Costa Mesa City Council
October 6, 2026

three years. Projections for future housing demand are also complicated because trends and publicly available data were interrupted by the COVID-19 pandemic and because the plan area represents a unique opportunity for largescale development that rarely occurs in coastal Orange County. Finally, the demand for nonresidential uses is presented based on the number of housing units anticipated for the plan area.
794
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 3

2. National and Regional Housing Market Context

2. National and Regional Housing Market Context
The local demand for housing is driven by the regional demand for housing and the degree to which a home in the local market meets the needs of households moving to or relocating in the region. This chapter explores national and regional trends that can be expected to influence the types of housing that might be best suited to the needs for regional household growth.

LONG-TERM DEMOGRAPHIC TRENDS
Generational Dynamics
One can regularly come across headlines and articles discussing differences among the generations, especially Baby Boomers and Millennials but also Gen-X and Gen-Z. While these discussions tend to debate the social and cultural differences among the different age groups, there are very real changes in the number of births (which affects the total population) and the fertility rate (which affects the average size of families).

Figure 1 shows the number of live births and the fertility rate (the number of live births per 1,000 women aged 15 to 45) in the US for each year from 1910 to 2022. It also shows descriptive labels for the four most recent generations. There are alternative demarcations posited by different experts and pundits, but the boundaries for each generation shown in Figure 1 are aligned with five-year age cohorts, which simplifies the use of Census Bureau data. Thus, the Baby Boom began in 1945, Gen-X in 1965, the Millennials in 1980, and Gen-Z in 2000 and ending in 2019, with a new, as-yet-to-be named generation beginning in 2020.

Figure 1: Number of Live Births, Fertility Rates, and Approximate Generational Labels, United States, 2009 to 2022
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Centers for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics System (2022 data is preliminary).

What the data shows is that the total population has grown in waves, with the largest being the Baby Boom and the Millennials, and troughs or plateaus with 0 20
40 60
80 100
120
140
0 1
2 3
4 5
19101915192019251930193519401945195019551960196519701975198019851990199520002005201020152020 Fertility Rate
Total Number of Live Births (Millions)
Baby Boom
Gen-X
Millennials
Gen-Z
795

Gen-X and Gen-Z. In contrast, the fertility rate, after a steep decline following the introduction of the birth control pill,
1 remained fairly constant from the mid1970s until 2007. As the data in Figure 1 from US Centers for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics System show, the number of births and the fertility rate have been declining since 2007.

The waves of population have consequences for employment and the economy, housing demand, and even taxes and demands for public services. More importantly, the flatness and late decline in fertility rates suggests (and is shown to be the case below) that nationally families are smaller than those during the Baby Boom and have gotten even smaller in recent years.

One final demographic measure is total fertility rate, which is not shown in the chart. This measure is the expected number of lifetime births per 1,000 women given current birth rates by age. A total fertility rate of 2,100.0 births per 1,000 women is considered necessary to replace a population over time.

The US total fertility rate in 2018 was 1,729.5 (and 1,632.0 in California).

With the exception of 2007, the US total fertility rate has not exceeded 2,100 since 1971. Were it not for immigration, the US population would be declining over time.

Age Distribution in California
The resulting age distribution for the US population is similar to that in California. Figure 2 shows the population in California and across the US by age and sex, as a percentage of the total population.
1 The decline is largely attributed to the introduction of the birth control pill. The FDA approved the pill to regulate menstruation in 1957, the year in which the fertility rate reached its highest level since 1916. In Figure 2: Population by Age Group and Sex as a Percentage of Total Population, California and the US, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2021 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimates.
1960 the FDA approved its use as an oral contraceptive. In 1965, the US Supreme Court effectively ended state and local laws limiting the use of the birth control pill to married couples. 796
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 5
For children and young adults under the age of 25, the share of total population is almost the same nationally as in the state. Then, the age groups from 25 to about 54 represent a larger share of California’s total population than in the US. These groups would include Gen-X and Millennials. Finally, the population aged 55 and older account for a smaller share of California’s population and a larger share of the US population. This group includes Baby Boomers and those older.

These age differences reflect two long-term migration trends. California, for several decades, has had a net domestic out-migration (more residents of California left for other state than residents of other states moved here), and previous analysis by the Public Policy Institute found that this out-migration was more prevalent among older residents than younger. More importantly, though, California also has a decades-long trend of foreign in-migration. In 2021, foreignborn residents accounted for 13.6 percent of the US population but 26.6 percent of California’s population. However, the pace of foreign in-migration slowed between 2010 and 2020, which in large part led to the historic decline in statewide population. More importantly, though, foreign migrants tend to be younger than the average age and they tend to have larger family sizes.

These age differences suggest that California’s economy may have less challenges with an aging population. With a larger share of the population in their 20s, 30s, and 40s, there should be more people moving out of their parents’ homes, forming households, and buying their first homes. The under-building 2 The 2021 data are from the American Community Survey, which is conducted over the course of the calendar year. Thus, the 2021 data may reflect temporary shifts in living arrangements reflecting the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic.
of housing in the US discussed in US Housing Production section, below, can be expected to be more acute in California than in the US because of the age differences if indeed there is a larger share of the population moving into their own homes.

Household Changes
With the fertility rate leveling off in the early 1970s and the oldest Baby Boomers moving out of their parents’ houses, the ways in which Americans live together in households began a decades-long transition. Figure 3 shows the percentage of total households by type of household for the US from 1970 to 2021.2
During this period, the percentage of households that were married couples with children under the age of 18 at home declined from 39 percent to 19 percent, even though the number of babies being born was steadily rising from 1976 through 2007. This decline was slightly offset by an increase in the percentage of households that were single-parent families with children under the age of 18 at home, which increased from 5 percent in 1970 to 10 percent in 2020. Nevertheless, the percentage of households with children under the age of 18 at home, regardless of marital status, decreased to 29 percent of all households, down from 44 percent in 1970.

In contrast, the percentage of households that were married couples with no children at home hovered around 29 percent across five decades, declining to 28 percent in 2021. As mentioned above, the share of households that were a 797

single parent with children increased from 5 percent to 10 percent, and the share that were single parents without children at home increased from 5 percent to 7 percent.

