Exhibit 16. Applicants Arborist Report3/7/2025
Matthew Morgan
Kimley-Horn
10 S Almaden Blvd, Ste 1250
San Jose, CA 95113
408.785.3518
matthew.morgan@kimley-horn.com
Re: Tree protection for proposed renovation at 31 University Ave, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Dear Matthew,
At your request, we have visited the property referenced above to evaluate the trees
present with respect to the proposed project. This report contains our analysis.
Summary
Thirteen trees are present on and adjacent to this property, twelve of which are protected.
Two protected trees, both on this property, are recommended for removal, as they conflict
with project features.
All other protected trees are in reasonably good condition and should be preserved as
detailed in the Recommendations, below. With proper protection, all are expected to
survive and thrive during and after construction, according to each tree’s existing condition.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 1 of 12
EXHIBIT 16
Assignment and Limits of Report
We have been asked to write a report detailing impacts to trees from the proposed
renovation on this property. This report may be used by our client and others involved in
the project as needed to inform all stages of the project.
All observations were made from the ground with basic hand tools. No root collar
excavations or aerial inspections were performed. No project features had been staked at
the time of our site visit.
Tree Regulations
In the Town of Los Gatos, all trees over 4” in diameter must be included in the tree
protection report, regardless of project size. Tree reporting shall be guided by the Town of
Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements for Planning Applications, available online at
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18923/Arborist-report-checklist?bidId=
Observations
Trees
Thirteen trees are on this property (Images 1-13). These consist of coast live oaks (Quercus
agrifolia, seven trees), callery pears (Pyrus calleryana, five trees), and crape myrtle
(Lagerstroemia x indica, one tree).
Protected statuses - trees #1, 2, 4-10, 12, and 13 are Trees. Trees #6-13 are Protected
street trees. Tree #3 is not protected.
Health - most trees present are in moderate to good health. Only trees #2, 3, 5, and 10 are
in poor health.
Structure - most trees present exhibit good to moderate branching structure. Only trees #2
and 3 exhibit poor structure.
Form - Form refers to the tree’s shape in relation to aesthetics, maintenance issues,
conflicts with nearby objects, and similar items besides the tree’s structure. Most trees
present exhibit good to moderate form. Only trees #2, 3, and 10 exhibit poor form.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 2 of 12
Current Site Conditions
The location is a retail facility adjacent to a parking lot, a walkway, and two Town streets in
Los Gatos, California. The grade is flat. The parcel holds one building with multiple
businesses inside. Most of the building is bounded by hardscape, with the landscaping in
designated planters. The landscaping is maintained and irrigated, and mostly consists of
hedged shrubs and trees.
Project Features
BUILDINGS - the building footprint will remain largely unchanged. Along University Ave and
along the paseo walkway, the building face is changing shape, with some sections moving
outward slightly and others moving inward slightly, bringing the building wall more flush
than it is now. However, the general location of the building is not changing.
HARDSCAPE - the sidewalk along University Ave will be removed and replaced, and the
location of the two tree wells #11 and 12 will be willed in and replaced with a tree well in
between the two.
Potential Conflicts
The sidewalk replacement along university has the potential to impact the TPZ1 and CRZ2 of
tree #10, which has a 40% suitability for preservation due to its poor health and structure.
Also, trees #11 and 12 will be removed due to the elimination of their tree wells and a new
tree planted in the new well that is created between the two.
Trees #3 - Since this tree is not protected, it has not been evaluated for potential conflicts.
Trees # 1,2, 4-9, 13 - all proposed project features and logical access routes thereto are
outside these trees’ TPZs.3
3 Tree protection zones. See Discussion, Tree Map, and Tree Table for more detail.
2 Critical root zone. See Discussion, Tree Map, and Tree Table for definition and significance
1 Tree protection zones. See Discussion, Tree Map, and Tree Table for more detail.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 3 of 12
Testing and Analysis
Tree DBHs4 were taken using a diameter tape measure if trunks were accessible.
Multistemmed trees were measured below the point where the leaders diverge, if possible.
