees. The following species evaluated at the site were on this list: Deodar cedar, coast live oak, and valley oak. Based on this definition, 37 trees were considered Specimen trees. Specimen trees are identified in the Tree Assessment(see Exhibits). Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 5 C�mn~ranity D-evetupTn-ent Department Suitability for Preservation Planning Division — Cupertino Before evaluating the impacts that will occur during develQJJPNi1r,his important to coAVOW&ED quality of the tree resource itself, and the potential for individual trees to function well over an extended length of time. Trees that are preserved on develdFpneVsites must be R QQ21-034 selected to make sure that they may survive development impacts, adapt to a neAfrpC i66iRWfib&(s) and perform well in the landscape. Approval Body: Director/Staff Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for long-t,rm healt trvctural ytjii�22nd longevity. When development encroaches into existing plant - lea a c�.,~c;uc;V.- structural stability as well as their potential to grow and thri\&i aM1*envir @r tol re development will not occur, the normal life cycles of decline, structural failure, and dq_qt � be allowed to continue. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors: • Tree health Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are non-vigorous trees. • Structural integrity Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to people or property is likely. For example, red ironbarks that had been previously topped are not good candidates for preservation. • Species response There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts and changes in the environment. In general, London plane, coast redwood, and coast live oak are tolerant of construction impacts and site changes while Aleppo and Monterey pines are relatively intolerant of site changes and root loss. • Tree age and longevity Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to generate new tissue and respond to change. • Species invasiveness Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced. The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) lists species identified as being invasive. This site is part of the Central West Floristic Province. Purpleleaf plum is listed as limited invasive. Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (see Tree Assessment and Table 2, next page). We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation. We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 6 t-0 murrity-D-evetup nt Department Table 2: Tree suitability for pQU' tion Planning Division — Cupertino The Forum at Rancho San Antonirtino CA CUP a APPROVED High These are trees with good health and sftgty"l stability that MR92021-034 potential for longevity at the site. One hundred one re4 1, 1,. er(s) suitability for preservation. Approval Body: Director/Staff Moderate Trees in this category have fair health and/or structural defect ��j y be abated with treatment. These trees reg4APfi96Y@ lr� M3JV r�S anr1 monitoring, and may have shorter life-s *%tVrVhose 6&Pb & category. One hundred forty-seven (147)`trees ha ui i i ase an ger preservation. Low Trees in this category are in poor health or have significant defects in structure that cannot be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The species or individual tree may possess either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be unsuited for use areas. Thirty-one (31)trees had low suitability for preservation. Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Preservation Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree condition and quality. I referred to the plan set prepared by BKF for the Plan Review Submittal (12/14/16, updated 4/11/17), which included site, grading, and utility sheets. Surveyed tree locations were included for most trees. The plans show improvements to various areas around the site: a new multi-purpose room and fitness addition; a new memory care center; a skilled nursing addition; and approximately two- dozen new villas. Impacts to trees would occur with demolition of existing features, building construction, and utility installation. The most significant impacts would occur as a result of grading for new buildings. The limit of work was clearly delineated on all plans. Most trees located within the limit of work will be directly impacted by construction activities, and trees located within 5 feet if the LOW may be impacted. Based on my review of the plans and conversations with project engineers, we have identified 115 trees that will be directly impacted by development and require removal. Of these, 15 trees had low suitability for preservation, 63 were moderate, and 37 were high. Twenty-three (23)trees qualified as Specimen trees. A tree removal table with reasons for removal is provided in the Exhibits. One hundred sixty-four(164)trees have been identified for preservation, most of which are outside the limit of work. Preservation of trees is predicated on establishing and maintaining tree protection zones and following established procedures to minimize root impacts and root loss. Trees that are relatively tolerant of impacts— London planes, coast live oaks, and coast redwoods —should have a minimum clearance from construction of 7 feet. Tree protection zones for all other trees should be a minimum 10-foot radius or the edge of the dripline, whichever is greater. No grading, excavation, storage of materials, etc. is permitted within tree protection zones. Trees identified for preservation with canopy extending over construction or access areas may need to be pruned for clearance. Tree protection instructions are located in the Tree Preservation Guidelines (next section). Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 7 L-0 murTity-D-evetupriTent Department Tree Preservation Guidelines Planning Division - Cupertino The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival d �Jp r�tr glopment but mainXp?W9\ac ED tree health and beauty for many years. Impacts can be minimized by coordinatin any construction activities Inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Case# gI R-2021-034 Application Numbers) The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees from development and maintain and improve their health and vitality through the clearing, gApilpCO JIcPA9WcEbreolUwg5taff Design recommendations Approval Date 01/04/22 1. Any plan changes affecting trees should be reviewo6Wzfb@rfeonsult�aAr[bgfiANvith regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, site Improvemerrta w%ager utility and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans, and demolition plans. 2. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE (TPZ)shall be established around each tree to be preserved. No grading, excavation, construction, or storage of materials shall occur within that zone. For design purposes, the TPZ is located at the dripline of the tree or 10 feet, whichever is greater. If necessary, the TPZ for construction-tolerant species may be reduced to 7 feet. 3. Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Consulting Arborist, should be included on all plans. 4. Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 5. Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Pre-construction treatments and recommendations 1. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2. Fence trees to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing, or grading. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link or equivalent as approved by the City of Cupertino. Fences are to remain until all construction is completed. 3. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide construction clearance. All pruning shall be completed by a Certified Arborist or Tree Worker. Pruning shall adhere to the latest edition of the ANSI Z133 and A300 standards as well as the Best Management Practices-- Tree Pruning published by the International Society of Arboriculture. 4. Tree(s)to be removed that have branches extending into the canopy of tree(s)to remain must be removed by a qualified arborist and not by construction contractors. The qualified arborist shall remove the tree in a manner that causes no damage to the tree(s) and understory to remain. Tree stumps shall be ground 12" below ground surface. 5. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests. Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1. Prior to beginning work, the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review all work procedures, access routes, storage areas, and tree protection measures. Arborist Report, The Forum at Rancho San Antonio HortScience, Inc. Greenbrier Development, April 20, 2017 Page 8 Carr city-D-evetcFpTaent Department 2. All contractors shall conduct operations in a mann /ill prevtl�JhgED�Jg0®JJta Cupertino be preserved. APPROVED CUPERTINO 3. Any grading, construction, demolition or other work at is expected to e1 1- �'e034 roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arbori ase ff Application Number(s) 4. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission from/disctkplaro i Bi®dWB*b4&rb66ELIaff 5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas musAPPW /BAQa0encA1AP& it all times. Signature Erika Poveda 6. Structures and underground features to be removed within the TREE PROTECTTION O r shall use the smallest equipment, and operate from outside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. The consultant shall be on-site during all operations within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE to monitor demolition activity. 7. Any root pruning required for construction purposes shall receive the prior approval of and be supervised by the Consulting Arborist. 8. Any demolition or excavation within the dripline or other work that is expected to encounter tree roots should be approved and monitored by the Consulting Arborist. Roots shall be cut by manually digging a trench and cutting exposed roots with a sharp saw. The Consulting Arborist will identify where root pruning is required. 9. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 10. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Certified Arborist or Certified Tree Worker and not by construction personnel. Maintenance of impacted trees Any trees preserved at the Forum site will experience a physical environment different from that pre-development. As a result, tree health and structural stability should be monitored. Occasional pruning, fertilization, mulch, pest management, replanting and irrigation may be required. In addition, provisions for monitoring both tree health and structural stability following construction must be made a priority. As trees age, the likelihood of branches or entire trees failing will increase. Therefore, annual inspection for hazard potential is recommended. If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please contact me. HortScience, Inc. Deanne Ecklund Certified Arborist#WE-9067A Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) Approval Body: Director/ Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager Exhibits Tree Inventory Map Tree Assessment Tree Removals Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS 0 Application N ber(s) \ 241 tK p va B ire r/Staff w LO 24 _ — — — �' Signature,� rik ove _ Z Q / 0� Ca Man er U / \\ Of 0 1 1 / ` \ 00 O O Z N � • / o° Q l, � z I I / \ I- DQNN N (n3: 0) 0) LU \ � C 05 \\\ IL A- \ O / r l �� W LU Q \ O • \\\ Q �Q. 252 0 • 0 2 lbv / 0 � / \ CO ry LLI / Q � V I / h � \ Q I / Q / O U� Q O Q i Q /V1 6P I- 0 \ Q � \ 0 \ \ O / LL- ly / Q� z w \ Q / to 2 Ln �Q Tree Inventory Map Prepared for: Greenbriar Development Dallas,TX January 2017 z° Did SCALE O N - — — — 2 0 10 20 40 O O i Notes: N O 00 Numbered tree locations are approximate. cp N to (D of II U) Y O Trees with no survey point were approximately O1 0 / \ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. O E c o Z 0 — — — — — — Ch = 20 ft. \ o c°) a�i ° a ' N Q 0 HO °° IENCE 0 Drawing Number: RT SC "JO fE: L POTHOLING DONE BY SUBTRONIC ON 8-30-2016. 