Perhaps the most dramatic change was the large increase in the share of households that were single people living alone, from 23 percent in 1980 (data were not published for 1970) to 28.3 percent in 2021, becoming the most prevalent type of household in the US. The two most common types of households—married couples without children living at home (28.1 percent) and single people living alone—account for 56 percent of all households.

From 1980 to 2021, the number of households in the US increased by 47.1 million. Households with children, regardless of marital status, accounted for

14.6 percent of the total household growth. Households without children (married couples, single householders living with one or more relatives, and singles living alone) accounted for 72.8 percent of the increase. Nonfamily households accounted for the remaining 12.6 percent of the increase in households.

Households by Size
The number of households in the US increased from 63,401,000 in 1970 to 131,202,000 in 2022. The increase of 67,801,000 households represents an annual growth rate of 1.4 percent per year. However, the growth in households was largest among one- and two-person households, and increasingly larger households have increasingly lower rates of growth. The number of households with six or more persons declined during this period. Table 1 provides data on the changes in the number of households based on household size.

Figure 3: Type of Household by Share of Total Number of Households, United States, 1970 to 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau. Decennial Censuses (2007 to 2000) and American Community Survey (2010 and 2021).
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
45%
1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2021
Married-couple family w/children at home
Married-couple family w/o children at home
Single-parent families w/ and w/o children at home
Living alone
All other households
798
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 7
Table 1: Change in the Number of Households by the Number of Persons in Household, United States, 1970 and 2022
Number of
Persons in
Household
Total
Increase
Annual
Rate of
Change
Share of
Total
Household
Growth
Share of
Household,
1970
Share of
Households
2022
One 27,036,000 2.4% 39.9% 17.1% 28.9%
Two 27,216,000 1.8% 40.1% 28.9% 34.7%
Three 8,865,000 1.1% 13.1% 17.3% 15.1%
Four 6,200,000 0.9% 9.1% 15.8% 12.3%
Five 746,000 0.2% 1.1% 10.3% 5.6%
Six -714,000 -0.4% -1.1% 5.6% 2.1%
Seven or more -1,546,000 -1.3% -2.3% 5.0% 1.3%
Total 67,801,000 1.4% 100.0% 100.0% 100.0%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey.

One- and two-person households accounted for 80 percent of household growth over the five decades and increased from 46 percent of the total number of households in 1970 to 64 percent of all households in 2022. In contrast, all larger household sizes experienced a decline in the share of total households.

Average Household Size
Reflecting the higher growth in one- and two-person households and the decline in the number of households with six or more people, the average size of households has decreased. In 1970, the average household had 3.14 people.

By 2022, the average household size had decreased to 2.50 persons per household. Figure 4 shows the average household size from 1970 to 2022.

Figure 4: Average Number of Persons per Household, United States, 1970 to 2022
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, Current Population Survey The largest decrease in average household size occurred in the 1970s and 1980s, with a brief pause during and after the 1982 recession. In large part, this reflects Baby Boomers leaving their parents’ homes and moving out on their own. Nevertheless, the average household size has generally decreased over the entire period, with brief pauses during and immediately after other recessions.

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5
19701974197819821986199019941998200220062010201420182022 799

Life Transitions
The age at which women first give birth and the age at which people first marry has been increasing for many decades. The delay in forming families has implications for the demand for housing. Indeed, one can surmise that the long-term increase in households with single people living alone results, in part, from the trend of people spending more of their lives between becoming adults and first forming families. Figure 5 shows the median age at marriage for men and woman and the mean age for women at first birth.

The median age at marriage was steadily increasing for men and women but began a more rapid increase beginning in 1975 for men and 1976 for women.

The rate of increase slowed down in the late 1990s and then grew again starting in 2006. There was a decline from 2021 to 2022. For men, the median age at marriage increased from 23.2 in 1970 to 30.1 in 2022, an increase of 30 percent. For women, the median age at marriage increased from 20.8 in 1970 to 28.2 in 2022, an increase of 36 percent.

The mean age of women at first birth has been increasing since 1959, but the rate of increase was lower than the rate of increase in the median age at marriage. From 1959 to 1988, the mean age at first birth was higher than the median age at marriage. The mean age of women at first birth increased from

22.1 in 1970 to 27.3 in 2021, an increase of 24 percent.

The data for age at first marriage and age at first birth show that Americans are spending a larger portion of their life as single adults without children before they move into the family-forming stage of life and that this is a decades-long trend.

Figure 5: Median Age at First Marriage and Mean Female Age at First Birth, United States, 1959 to 2021 (Birth) and 2022 (Marriage) Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using marriage data from the US Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and birth data from the US Centers for Disease Control, National Vital Statistics System. 20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
30 31
32 1959196419691974197919841989199419992004200920142019 Females–Marriage Males–Marriage
Females–First Birth
800
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 9

RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TRENDS
US Housing Production
Since the end of the recession related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the US housing market completed about 1.3 million new housing units. By previous economic expansions standards, this is slightly below average (1.4 million per year during economic expansions starting in December 1970), but somewhat remarkable given the supply-chain disruptions, high inflation, and the increase in interest rates over the past year. What is more remarkable, however, is that during the previous economic expansion, running from July 2009 to February 2019, the housing market produced only an average of 879,000 total new housing units per year. This is 38 percent below the annual average for economic expansions. Over the more than nine years of this economic expansion, this resulted in 5 million fewer housing units being built. Figure 6 on the following page shows the number of housing units completed each month at a seasonally adjusted annual rate. Table 2 provides the average annual housing production during each economic expansion since December 1970. When viewed in tandem, Table 2 and Figure 6 illustrate the monthly and average annual housing unit construction since 1970.

During the previous ten years, the housing market completed an average of 868,642 housing units per year. At the beginning of this period, 2009, the Millennials were between 10 and 29 years old. At the end of this period, 2018, the Millennials were between 19 and 38 years old. For Baby Boomers, the corresponding age ranges represent the years 1974 to 1983. During this time period, the housing market completed an average of 1,497,850 housing units per year. The housing market produced 72 percent more housing units for the period when Baby Boomers were forming families than it produced when Millennials were forming families, even though there were only 3.5 percent more babies born during the Baby Boom as were born for Millennials. It is no wonder that there is a housing crisis.