The DBHs of trees with non-accessible trunks were estimated visually. All trees over four
inches in DBH were inventoried, as well as street trees of all sizes. Vigor ratings are based
on tree appearance and our experiential knowledge of each species’ healthy appearance.
Tree location data were collected using a GPS smartphone application and processed in
Quantum GIS (QGIS) to create the maps included in this report. Due to the error inherent in
GPS data collection, and due also to differences between GPS data and CAD drawings, tree
locations and all dimensions shown on the Tree Map are approximate. The percentages of
TPZs impacted by project features were calculated in QGIS but should be considered
approximate due to potential error in tree locations or feature locations.
Data were collected by . with basic Katherine Naegele, ISA Certified Arborist #WE-9658A
hand tools (such as, but not limited to: hand hoe; hatchet; rubber mallet; measuring tape;
etc.) at a site visit on March 3, 2025. All observations and photographs in this report were
taken at that site visit.
The tree protection analysis in this report is based on the following document(s), provided
to us electronically by the project team:
● Proposed site plan: Site Plan 1/9/2025 LINK
● Civil plan: 100% DD Progress Set 2/28/2025 LINK
Discussion
Tree Protection Zones (TPZs)
Tree roots grow where conditions are favorable, and their spatial arrangement is,
therefore, unpredictable. Favorable conditions vary among species, but generally include
the presence of moisture, and soft soil texture with low compaction.
Contrary to popular belief, roots of all tree species grow primarily in the top two to three
feet or less of soil in the clay soils typical for this geographic region, with roots occasionally
4 diameter at breast height (4.5 feet above grade), a standard arboricultural measurement
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 4 of 12
occurring at greater depths when soil conditions allow. Some species have taproots when
young, but these almost universally disappear with age. At maturity, a tree’s root system
may extend out from the trunk farther than the tree is tall, and the tree maintains its
upright position in much the same manner as a wine glass.
The optimal area around a tree that should be protected from disturbance depends on the
tree’s trunk diameter, species, and vigor, as shown in the following table (adapted from
Trees & Construction, Matheny and Clark, 1998):
Species
tolerance Tree vitality5
Distance from trunk (feet
per inch trunk diameter)
Good High 0.5
Moderate 0.75
Low 1
Moderate High 0.75
Moderate 1
Low 1.25
Poor High 1
Moderate 1.25
Low 1.5
It is important to note that some roots will almost certainly be present outside the TPZ;
however, root loss outside the TPZ is unlikely to cause tree decline.
Some of the protected tree species present here are not evaluated in Trees & Construction.
Our own evaluation of them based on our experience with the species is as follows:
Species Estimated
tolerance Reason for tolerance rating
Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia
x indica) 2 Performs well in most landscapes but grows
relatively slowly
5 Matheny & Clark uses tree age, but we feel a tree’s vitality more accurately reflects its ability to
handle stress.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 5 of 12
Critical Root Zones (CRZs)
Although root loss inside the tree protection zone (TPZ) may cause a short-term decline in
tree condition, trees can often recover adequately from limited disturbance in this area.
Tree stability is impacted at a shorter distance from the tree trunk. For linear cuts on one
side of the tree, the minimum distance typically recommended is three times the DBH,
measured from the edge of the trunk (Best Management Practices: Root Management,
Costello, Watson, and Smiley, 2017). This is called the critical root zone, as substantial root
loss closer than this increases a tree’s likelihood of failure.
Note that trees sometimes have asymmetrical root systems, and if no substantial roots are
present in a given area, impacts on the tree will be minimal to minor regardless of distance
from the trunk.
Tree Conflicts with Above-Ground Structures
While most tree protection measures are concerned with the protection of tree roots and
trunks, it is important to plan mindfully for tree canopies as well. Whenever possible,
consideration should be given to the mature canopy size of trees, and above-ground
structures, such as rooflines, streetlights, regulatory signs, and other structures that might
damage the canopy, or lead to the canopy to require topping, heading, or considerable
pruning to prevent damage to or allow visibility of the structure.
If the tree or the planting space is already present and the structure can be relocated, this
should take place to allow for the tree canopy to thrive. If the structure is already present,
the tree should be removed or the planting location adjusted to allow the future tree to
thrive.