325 Ray Street TOP 0 0 BY WE' ON IS— -2016. Pleasanton, 94566 Q/ Phone 925.4.484.0 Fax 925.484.0596 596 � OF L --hortsciencexom r Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS / - - - - - - - — — — ase - + 49 / / A umber(s) • j= • y' " A val Bo rector o 241 o w / / I — / ` �° w u7 1 ' X A e • 2 I -- I 1 I I / X I I ignature E oveda 251 • 24 Q r— �_� case Manager a Z 3� a Q Y 4 J� \ wN 0. N 2 I I I I NN 2 0 00 oo a • _ I I I 23 � � � z � � 1 I • H I- DQNN I 23 Ncn3: rnrn 2 10 W LU F / — nch f 30ru IA o % to oI " o °note r �o A- W ❑ — Concrete — — — — — % % % Z - - � - _ - -- - - 0 I' 28 v Q - - ✓ �Q / 227 �� c� �� - o �- 0 0 - ,/ P \ - - - - - 26 - - - 224 _ _ - -- - - - - 222 — _ — > 21 z W o c o 0 _ _- � — Q i — ❑ / / U _ 0 U� Q Q Q Q TARGET PO? H E 1: C � DESCRIPTION: "BLA TAR COAT STEEL / /DEPTH:7'0" O ICOMMEN :M ETIC Q � 0 0 / LL- / / Lw PGE EASEMENT G) U / U TARGET POT HOLE 3: / DESCRIPTION:10"RED COATED S C TARGET POT HOLE 2:GAS DEPTH:4'5" DESCRIPTION:10" WHITE WRAPPED STEEL DEPTH:4'8" COMMENTS:FOUND AT BEND, APPENDAGE AT 3'9", MAGNETIC Tree Inventory Map N G G G G G l Prepared for: Greenbriar Development — — — G G ,GP G G G — G / Dallas, TX GAS LINE — \ R 147 81 G G G ---_ (� / January 2017 z i % _ — / Notes: cfl N Numbered tree locations are approximate. O N O � �_a._ ~ / Trees with no survey point were approximately — — (D N N �c�y��ry ` _, —�� / located in the field by HortScience.Inc. � T Y o _ \ II U) / % % x o > o -� 0, c o z 4" hoc } `�� o�� Q° \ - //' / i o (n ° a o C ^ I °C I r O• No SCIENC€ Drawing Number: N/ ° I �' 325 Ray Street / ! Q } N rE• Pleasanton,CA 94566 — I`_— +� / POTHOLING DON Phone 925.484.021, I I l —� 4.0596 �1 �� // www.hotscie ne.com T 0 P 0 �� q, } I � � I % 0 Z/zl/ 0— I 2 of 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTI140 APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS 0 254-- � pplication Number(s) AD a Body Director/Staff + �� • / / w ° pro ate 01` 04/22 \ �`� � "t • 257 � °' X 7n t r da Q 1 e Manager Y O a) LL] N N — - - i i 0 / / GO /; \ z N rn rn - - - - SERPN • �, � / I '� roL- aNN �- , � / � �� o � 279go 0 � � N �n � o� o� 0 LOM W 4:0- IL — 44 �/ 11 1 W LU C°ncfete — \ ` H S — \ - - U I 0 0 10 20 ao 80 � / �� U 1 1 Q ' Z U N FEET ) \\ O 1 inch 20 Mob ° _ — — ry 1 4 } / \ v A� Q LLI 1 � S \ / A p o 0 + _ / \ �\ �`' \ �� ' A- • c� O U� Q } / ems'' VIA VEN }� i i • TARGET POT Q, , C (7) DESCRIPTION- DE Gee , , P-''is 7'0'41Z �J 'r �� 1 �// • / / �� a_ 1 A- / } �^ qj c LL_ \ ° � \ W O o h a U � _ �' I 4^V 0 T) �' > Tree Inventory Map lb Prepared for: �^ �Q • Greenbriar Development Dallas, TX _ January 2017 z° -� N33°18'21"W 1392. CA 0^� f�= ( Notes: I C140 0 - - - - Numbered tree locations are approximate. O N II t/� Y p It` �_ - - - —� ❑ I o N o Trees with no survey point were approximately 0 p n� C.' �_ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. a 3 o Z _ �� a rn o CL Drawing Number: i _� �`� �__ ^^• �oC HOR7 SCIENCE J ot� II Pleasanton CA 94566 i 0PU C O� C� Phone 925.484.0211 CQ, _ Fax9scienc.com www.hortscience.com hoc — OF 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPLRTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS — — — -- ase - - \ \ p c onN b s \ \ \ \ _►p� o • Di r ff \ _ LLI --_ proval to 01 4 2 rn C° X - Signature E ve °` \ Q Q \ /� } z 0 se M ag 0��' — ---- -- �� WON N N N — — ---- / O\ �\� O O U� 00 zN � rnrn \ / I� wz I I N 0) 0) - - - - N \V O VD \ Z N1 LOM LU \\ r \ \ IL C' , - O , W r \ / : NNZ CO 4r i \` �L \ \ o \fib / • Ar \\ \ \ \ 8 69 \ \ LLJ r _ Q > \ \ U� \ _ 60 �\ \\�\ ^h O U Q 263 61 �\ ro - - - - Q Q a- + U, ' 25 255 258 _---- 0 257 \ 0 olb\ I II LL_ } A- II W o D CC0R0 �; 7 ��' \ I Z � w 279 0 \ \ - - - - - /r O� - i ! Ar�� — 1 1 �� — .0 Tree Inventory Ma / Prepared for: V Greenbriar Development ° \ \ Dallas,TX _ - \ �✓ I�\ January 2017 - \/ \ \ I Cor�rete � — — — — — — z° G PHIC E \ _ _ _ — / '� Notes: O N -00O _ Numbered tree locations are approximate. I N u7 20 0 0 20 40 \ 80 (0 N O \ I —� -1 — Trees with no survey point were approximately II c_n located in the field by HortScience.Inc. / / I FEET ^�. \\ / _ tom"' 1 i 20 ft. ^� \ \ HOR7 SCIENCE Drawing Number. \ � } } 1 121 Ray street \ \ Pleasanton, A 9456 Phone 8 925C 4.0211 T 0 P 0 Fax 925.84.0596 www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Planning Division - Cupertino CUf'LRTIN4 APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS ase - - _ �Tp lication umber(s) ro / Approva I Bo hector/ S`t \ ��o w rn Approval D 01/04/22 } � L0 \ / Signature / Erika Pov a \ Q \ �� /se Manager U N N \ ' + CNN G_ O U I I ��o O o 0 0 N�• Z � 't 't h z I I 1 �qj to T hj^ �o\ W All, IL A- i �^�� ,�' 0 09" \ / ----__ ewe + >>OOP owe �� \�� /VIA ESPLENDOR S ALE � concrete - — — — — \ _ 20 o 10 40 /\ so o x ( F ET oq) 1 nch 0 \ ` \ �� rAmil Z W \ 1 o 11 O u Z L_LJ 2 Q aaaaaoaa U U �I 7 4 Q ^ o ^�` • _ r r�� - � z O ,� _�-_- 43 PyQ Q 1 • ° U� A- P�Qro 1 24 • - --- —_- -_ - - - - - —� = O i 49 _ o - 241 0 251 2 24 / _ - - - - a ' / O � 1 li I 24 2 / W O • • CD z 238 LLJ 23 \ �1 I • / / U N ' \ O / N U - c \ �� • _ C/n Tree Inventory Map w ro• v 0 oncfete � Prepared for: o oc _ \ Greenbriar Development o Dallas, TX Q January 2017 Z N u7 ❑ _ r • -0N O O \ O PP Notes: of N Y o �' Qr 227 \\\ 28 Numbered tree locations area approximate. T -0 _, Trees with no survey point were approximately �p j p • \\�\ located in the field by HortScience.Inc. ai p� o Z — 26 \ 0 O Q o a \ • (N 0 0 Q --- - � T SCIENCE Drawing Number: 2 HOR 224 - � \ • 2 3 — TOPO // \ 325 Ray Street 21 222 - Pleasanton, 925.494.0211 Fax 925.494.0596 - -- / www.hor[science.com 8 -- OF Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS Case - • �\ \ I pprov*Bo ctor a / w Air a e 01/ x Signature Iv • a Poveda __ \ J Q � v \\ 62 Case Manager \ \ z U \ - - --- 6 \ = W N N • of00II • O O - O • • ZN � CAC7) p O O O Q / \ ` \ • \ l, wz I I Qy \ S • /X� I r- < C-4 cV C-4 (n 3: O O qj 1 / Goc 7 Iv IC L�. \ / LU LA 20 0 20 40 Z �--- �o \ • _ __� .— 12 1220 \ ". 68 \ \ 1 inch = 20 ft. is O \ 23• / \ — v - 124• / �y c �� / ��1 W c AJ \ 35 0 BW • \ 10 O o ��\ \ \ 40,E �� • 3 \ , LLI �.. / v v �� ❑ ❑ \ � \ \ Q Un qji 7 • Z � • 6 , 4 �� ❑ � — U U A- �� \ z \\ n �' I ro A- �o = z _./ , / l I Q +Qa •1/ �� \ 1 • �o�° I ►: \ 1 3 < / / • 1 38 1 1 — •4 J IV X •44 I I—i_I O -1q1 IV 945 / "4k 3 Ld �l 1 6 ° I .1 I 3 1 ° - / v 52 v \ �, 58 } 34 _ - - ramv 4 / 6 / , 3 I , v . , • U) Ln Tree Inventory Map 1 � � • ^� v X v 0� 1 / } Iv Prepared for: �— �- — • r° \ o \ \ Greenbriar Development 1 1 i \O ( � \\ P0q \\ Py�r 5 � \ Dallas, TX }"� 1 \ _ \\� \ � \ January 2017 / — rgte \ Notes: p o 6 Y COn� Numbered tree locations are approximate. N O 0 o� o F � 1 \ 0 \ \ \ o II cn Y o oC / Q L / \ \ \ Trees with no survey point were approximately � located in the field by Hortscience.Inc. / p> T / C S/ dj pi O Z \ t/J' } Q 0 \ \ 1 \\ X NOR Drawing Number: \ -- - - -- — 325 Ray Street PiA 94566 APhone 925840211 O Fax 925:484:0596 TOPO O / / www.hortscience.com Py 6 OF 8 Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED oO BKF ENGINEERS S61°04 \a se100-85 at i103 -e�ar1 Boc r / �_ 0) r ate CLOW 22 • / J i � i • Case � � U � i \ • • I � N N • / Ofo � ll — 0 00 ' — �� • �� P �� ° GRA ALE ¢ cv cv 1 V ► N CY) M 01 10 20 40 80 FEET �''� W , \ 1 inch = 20 ft LU XIL W I 2 l/ rV • O 0 LL- jr LLJ 790 ` \ Q > I \� -- - - - - _ --- U� 122 Iv 23' , � z o � z o / 1 o �_ 1240 ,/ �� j)AL ° U _ / s LLJ �o A- A- A:) � P14 C h Qr 0 Ln 1 P o \�/roc Tree Inventory Map AD / �129 O / / \ � Pre aredfo r ® \ \ Z8 Greenbriar Development: }h ro Dallas, TX 13• ( ___�.� --� ��o• �� o vim# � // � � � \ i /i ❑ \ • , \ 0 / / January 2017 \A 1�7 \ �� Notes: p o }� Numbered tree locations are approximate. � LO Trees with no survey point were approximately II U) Y o AD xQ' located in the field by HortScience.Inc. rn _ � / �,� V / �� • (� Q 7) / HOR7 s`I Drawing Number: / • / �� C 325 Ray Street ..J \ Pleasanton,.4 94566 0211 1 / \ \ 1 \ Phone 925.484.0596 T 0 P 0 \ 1 \ \ I Fax9scienc.com - / \ www.hortscience.com \\\ \\\ \\\ \ 1 0 7 of g / Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINQ APPROVED OO BKF ENGINEERS A"lication NuflDSer(s) A- � � o i Approva I Body: Director/Staff Q / �l / �- w lb In I �� pproval Date 01/04/22 P / .� Of A- Signature Erika Pov — , — --� 0 \ Q / c8_e1u1 Ina er— - - - - - - - - - \ F A Q U �. Lj 129` 1 I�°V w UN N 11 00 — p V ro � z I I 13 - I- U) QNN 1�7 v W \ Q / .135�, � IV / IL OJ ^'I I / v°c 0-10 AD } ) 18 _ IN 39 / \\ �� 147 �c� A-/ \ / / 14 / O 1 LL- 40 1 / !�• Q <' O � X 2 O ocfb \\ z �` — / �0 / O `V A- o4°1 <1 i 110 C, / v Q LLI Inu 153 vo U U Q \�� \ \ / \ \ �1 \ 8 Z Z Q / v / Z / �-- \ AjY 56 / `V / J74 �, 2 1 / / \ Ate' Aj� �� / GRAPHIC SCALE / W O A- / 20 0 10 20 40 80 \ 6 / w IN FEET ) \ a`ti \ • 1 inch = 20 ft. / f U 0 O — • ,,yyamp� O❑ ❑ O Ov O \ 7 c • O '�r h� O U) Ln $ Tree Inventory Map 1 0 A� \ \ \ I I I 1 Prepared for: / \ — Greenbriar Develo ment \\ \ \ \ 181 Dallas, TX \ \\\ 1'82 I X r°<e�e 83 I �° January 2017 1116 0 87 1 \ N \\ \ 1 Notes: O \\ 186 • 3 — Numbered tree locations are approximate. I _o Y o Q \ \ Trees with no survey point were approximately 1 -p T \ 1 8 located in the field by HortScience.Inc. �p j p 3 L o z \ HoR IENC€ Drawing Number: rb \\ 194 325 Ray Street ^C" Pleasanton, 94566 T 0 P 0 h� Phone 925.4.4 84.0211 j �—' Fax 925.484.0596 www.hortscience.com \\\ 9 v 8 8 OF The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 1 London plane 9 No 5 High Multiple attachrA",pG*g'k D forrrI3684k2kture. 2 Purpleleaf plum 4,4,4,4 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachT saptu�e good Plr a,� irE dfa cture. 3 Purpleleaf plum 5,4 No 3 Moderate Codominant trun s at 3'; fair orm and StEyqtgqqV. qb cuts. 4 Purpleleaf plum 6,5,4,4 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; good form, fair structure; stub cuts. 5 Purpleleaf plum 5,4,4,3,2 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3'; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 6 Purpleleaf plum 4,3,2 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 7 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; good form, fair structure. 8 Purpleleaf plum 4 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5'; good form, fair structure; slight trunk lean over parking lot. 9 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 5'; good form, fair structure. 10 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 11 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6'; fair form and structure; severe trunk sunburn. 12 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 5'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 13 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6'; fair form and structure; severe trunk sunburn; girdling root. 14 Purpleleaf plum 5 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7'; fair form and structure; trunk sunburn. 15 London plane 12 No 4 High In 7' diameter planter; codominant trunks at 15'; pruning cuts along trunk; good form and structure. 16 London plane 6 No 4 High In 7' diameter planter; surface roots; codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure. 17 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 18 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 19 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 20 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 21 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 22 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; sprinkler head engulfed by trunk; pollarded. 23 London plane 13 No 5 High In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure. 24 London plane 15 No 4 High In 5' diameter planter; significant surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'; stub cuts. 25 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 26 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. Page 1 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 27 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and sAP0PC ji)lDCgql@d. 01/04/22 28 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and r Ilarde �I��ura� rika Poveda 29 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pol ar a Case Manager 30 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 31 London plane 7 No 5 High In 5' diameter planter; root flare buried; good form and structure. 32 London plane 12 No 4 High In 5' diameter planter; ssco T from base; pruning cuts on trunk. 33 London plane 13 No 4 High In 5' diameter planter; significant surface roots; codominant trunks at 9'. 34 London plane 14 No 5 High In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; electric vault T from base; good form and 35 Crape myrtle 9 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 36 London plane 10 No 5 High In 5' diameter planter; good form and structure. 37 Coast redwood 23 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. 38 Coast redwood 21 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. 39 Coast redwood 23 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown; thin top. 40 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 41 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 42 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown; browning needles. 43 Coast redwood 14 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown; browning needles. 44 Coast redwood 15 No 2 Low Crown almost completely brown. 45 Coast redwood 16 No 2 Low Crown almost completely brown. 46 London plane 9 No 4 High In 5' diameter planter; asymmetrical crown. 47 Crape myrtle 8 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; pollarded. 48 London plane 12 No 4 High In 5' diameter planter; surface roots; good form and structure; stub cuts. 49 London plane 11 No 5 High In 5' planter; 18"from utility vault; good form and structure. 50 London plane 8 No 5 High In 5' planter; 24"from utility vault; circling root; good form and structure. 51 London plane 5 No 4 High In 5' planter; surface roots; codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure. 52 Brisbane box 8 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 8'; narrow form; slightly thin crown. 53 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 6'; on slope; good form and structure. Page 2 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 54 Brisbane box 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant trl ' M A ICp�{ e; gOUWK slightly thin crown. 55 Camphor 9 No 3 Low Multiple attach rgsaptup"twig TrrnVeieback. 56 Camphor 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5'; falr orm an steAqtq�qAplorotic. 57 Brisbane box 9 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 58 Brisbane box 8 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 8'; fair form, good structure; slightly thin crown. 59 Italian cypress 15 No 5 High No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 60 Italian cypress 11 No 5 High No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 61 Italian cypress 10 No 5 High No tag; good form and structure; dense crown. 62 Mayten 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 63 Camphor 13 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 6'; poor structure; thin crown. 64 Camphor 15 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5'; fair form and structure; twig dieback. 65 Camphor 18 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6' and 8'; fair form and structure; stub cuts. 66 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; slightly thin crown. 67 Mayten 11 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6'; slightly thin crown. 68 Callery pear 14 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; fair form and structure; previously topped. 69 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; fair form and structure; previously topped. 70 Callery pear 11 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 8'; in 3' cutout; grate girdling trunk; fair form and structure; previously topped. 71 Coast live oak 10,9,9,7 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 2'; good form and structure; surface roots. 