Table 2: Average Annual Housing Unit Production During Economic Expansions, United States, December 1970 through May 2023 Economic Expansion Average Annual
Housing Units
Completed Begin End
December 1970 November 1973 1,920,750
April 1975 January 1980 1,627,690
August 1980 July 1981 1,342,833
December 1982 July 1990 1,563,880
April 1991 March 2001 1,365,175
December 2001 December 2007 1,763,890
July 2009 February 2019 878,793
May 2019 May 2023 1,335,694
Source: PlaceWorks, using housing production data from the US Census Bureau’s Building Permits Survey and Survey of Construction, and economic expansion/contraction data from the National Bureau for Economic Research.
801

0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
196819731978198319881993199820032008201320182023
Seasonally Adjusted Annual Rate (1,000 units)
Figure 6: Monthly Number of Housing Units Completed, United States, January 1968 to May 2023 Note: Lighter-shaded areas indicate recessions.

Source: PlaceWorks, 2019, using data from the US Census Bureau. 802
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 11
California Housing Production
It is a similar story in California, as shown in Figure 7. The average number of housing units constructed per year from 1990 to the 2008/09 recession was 128,300. Between that recession and the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of housing units constructed averaged only 72,600 per year, or 43 percent fewer. The market rebounded somewhat since then, averaging 118,100 units per year. Nevertheless, without the slowdown following the 2008/09 recession, the state would have an additional 669,000 housing units, or 4.5 percent more than there are today.

Figure 7: Net Annual Increase in Housing, California, 1990 to 2023 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the CA Department of Finance.

Housing Unit Size
The size of housing units, both single-family detached and multifamily, have been increasing over time. Figure 8 shows the average unit size for each year, from 1971 to 2022.

The size of the average single-family housing unit has increased 77 percent, growing from 1,520 square feet in 1971 to a high of 2,687 square feet in 2015 before declining slightly to 2,509 in 2022. Over the past four and a half decades, the average house increased in size by about 25 square feet per year.

In contrast, the average unit size across multifamily housing units increased over this period by 29 percent, growing from 1,011 square feet in 1971 to a high of 1,300 square feet in 2007, or an increase of 8 square feet per year.

The average unit size declined to 1,162 square feet in 2017.

Starting in 1999, the Census Bureau began reporting multifamily unit sizes for units intended for rental and those intended for sale. Since then, the average size of multifamily units intended for rental increased by 80 square feet, or 7.6 percent, to 1,130 square feet, which is only 119 square feet larger than the average size for all new multifamily units in 1971. In contrast, the average size of new multifamily units intended for sale increased by 265 square feet, or 19 percent, from 1,360 square feet in 1999 to 1,625 square feet in 2017. 0 50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
19901992199419961998200020022004200620082010201220142016201820202022 Net Number of New Dwelling Units
803

Figure 8: Average Unit Size for Single-family Detached Housing and Multifamily Housing Completions, Actual and Trend, United States, 1971 through 2022
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau.

Sales Price for New Single-Family Houses
Over time, the sales price for new single-family housing has increased, even when adjusted for inflation. Figure 9 illustrates the inflation-adjusted sales price and sales price per square foot increase between 1974 and 2022. From 1974 to 2022, the real (inflation-adjusted) average sales price increased about $6,350 per year. However, much of that increase results from the high inflation of the past few years; from 1971 to 2019, the average increase was $4,450. The average price of a new single family housing unit in the US in 2022 was $530,000, compared to the inflation-adjusted price of $231,00 in 1974 (unadjusted value of $38,000) and $432,000 in 2019 (unadjusted value of $373,000). How did the price for new single-family housing increase so much? In large part, the price increase is a direct result of the market producing larger housing units.

The average sales price increased from $148.42 per square foot (in inflationadjusted 2022 dollars) in 1974 to $211.12 per square foot in 2022. And again, this is partially affected by the high inflation of the past few years. The average sales price per square foot in 2019 was $172.00 per square foot, in 2022 dollars.

From 1974 to 2022, the average inflation-adjusted price of a new single-family housing unit increased 86.7 percent, but the cost per square foot only increased 22.4 percent. Roughly three-fourths of the inflation-adjusted increase housing cost was a matter of building larger housing units. In some cases, a larger, more expensive house is an economic effect of rising land and entitlement costs. However, the larger housing sizes are also a response to a fundamental market change: where prior generations of Americans might buy a house to live in for the rest of their lives, more recent generations started trading up, once they had built up enough equity, they would buy a larger house and then another larger house.
0 500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
197119741977198019831986198919921995199820012004200720102013201620192022 Average Unit Size in Sq. Ft.

Single-Family Detached Trend Line
Multifamily Trend Line
804
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 13
Figure 9: Real Average Sales Price and Real Average Sales Price per Square Foot for New Single-family Housing, United States, 1971 to 2022 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using sales price and floor area data from the US Census Bureau’s Characteristics of New Housing and the consumer price index for all urban consumers data from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

IMPLICATIONS OF LONG-TERM NATIONAL TRENDS
The trends discussed in this chapter have implications for housing supply and demand in general and for housing production in Orange County and Costa Mesa.

Generational Waves
The large number of people born between 1945 and 1964, the Baby Boomers, are in or entering retirement. Home ownership rates are the highest among this group. Over time, however, as they age, a portion of them can be expected to trade in their single-family housing for smaller housing, senior condos, or assisted living homes, thus increasing the supply of existing housing for sale.

The next large wave of population, the Millennials, were born, roughly, between 1980 and 2000. Many of those in this wave are well into the homebuying stage of life or about ready to enter those ages. With many Baby Boomers still living in their homes, this next wave of homebuyers is pushing the market and, in part, helping to support or drive up the cost of housing because the market has underbuilt housing since the 2008/09 recession.

Mismatch Between Household Living Arrangements and National Housing Production
Since at least the 1970s, Americans have waited longer to marry and have children, fewer and fewer households even have children, more people live alone and in two-person households, and the average household size has declined. However, the US housing market has continued to produce predominantly single-family detached housing and has continued to build larger and larger houses. Perhaps one- and two-person households would continue to choose to live in larger single-family housing, but the data suggests that the 0 40
80 120
160
200
240
0 100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
1975198019851990199520002005201020152020
Sales Price Trend
Sales Price per Sq. Ft. Trend
805

growing number of small households has less and less of an opportunity to choose smaller new housing units, especially in the ownership market.