Conclusions6
Trees #1,2, 4-9, 13 - minimal impacts to these trees are likely from the project as
proposed.
Trees #3 - since these trees are not protected, they have not been evaluated for
construction impacts.
6 All conclusions assume the tree protection measures recommended in this report. Without proper
tree protection measures, any tree could be damaged.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 6 of 12
Trees #11 and 12 - these trees will be removed for construction to be replaced with a new
tree
Tree #10 - the removal of the sidewalk may impact the health of this tree. This tree should
be monitored, and removal and replacement should be considered.
Recommendations78
Design Phase
1. Consider the relocation of two streetlights at least 10 ft from trees #10 and from the
newly planted tree, to prevent damage to the streetlights, and prevent the need for
improper pruning of the trees.
2. Consider the removal of tree #10, since so much concrete work will take place
underneath it, and the damage may lead to the decline of the tree that had a 40%
suitability for preservation.
Preconstruction Phase
1. Remove trees #11 and 12, upon receipt of a permit from the Town of Los Gatos. The
reason for removal is as follows:
Sec. 29.10.0992. Required findings.
(4) The retention of the tree restricts the economic enjoyment of the
property or creates an unusual hardship for the property owner by severely
limiting the use of the property in a manner not typically experienced by
owners of similarly situated properties, and the applicant has demonstrated
to the satisfaction of the Director or deciding body that there are no
reasonable alternatives to preserve the tree.
2. Consult with the Project Arborist regarding designated locations for the following
activities, and any others that may affect tree protection zones (including, but not
limited to, seepage and exhaust):
a. Equipment storage
b. Materials storage
8 Bolded items are emphasized only because in my experience they are tend to be overlooked.
7 All recommendations are driven by the requirements of the jurisdiction in which the property is
located, and by industry best practices.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 7 of 12
c. Portable toilets
d. Cleanout areas for paint, concrete, etc.
e. Sump pump outlet
3. Tree protection fencing - install as shown in the Tree Map.
a. Minimum fencing distances are shown on the Tree Map, plus some small
areas outside TPZs if needed for practicality. Fencing must be installed at or
beyond these distances. Note that the TPZs of some offsite trees may
extend onto this property and require fencing.
i. Please be aware that tree protection fencing may differ from ideal
tree protection zones, and from canopy sizes.
b. Where existing barriers which will be retained impede access comparably to
tree protection fencing, these barriers are an acceptable substitute for tree
protection fencing.
c. Any existing paved areas that will remain as-is may be left unfenced. Ensure
that the unpaved area designated for tree protection fencing is fully
enclosed.
d. Tree protection fencing shall comprise 6’ chain link fabric mounted on 8’ tall
1.5” diameter metal posts driven into the ground and spaced no more than
10 feet apart.
e. Tree protection fencing shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION
FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY
ARBORIST.”
f. Place a 6” layer of wood chips inside tree protection fencing.
g. Tree protection fencing shall adhere to the requirements in the document
titled “ARBORIST REPORT CHECKLIST,” available at
https://www.losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/18923/Arborist-report-checklis
t?bidId=
4. Tree Protection Verification Letter - notify the Project Arborist when tree
protection measures are in place. The Project Arborist will inspect the tree
protection measures to verify their presence and condition, and will issue a letter to
the city with their findings.
Demolition Phase
1. Maintain tree protection measures as detailed above.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 8 of 12
2. When demolishing existing features within TPZs, start work close to trees and move
backwards, limiting equipment to still-paved areas. This applies features within
TPZs.
Construction Phase
1. Maintain tree protection measures as detailed above.
2. Monthly Monitoring Reports - inform the Project Arborist when construction is set
to begin. The Project Arborist shall visit the site once per month thereafter to verify
that all tree protection measures are maintained in working condition, and shall
issue a letter to the city with their findings.
3. Alert the project arborist if utility or other work becomes necessary within any tree
TPZs.