72 Coast live oak 11,11,10,7 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1'; spreading crown; slightly thin upper crown. 73 Coast live oak 11,10,10 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 2'; previous stem failures below attachment; slightly thin crown. 74 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 High Multiple attachments at 6'; spreading crown; good form. 75 Coast live oak 12,10 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks at 1'; good form; dense crown. 76 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; branches to ground. 77 Coast redwood 23 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; branches to ground. 78 Red ironbark 23 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; slightly thin crown. 79 Red ironbark 19 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; slightly thin crown. Page 3 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 80 Arroyo willow 11,11,10,E No 3 Moderate In swamp at drApoiDtVa4rD.--fLuctur@,ldla4A2arown. 81 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High On slope; multigipg%Ments f&"qq°�etpj m; dense crown. 82 Red ironbark 7,7,5 No 3 Moderate On slope; multiple attachments a ; asyMrrp r grown; Slightly In crown. 83 Aleppo pine 18 No 3 Moderate On slope; trunk swoops up; codominant trunks at 12'; fair form. 84 Aleppo pine 14 No 4 Moderate On slope; minor corrected lean; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 85 Aleppo pine 12 No 4 Moderate On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 86 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 87 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate On slope; good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 88 Aleppo pine 18 No 3 Moderate Sinuous trunk; slightly thin crown. 89 Red ironbark 15 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 90 Red ironbark 19 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 91 Red ironbark 16 No 3 Low Sinuous trunk; codominant trunks at 13'; previously topped; thin crown. 92 Red ironbark 18 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 12'; previously topped; thin crown. 93 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Low Girdling roots; base outside of dripline; leans down slope. 94 Aleppo pine 11 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 7'; thin crown; leans down slope over path. 95 Aleppo pine 13,10 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 1'; thin crown. 96 Red ironbark 10,10,8 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 2'; thin crown. 97 Red ironbark 15 No 3 Low Codominant trunks at 8'; fair form; previously topped. 98 Aleppo pine 13 No 3 Moderate Slight lean west over bench; asymmetrical crown. 99 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 11'; narrow form; crowded. 100 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; crowded. 101 Aleppo pine 15 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; crowded. 102 Aleppo pine 14 No 3 Moderate Asymmetrical crown; slight lean down slope. 103 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 104 Red ironbark 15 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 12'; previously topped; thin crown. 105 Red ironbark 20 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; thin crown. 106 Red ironbark 16 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 14'; previously topped; thin crown. Page 4 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 107 Red ironbark 12 No 2 Low Narrow form; pq 0rblydq)l[ 4thin @19da4122 108 Red ironbark 17 No 2 Low Codominant trSqk,,h&&previT&tpgQS&thin crown. 109 Coast live oak 13,14 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 4'; goo orm. Case Manager 110 Coast live oak 12,5,5 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; trunk canker; good form. 111 Coast live oak 9,8,7,6,5 Yes 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure; spreading crown. 112 Coast live oak 7,6 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1'; small, slightly thin crown. 113 Coast redwood 8,6,3 No 3 Low Multiple attachments at base; slightly thin crown. 114 Aleppo pine 13 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown. 115 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5'; dense crown. 116 Aleppo pine 17 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; crowded form. 117 Aleppo pine 22 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6' and 8'with narrow attachments; good form. 118 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown. 119 Aleppo pine 14 No 4 High Good form and structure; dense crown. 120 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 9'; good form. 121 Aleppo pine 17 No 4 High Good form and structure; crowded form; dense crown. 122 Aleppo pine 15 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 9'with narrow attachment; crowded. 123 Aleppo pine 13 No 3 Moderate Sinuous trunk; good form. 124 Aleppo pine 21,16 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 4'; fair form and structure; dense crown. 125 Aleppo pine 10,9,7,E No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 3' and 4'; spreading crown. 126 London plane 13 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure. 127 London plane 11 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure; 18"from walkway. 128 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; pollarded. 129 London plane 4 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; asymmetrical crown. 130 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; pollarded. 131 London plane 6 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure. 132 London plane 7 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 8'; good form and structure. 133 London plane 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 18"from curb. Page 5 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 134 London plane 6 No 4 High Multiple attach rAr ,pG*g'g 0 forrrI3684ekture. 135 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachrg sa tupe pollar�d1�� Poveda 136 London plane 7 No 4 High Codominant trun s at 7'; good form an �a�ij yAq-,girc ing root; rom concrete pad. 137 London plane 8 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure. 138 London plane 8 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure; heavy lateral limb. 139 London plane 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 6' and 8'; good form and structure. 140 London plane 8 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure. 141 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 142 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 143 Crape myrtle 6 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 144 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate Good form, fair structure; trunk wound; previously pollarded. 145 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 146 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure; previously pollarded. 147 Australian tea tree 6,4 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1'; leans away from building; asymmetrical crown. 148 Hollyleaf cherry 3 No 3 Moderate Asymmetrical crown; twig dieback. 149 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 7'; good form, fair structure. 150 Hollyleaf cherry 5 No 3 Moderate Asymmetrical crown; twig dieback. 151 Hollyleaf cherry 8 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 7'; narrow form; close to building. 152 Strawberry tree 7,7,5,5 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at base 3' asymmetrical crown. 153 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 4'; poor structure; slightly thin crown. 154 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low Trunk damage; poor structure; thin crown. 155 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure; slightly thin crown. 156 Camphor 6 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; twig and branch dieback. 157 Coast live oak 26,19,18 Yes 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 1' and T; one stem horizontal; dense, spreading crown. 158 Bailey acacia 5,4,4,3,3,3 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 2'; failed north; dead twigs; bark separating from trunk. ,3 159 London plane 6 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form and structure. Page 6 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 160 London plane 7 No 5 High Multiple attach rAr ,pG*g'l;0 forrrI3684ekture. 161 London plane 8 No 5 High Good form and S,1f e Erika Poveda 162 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant trun s at 10'; good form an hear&r 163 London plane 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 9'; crowded by adjacent oak. 164 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 11'; crowded by adjacent oak. 165 Camphor 5 No 2 Low Poor form and structure; trunk wound; twig dieback; crowded. 166 London plane 5 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure. 167 Ponderosa pine 19 No 3 Low Asymmetrical, thin crown; good structure. 168 Ponderosa pine 23 No 3 Moderate Group of 3 trees; asymmetrical crown; slightly thin crown. 169 Ponderosa pine 26 No 3 Moderate Group of 3 trees; asymmetrical crown; slightly thin crown. 170 London plane 6 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly crowded. 171 London plane 9 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 8' and 16'; good form. 172 London plane 11 No 3 Moderate Large tearout wound on southwest; good form; surface roots. 173 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 6'; good form. 174 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 5'; good form. 175 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 176 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks at 6'; good form and structure; dense crown. 177 Coast live oak 8 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks at 6'; slight lean north; dense crown. 178 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5'; fair form and structure; dense crown. 179 Monterey pine 26 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; codominant trunks hic; slightly thin crown. 180 Valley oak 14,12 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 4'; heavy lateral limb; crowded. 181 Coast live oak 10 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 13' and 15'; growing through valley oak; dense crown. 182 Hollyleaf cherry 6,5,3,2 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 4'; twig dieback; crowded. 183 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; slightly thin crown; crowded. 184 Coast live oak 6,4,3,3 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 1'; crowded. 185 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Crowded form; dense crown 186 Coast live oak 5 No 3 Moderate Crowded form; dense crown Page 7 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent ApproyaU Body: Director /Staff 187 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate Codominant trLA !jpbVArg) ensBV"arowded. 188 Horsechestnut 9 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair t 5� �caOre Erika Poveda 189 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 High Multiple attachments at 8'; slight can nor .e %ge�.rown. 190 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure. 191 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate Good form, fair structure. 192 Coast live oak 23,18 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at T; large tearout wound on west; asymmetrical crown. 193 Horsechestnut 9 No 1 Low Mostly dead 194 Coast live oak 11,11,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 2'; spreading, dense crown. 195 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 10'; dense crown; crowded. 196 Coast live oak 10,5 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 4' and 7'; dense crown; crowded. 197 Coast live oak 7 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; dense crown; crowded. 198 Horsechestnut 11 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 15'; good form. 199 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks at 6' and 14'; dense crown; crowded. 200 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6'; narrow form; crowded. 201 London plane 5 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 202 London plane 8 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 203 London plane 7 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 204 London plane 6 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 205 London plane 8 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 206 London plane 8 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 207 London plane 9 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 9'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 208 London plane 7 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 209 London plane 6 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 210 London plane 6 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 211 London plane 7 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 212 London plane 8 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 213 London plane 9 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. Page 8 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 214 London plane 10 No 5 High Codominant trLA jppij%i Oi *rm A*d@OikZre; 24"from curb. 215 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant tr watt rood f�rrr,gl�iovbryRture; 24"from curb. 216 London plane 10 No 5 High Good form and s ructure; 2from curb.Case Manager 217 London plane 10 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 218 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 219 London plane 14 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 220 London plane 15 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb; 5'from utility vault. 