Housing Market Not Producing Enough Housing
The 2008/09 recession decimated the housing industry, and it has only just in the last year returned to the average level of housing production from 1968 to the March 2006 peak. In the previous economic expansion, the economy produced almost twice as many units per year as it has in this expansion.

The underbuilding of housing during and since the 2008/09 recession is a national challenge, although some areas and regions have fared better than others. It is also a California problem. The current challenges with high interest rates, lack of a sufficient labor force, and supply chain shortcomings still hamper the housing industry.

New housing production in Costa Mesa may be constrained by these national and regional housing industry constraints, but some of these are already moderating. Construction employment, while still below its pre-COVID high (107,000 now versus 112,000 in 2019) is rebounding. And the Federal Reserve recently began lowering interest rates..

Larger Housing Units Increase Housing Costs
Much of the long-term growth in inflation-adjusted prices for single-family housing correlates with the long-term increase in unit sizes. This would suggest that one approach to encourage the development of more moderately priced housing would be to facilitate the construction of smaller-size housing units.

However, this is easier said than done. The financial incentive to the developer is to construct larger units to the degree that market demand will support such development. Furthermore, as costs for land, increased development standards, infrastructure, and development fees increase, the financial incentive to the developer is to build larger, more expensive units, again, to the degree that the market will bear.
806
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 15

3. Costa Mesa Housing Market

3. Costa Mesa Housing Market

MARKET AREA ANALYSIS
Unique characteristics influence the housing market in one city versus another, and even in one neighborhood versus another. However, the housing market is truly a regional market. Regions with growing economies are better able to retain existing residents and attract migrants from other regions, if not other nations.

Conversely, regions with stagnant or declining economies find it challenging to retain existing residents, let alone attract migrants. The local housing market responds to growth or stagnation or decline of the region.

This chapter examines various factors that can influence the demand for housing for the future development of the Fairview Developmental Center. The housing market area used in the first half of this analysis consists of the US Census Bureau boundary that includes Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley. The discussion also references a larger comparison region, which adds Huntington Beach, Aliso Viejo, Laguna Hills, Newport Beach, and most of Irvine; as shown in Figure 10.

There is a rich amount of data available for this Census Bureau boundary, especially regarding detailed household income, occupancy characteristics, and length of tenure at current residence. A smaller market subarea is used in the second half of this analysis, and it includes only Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach.

This chapter describes the characteristics of households in Orange County. It compares households earning a moderate income or less, defined as less than 120 percent of the area median income, to households earning an above moderate income, defined as 120 percent or more of the area median income.

Households earning a moderate income or less face more housing challenges than those earning an above moderate income.

Figure 10: Market Area Extent
807

HOUSEHOLD CHARACTERISTICS
Household Size
Costa Mesa has the largest average household size when compared to two neighboring cities based on California Department of Finance Data, as shown in Figure

11. Between 2013 and 2023, Costa Mesa experienced a decrease in average household size, falling from 2.74 to 2.56, while average household sizes in neighboring jurisdictions experienced slight decreases as well.

Figure 11: Average Household Size, Market Area Cities, 2013 and 2023 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the California Department of Finance, Table E-5.

Census Bureau data indicate that the decrease was largely fueled by a decline in households with children, which decreased from 31 percent of households in Costa Mesa to 27 percent of households between 2012 and 2022.

Household Size and Household Income
Throughout the market area, households earning an above moderate-income have a larger average household size compared to households earning a moderate income or less. The percentage of households that have only one person accounts for most but not all of the differences in average household size across the income categories. Approximately 38 percent of households earning a moderate-income or less consist of a single individual, compared to approximately 13 percent of above moderate-income households. The percentage of two-person households is comparable across both income categories; however, the percentage of three- and four-person households earning above moderate income (39 percent) is greater than that of three- and four- person households earning a moderate income or less (21 percent). Table 3 summarizes household size data for households in the market area.

Table 3: Household Size by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2023
Above Moderate
Income
Moderate Income
and Below
Average Household Size 2.9 2.0
One-person households 13% 38%
Two-person households 35% 34%
Three-person households 21% 13%
Four-person households 18% 8%

2.74 2.59

2.24 2.56 2.45

2.17 0.0

0.5 1.0

1.5 2.0

2.5 3.0
Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Newport Beach
2013 2023
808
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 17
Table 3 continued
Above Moderate
Income
Moderate Income
and Below
Average Household Size 2.9 2.0
Five-person households 7% 4%
Six- or more person households 5% 3%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2023 Public Use Microdata Set.

Three or fewer person households account for 85 percent of households earning a moderate income or less, and 93 percent of households are made up of four or fewer persons. This suggests that the vast majority of the market area’s housing needs can be accommodated with housing units with three or fewer bedrooms. Furthermore, housing units with two or fewer bedrooms should accommodate the majority of households with three or fewer people.

Household Type
Household type varies by household income. Table 4 provides data on household type by income category for the market area. Households earning an above moderate income are most commonly married couples without children at home, whereas households earning a moderate income and below are predominantly individuals living alone. Regardless of household income, the majority of households do not have children living at home.

Table 4: Household Type and Presence of Children under the Age of 18 by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021 Above Moderate
Income
Moderate Income
and Below
Married couple w/ children at home 25% 11%
Married couple w/o children at home 39% 23%
Single parent w/ children at home 2% 4%
Other household w/ children at home 1% 2%
Other household w/o children at home 20% 21%
Living alone 13% 38%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set Multigenerational Households
The US Census Bureau defines a multigenerational household as a household with two or more adult generations. Although demographers often include grandparents raising grandchildren, these households are not included in the Census Bureau data. Table 5 provides multigenerational household data for the market area.

The Pew Research Center published a 2018 report that noted that the national population living in multigenerational households decreased from 21 percent in 1950 to 12 percent in 1980, and it has steadily increased since then, reaching 20 percent in 2016. Multigenerational households are not as common in the market area compared to national trends: only 5.6 percent of above moderateincome households are multigenerational, and 2.6 percent of households earning a moderate income or less are multigenerational. 809

Table 5: Multigenerational Households as a Share of Total Households and Share of Population by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Above Moderate
Income
Moderate Income
and Below
Percent of Households 5.3% 2.6%
Percent of Household Population 9.9% 5.9%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set Length of Time at Current Residence
How long the typical household has lived at its current residence is typically correlated with household income. Generally, the higher the household income, the longer the household has lived at the current home.