4. If live roots over 1” in diameter are encountered when excavating in any location:
a. Hand-excavate edge nearest trunk to the full depth of the feature being
installed.
b. Retain as many roots as practical. Route conduit and other features around
and between roots insofar as practical.
c. If roots 1-2” in diameter must be cut, sever them cleanly with a sharp saw or
bypass pruners.
d. If roots over 2” must be cut, stop work in that area and contact the project
arborist for guidance.
e. If excavation will be left open for more than 3 days:
i. Cover excavation wall nearest trunk with several layers of burlap or
other absorbent fabric.
ii. Install a timer and soaker hoses to irrigate with potable water twice
per day, enough to wet fabric thoroughly.
5. Notify Project Arborist when excavation is complete. Project arborist shall inspect
work to make sure all roots have been cut cleanly.
a. The Project Arborist shall provide a follow-up letter documenting that the
excavation was performed to specification.
6. Final Monitoring Report - inform the Project Arborist when construction is set to
end. The Project Arborist will make one final site visit to document the trees’
condition, and will issue any final mitigation recommendations if needed.
a. The Final Report may be completed by city staff instead at staff’s discretion,
pending staff availability.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 9 of 12
Post-Construction Phase
1. Any heritage tree to be retained protected by the City’s Municipal Code will require
replacement according to its appraised value if it is damaged beyond repair because
of construction.
2. Install new trees and/or pay in-lieu fees to offset the removal of trees #11 and 12,
per Town of Los Gatos requirements.
a. Tree replacement requirements are determined by canopy size, per the
following table:
3. Replacement with native species is strongly encouraged. Most fruit and nut trees,
palm trees, or “nuisance” species (see section 29.10.0970(2) of the Town Code) are
generally not considered suitable replacement trees. If a tree or trees cannot be
reasonably replanted on the subject property, the Town Arborist may approve a full
or partial in-lieu fee payment. Where the payment of in-lieu fees are approved,
permits will not be issued until all in-lieu fees are paid in full. If approved by the
Town Arborist, in-lieu fees are as follows:
a. 24 inch box tree = $250
b. 36 inch box tree = $500
4. Final Arborist Inspection - inform both the Project Arborist and the City Arborist
when exterior construction is set to end. The City Arborist shall visit the site, after
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 10 of 12
replacement trees have been planted (if applicable), but before tree protection
fencing has been removed.
5. Remove tree protection measures, upon approval from the Project Arborist and City
Arborist.
6. If retained, provide supplemental irrigation for tree #10 to aid in root regrowth for
at least three years.
a. Irrigate at a very slow trickle for several hours to ensure infiltration. Once per
month is usually sufficient.
b. COAST LIVE OAKS/DEODAR CEDARS Irrigation should only take place in the
normal rainy season for this area (October - April), and only if rainfall is below
average.
c. All other species should be irrigated year-round.
d. Irrigation should be paused during the rainy season if rainfall is average or
above.
Additional Materials Submitted as Separate Documents
1. 31 University Ave Tree Map
2. 31 University Ave Tree Photographs
3. 31 University Ave Tree Table
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth Lanham | Consulting Arborist | She/They
International Society of Arboriculture Certified Arborist #WE-9234A
ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualification Credentialed
elizabeth@aacarbor.com | (408) 581-0843
Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting | (408) 675-1729
aacarbor.com
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 11 of 12
Terms of Assignment
The following terms and conditions apply to all oral and written reports and correspondence pertaining to the
consultations, inspections, and activities of Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting:
1. All property lines and ownership of property, trees, and landscape plants and fixtures are assumed to be
accurate and reliable as presented and described to the consultant, either orally or in writing. The
consultant assumes no responsibility for verification of ownership or locations of property lines, or for
results of any actions or recommendations based on inaccurate information.
2. It is assumed that any property referred to in any report or in conjunction with any services performed by
Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting is in accordance with any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or
other governmental regulations, and that any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good
and marketable. The existence of liens or encumbrances has not been determined, and any and all
property is appraised and/or assessed as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and
competent management.