221 London plane 11 No 5 High Good form and structure; 24"from curb. 222 London plane 10 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 223 London plane 12 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 8'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 224 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 225 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 226 London plane 11 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 6'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 227 London plane 14 No 5 High Codominant trunks at 7'; good form and structure; 24"from curb. 228 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 2 Low Fair form and structure; significant trunk sunburn along entire trunk. 229 London plane 11 No 5 High In 5' planter; good form and structure. 230 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 231 Coast redwood 15 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 232 Callery pear 10 No 3 Moderate Typical form and structure; codominant trunks at 7'; mistletoe. 233 Deodar cedar 7 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 234 Deodar cedar 5 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 235 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 236 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 237 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 6'; fair form and structure. 238 Purpleleaf plum 6,5 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 3'; severe trunk sunburn. 239 Purpleleaf plum 7,4 No 1 Low Codominant trunks at T; leans east; broken roots; severe trunk sunburn. 240 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thin crown. Page 9 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 241 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Good form andAppfb%Itprat..eown.01/04/22 242 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Moderate Good form and hin cr w � ��f"et �nPa Poveda 243 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Good form and s ructure; thin crown. Case Manager 244 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thin crown. 245 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thin crown. 246 London plane 6 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 6'; slightly suppressed. 247 London plane 8 No 5 High Good form and structure; 6'from curb. 248 London plane 10 No 5 High Good form and structure; 6'from curb. 249 London plane 9 No 5 High Good form and structure; irrigation vault near base; 5'from curb. 250 London plane 12 No 5 High Good form and structure; 4'from monument. 251 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Typical form and structure; electrical vault 3'from base. 252 Coast live oak 17,13,11 Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; good form; spreading crown; small trunk cavity. 253 Camphor 10 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 254 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate Fair form and structure; slightly thin crown. 255 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; slightly thin crown. 256 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High Codominant trunks at 6'; good form. 257 Chinese pistache 8 No 5 High Good form and structure; spreading crown. 258 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 5'; crowded on east by coast live oak. 259 Callery pear 13 No 4 Moderate Typical form and structure; multiple attachments at 6'. 260 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; spreading crown. 261 Coast live oak 15,11 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks at 3'; dense, spreading crown. 262 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown. 263 Coast live oak 13,12,11,9 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 2'and 3'; spreading crown; slightly thin crown. 264 Coast live oak 12,9,7 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 1'with narrow attachment;/spreading crown. 265 Coast live oak 7,7,5,5,5,5 Yes 2 Low Multiple attachments at 2'; tearout wound at attachment; girdling root; thin crown. ,5,4,4,4 Page 10 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA Tree Assessment January2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlN0 APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation Application Number(s) (in.) 5=excellent Approval Body: Director /Staff 266 Coast live oak 14,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate Codominant trLA !jpbVMr[o spreOi ern; trunk canker. 267 Deodar cedar 8 No 4 Moderate Good form and§*catKFePlightl rlka 98ver&a 268 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 4 Moderate Good form and structure; s Ig y In crWjq,Manager 269 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thin crown. 270 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 4 Moderate Corrected lean; slightly thin crown. 271 Aleppo pine 21 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 8' and 11'with narrow attachments; slightly thin crown. 272 Chinese pistache 9 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form; crowded by 271. 273 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 274 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 275 Aleppo pine 16 No 4 Moderate Codominant trunks at 5'; good form. 276 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; thinning crown. 277 Callery pear 12 No 4 Moderate Typical form and structure; multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 278 Chinese pistache 10 No 3 Moderate Swelling and sap excretion around lower trunk; multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 279 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High Multiple attachments at 6'; good form. Page 11 of 11 The Forum at Rancho San An Community Develop Department Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Planning Division upertino January 2017 APPR�IT CIENCE CUPERTINO Ca se - - 034 Tree No. Species Trunk Specime Condition Suitability I mber(s) Diam. (in.) n Tree? 1=poor for 5=excellent Pr pr I Body: Director/Staff 16 London plane 6 No 4 Pgerova IpAtg 017 r_..._...0 .__ 17 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Nfrigimatwrewithin F5slalavVWkadw 18 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate 8'from walkwdyse Manager 19 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new bioretention area 20 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 21 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 22 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 23 London plane 13 No 5 High within new bld. footprint 24 London plane 15 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 25 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 26 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 27 Crape myrtle 5 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 34 London plane 14 No 5 High within new parking lot 40 Coast redwood 25 No 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 41 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 42 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 46 London plane 9 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 47 Crape myrtle 8 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 48 London plane 12 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 55 Camphor 9 No 3 Low within 5' of construction; low suit. 56 Camphor 11 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 57 Brisbane box 9 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 58 Brisbane box 8 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 59 Italian cypress 15 No 5 High within 5' of construction 60 Italian cypress 11 No 5 High within 5' of construction 69 Callery pear 13 No 3 Moderate within new patio 70 Callery pear 11 No 3 Moderate within new patio 71 Coast live oak 10,9,9,7 Yes 4 High within new walkway 72 Coast live oak 11,11,10,7 Yes 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 73 Coast live oak 11,10,10 Yes 3 Moderate within new parking lot 81 Coast live oak 15 Yes 4 High grading impacts 91 Red ironbark 16 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suit. 92 Red ironbark 18 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suit. 93 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Low grading impacts; low suit. 94 Aleppo pine 11 No 2 Low grading impacts; low suit. 95 Aleppo pine 13,10 No 2 Low grading impacts; low suit. 109 Coast live oak 13,14 Yes 4 Moderate grading impacts 125 Aleppo pine 10,9,7,E No 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 128 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint Page 1 of 3 The Forum at Rancho San An Community Develop Department Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Planning Division upertino January 2017 APPR�IT CIENCE CUPERTINO Ca se - - 034 Tree No. Species Trunk Specime Condition Suitability I mber(s) Diam. (in.) n Tree? 1=poor for 5=excellent PrOppWia I Body: Director/Staff 129 London plane 4 No 4 M&grgva I\Pt;A 130 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 K&igimatelrewithin F5elmalJ7 vhmlAprint 131 London plane 6 No 4 High within new bld cf0ofoifter 132 London plane 7 No 4 High within new bid. footprint 133 London plane 7 No 4 High within new bid. footprint 134 London plane 6 No 4 High within new bioretention area 135 Crape myrtle 3 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 139 London plane 7 No 4 High grading impacts 140 London plane 8 No 5 High within new parking lot 141 Coast redwood 18 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 142 Coast redwood 18 No 4 Moderate within new bid. footprint 143 Crape myrtle 6 No 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 144 Crape myrtle 4 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 145 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 146 Crape myrtle 4 No 4 Moderate within new bid. footprint 147 Australian tea 6,4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 148 Hollyleaf cherry 3 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 149 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High within new bid. footprint 150 Hollyleaf cherry 5 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 151 Hollyleaf cherry 8 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 152 Strawberry tree 7,7,5,5 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 153 Coast live oak 10 Yes 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 154 Coast live oak 10 Yes 2 Low within new bid. footprint; low suit. 155 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate within new bid. footprint 156 Camphor 6 No 2 Low within new bid. footprint 157 Coast live oak 26,19,18 Yes 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 158 Bailey acacia 5,4,4,3,3,3, No 2 Low within new bid. footprint; low suit. 3 161 London plane 8 No 5 High grading impacts 167 Ponderosa pine 19 No 3 Low within new bid. footprint; low suit. 168 Ponderosa pine 23 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 169 Ponderosa pine 26 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 171 London plane 9 No 4 High within new bid. footprint 175 Deodar cedar 14 Yes 4 High within new bioretention area 176 Coast live oak 11 Yes 4 High within new bld. footprint 177 Coast live oak 8 Yes 4 High within new bid. footprint 178 Coast live oak 6 Yes 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 179 Monterey pine 26 No 3 Moderate within new bid. footprint 190 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 Moderate within new bid. footprint Page 2 of 3 The Forum at Rancho San An Community Develop Department Tree Removals Cupertino, CA Planning Division upertino January 2017 APPR�IT CIENCE CUPERTINO Ca se - - 034 Tree No. Species Trunk Specime Condition Suitability I mber(s) Diam. (in.) n Tree? 1=poor for 5=excellent PrOppWia I Body: Director/Staff 191 Horsechestnut 10 No 4 M&grgEva IQAnT 192 Coast live oak 23,18 Yes 3 N gInatelredvithin F5dknalJ1 vhmlAprint 193 Horsechestnut 9 No 1 Low within new bld.ctoofoiellow suit. 195 Coast live oak 12 Yes 4 Moderate within 5' of ret. wall 196 Coast live oak 10,5 Yes 4 Moderate within 5' of ret. wall 205 London plane 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 206 London plane 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 210 London plane 6 No 5 High within new road/driveway 211 London plane 7 No 5 High within new road/driveway 222 London plane 10 No 5 High within new road/driveway 223 London plane 12 No 5 High within new road/driveway 228 Purpleleaf plum 7 No 2 Low within new road/driveway; low suit. 233 Deodar cedar 7 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 234 Deodar cedar 5 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 235 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 236 Deodar cedar 4 No 3 Moderate within new bld. footprint 237 Purpleleaf plum 6 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 238 Purpleleaf plum 6,5 No 2 Low within new bld. footprint; low suit. 239 Purpleleaf plum 7,4 No 1 Low within new bld. footprint; low suit. 240 Coast redwood 16 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 241 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 242 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 243 Coast redwood 15 No 3 Moderate grading impacts 247 London plane 8 No 5 High grading impacts 249 London plane 9 No 5 High within new bld. footprint 251 Chinese pistache 7 No 4 High within new bld. footprint 253 Camphor 10 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 254 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 255 Camphor 9 No 4 Moderate within new road/driveway 257 Chinese pistache 8 No 5 High within new road/driveway 258 Chinese pistache 6 No 4 High within new road/driveway 260 Chinese pistache 9 No 5 High grading impacts; retaining wall 261 Coast live oak 15,11 Yes 4 High grading impacts 264 Coast live oak 12,9,7 Yes 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 265 Coast live oak 7,7,5,5,5,5, Yes 2 Low within new bld. footprint; low suit. 5,4,4,4 266 Coast live oak 14,10,9 Yes 4 Moderate within new bld. footprint 269 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 3 Moderate grading impacts 270 Deodar cedar 13 Yes 4 Moderate grading impacts Page 3 of 3 HORTICULTURE I ARBORICULTURE I URBAN