For households in the market area, however, residency lengths are comparable across income categories. Approximately 53 percent of above moderate-income households have resided in their home for less than 10 years, compared to 50 percent of households earning a moderate income and below. Figure 12 shows the length of time households have resided at their current residence.

Figure 12: Length of Time at Current Residence by Income Category, Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set 0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
12 months or less 13 to 23 months 2 to 4 years
5 to 9 years 10 to 19 years 20 to 29 years
30 years or more
810
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 19
Age of Householder
The average age of householders3 varies slightly between the income categories:
51 years old for above moderate-income households and 57 years old for households earning a moderate income or less. There are large variations across income categories when looking at age cohorts. Figure 13 shows the age distribution for householders by income categories.

The age distribution for households earning above moderate income is representative of a bell curve, with the median shifted slightly left. The four largest cohorts are householders between the ages of 40 to 44, 45 to 49, 50 to 54, and 55 to 59, which logically tracks with prime earning years.

For households earning a moderate income or less, the average householder age skews slightly higher. The respective share for cohorts with a householder aged 35 years or older is equal, which suggests that new housing targeting households earning a moderate income or less will need to accommodate various stages of life, particularly empty-nesters and retirees.
3 The householder is whomever the respondent to a Census Bureau survey identifies as such. The term householder has generally replaced “head of household” and applies regardless of tenure.

Figure 13: Age Distribution of Householders by Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set 0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
16 to 19 20 to 24 25 to 29 30 to 34
35 to 39 40 to 44 45 to 49 50 to 54
55 to 59 60 to 64 65 to 69 70 to 74
75 to 79 80 and above
811

HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS
Type of Housing
Single-family detached dwellings are the most prevalent form of housing in the market area and comparison region. This is a remnant of past development patterns; according to data from DOF, single-family detached housing only accounted for 31 percent of the increase in housing in Orange County from 2021 to 2022. Occupancy of a single-family dwelling is correlated with income. Figure 14 shows the data on housing type by income category.

In the market area, just over 60 percent of households earning above moderate income live in a single-family detached dwelling. This figure drops to approximately 40 percent for households earning a moderate income or less, with more households occupying multifamily units and other dwelling types.

Figure 14: Percentage of Households by Income Category and by Type of Housing, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multifamily Other 812
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 21
Tenure
Housing tenure describes whether a housing unit is occupied by the owner or by a renter and, much like the type of housing unit occupied, is generally correlated with household income. Figure 15 shows ownership rates across product types by income category. Across the board, the majority of households residing in single-family attached and detached housing are homeowners. The rate of ownership is similarly high for households living in “Other” housing types, which include mobile homes and park model units. The vast majority of households living in multifamily housing are renters; however, some households do own and occupy multifamily units in condominium developments.

Figure 15: Homeownership Rate by Housing Unit Type and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set.

Household Size
The average household size for each type of housing increases with income. For above moderate-income households, household size decreases from 3.2 for households residing in single-family detached housing, to 2.5 for single-family attached housing, to 2.4 for multifamily housing. Average household size for households earning a moderate income or less is more consistent, decreasing slightly from 2.2 for single-family detached housing to approximately 2.0 for all other housing types. Figure 16 shows the average household size data.

Figure 16: Average Household Size by Housing Type and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multifamily Other

0.0 0.5

1.0 1.5

2.0 2.5

3.0 3.5
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multifamily Other 813

Housing Overpayment
Housing overpayment represents households that pay more than 30 percent of their household income for housing costs. For renters, housing cost includes rent and utilities, commonly referred to as gross rent. For owners, housing cost includes mortgage payments, PMI and property, insurance, taxes, and CFD/HOA fees. Figure 17 shows housing overpayment in the market area.

Fewer households earning an above moderate-income experience housing overpayment, while significantly more households earning a moderate income or less experience housing overpayment. Across the three most prevalent housing unit types—single-family detached, single-family attached, and multifamily—renter households earning a moderate income or less experience housing overpayment at a higher rate than owner households in the same income category.

Figure 17: Housing Overpayment by Housing Unit Type, Tenure, and Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set. 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Above Moderate Income Moderate Income and Below
Owner SFD Renter SFD Owner SFA
Renter SFA Owner MF Renter MF
814
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 23

CHARACTERISTICS OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT MOVED TO THE

MARKET AREA IN THE PRIOR YEAR
An important question is whether the characteristics of those moving into the market area in the past year are similar to the characteristics of those who were already living here: the question being, who is moving here? Approximately 22 percent of those moving into a home in the Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley market area in the prior year purchased a home, and the remaining 78 rented. This section highlights relevant socioeconomic characteristics for the owner and renter households.

Household Size
Both owner- and renter-occupied households that moved into the market area in the prior year averaged 2.1 persons per household. Figure 18 shows the proportion of households by number of people for both owner- and renter-occupied units. For both tenure types, two-person households are the most prevalent. Owner-occupied units have a higher proportion of households with three or more people, although renter households do not trail far behind. However, a noticeably higher proportion of renter households consist of two people.

Figure 18: Tenure by Number of Persons in Household, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
One Two Three Four Five Six or more
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
815

Housing Type
Approximately 67 percent of households that recently bought a home in the market area purchased a single-family detached unit, and 18 percent purchased an attached unit. Among new renter households, 78 percent moved into multifamily housing Figure 19 illustrates the proportion of housing types by tenure.

Figure 19: Tenure by Housing Unit Type, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set Household Income
In the prior year, approximately 80 percent of households that purchased a home in the market area earned an above moderate income (more than 120 percent of the area median income). By comparison, approximately 45 percent of renter households that recently moved to the market area earn an above moderate income. A comparable proportion of owner and renter households earn a moderate income (80 to 120 percent of the area median income), but a larger proportion of renter households qualify as lower income (less than 80 percent of the area median income). Figure 20 shows the proportion of households broken down by income category and tenure.