3. All reports and other correspondence are confidential and are the property of Aesculus Arboricultural
Consulting and its named clients and their assigns or agents. Possession of this report or a copy thereof
does not imply any right of publication or use for any purpose, without the express permission of the
consultant and the client to whom the report was issued. Loss, removal, or alteration of any part of a
report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
4. The scope of any report or other correspondence is limited to the trees and conditions specifically
mentioned in those reports and correspondence. Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting assumes no liability
for the failure of trees or parts of trees, inspected or otherwise. The consultant assumes no responsibility
to report on the condition of any tree or landscape feature not specifically requested by the named client.
5. All inspections are limited to visual examination of accessible parts, without dissection, excavation, probing,
boring or other invasive procedures, unless otherwise noted in the report, and reflect the condition of
those items and features at the time of inspection. No warranty or guarantee is made, expressed or
implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or the property will not occur in the future, from any
cause. The consultant shall not be responsible for damages caused by any tree defects, and assumes no
responsibility for the correction of defects or tree related problems.
6. The consultant shall not be required to provide further documentation, give testimony, be deposed, or to
attend court by reason of this appraisal/report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made,
including payment of additional fees for such services as set forth by the consultant or in the fee schedule
or contract.
7. Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting makes no warranty, either expressed or implied, as to the suitability of
the information contained in any reports or correspondence, either oral or written, for any purpose. It
remains the responsibility of the client to determine applicability to his/her particular case.
8. Any report and the values, observations, and recommendations expressed therein represent the
professional opinion of the consultant, and the fee for services is in no manner contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any particular finding.
9. Any photographs, diagrams, charts, sketches, or other graphic material included in any report are intended
solely as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering reports or
surveys unless otherwise noted in the report. Any reproduction of graphic material or the work product of
any other persons is intended solely for clarification and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information
does not constitute a representation by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting as to the sufficiency or accuracy
of that information.
Prepared for Kimley-Horn by Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting on 3/7/2025 12 of 12
10.6 ft.1 0 .3 f t .10.4 ft.6.2 ft.6.6 f t .4.9 f t .6.8 f t .
9 .4 f t .
9 .3 f t .
.tf 3.25.3 f t .7 ft.1.8 f
t
.1.6 f
t
.1.9 f
t
.1.4
f
t.6.2 f t .6.1 f t .2.6 ft.3.6 f t .2.7 ft.0.9 ft.
6 f t .
2 ft.
#10
#11
#12
#13
#1
#2
#3
#4
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9
0 10 20 30 ft
03/05/2025Tree trunks, to scale.
Locations approximate where
not matched to survey. Note
that tree trunks may not be
round in cross section.
Critical root zones (minimal
disturbance recommended)
Tree protection zones (ideal;
may differ significantly from
canopy size and from
recommended tree protection
measures)
Tree removals
Minimum distances for tree
protection fencing. Fencing
may be placed farther away
from trees if desired.
31 University Tree Table DRAFT Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 DRAFT 1Tree # (13 total)Common NameSpeciesDBH (in.)Canopy Spread (ft.)Vitality Rating (%)Structure Rating (%)Form Rating (%)Suitability for Preservation(%)Protected Tree - 11Street Tree - 8Off-Site Tree - 0Protected Removals - 2CRZ radius(ft. from center of trunk)TPZ radius(ideal; ft. from center oftrunk)Expected Impacts (withrecommended protection)Notes1 Callery pear 6.2 10 50 50 60 50 1.8 6.2 --
2 Callery pear 5.6 8 30 40 30 35 1.6 7.0 --
3 Callery pear 2.4 4 10 10 10 10 ----
4 Callery pear 6.6 10 50 50 60 50 1.9 6.6 --
5 Callery pear 4.9 10 40 50 50 45 1.4 4.9 --
6 Coast live oak 21.1 40 80 50 80 65 6.2 10.6 -Tag #3281; girdling
root
7 Coast live oak 20.7 30 80 50 80 65 6.0 10.3 -Tag #3282
8 Coast live oak 9.0 18 60 50 60 55 2.6 6.8 -Tag #3283
9 Coast live oak 12.5 16 50 50 50 50 3.6 9.4 -
Canopy spread isaverage due to
uneven canopy dist.One foot-deep cavity
in base.