FORESTRY Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO VED PPRO Case# 1-034 A io Number(s) June 30, 2017 Approval Body�i�� t$>� Peter Lin Approva I Date 01/ 4/22 Vice President Greenbrier Development Signature Erika Poveda 3232 McKinney, Suite 1160 Case Manager Dallas, TX 75204 Subject: EIR Alternative Tree Impact Assessment The Forum, Cupertino CA Dear Mr. Lin: Greenbrier Development is in the planning stage for the proposed expansion of the Forum, in Cupertino. HortScience, Inc. prepared an Arborist Report for the site in April of 2017. As part of the Environmental Impact Report(EIR) process, two development alternatives have been proposed, one of which included construction of homes in an area not previously assessed. Greenbrier Development requested that HortScience, Inc. visit the site to assess the additional trees and evaluate the impacts to trees from the EIR Alternatives. This letter responds to that request. The EIR alternatives are as follows: • Alternative 1 — Reduced Density. This alternative eliminates 4 villas from the `berm' area near the site entrance, including villas#69, 70, 78 and 83. • Alternative 2— Reduced Density and Relocation. This alternative would eliminate the same 4 villas as described for Alternative 1, and would also: remove one proposed villa between Via Esplendor and Stonehaven Dr. (V62); remove one proposed villa at the western portion of the property(V65); and remove one of the two-story duplex villas at Sereno Ct. and replace it with a single-story villa (V64). Description of Trees The 3 villas proposed for relocation in Alt. 2 would be moved to an area not included in the April 2017 Arborist Report. As such, I visited the site on June 15, 2017 to assess the additional trees potentially impacted by the relocated villas. All trees 6" and larger in diameter, measured at 54" above grade were included in the assessment. Descriptions of the trees are provided in the Tree Assessment Form and locations are shown on the EIR Alternative Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments). Nineteen (19)trees were located in and adjacent to that portion of the ridge where the 3 villas proposed for relocation in Alt. 2. This included the following: • Six (6)young to semi-mature London planes (#293-298). Trees#293 and 294 were located on the west side of Via Esplendor where existing parking stalls are proposed to be removed. London planes#295-298 were along the east side of Via Esplendor, where the bioswale will be located. Trunk diameters ranged from 6"to 12" and condition was fair for trees#294-298, all of which had sparse canopies. London plane#293 was in poor condition with a dead top. DRAFT EIR Alternative Tree Impact Assessment Commu�41�q @loment Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 2 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTMO APPROVED • Four(4)young to semi-mature coast live oaks Rwnu in a chicter(#�s = 1-034 All of these had multiple stems arising below the 54" measurement pMitip"Number(s) trunk diameters ranged from 3"to 13". Coast live oak#286 was in ood condition, #287 and 288 were in fair condition PI QiOp irector/Staff • Three (3)young deodar cedars (#283, 285 andR.0pf-oT\4,ly d inOrVO14/22 diameter from 10"to 12" and all were in good to excellent condition. • Three (3)semi-mature coast redwoods (#280-2�014blSgtring F'ri45pf2p\4fi0a,n1< diameter. These were located on the eastern side of the pedestrian trail(ilMiftgrger along the top of the ridge. Coast redwood #282 was in good condition and #280 and 281 were in fair. All three had varying amounts of twig and branch dieback associated with water stress. • One Aleppo pine (#284), 1 tulip poplar(#290)and 1 Calif. pepper(#292)were assessed. The tulip poplar was young (7" in diameter) and in fair condition. The Aleppo pine was semi-mature (10"trunk diameters)and in poor condition due to a stem failure. Calif. pepper#292 was mature and a multi-stemmed, with trunks ranging from 9"to 20" in diameter. It was in fair condition and was located at the top of a small knoll adjacent to the pedestrian path. The City of Cupertino defines Specimen tree as any from a list of 15 species with a trunk diameter of 10 inches for single-trunk trees and a cumulative 20 inches for multi-trunk trees. The following species evaluated at the site were on this list: Deodar cedar, coast live oak, and valley oak. Based on this definition, 6 of the new trees qualified as Specimen trees. Specimen trees are identified in the Tree Assessment(see Exhibits). When combined with the 279 trees assessed as part of the April 2017 Arborist Report, there was a total of 298 trees assessed across the site. A total of 43 of the 298 trees qualified as Specimen trees. Evaluation of Impacts used the Site Plans and Grading Plans for Alternatives#1 and #2 (Sheets C3.7.2, C3.8.2, C4.7.2 and C4.8.2), prepared by BKF Engineers (dated 6/20/2017), to assess impacts to trees. Based on my review of the plans, impacts would be as follows: ■ Alternative 1 — Reduced Density: No additional trees would be removed and all 19 of the new trees assessed on the ridge would be preserved. This alternative would preserve 183 trees, including 22 Specimen trees, and remove 115 trees, 21 of which qualified as Specimen trees. This would be similar to the proposed project. ■ Alternative 2— Reduced Density and Relocation: I estimated that 9 of the 19 new trees assessed on the ridge would be removed to accommodate the 3 relocated villas and the bioswale, 3 of which qualified as Specimen trees. Although 10 trees would be preserved on Lot 64, the new alignment of the single-story villa would remove 6 additional trees, for a net of 4. Alternative 2 would preserve a total of 198 trees, including 25 Specimen trees, and remove 100 trees, 18 of which qualified as Specimen trees. As described in our April 2017 Arborist Report, the proposed project would remove 115 trees (23 Specimen trees) and preserve 164 trees (14 Specimen trees). When compared to the proposed project, Alternative 2 would preserve an additional 34 trees (10 on the ridge, 6 on Lot 62, 4 on Lot 64 and 14 on Lot 65), including 11 Specimen trees. HortScience, Inc. 1 325 Ray St. I Pleasanton,CA 94566 phone 925.484.0211 1 fax 925.484.5096 1 www.hortscience.com EIR Alternative Tree Impact Assessment Commu "@foment Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 3 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED In summary, no additional trees would be removed and I .# and the 19 ne;F -ZQ�A-034 the ridge would be preserved. Alternative 2 would remove 9 of the new ridgy thse p aNdmberw preserve 34 additional trees across the site. Table 1, following pa e, provides recommendations for action for each tree under AlterneAp. , L dy: Director/Staff Ag�1�rQQva LDate 01/04/22 The Tree Preservation Guidelines provided in the April 2U17 Ar orlst eport apply LU the preservation of the new ridge trees. Successful preiiSoRtUtref any IififtRl p. predicated on adhering to those guidelines. case Manager If you have any questions regarding my observations or recommendations, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, ,�db 7 John Leffingwell Board Certified Master Arborist#3966B Registered Consulting Arborist#442 Attached: Tree Assessment Form EIR Alternative Tree Inventory Map HortScience, Inc. 1 325 Ray St. I Pleasanton, CA 94566 phone 925.484.0211 1 fax 925.484.5096 1 www.hortscience.com EIR Alternative Tree Impact Assessment Commu "@foment Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 4 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Table 1: Recommendations&PAton. TR-2021-034 The Forum, Cupertino CA Application Number(s) Director tall Lot# Tree Species Trunk Sp ova I DWte1 01A06122 No. Diameter Signature Erika Poveda (in.) Case Manager 62 190 Horsechestnut 10 No Remove Preserve 62 191 Horsechestnut 10 No Remove Preserve 62 192 Coast live oak 23,18 Yes Remove Preserve 62 193 Horsechestnut 9 No Remove Preserve 62 194 Coast live oak 11,11,10,9 Yes Preserve Preserve 62 195 Coast live oak 12 Yes Remove Preserve 62 196 Coast live oak 10,5 Yes Remove Preserve 62 200 Coast live oak 6 No Preserve Preserve 65 233 Deodar cedar 7 No Remove Preserve 65 234 Deodar cedar 5 No Remove Preserve 65 235 Deodar cedar 4 No Remove Preserve 65 236 Deodar cedar 4 No Remove Preserve 65 237 Purpleleaf plum 6 No Remove Preserve 65 238 Purpleleaf plum 6,5 No Remove Preserve 65 239 Purpleleaf plum 7,4 No Remove Preserve 65 240 Coast redwood 16 No Remove Preserve 65 241 Coast redwood 15 No Remove Preserve 65 242 Coast redwood 19 No Remove Preserve 65 243 Coast redwood 15 No Remove Preserve 65 247 London plane 8 No Remove Preserve 65 249 London plane 9 No Remove Preserve 65 251 Chinese pistache 7 No Remove Preserve 64 253 Camphor 10 No Remove Preserve 64 254 Camphor 9 No Remove Preserve 64 255 Camphor 9 No Remove Preserve 64 257 Chinese pistache 8 No Remove Preserve 64 258 Chinese pistache 6 No Remove Preserve 64 260 Chinese pistache 9 No Remove Preserve 64 261 Coast live oak 15,11 Yes Remove Preserve 64 264 Coast live oak 12,9,7 Yes Remove Preserve 64 265 Coast live oak 7,7,5,5,5,5,5, Yes Remove Preserve 64 266 Coast live oak 14,10,9 Yes Remove Preserve 64 271 Aleppo pine 21 No Preserve Remove 64 272 Chinese pistache 9 No Preserve Remove 64 273 Coast redwood 18 No Preserve Remove 64 274 Coast redwood 20 No Preserve Remove 64 275 Aleppo pine 16 No Preserve Remove 64 276 Coast redwood 25 No Preserve Remove (Continued, following page) EIR Alternative Tree Impact Assessment Commu "@foment Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 5 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Table 1: Recommendations for AcGd6,eCvantinued. TR-2021-034 The Forum, Cupertino CA Application Number(s) -ppr$ Dud taff Lot# Tree Species Trunk SpApAL.9vaI QjMt.ej 01&1/ 2 No. Diameter Signature Erika Poveda (in.) Case Manager Ridge 280 Coast redwood 14 No Preserve Preserve Ridge 281 Coast redwood 12 No Preserve Preserve Ridge 282 Coast redwood 14 No Preserve Preserve Ridge 283 Deodar cedar 10 Yes Preserve Remove Ridge 284 Aleppo pine 10,10 No Preserve Remove Ridge 285 Deodar cedar 10 Yes Preserve Preserve Ridge 286 Coast live oak 13,13,11,6,E Yes Preserve Preserve Ridge 287 Coast live oak 6,4,3,3 No Preserve Remove Ridge 288 Coast live oak 11,9,7 Yes Preserve Remove Ridge 289 Coast live oak 7,6,6,5,3 Yes Preserve Remove Ridge 290 Tulip poplar 7 No Preserve Remove Ridge 291 Deodar cedar 12 Yes Preserve Preserve Ridge 292 Calif. pepper 20,16,12,10, No Preserve Preserve 9 Ridge 293 London plane 9 No Preserve Remove Ridge 294 London plane 12 No Preserve Preserve Ridge 295 London plane 8 No Preserve Remove Ridge 296 London plane 7 No Preserve Remove Ridge 297 London plane 6 No Preserve Preserve Ridge 298 London plane 6 No Preserve Preserve Tree Assessment The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department L Cupertino, CA January and June 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HO P SCIENCE tuPEarlNo APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent ap ar Lval&ady- Diroctor / Sta: f 280 Coast redwood 14 No 3 Moderate Good form and 0� ltbgf_@nopy)Vj4#22�w growth. 281 Coast redwood 12 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; thin, es. in upper canopy; small new growth. 282 Coast redwood 14 No 4 Moderate Good form and-Sjg lua[tW;4hinnirF: iV/eQ glI nPw nrn%4h 283 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 4 Moderate Good, upright form; one sided S. case Manager 284 Aleppo pine 10,10 No 2 Low Codominant trunks at 1'; stem failed on E. side; remaining stems sweep from base; dead tops. 285 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; low branching. 286 Coast live oak 13,13,11,6,E Yes 4 Moderate Multiple attachments at 2'; one sided w/low laterals S. 287 Coast live oak 6,4,3,3 No 3 Moderate Suppressed; one sided W.; poor form. 288 Coast live oak 11,9,7 Yes 3 Low Codominant trunks at 2'; one sided NW.; 7" stem w/dead top. 289 Coast live oak 7,6,6,5,3 Yes 1 Low Mostly dead. 290 Tulip poplar 7 No 3 Low No central leader; poor structure; moderate tulip scale &dieback. 291 Deodar cedar 12 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; crown raised E. over trail; asphalt trail displaced 2". 292 Calif. pepper 10,16,12,10, No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 2'; sparse upper canopy; moderate internal decay; crown raised E. over seating. 293 London plane 9 No 1 Low Dead top; epicormics in lower crown. 294 London plane 12 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at 8'; good form and structure; sparse canopy. 295 London plane 8 No 3 Moderate Slight lean S.; anthracnose; twig dieback/sparse canopy; epicormics. 296 London plane 7 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; anthracnose; twig dieback/sparse canopy; epicormics. 297 London plane 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; anthracnose; twig dieback/sparse canopy; epicormics. 