Figure 20: Tenure by Household Income Category, Costa Mesa–Fountain Valley Market Area, 2021
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2021 Public Use Microdata Set 0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
Single Family DetachedSingle Family Attached Multifamily Other Owner Occupied Renter Occupied 0%
15%
30%
45%
60%
75%
90%
Lower Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income
Owner Occupied Renter Occupied
816
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 25

CITY-LEVEL CHANGES
Housing Type
From 2013 to 2023, according to data from the California Department of Finance, the number of housing units in three market area cities (Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach) increased by 7,445. Single-family detached housing accounted for 22 percent of that growth; single-family attached housing accounted for 15 percent; and multifamily provided the remaining 63 percent. In contrast, the comparable data for the county as a whole were: singlefamily detached 36 percent; single-family attached 16 percent; and multifamily 48 percent.

Costa Mesa accounted for 29 percent of all market area housing growth. More specifically, it accounted for 48 percent of the single-family detached housing growth, 31 percent of single-family attached housing growth, and 21 percent of the multifamily housing growth. In absolute numbers, Costa Mesa provided 335 single-family attached dwellings, 804 single-family detached dwellings, and 1,001 multifamily units.

Figure 21: Share of Market Area Housing Growth by Type of Housing, Costa Mesa, Huntington Bach, and Newport Beach., 2012 to 2022 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the California Department of Finance, Table E-5. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Newport Beach
Single Family Detached Single Family Attached Multifamily 817

Overcrowding
Occupancy by more than one person per room is used as a general proxy for overcrowding. Between 2012 and 2022, the proportion of Costa Mesa households that were overcrowded stayed at 5 percent. The proportion of overcrowded households in the other two neighboring cities increased slightly from

3.0 percent to 3.8 percent.

Households With Children
Between 2012 and 2022, the total number of Costa Mesa households with children decreased by 4 percent, and the share of households with children decreased from 31 to 27 percent. Huntington Beach also saw a decrease in the proportion of households with children. Only Newport Beach recorded a net gain of total households with children during the same period. Figure 22 shows the trend in percentage of households with children for each city.

Figure 22: Percentage of Households with Children under the Age of 18, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, 2012 to 2022 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates.
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Costa Mesa Huntington Beach Newport Beach
818
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 27
Household Type
The majority of households (63 percent) in Costa Mesa in 2023 are one- and two-person households, a slight decrease from 66 percent in 2013. Figure 23 shows three-or-more-person households as a percentage of the total number of households in each Costa Mesa and the two neighboring cities in 2013 and 2023. Only Costa Mesa experienced an increase in this percentage.

Figure 23: Three or More Person Households as a Share of Total Households, Costa Mesa, Huntington Beach, and Newport Beach, 2013 and 2023 Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau, 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates

IMPLICATIONS OF MARKET CHARACTERISTICS
While the preceding discussion highlighted a multitude of interesting characteristics of the housing market, there are several key findings that should influence the Fairview Development Center Specific Plan.

Smaller Households
The average household size in Costa Mesa decreased from 2013 to 2023 by slightly more than the average size in neighboring Huntington Beach and Newport Beach Among those moving to the Costa Mesa-Fountain Valley market area in the last year, the average household size was 2.1, smaller than the citywide average household size of 2.56. Because smaller households have been moving to the area, the specific plan should facilitate units with few bedrooms. This does not mean the plan should exclude larger homes, because there are larger households. Nevertheless, smaller homes should be an important part of the mix, for both ownership and rental housing.

Overcrowding and Overpayment
As will be shown in the following chapter, most of the population growth in the market area has been among households with above moderate incomes, and there has been an exodus of households with very low incomes. Nearly or more than 80 percent of moderate income or below moderate-income households are paying more than 30 percent of household income for housing, whether they rent single-family detached, single-family attached, or multifamily housing.

Furthermore, 5 percent of Costa Mesa households were overcrowded, more so than in Huntington Beach and Newport Beach. Housing in the plan area should provide options for existing over-paying and overcrowded households in addition to accommodate new households moving to the area. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
Costa Mesa Irvine Huntington Newport
2013 "2023"
819

Housing and Age
Residents aged 65 and older are more likely to have moderate household incomes or lower. In many cases this results from retirement and no longer earning a wage or salary. In some cases, these households have ample investments and pensions to live comfortably. Nevertheless, the data suggests that the housing needs of those aged 65 and older should be taken into consideration.

Similarly, the data suggests that a majority of households in the plan area will not have children at home. However, there will likely be many that do, even if not a majority. The specific plan should still accommodate safe routes to school, park amenities and recreation opportunities, and other needs of children. 820
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 29

4. Residential Market Demand Projections

4. Residential Market Demand Projections

BACKGROUND
Past Growth
The number of households residing in Costa Mesa increased over the last ten years, from 40,040 in 2013 to 42,400 in 2023, which is an increase of 2,360 or an annual growth rate of 0.6 percent per year. At the same time, the number of housing units grew at a slightly slower pace, 0.5 percent per year, and the household population4 declined at a rate of 0.1 percent per year. Thus, the increase in households occurred with a declining vacancy rate and a declining average household size.

The city’s ten-year growth experience is similar, although slightly slower, than growth countywide. Across Orange County, the number of households increased 0.9 percent per year, while the household population grew only 0.1 percent per year, and the number of housing units increased 0.9 percent per year.

RHNA Housing Needs
For the 6th cycle Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA), covering the period from October 2021 to October 2029, the state allocated a need of 1,341,827 housing units to the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Of this, SCAG allocated 183,861 housing units to Orange County. Achieving this housing production target within eight years would require more than doubling the 10-year rate of housing development countywide. 4 The household population includes only residents residing in residential housing and excludes those living in college dormitories, nursing homes, and other types of group quarters.

Of the RHNA allocation to Orange County, SCAG allocated 11,760 total housing units to Costa Mesa. Achieving this housing production target in eight years would require more than a sixfold increase in the ten-year rate of housing production in the city, a 3.0 percent per year growth in housing.

In its October 2019 letter to SCAG regarding its determination of housing need in the SCAG region, the State Department of Housing and Community Development notes, “RHNA is ultimately a requirement that the region zone sufficiently in order for these homes to have the potential to be built, but it is not a requirement or guarantee that these homes will be built.” Market Demand Projections
The question at hand is whether development under a specific plan for the Fairview Developmental Center will progress at a pace similar to that the city has experienced over the past ten years, or at a pace that would see the market produce Costa Mesa’s allocation of regional housing needs, or at a pace in between.