10 Coast live oak 9.3 20 30 50 30 40 2.7 9.3 --
11 Crape myrtle 3.0 7 70 50 60 60 0.9 2.3 --
12 Coast live oak 7.0 18 60 50 60 55 2.0 5.3 --
13 Coast live oak 20.8 30 80 50 65 6.1 10.4 --
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Lagerstroemia indica
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 1
Image 1: Callery pear #1
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 2
Image 2: Callery pear #2
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 3
Image 3: Callery pear #3
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 4
Image 4: Callery pear #4
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 5
Image 5: Callery pear #5
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 6
Image 6: Coast live oak #6
Image 6b: girdling root on coast live oak #6
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 7
Image 7: Coast live oak #7
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 8
Image 8: Coast live oak #8
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 9
Image 9: Coast live oak #9
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 10
Image 9b: decay cavity at base of coast live oak #9
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 11
Image 10: Coast live oak #10
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 12
Image 11: Crape myrtle #11
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 13
Image 12: Coast live oak #12
31 University Tree Photographs Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
3/5/2025 14
Image 13: Coast live oak #13
31 University Tree Table Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
5/8/2025 1Tree # (13 total)Common NameSpeciesDBH (in.)Canopy Spread (ft.)Vitality Rating (%)Structure Rating (%)Form Rating (%)Suitability for Preservation(%)Protected Tree - 11Street Tree - 8Off-Site Tree - 0Protected Removals - 2Appraised Value(worksheet availableupon request)CRZ radius(ft. from center of trunk)TPZ radius(ideal; ft. from center oftrunk)Expected Impacts (withrecommended protection)1 Callery pear 6.2 10 50 50 60 50 $16,800.00 1.8 6.2 Minimal from project
as proposed
2 Callery pear 5.6 8 30 40 30 35 $900.00 1.6 7.0 Minimal from projectas proposed
3 Callery pear 2.4 4 10 10 10 10 ----
4 Callery pear 6.6 10 50 50 60 50 $1,400.00 1.9 6.6 Minimal from project
as proposed
5 Callery pear 4.9 10 40 50 50 45 $790.00 1.4 4.9 Minimal from project
as proposed
6 Coast live oak 21.1 40 80 50 80 65 $13,200.00 6.2 10.6 Minimal from project
as proposed
7 Coast live oak 20.7 30 80 50 80 65 $12,600.00 6.0 10.3 Minimal from projectas proposed
8 Coast live oak 9.0 18 60 50 60 55 $2,280.00 2.6 6.8 Minimal from project
as proposed
9 Coast live oak 12.5 16 50 50 50 50 $4,270.00 3.6 9.4 Minimal from project
as proposed
10 Coast live oak 9.3 20 30 50 30 40 $2,250.00 2.7 9.3
Moderate to major
from proposed
sidewalk work
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Pyrus calleryana
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
31 University Tree Table Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
5/8/2025 2Tree # (13 total)Common NameSpeciesDBH (in.)Canopy Spread (ft.)Vitality Rating (%)Structure Rating (%)Form Rating (%)Suitability for Preservation(%)Protected Tree - 11Street Tree - 8Off-Site Tree - 0Protected Removals - 2Appraised Value(worksheet availableupon request)CRZ radius(ft. from center of trunk)TPZ radius(ideal; ft. from center oftrunk)Expected Impacts (withrecommended protection)11 Crape myrtle 3.0 7 70 50 60 60 $260.00 0.9 2.3
Incompatible with
proposed sidewalk
work
12 Coast live oak 7.0 18 60 50 60 55 $1,380.00 2.0 5.3
Incompatible with
proposed sidewalkwork
13 Coast live oak 20.8 30 80 50 60 65 $12,500.00 6.1 10.4 Minimal from project
as proposed
Lagerstroemia indica
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
31 University Tree Table Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
5/8/2025 3Notes-
-
-
-
-
Tag #3281; girdling
root
Tag #3282
Tag #3283
Canopy spread is
average due touneven canopy dist.
One foot-deep cavityin base.
-
31 University Tree Table Aesculus Arboricultural Consulting
5/8/2025 4Notes-
-
-