298 London plane 6 No 3 Moderate Multiple attachments at T; anthracnose; twig dieback/sparse canopy; epicormics. Page lofl Q Tree Inventory Map EIR Alternative The Forum at Rancho San Antonio ro — Cupertino, CA Prepared for: a Greenbriar Development Dallas,TX O — — (U • L June 2017 L � °v,' fa a a c W C) 284—Trees to be removed under Alt.2 v No Scale o \ Notes: ""• Base map provided by: \� \ BKF 28 Walnut Creek,CA \ \ 80 ® Numbered tree locations are approximate. / N O • aAf 325 Ray Street Pleasanton,CA 94566 Phone 925.484.0211 Fax 925.484.0596 www.hortscience.com +� C Q Tree Inventory Map • 2 J EIR Alternative 2 The Forum at Rancho San Antonio v C„ to 3 Cupertino, CA > ` � 7 QI w j g> u i a Prepared for: a • Y Green briar Development Dallas,TX M w • N t6 ry L > > June 2017 Q) L L 7 U Q 67 2 No Scale -� 60 0 263 61 �\ Notes: O Base map provided by: 25 255 • BKF / 25 Walnut Creek,CA 2 Numbered tree locations \ are approximate. • SERPNO COuR1 78'/ 279 �� \ NORT SCIENCE 325 Ray Street Ple Pleasanton,CA 94566 / - \ Phone 925.484.484.0596 Fax 926.464.0996 www.hortscience.com HORTICULTURE I ARBORICULTURE I URBAN FORESTRY Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO VED PPRO Case# 1-034 A io ' Number(s) August 16, 2017 Approva I Bod)n&jtgc i5t$t4C F Approva I Date 01/ 4/22 Peter Lin Signature Erika Poveda Vice President Greenbrier Development Case Manager 3232 McKinney, Suite 1160 Dallas, TX 75204 Subject: Arborist Report Addendum The Forum, Cupertino CA Dear Mr. Lin: Greenbrier Development is in the planning stage for the proposed expansion of the Forum, in Cupertino. HortScience, Inc. prepared an Arborist Report for the site in April of 2017. As the development plans have been refined, additional trees in areas not previously impacted by the proposed development have been identified due to the following: • As part of the review process, the City of Cupertino has requested Greenbrier Development to explore the potential to expand an existing detention basin to accommodate additional volume associated with impervious surface proposed as part of the project. • New parking has been added across from the detention basin. • A trash enclosure and fuel tank have been added next to the skilled nursing. • A trail is proposed in the vicinity of the dog park. Greenbrier Development requested that HortScience, Inc. visit the site to assess the additional trees potentially impacted by the detention basin expansion, parking, trash enclosure and trail. This letter responds to that request. Description of Trees visited the site on July 20, and August 7 2017 to assess the additional trees. All trees 6" and larger in diameter, measured at 54" above grade were included in the assessment. Descriptions of the trees are provided in the Tree Assessment Form and locations are shown on the Tree Inventory Map (see Attachments). A total of 48 additional trees were assessed and are described below. The existing detention basin is located north of the proposed memory care facility, in the area of trees#75-85. Thirty-two (32) additional trees were assessed around the detention basin. These were tagged as#299-330 and included the following: • Eleven (11)Aleppo pines. Four(4)of these were young, with diameters of less than 6"to 7". The remaining 7 were semi-mature, with trunk diameters between 14" and 18". The Aleppo pines in this area had not performed well, with 4 trees in poor condition, 5 in fair and 2 in good. In general, where they had been planted on steep slopes they had developed leans and several were failing at the base. Arborist Report Addendum Commu�ff'y@lent Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 2 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTlNO APPROVED • Six(6) red ironbark eucalyptus. These were yo �o�e�r _mat A-4- �21-034 diameters between 10"and 19". Four(4)were in poor condition an(�'pp�Vgigniihumberw fair. Most had been topped, producing trees with poor for and structure. Approval ody: Director/Staff • Six(6)coast redwoods measuring 19"to 21" in $d7Ai (#310MV,422 and 328). These were in a row in the rear yard Q?f the adjacent Via Es lendor residence to the north. Four(4)of the Coast retYFv@ and 2 were in fair. All had varying amounts of twig and branch dieback Case Manager associated with water stress. • Two (2)young coast live oaks (#316 and 317). Coast live oak#316 was in good condition and #317 was in fair condition. • Two (2) arroyo willows (#324 and 325). These were located at the bottom of the detention basin surrounding the existing drain inlet. As is typical of the species, both trees had experienced branch failures but were vigorous and in fair condition. • One (1) Bailey acacia (#300), 1 Canary Island date palm (#321), 1 Lombardy poplar(#322), 1 deodar cedar(#329)and 1 callery pear(#330)were assessed. The bailey acacia was young (6" in diameter) and in fair condition. The Canary Island date palm was semi-mature (12") and in excellent condition. The Lombardy poplar was also young (8") and in poor condition. The deodar cedar was young (10")and in good condition and the callery pear was young (6")and in fair condition. Four(4)trees were assessed in the area of the new parking proposed across from the detention basin. These were tagged as#331-334 and included the following: • Four(4)semi-mature London planes measuring 12"to 17" in trunk diameter. All were in good condition and all had slight thinning of their canopies. Three (3)trees were assessed in the area of the new trash enclosure and fuel tank proposed west of the existing skilled nursing facility. These were tagged as#335-337 and included the following: • Three (3)young to semi-mature London planes measuring 7"to 12" in trunk diameter. London planes#335 and 336 were in fair condition and#337 was in good condition. All had thinning of their canopies and twig dieback. Nine (9)trees were assessed in the area of the new trail and dog park. These were tagged as#338-346 and included the following: • Four(4)young to semi-mature horse chestnuts measuring 9"to 14" in trunk diameter. Condition varied from poor(#343)to good (340), with 2 trees (#338 and 341) in fair condition. • Four(4)young to semi-mature coast live oaks measuring 7"to 20" in trunk diameter. Trees#344-346 were in good condition and#342 was in excellent. • Blue gum#339 was still a sapling, with two stems measuring 3" and 4" in trunk diameter. It was in fair condition, with good vigor. HortScience, Inc. 1 325 Ray St. I Pleasanton,CA 94566 phone 925.484.0211 1 fax 925.484.5096 1 www.hortscience.com Arborist Report Addendum Commu�ff'y@lent Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 3 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED The City of Cupertino defines Specimen tree as any fro gs#raf l ti encrice` g-J& 034 diameter of 10 inches for single-trunk trees and a cumulative 20 inches for rr�6R1iV.b?jkNun ber(s) trees. The following species evaluated at the site were QQn this list: Deo ar cedar, coast live oak, and valley oak. Based on this definition, 4 of thAPAERtgikPt y: E@gWr/Staff including tree#329 adjacent to the detention basin ands pet 4g lcplk#342,C3WG4iR2 346 adjacent to the trail/dog park qualified as Specimen rees. Specimen trees are identified in the Tree Assessment(see Exhibits). Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager When combined with the 279 trees assessed as part of the April 2017 Arborist Report, there was a total of 327 trees assessed across the site. A total of 41 of the 327 trees qualified as Specimen trees. A total of 346 trees were tagged on the site. However, trees#280-298 were tagged as part of an analysis of alternative designs and are not included in the totals discussed above. This is why only 327 trees are discussed as part of this report but tag numbers go up to#346. Evaluation of Impacts The July 20 and August 7, 2017 Tree Assessment was the reference point for tree health and condition. I used the Memory Care Grading Plan (Sheet C4.2) and the Villas Grading Plan (Sheet C4.7) prepared by BKF Engineers (dated July 19, 2017), to assess impacts to trees. In addition to the 32 new trees assessed around the detention basin, 6 of the trees from our April 2017 Arborist Report will be directly impacted by the expanded detention basin grading, including#74-79. Similarly, tree#189 trees from our April 2017 Arborist Report is located in the area of the dog park/path and will also be directly impacted. Based on my review of the plans, 30 of the trees would be removed to accommodate the proposed improvements, 4 of which qualified as Specimen trees (#74, 189, 342 and 345). Trees identified for removal included 21 impacted by the detention basin grading, 1 within the new parking, 2 within the new trash enclosure/fuel tank and 6 within the trail. Table 1 (following page) provides the recommended action for each tree. Twenty-five (25)of the trees can be preserved, including 17 around the detention basin, 3 adjacent to the new parking, 1 adjacent to the new trash enclosure/fuel tank and 4 in the area of the trail. I would recommend supplemental irrigation be applied to coast redwoods#76, 77 312, 313 and 314 prior to and following grading to help them prepare for and recover from the root loss associated with the detention basin grading. As described in our April 2017 Arborist Report, the proposed project would remove 115 trees (23 Specimen trees) and preserve 164 trees (14 Specimen trees). When combined with the trees identified for removal for expansion of the detention basin; new parking, trash/fuel tank enclosure and the trail, a total of 142 trees would be removed, including 25 Specimen trees. A total of 185 trees can be preserved, including 16 Specimen trees. The Tree Preservation Guidelines provided in the April 2017 Arborist Report apply to the preservation of the new trees assessed around the detention basin. Successful preservation of any of the trees is predicated on adhering to those guidelines. Arborist Report Addendum Commu�ff'y@lent Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 4 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED If you have any questions regarding my observations ot`t`c�a andationc plmii1-034 free to contact me. Application Number(s) Sincerely, Approval Body: Director/Staff � 4r Approval Date 01/04/22 Signature Erika Poveda John Leffingwell Case Manager Board Certified Master Arborist#3966B Registered Consulting Arborist#442 Attached: Tree Assessment Form Addendum Tree Inventory Map Table 1: Recommendations for Action. The Forum, Cupertino CA Tree Species Trunk Specimen Recommendation No. Diameter for (in.) Action 74 Coast live oak 21 Yes Remove, within detention basin grading 75 Coast live oak 12,10 Yes Preserve, 8' NE. of Det. basin grading 76 Deodar cedar 17 Yes Preserve, provide 10' min. from Det. basin grading 77 Coast redwood 23 No Preserve, provide 10' min. from Det. basin grading 78 Red ironbark 23 No Remove, within detention basin grading 79 Red ironbark 19 No Remove, within detention basin grading 189 Coast live oak 10 Yes Remove, impacted by path grading 299 Aleppo pine 6 No Remove, within detention pond grading 300 Bailey acacia 6 No Remove, within detention pond grading 301 Aleppo pine 16 No Remove, within detention pond grading 302 Aleppo pine 16 No Remove, within detention pond grading 303 Aleppo pine 14 No Remove, within detention pond grading 304 Aleppo pine 18 No Preserve, 8' NE. of Det. Pond grading 305 Aleppo pine 18 No Preserve, 12' NE. of Det. Pond grading 306 Red iron bark 10 No Preserve, 7' NE. of Det. Pond grading 307 Aleppo pine 6 No Remove, impacted by det. pond grading 308 Red iron bark 14 No Remove, impacted by det. pond grading 309 Red iron bark 13 No Preserve, 15' NE. of Det. Pond grading 310 Coast redwood 19 No Preserve, 20' N. of Det. Pond grading 311 Coast redwood 21 No Preserve, 15' N. of Det. Pond grading (Continued, following page) HortScience, Inc. 1 325 Ray St. I Pleasanton,CA 94566 phone 925.484.0211 1 fax 925.484.5096 1 www.hortscience.com Arborist Report Addendum CommM'y@lent Department Greenbrier Homes. The Forum, Cupertino Page 5 Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Table 1: Recommendations for Action, cgntinued. TR-2021-034 The Forum, Cupertino se H Application Number(s) Tree Species Trunk Specimen Appr%pjA?qyldaj6jctor/Staff No. Diameter Approva I Nbe 01/04/22 (in.) Signature Acticffika Poveda r--Manager 312 Coast redwood 21 No Preserve, provide 10' min. from Det. Pond grading 313 Coast redwood 19 No Preserve, provide 10' min. from Det. Pond grading 314 Coast redwood 20 No Preserve, provide 10' min. from Det. Pond grading 315 Aleppo pine 18,14 No Remove, failing at base 316 Coast live oak 6 No Remove, within detention pond grading 317 Coast live oak 6 No Remove, within detention pond grading 318 Red iron bark 19 No Remove, within detention pond grading 319 Red iron bark 19 No Remove, within detention pond grading 320 Red iron bark 17 No Remove, within detention pond grading 321 Canary Island 12 No Remove, within detention pond grading palm 322 Lombardy 8 No Remove, within detention pond grading poplar 323 Aleppo pine 16 No Remove, within detention pond grading 324 Arroyo willow 10,7,E No Remove, within detention pond grading 325 Arroyo willow 8,5 No Remove, within detention pond grading 326 Aleppo pine 6,5 No Remove, within detention pond grading 327 Aleppo pine 7 No Remove, within detention pond grading 328 Coast redwood 19 No Preserve, 20' N. of Det. Pond grading 329 Deodar cedar 10 Yes Preserve, 7' N. of parking grading 330 Callery pear 6 No Preserve, 7' E. of path grading 331 London plane 16 No Preserve, outside impacts 332 London plane 12 No Remove, within new parking 333 London plane 17 No Preserve, 5' N. & S. of new parking 334 London plane 17 No Preserve, 5' SE. of new parking 335 London plane 10 No Preserve, 10' N. of trash encl. 336 London plane 7 No Remove, within trash encl. 337 London plane 12 No Remove, within fuel tank 338 Horsechestnut 11 No Remove, within path grading 339 Blue gum 4,3 No Remove, within path grading 340 Horsechestnut 14 No Preserve, 8' N. of path grading 341 Horsechestnut 11 No Preserve, 8' N. of path grading 342 Coast live oak 16 Yes Remove, within path grading 343 Horsechestnut 9 No Remove, within path grading 344 Coast live oak 7 No Remove, impacted by path grading 345 Coast live oak 16 Yes Remove, impacted by path grading 346 Coast live oak 20 Yes Preserve, 10' S. of path grading Tree Assessment The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA January, June and August 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlNo APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent ,� Qp ar-�v_aJ_B -dy- Diroctor / Sta:ff 74 Coast live oak 21 Yes 4 High Multiple attach"ANFA9'(b'f@ding(pt¢4y22pod form. 75 Coast live oak 12,10 Yes 4 High Codominant tr4rtks at 1'; ood form; dense crown. naturg Erika PQveda, 76 Deodar cedar 17 Yes 5 High Good form and s§ucture; d . ase anager 77 Coast redwood 23 No 5 High Good form and structure; dense crown; branches to ground. 78 Red ironbark 23 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; slightly thin crown. 79 Red ironbark 19 No 3 Moderate Codominant trunks at 7'; previously topped; slightly thin crown. 