There are reasons that the absorption rate might be slower and reasons it might be faster. This is complicated by the fact that, given the amount of demolition needed, the potential for some site remediation, and the scale of the project, it might easily be three to four years before new housing in the planning area goes on the market. Also, the scale of the potential development in the coastal area of Orange County is unprecedented in recent history, so there is no recent 821

comparable development to use as a guide. Thus, there is some speculation involved in projecting longer-term market demand.

The main reason that development might proceed more slowly is current market conditions, namely high interest rates. As of the fourth quarter of 2023, the average construction loan rate was over 12 percent. What will happen with interest rates is the subject of much speculation in the business press, but the general consensus is that rates are going to remain higher for longer than originally anticipated. Developers may be hesitant to invest too much in acquisition and entitlement of the project area site until there is more clarity on the future track for interest rates. In addition, there is a limit to the capacity of developers and the labor market to ramp up housing production substantially beyond what has been produced in recent years, although housing production throughout Orange County was accelerating in the three years leading up to the COVID-19 pandemic. Still, it is unlikely that production can ramp up to the level needed—nearly 23,000 housing units per year countywide—to achieve the 6th cycle RHNA target.

At the same time, there are other factors that may facilitate a faster pace of development. Cities and counties throughout Southern California have substantially expanded the zoning capacity for multifamily development. Theoretically, having more potential sites should translate into developers being able to acquire land more easily when they are ready to invest in multifamily development, and having more sellers should also act as downward pressure on land acquisition costs. Over the past ten years, multifamily housing accounted for about half of all new housing in Orange County, and nearly two-thirds when attached housing (duplexes, townhouses, etc.) is included. Thus, reducing market barriers to land acquisition for multifamily development could have a substantive impact on multifamily construction. In addition, state requirements to ease housing regulation, such as requiring objective design standards, may also help to reduce entitlement time and facilitate increased housing production. Finally, as noted before, the pace of housing construction nationally has been steadily increasing since the recession-era lows in 2012. And in Orange County, housing production was also increasing steadily until the COVID-19 pandemic. Nevertheless, the market has bounced back since then, and the rate of housing construction is increasing. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that, if the economy holds up, housing production in Orange County will continue to grow, producing more housing than the ten-year trend even if it does not achieve the RHNA target by 2029.

COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD PROJECTIONS
The following sections discuss several ways to project household growth that would drive demand for new housing in the plan area. It is important to note that, in addition to a potentially large amount of affordable housing being built in the plan area, Costa Mesa is also considering zoning changes to facilitate additional housing development along a limited number of corridor areas to meet the city’s RHNA obligations. The projected household growth discussed below could be satisfied in the plan area, or in the corridor areas, or a combination of both, as well as through ADUs and other housing development elsewhere in the city.

Local Trend Projection
The simplest projection is to assume that the rate of growth over the past 20 years will continue over the next 20 years. As discussed above, the pace of housing construction is likely to increase over the past trend, even if it does not grow to a rate that would produce the full RHNA allocation by 2029. Figure 24 822
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 31
shows the actual number of households and three projections for the number of households from 2023 to 2044.

Figure 24: Total Number of Households, Actual 2004–2023 and Trend Projections 2024–2044, Costa Mesa
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the CA Department of Finance.

The low projection in Figure 24 reflects the trend in the total number of households in Costa Mesa over the past 20 years. The high projection reflects the total number of households if Costa Mesa were to grow at the countywide rate over the next 20 years. The local trend projection in Figure 24 is the average between the city’s current growth rate and the countywide growth rate.

Under the projection, Costa Mesa would add 6,610 new households, growing at a rate of 0.73 percent per year for the next 20 years. In 2044, there would be 49,000 households living in the city.

SCAG Forecast
Every four years, SCAG updates its forecasts for regional and local growth and housing development, and it uses the forecasts to develop the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). SCAG used the forecasts prepared for the 2016 RTP in allocating RHNA housing needs to local jurisdictions for the 6th cycle housing element updates. However, it has since updated its forecasts to develop the 2020 RTP.

With the most recent iteration, SCAG forecasts that Costa Mesa would grow by 10,200 households, reaching a total of 52,600 households in 2044, as shown in Table 6. This represents a growth rate of 1.0 percent per year for the next 20 years. The SCAG growth rate is about 40 percent higher than the projection in Figure 24 and 170 percent higher than the rate of growth in households over the past 20 years. Yet this projection still does not accommodate the city’s full RHNA allocation over 20 years.

Department of Finance Projection
The California Department of Finance (DOF) projects population and the number of households for the state and each of the counties. As shown in Table 6, the most recent DOF projections cover the period from 2020 to 2030 and are based on observed data through 2019. The projections reflect current trends and do not necessarily capture emerging trends, such as decreasing fertility rates or household sizes.
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2004200820122016202020242028203220362040
Actual Projection
Current Growth Rate Countywide Growth Rate
823

DOF projects that the number of households in Orange County will increase slightly more quickly from 2025 to 2030 than from 2020 to 2025. The projected 10-year household growth rate is 0.72 percent per year. Applying this growth rate to Costa Mesa yields a 20-year household growth of 6,520, which is similar but slightly less than the simple trend projection discussed above.

Table 6: SCAG and DOF Forecasts and the Resulting Projections for Household Growth in Costa Mesa, 2024 to 2044
SCAG Household Forecast for
Costa Mesa
DOF Household Forecast for
Orange County
2019 42,100 2020 1,054,000
2035 50,000 2025 1,090,000
2050 54,400 2030 1,131,000
Resulting 20-Year Projection for
Costa Mesa
Resulting 20-year Projection for
Costa Mesa
2024 44,600 2024 42,700
2044 52,600 2044 49,500
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024, using data from the SCAG 2024 Connect SoCal (RTP) and the CA Department of Finance 2020 Household Projections for California Counties: 2020–2030 (P-4 Report).

Projections Summary
The three projections produce similar results, varying from a low of 6,520 additional households by 2044 (the projection based on DOF countywide projection) to a high of 9,030 additional households (the projection based on SCAG’s forecasts). Figure 25 shows the actual number of households in Costa Mesa from 1990 through 2023 and the three projections through 2044.