189 Coast live oak 10 Yes 5 High Multiple attachments at 8'; slight lean north; dense crown. 299 Aleppo pine 6 No 3 Low Crowded by#79; one sided NW.; trunk wounds. 300 Bailey acacia 6 No 3 Low Crowded by#79; leans N. 301 Aleppo pine 16 No 3 Moderate Corrected lean W.; whole tree failures in area. 302 Aleppo pine 16 No 1 Low Failed at base; laying on ground. 303 Aleppo pine 14 No 3 Moderate Leans W.; crook in upper canopy; whole tree failures in area. 304 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 Moderate Upright form; one sided W. 305 Aleppo pine 18 No 4 High Upright form. 306 Red iron bark 10 No 2 Low Suppressed; upper crown bowed S. 307 Aleppo pine 6 No 3 Low Crowded by#308; one sided S.; poor form. 308 Red iron bark 14 No 3 Low Small, sparse crown. 309 Red iron bark 13 No 3 Moderate Leans N.; sparse crown. 310 Coast redwood 19 No 4 Moderate Upright form; sparse crown. 311 Coast redwood 21 No 4 Moderate Upright form; sparse crown. 312 Coast redwood 21 No 3 Moderate Upright form; very sparse crown. 313 Coast redwood 19 No 3 Moderate Upright form; very sparse crown. 314 Coast redwood 20 No 4 Moderate Upright form; sparse crown. 315 Aleppo pine 18,14 No 2 Low Failing at base to S.; crown bowed heavily NW. 316 Coast live oak 6 No 5 High Good young tree; upright, narrow form. 317 Coast live oak 6 No 3 Moderate Crowded; leans NE. 318 Red iron bark 19 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 10'; topped at 25'. 319 Red iron bark 19 No 2 Low Multiple attachments at 15'; topped at 25'. 320 Red iron bark 17 No 2 Low Topped at 25'. 321 Canary Island palrr 12 No 5 High Crowded but trying to emerge through canopies. 322 Lombardy poplar 8 No 2 Low Upright form; dead top; many root sprouts. Page 1 of 2 Tree Assessment The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development Department Cupertino, CA January, June and August 2017 Planning Division — Cupertino HORT SCIENCE tuPEarlNo APPROVED Tree Species Trunk Specimen Condition Suitability for Comments Case# TR-2021-034 No. Diameter Tree? 1=poor Preservation ApplicationNumber(s) (in.) 5=excellent ap{a.ro_Ua_LBady- niroctor / Sta:f 323 Aleppo pine 16 No 2 Low Upright; sparseA OPF8yra I Date 01/04/22 324 Arroyo willow 10,7,E No 3 Low Poor form and structure; many root sprouts. 325 Arroyo willow 8,5 No 3 Low Crowded; crow5ig,W&l Erika Poveda 326 Aleppo pine 6,5 No 2 Low Suppressed; leans E. to horizontal. Case Manager 327 Aleppo pine 7 No 3 Moderate Leans S.; a little sparse. 328 Coast redwood 19 No 4 Moderate Upright form; lost top; sparse crown. 329 Deodar cedar 10 Yes 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 330 Callery pear 6 No 3 Moderate Good form and structure; sparse crown; minor fireblight. 331 London plane 16 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly sparse crown; girdling roots. 332 London plane 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant at 7'with wide attachment; slightly thin crown. 333 London plane 17 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10'; slightly thin. 334 London plane 17 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. 335 London plane 10 No 3 Moderate Good form; thin crown; branch tearout on west. 336 London plane 7 No 3 Moderate Twig dieback; good form. 337 London plane 12 No 4 Moderate Good form and structure; sparse upper crown; twig dieback. 338 Horsechestnut 11 No 3 Low Crack in trunk seam from base to 6'; full crown; multiple attachments at 7'. 339 Blue gum 4,3 No 3 Moderate Codominant at base; good vigor. 340 Horsechestnut 14 No 4 High Excellent health and structure; full, dense crown; small trunk wound. 341 Horsechestnut 11 No 3 Low Trunk wound; thin crown with twig and branch dieback. 342 Coast live oak 16 Yes 5 High Excellent health and structure; full, dense crown. 343 Horsechestnut 9 No 2 Low Extremely thin crown with extensive dieback. 344 Coast live oak 7 No 4 High Good form and structure; slight lean to west. 345 Coast live oak 16 Yes 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin. 346 Coast live oak 20 Yes 4 Moderate Corrected form; full, dense crown. Page 2 of 2 1 � I am 44 OR +� • ♦Q �'. tea/ � � �/ RMN �• �' v� • '7/ ►� ■ice r`� A Sri, �, . ,, �,_ ♦a'', + +� Community Development Department Plan Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED .Case#: H O RT 5 �@4 tV"tr�t(s) September 29, 2019 BARTLETT CONSULTING Ur-bns of lPe ,,.G_rLIeL e "I"" y Approval Body: Director/Staff Dennis Lindner 01/04/22 Quiring General LLC Approval Date 5118 East Clinton Way, Ste. 201 Signature Erika Poveda Fresno, CA 93727 Case Manager Subject: Forum -Additional tree removals Cupertino Dear Mr. Lindner: The City of Mountain View requested that 12 additional off-site trees along California St. and Pacchetti Way be evaluated for the MVSA project. I tagged and measured trees on September 26, 2019. Trees were tagged #241-252. The following summarizes my findings. Twelve trees were evaluated. Three Chinese pistache on Pacchetti Way were in planter strips between curb and sidewalk. Tree#241 was in good condition, while trees#242 and 243 were in fair condition. Six evergreen pears were growing in the median planter along Pacchetti Way. Trees were young to mature, with trunk diameters from 2 to 17 inches. Trees were in fair condition with fair structure and some crown thinning. Two mature Australian willows were growing in the planter on California street. Tree#250 was in fair condition with a thin upper crown and history of large branch failure. Tree#251 was in good condition with dense crown. The young red maple (#252) in front of the new building across California St. was dead. Please contact me if you have any questions about my observations. Sincerely, 4...'�-� Deanne Ecklund Registered Consulting Arborist#647 Attached: Tree Assessment Tree Inventory Map Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTMO APPROVED Case# TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) z Approval Body: Director/Staff MC V1 a I 3421�p /04/22 - ,JA oA Xe 4 , X1EW6P Poveda I, c s4s FF 34d94. 34x.75 �easse M Tc t PAO U&Z; . r 7 as uy�e'3i2-52 - Bayxn+ris.fgnlalna ..�,., •...CONTOURS UN I T�� ,T' -- ow 3484 base or ho ees Tree k1g9 s ! PAD J f.B� ' .�a27O r .w EL 34ISt 3' along 5lnnehaven Dr. cul 11"Jha for nee neeackded �J46•P PC 342.445- - cN That is needed nor �� y!• 34.0 0811A requiramenls �' ,333.04 1 �3W, CRT 37.00 ►^ G/ F.-2•42.30 {� .-::. Sy3�7, .40 3�r K10 345.4 3 S�0. GRT 33 5 � �45,3$ 344'.Se� Y�[++ 345.flg x Cerrem CaWitiun `Ij1 +� y�3), � d�yRETAW wNc alp?' PFSFV3 Ehmina[e Tree!1,69 'f/�� n 345 54 —,u arrow space for the i - 2 7 Move eavn 31aet excavation W basin 8 - �.� ,. _ PAD west 10 Uear trees _ .tf,�, - 1 3 along$10rlehaven Or. ! 11 1 RESTORE PATH TO i 7. NATURAL GRACE BENCH IH TOP SQL KHOLt SWPPNC AND C.OKR iDH *TH-WH,' TO 3"OC O MDLCK •� _ a lr Geo G 0 8 .. ' ,,.•• .365.40 r'' 0 4, Q 8 0 HortScience Bartlett Consulting . 325 Ray St.Pleasanton,CA 9 925.484.0211 9 www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Plari i_ g Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO "- APPROVED March 5, 2020 NJ Case#AmuwWK Dennis Lindner p Pliratinn N,imhar(5) Quiring General, LLC TBARTLETT CONSULTING 5960 Stoneridge Dr. Suite 207 Approval Bbdy'T0ied&&—,J1St6ff Pleasanton, CA 94588 Approval I Date 01/04/22 Subject: Forum -Additional trees, removals Signature Erika Poveda Cupertino Case Manager Dear Mr. Lindner: You asked that I measure and evaluate additional trees on the Forum site that may need to be removed for development; and you asked that I prepare a letter summarizing reasons for tree removals. We met at the site on February 21, 2020 to review proposed development. Eleven new trees were evaluated and included the following: • one London plane tree (#347) near the new skilled nursing facility (near tree#334); • three Monterey pines and one Siberian elm along Via Esplendor, south of the skilled nursing facility; • and six London planes along Cristo Rey Dr. between Via Ventura and the entry circle. The Tree Assessment(attached) includes the 11 new trees and an additional 7 trees (previously tagged)that will be impacted by development. The Assessment includes tree disposition and reasons for removal. Based on plans, 14 trees will be impacted by construction and will need to be removed. Another tree (Siberian elm#348) is recommended for removal because of its poor structural condition. In order to reduce root damage to Monterey pine#350 (in fair condition) I recommend the trash enclosure be shifted away from tree#350 and closer to Siberian elm #348. Tree#349 is within the proposed trash enclosure location. Preservation of additional trees is predicated on following the Tree Preservation Guidelines in the Arborist Report dated April 20, 2017. Please contact me if you have any questions about my observations. Sincerely, 4--""�-� Deanne Ecklund Registered Consulting Arborist#647 Attached: Tree Assessment Tree Location Maps HortScienceI Bartlett Consulting . 325 Ray St.Pleasanton,CA . 925.484.0211 . www.hortscience.com Additional Tree The Forum at Rancho San Antonio Community Development De \ ment Cupertino, CA Assessment February2020 Planning Divisi ORrt T. SCIENCE APPRO ARTLETT CONSULTING �CUPERTINO P[� � �.,�,� � Tree Species Trunk Specime Condition Suitability Comments Case# TR-202'k.Q� mtmon No. Diamete In Tree? 1=poor for Application Numbers) r(in.) 5=excellen Preservation Approval Body: Director/Staff 331 London plane 16 No 4 High Good form and strubtppr;%Voltpaa arse&�Q4122 Remove for road realignment girdling roots. Signature Erika.Poveda 332 London plane 12 No 4 Moderate Codominant at T with1vide atta — ent se Manager 333 London plane 17 No 4 High Multiple attachments at 10'; slightly thin. Remove for road realignment 334 London plane 17 No 4 High Good form and structure; slightly thin crown. Remove for road realignment 339 Blue gum 4,3 No 3 Moderate Codominant at base; good vigor. Remove for proposed parking 340 Horsechestnut 14 No 4 High Excellent health and structure; full, dense crown; Remove for proposed parking small trunk wound. 341 Horsechestnut 11 No 3 Low Trunk wound; thin crown with twig and branch Preserve dieback. 347 London plane 16 Yes 5 High Good form and structure. Remove for road realignment 348 Siberian elm 22 Yes 3 Low Large cavity at base of stem @ 6'; buried root Remove; poor condition flare; poor structure, good form. 349 Monterey pine 16 Yes 2 Low Thin crown; interior dieback. Remove; trash enclosure, poor condition 350 Monterey pine 19,13 Yes 3 Moderate Codominant trunks @ 4'; good form, fair structure. Preserve 351 Monterey pine 19 Yes 2 Low Thin crown; fair structure. Preserve 352 London plane 4 No 3 Moderate Small, sparse crown. Remove for parking lot 353 London plane 5 No 3 Moderate Fair form and structure; topped. Remove for parking lot 354 London plane 6 No 4 High Typical form and structure; stub cuts. Remove for parking lot 355 London plane 9 No 5 High Good form and structure. Remove for parking lot 356 London plane 10 Yes 5 High Good form and structure; heavy lateral limb. Remove for parking lot 357 London plane 10 Yes 4 High Codominant trunks @ 8'; asymmetrical. Remove for parking lot Page 1of1 Additional Tree Locations Project: Forum at pa OcWrnunity Develo . nt Department Antonio P 1 a gFDli�I i�n SCCi i} Ii:ri�o City: Cupertino cVPERTINQ � BAAFROVEPNSULTING TR-1` ippr'21 F-A 3Wet�Tree Expea company Case# K LUL'I UV<(� pplic umbeat�) C46 it for Staff 1-18 u YPE 10 ARROW ` --Ap Date L WHITE PARKING 6" CUR 24A __ - RKING (TYP) C6.1 + a 2 Erika�dve4a_� 00 NOT ENTER ase Manager � R5- � � t C55 1.16 Gb1 VALLEY 11 —�_ 6" CURB -16 y GUTT� -- 4 47,E--- - AC R r> OAD 332 csc �,. 52 331 CU AND 1-16 UAL 'f 11 C GU R�� CB.1 I r TER Cs.O rrr ; �' ` / Map 1: Trees#331-334 were previously tagged. Trees#347 added Feb. 2020. Tree locations are approximate. set parking elevation sewer cover requirement I slope driveway \ 10%-15°!�-slope, yz,_ 14'wide �.1 � �� r all ` parking a� z } n r rr� l add as m�r �� y -- ----- ' tip Possible r y 1 ,z- 1 �+ Jsave but identify just in case-7-3 5 save but identify just in casenew trash 20' th re tank move fuel enclosure Location 34 — ok to remove wall 1 —existing path to possible removal identify 3 40 I Fortim just in case __ 91 r — 2 new tree removals � { t C le f r wave 24'tree- Identify trees in vicinity just in case- - Jdon't need motorcycle don't need path J parking but fit in where to Tie ig h bors possible save but identify just in case Map 2: Trees#339-341 were previously tagged. Trees#348-351 added Feb. 2020. Tree locations are approximate. HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA • 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com Additional Tree Locations Project: Forum at Antonio ounity Develo ant Department P I �'�'a� gFD P.i�n SCt' PW%ii:rSo City: Cupertino �CVPERTINo gA RQIVEA s u LT I N G T�ivi � l�EAo'8 Tree Expert Company Case # UUV{44 Application Number(s) ` wa)lhvay not n� filed Approval Body: Director/ Staff -= here ` \ Approval Date 01/04/22 ~ Signature Erika Poveda end walk at existing Case Manager � �\ �- path � \ 2 no gaps between parking 3 remove all trees along this parking 54 \ move pa(tN.,D front o\\ stalls � �\ ti 7 1<1 )age will be red somewhere adjust bus parking to maximise number of stalls and avoid the existing inlet GUARDRAIL NEEDED FOR nnnTrnki nc Map 3: Trees#352-358 added Feb. 2020. Tree locations are approximate. HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA • 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Plari i. g Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED May 27, 2020 Case - 1- 4 Dennis Lindner p Pliratinn N,imhar(5) Quiring General, LLC T BARTLETT CONSULTING 5960 Stoneridge Dr. Suite 207 Approval Bbdyt TDied&&_'f1St'6ff Pleasanton, CA 94588 Approva I Date 01/04/22 Subject: Forum -Additional trees and removals Signature Erika Poveda Cupertino Case Manager Dear Mr. Lindner: You asked that I measure and evaluate additional trees on the Forum site that may need to be removed for development; and you asked that I prepare a letter summarizing reasons for tree removals. We met at the site on February 21, 2020 to review proposed development. HortScience prepared an arborist report for the project in April 2017. In August 2017, we tagged and assessed 48 additional trees. Eleven new trees were evaluated in February 2020 and included the following: • one London plane tree (#347) near the new skilled nursing facility (near tree#334); • three Monterey pines (#349-351) and one Siberian (#348) elm along Via Esplendor, south of the skilled nursing facility; • and six London planes along Cristo Rey Dr. between Via Ventura and the entry circle (#352-357). The Tree Assessment(attached) includes the 11 new trees and an additional 7 trees (previously tagged)that will be impacted by development. The Assessment includes tree disposition and reasons for removal. Based on plans, 14 trees will be impacted by construction and will need to be removed. Another tree (Siberian elm #348) is recommended for removal because of its poor structural condition. Transplanting The City requested we explore the feasibility of relocating the London plane trees near the skilled nursing facility along Cristo Rey(#331-334, 347), which need to be removed for road realignment. When assessing whether trees can be successfully transplanted, we evaluate six criteria: species, size, quality, accessibility to plants, new site characteristics, and cost relative to removal and replacement. While trees of this species and in good condition respond well to transplanting, the trees' sizes and existing site conditions make them difficult to relocate and reduce their likelihood of survival. However, the current planter size, location of existing road and curb, and proximity of trees to each other limits the amount of soil and root volume that can be retained. A general guideline for calculating root ball size is 10"for every trunk diameter inch. So for trunks ranging from 12-17 inches, the root balls would need to be 10-14 feet in diameter. Reducing the soil volume and roots captured reduces a tree's ability to survive the transplanting process, and the London planes, while tolerant of root loss, would likely decline post-transplanting. Furthermore, London plane trees are cheap, fast-growing trees that are not considered "high value" in the way native oaks are. Moving trees this size would cost thousands of dollars each. For the same amount of money, many new young trees could be planted that will one day provide more benefits than a few transplanted trees. HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com Additional trees and removals HortScience I Bartlett Consulting May 27, 2020 Page 2 Community Development Department After evaluating tree and site conditions and available root s, I beli&U@n-n�rilrtg3Djr rrg— Cupertino these trees is not a practicable option. cur'ersrirro APPROVED Tree preservation recommendations Case# TR-2021-034 In order to reduce root damage to Monterey pine#350 (in fair condition) I recomrap nchtber4n rw enclosure be shifted away from tree#350 and closer to Siberian elm #348. Tree#349 is within the proposed trash enclosure location. Approval Body: Director/Staff p 9 f� roeP �r tet' 01/04/22 :_ Preservation of additional trees is predicated on following t ere r e va �c;, Gu,ue,„e-. ,,, the Arborist Report dated April 20, 2017. Signature Erika Poveda Case Manager Please contact me if you have any questions about my observations. Sincerely, 4--'-�-� Deanne Ecklund ISA Certified Arborist WE9067-A Registered Consulting Arborist#647 Attached: Tree Assessment Tree Location Maps HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com Community Development Department Plari i- g Division - Cupertino CUPERTINO `- APPROVED July 28, 2021 NJ Case#AmuwWK Nancy Kao p n�liratinn N,imhpr(5) Quiring General, LLC TBARTLETT CONSULTING 5960 Stoneridge Dr. Suite 207 Approval Bbdy'T0ied&&—,J1St6ff Pleasanton, CA 94588 Approva I Date 01/04/22 Subject: Forum Amendment -Additional trees and rerbigrafture Erika Poveda 23500 Cristo Rey Drive, Cupertino Case Manager Dear Nancy Kao: Stephanie Truong asked that I evaluate anticipated impacts from construction of a proposed retaining wall adjacent to London plane#226. She asked that I prepare a letter summarizing my assessment and recommendations. Tree Condition and Evaluation of impacts London plane #226 was rated in good condition ` with good form and structure, based on the ' r 2017 report prepared by HortScience. It was growing in a landscaped median, approximately 24"from the curb. In the 2017r f ' report, it had been recommended for removalz due to anticipated impacts from grading. I reviewed the document titled "Other Documents—Letter of Intent" dated 5-12-2021 and created by Quiring General to assess the tree. The documents included a photo of the tree's location relative to the proposed wall (Photo 1). According to Stephanie Truong, grading will be required due to the sloped conditions of the site. The construction of a wall and associated grading is proposed near the tree, I assume work will occur within 5' of the tree. At this distance (within 3-6 times the tree's trunk diameter of 11"), impacts will occur within the tree's critical root zone, with the potential to adversely affect the tree's long term viability " and stability. I anticipate approximately 50% of Photo 1 — London plane#226 was the tree's root system will be lost and impacts to located next to a proposed wall. the tree will be severe. Tree preservation recommendations Due to the proximity and severity of anticipated impacts associated with the proposed retaining wall and grading work near London plane#226, 1 recommend the removal of the tree. If possible, a replacement tree should be planted in this area after construction of the retaining wall is complete. Please contact me if you have any questions about my observations. Sincerely, �, Jillian Keller, Consulting Arborist and Urban Forester �A,- ISA Certified Arborist Utility Specialist WE-12057A HortScience I Bartlett Consulting • Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 925.484.0211 • www.hortscience.com SMITHGROUP Community Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino CUPERTINO APPROVED Case# TR-2021-034 Application Number(s) October 20, 2021 Approval Body: Director/Staff Approval Date 01/04/22 Project: The Forum Senior Community Update Signature Erika Poveda Address: 23500 Cristo Rey Dr, Cupertino, CA 95014 Case Manager Subject: Tree Removal Permit Justification Statement We are proposing the following tree to be removed: • #226 (11" Diameter) o This tree was recommended for removal in 2017 due to anticipated impacts from grading. However, the owner decided to try to save the tree by building retaining walls around it. In 2021, it became apparent that the roots of the tree spans a much larger area than anticipated. It would not be possible to retain the earth without affecting the health of the tree. Tree Replacement: We are proposing two 24" box platanus to replace tree#226. The new trees were not part of entitlements, have not been used as a replacement tree for any other tree removal, and have not been planted. 301 Battery Street, 71h Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111 T 415.227.0100 F 415.343.2128 Community Development Department Planning Division - Cupertino/ cuPeRTino APPROVED ° THE FORUM Case # TR-2021-034 ° S O` ROM COU Application Numbers) ROM COU / ` • ARC DEN SENIOR Approval Body: Director/ Staff MYR CAL �/ 0 MUH RIG Approval Date 01/04/22 ACH MIL o I- ° O ° CEA YAN COMMUNITY Signature E ka Poveda VER LIL ° o AGO FLE Case Manager ARC MAN 0 ° ---_ RC PAC ° 0 0 o EA J U L UPDATE o e(S QUE OB • ° e EA JUL V64 ` O VILLAS N, 23500 CRISTO REY DRIVE ° \1 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 - ARC DEN APN: 342-54-052 o � ),QUE UB ° ° �► pRop FR 0 0 ° Ty4/l1F ° so CIS PUR �° o 0 0 ♦ 1 MYR CAL � �� ° ° o �/ ♦ O ® • �T of 0 0 MUH RIG ES MAI /� \ CEA YA AGOFLE, SMITHIGROUP ARB MAR ° O o \ 0 i / \\ ARC PAC ° O / i • / > EA JUL 301 BATTERY STREET 7TH FLOOR V65 ° ° - / \ SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 ♦ i • MYR CAL 415.227.0100 ® 0 �� \ _ / CHO TEC www.smithgroup.com ° ♦ �� ROM COU \ / \ V66 • � \ � I . RHA� ® ` o (7) ` ♦ \ 0 ♦ ` RHA CAL Oa a -- CIS PUR ---�----- \ LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING CEA-YAN ARB MAR I 225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941 RHA EVE ARC PAC / T 415 383 7900 F 415 383 1433 www.rhaa.com QUE LO \ MUH RIG FES MA ----T- ---- GO FLE - --- --------- .......... 1 D — VILLAS 64-66 1" = 20'-0" ..... E ISSUED FOR REV DATE P M ... A AC I L ..:::: FES Al ................. CER CAN A EME (E) REE, TY CHRISTO REY DR LIMIT OF WORK MUH RIG A YAN 1 ............ CEA YAN : '' :::: SAL CEL EA JUL ..... ......... . ... ............... ......................... ....................... ......... ........I.... \.................. ............. ........................ ::::::.. UH RIG :::::::: ::::....:::::::::::: ...:... LEY CON ° o '-::................... ........... ...........t.........•................................. ............... ........................ o ....................... ..... HA CAL o ......�..... .............................. ........... ..................................... .................. . .......... ....................... ................. ........................ :......... ..:::::::::..........:::::: .. :::::: :.................... . .............. ........................ .............................................. . ::::::::::: ....................... .......................................\..................... ..................... :::::: ..:::::::::::.. :: T.. :::::................::::::::::... ADDENDUM 01-BC01 4 31 MAY 2019 ::::::::............... ....... ...... .......... .::::::: ..::::::::::::. o ............ ARC EME "'� ADDENDUM APR 2019 ................ ..... PERMIT SUBMITTAL-BCO2 2 22 JAN 2019 0 ... ........... .... ....... ...... ....:........ CER CAN ARC EME CONSTRUCTABILITY REVISIONS 1 22 JAN 2019 .:::::: ::::::::::: :::::: :::::::: :::::: :: :::::: ::::: :: :::::::: :::::: ::::::::::: :::::: ::::::: :::::::. .... - - PERMIT SUBMITTAL BC01 1 05 NOV 2018 A C EME T U F PERMIT SUBMITTAL 04 SEP 2018 PLA ACE A SIRE A A ATT AG TT CAR CA ANI B S AGA ATT M I M PUM LEY CON ' _ SEALS AND SIGNATURES AR MAR AGA ATT SEN SER CER I MIM PUM RHA AL 11 R A EVE ARB V7 RHA � ::: :::� CEA DIA ; NpscaP CHO TE ° Lice qp I— ° ° o ° ° ANI BUS / �, �� W Lu O ° ° ' O J � r' 0 o O ° J Signature J = FES MAI ° LEY CON ° ACH MIL � ® 5-31-2020 en V76 ' F--- Renewal Date uj w ° LEU SAF ° - SAL CEL i �` w 04-22-2019 ° LEO LEO o o LEO LE = s��T Date 00 ANI BUS RHA CAL LEY CON ° rn FOP CAL�FO� z �� 0 CER CAN CAR CAL °� O FES MAI RHA CAL w RHA CAL ACH SA PHI VIR �� SAL CEL LEO LEO MUH RIG Q O ° o MUH RIG CHO TE � CAR CAL � + RHA EVE � � � z O o LUP ALB I ARB MAR 0 SEN SER ° ARC DEN V75 MUH RIG 0 ° - Q ART CAL ° FES MAI 0 o V74 V71 V72 V73 ° o RHA CAL ARC DEN L V-1*� M H RI ° \ART CAL CEA YAN 0 o U G LUP ALB 0 CEA JIJI j RHA EVE ° �" 0 A E o 0 ° MYR CAL ARC MAN + 0 i E A �p49 0 + CHO O - ARC DEN _ MYR CAL + • — — \ i \ --- �` - — --------- C� — — — -- -- ---- SHEET TITLE -_ - - - -- — -- _ _ - - ---- --�-- ------- ------ -- - - -- -- -- PLANTING PLAN — — — _ — — — — —--————— —— —— T. .—.—. --Sz'—�:—.�—.—.Ta —.— ——.�.—. (` —(a`.—T—.—.T�. —.Zip—G�_G—— G • \ a - -- - VILLAS 64 66 -- - — - - — ---- - - - -- - - - -- -- - VILLAS 71 77 LO WOR --_ -- - -- _ _ _ -- LIMI F K _ _ \ O N PROTECT HEALTHY (E) SHRUBS PROPERTY LINE 0 COU FOR SCREENING, COORDINATE HYDROSEED, SEE SPECS. — ENSURE NO TREES OR LARGEUTILITY SETACK: OR TO \ WITH OWNER. 21371.001 SHRUBS ARE PLANTED WITHIN � ' SETBACK PER PG&E GUIDELINES ��o�' SMITHGROUP PROJECT NUMBER 2 E — VILLAS 71 -7 7 0' 1 0' 20' 40' 80' L4mO2 0 1" = 20'-0" GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" = 20'-0" a SHEET NUMBER Communi y Development Department Planning Division — Cupertino THE FORUM CUPERTINQ APPROVED Case # TR-2021-034 i'— �� \_' -�' \ —T •I I _ �' -- / pplication Number(s) 1 ' � i � \ SENIOR �� , \ — \' 6 CEAL JUL Approval Body: hector/Staff . /�;— i�3 GEA JUL �I �� I • 2 C�U€�IVIS -- II Approva I Date 01/04/22 \ — — // • \ 1 5 RHA C —— 10 LUP ALB 2 CER OCC \ 6 1 HA CA , , , - COMMUNITY Signature Erik Poveda \ / — • 1 --__ —— Case Manager — --_— 00�40 U PDATE 40e 0 0 0 0 � ' � _ / � _ / ♦' 3 A CPAC _ 0 0 MEMORY CARE ,4 m 23500 CRISTO REY DR • -'� 0 CUPERTINO, CA 95014 18 LUP LB 2 CER OCC 1 ' 33 \ X APN: 342-54-052 I • � 40, 'b. 000*0 00 13 RHA CAL • I' ° ® I ® _/ ' 1 CER OCC ® I O 5 ARC MAN ' � —' — 1 QUE WIS �` 6 C JUL�— ° \ 1 � \ — _ (E)TR E, TYP. `�D�/ � 3 ICE OCC 10 CEAJUL� SMITHGROUP 3 A ACE 5 1 QUE AGR ` 6 1 CER OCC ` j 301 BATTERY STREET ` 1 PIS CHI �� 1 7TH FLOOR 2 1 ARC PAC �� SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94111 27 CHO ELE ; % 415.227.0100 418 JUN PAT �� 1 www.smithgroup.com 1 QUE WIS 3 RHA CAL ' • 1 D 2 CER OCC ```FF _ \ •\� i 17 ARC PAC 5 OLE MON 9 LAV ANG 13 ROS OFF RGF�F j LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE+ PLANNING lS ; PATCH AND EPLACE 225 Miller Avenue, Mill Valley, CA 94941 ®`� % �: ; ; ; 14 RHA CAL � •02 I / PLANTING AGE T 415 383 7900 F 415 383 1433 www.rhaa.com 6 PIS CHI , . .®. x . . . - - - - 7 ROS OFF �� 1 D DURING T 10 1 20 ARC PAC 3 LAV ANG O 1 QUE AGR O : ; ; ; : : . ; : . . . . . . \ 4 RHA CAL J X 8 PLA ACE 3 LAV ANG 2 CEA JUL 32 1 ARC PAC + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + _ . + + + + + goo ISSUED FOR REV DATE + + + + + 16 ARC PAC ++ +++ _ PATCH AND REPL PLANTING DAMAGED 8 PLA ACE �I 3 PLA ACE DURING CONSTRUCTION / MEMORY CARE PLANTING PLAN SCALE: 1" = 20' 0 10' 20' 40' BACKCHECK 02 3 01 APR 2019 BACKCHECK 01 2 25 JAN 2019 GRAPHIC SCALE: 1" — 20'-0" CONSTRUCTABILITY REVIEW 1 25 JAN 2019 PERMIT SUBMITTAL 9 NOV 2018 LEGENDSEALS AND SIGNATURES _ �PNDSCApF License /� y�A I ' EXISTING TREE � Signature 5-31-2020 Renewal Date �T 4-01—201 \P �TF OF CALF L� L O Q SHEET TITLE 75 PLANTING PLAN 66 M ti O N ti N 21371.002 SMITHGROUP PROJECT NUMBER L5m010 d SHEET NUMBER