Figure 25: Total Number of Households, Actual and Comparison of Three Projections, Costa Mesa, 1990 to 2044
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023.

One common factor limits the applicability of each trend for projecting market demand for housing in the plan area: they are all based on continuation of current trends. Costa Mesa and its neighboring cities are built out. The lack of land readily available for development has constrained the construction of new housing for many years, even decades. With only limited new housing there has been limited room for new households, even though Costa Mesa and coastal OC are considered very desirable places to live. This lack of housing to 0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
19901994199820022006201020142018202220262030203420382042 Actual Projection Based on SCAG
Local Trend Projection Projection Based on DOF
824
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 33
satisfy demand shows up in low residential vacancy rates (the city’s DOF-reported vacancy rate is lower than the countywide average) and overcrowding (the city’s housing element shows that nearly 10 percent of housing in the city is overcrowded, second only to Santa Ana).

The Fairview Developmental Center is an unprecedented opportunity for new housing development in this part of Orange County. The approximately 2,300 new housing units can be expected to accommodate households that are cost burdened or living in overcrowded conditions as well as others that would not otherwise show up as new Costa Mesa households in the absence of this development.

HOUSEHOLD FORECAST
The forecast for the number of households uses the projection based on SCAG’s forecast as the baseline. This projection results in higher household growth than the current trend, but this is warranted because changes in state law, especially for accessory dwelling units and objective design standards, can be expected to accelerate housing production. In addition, the City’s planning for implementing 2022 voter-approved Measure K can be expected to accelerate housing production above past trends.

As discussed above, though, the redevelopment of the Fairview Development Center can be expected to create new demand above and beyond current trends. To reflect this, the forecast assumes that new housing in the plan area will first become available in 2028 and that the plan area will take four years to build out. Thus, the forecast adds to the baseline forecast 500 additional units in 2028 and 600 additional units each year from 2029 to 2031.

The resulting forecast is shown in Figure 26. Under this forecast, the total number of households residing in Costa Mesa would increase by 11,330, growing from 42,400 in 2023 to 53,700 in 2044. This represents a 20-year growth rate of 1.2 percent per year.

Figure 26: Total Number of Households, Actual and Forecast, Costa Mesa, 1990 to 2044
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023.
0 10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
19901994199820022006201020142018202220262030203420382042 Actual Forecast
825

HOUSEHOLDS BY INCOME
To determine the number of households by income, the analysis uses the Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Set (PUMS), as described above in Chapter 2. This data set includes individual records, which enables the analysis to convert each record’s household income into July 2023 dollars and apply the most current HCD income limits for affordable housing groups as well as three common income groupings for the above moderate category. This adjustment reduces inflation creep, in which a household’s 2022 income places them in one category, but their 2012 income would have had them in a lower-income category just based on inflation.

As discussed above, the redevelopment of the Fairview Developmental Center is expected to create new market demand above and beyond that expected based on current trends. To reflect this broader market, the analysis uses the PUMS data for the area including Costa Mesa (which also includes Fountain Valley) as well as the areas for Huntington Beach and Santa Ana. The areas for Newport Beach and Irvine were not used because the boundaries changed from 2012 to 2022. The analysis calculates the change in the number of households across the three areas in each income class, converts those data into percentages, and then applies those percentages to the increase in the number households forecast for Costa Mesa above.

Table 6 provides the data on the total number of households across the four cities. The data indicate that the area grew by 16,190 households over ten years and that this growth occurred across most income categories. However, two income groups—extremely low-income households and very low-income households—experienced a significant decline, 18 and 20 percent respectively.

This decline is likely due to a variety of factors, including actual changes in household income and households moving out of the area. Given the year of the data, 2022, it is also possible that the data reflect lingering impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which individuals relocated to be with family or to live in less dense areas, and for a variety of other reasons. Similar results occur with the data for only Costa Mesa and Fountain Valley and the data for all of Orange County.

To estimate housing demand by tenure and price point, the analysis uses the data for households in the low-income category and higher. The data for very low-income households and extremely low-income households are excluded because the income categories experienced a net decline in households over the past ten years. The data for acutely low-income households is not used, even though there has been an increase in the number of these households over the past ten years. Nevertheless, these households tend to lack sufficient income for subsidized affordable housing and require different forms of housing assistance.
826
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 35
Table 7: Change in Number of Households by Household Income Category: Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana, 2012 and 2022 Income Category: Acutely
Low
Extremely
Low
Very Low
Income
Low
Income
Moderate,
Below
Median
Moderate,
Above
Median
Above Moderate Income
Income Range (2023 dollars): Total Up to
$19,200
$19,201 to
$43,100
$43,101 to
$71,800
$71,801 to
$114,800
$114,801 to
$127,800
$127,801 to
$153,400
$153,401 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$249,999
$250,000 and
above
Average 2022 household
income (2023 dollars) 133,200 8,860 31,400 57,000 92,600 121,300 140,600 174,700 221,000 421,000 Number of households, 2012 206,600 15,340 31,080 41,310 47,680 9,910 13,310 20,610 11,240 16,150 Number of households, 2022 222,800 20,160 25,580 33,430 49,490 12,330 14,810 26,260 15,590 25,180 10-Year change in number of
households 16,190 4,820 -5,500 -7,880 1,810 2,420 1,500 5,650 4,350 9,030 Average annual change in
number of households 1,620 480 -550 -790 180 240 150 560 430 900 Share of change in number of
households 100% 7.3% 9.8% 6.1% 22.8% 17.6% 36.5%
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using data from the US Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata Set.

Notes to Table 6:

1. The income ranges are derived from the CA HCD Income Limits for 2023 for Orange County and are based on the area median income of $127,800 and the average percentage of area median income across each household size for each listed income category.

2. The data represent households with at least one person and exclude group quarters.

3. The share of change in number of households is based on the 10-year change in number of households after excluding acutely low-income, extremely low-income, and very low-income data. 827

MARKET DEMAND FOR OWNERSHIP HOUSING
To calculate the market demand for ownership housing, the analysis determines the percentage of households in each income category that owned their homes in 2022. The homeownership rate is then applied to the forecast number of households depicted in Figure 26. The demand is presented in three groups: 2024 through 2027 (the period before new housing will likely be available for sale or rent in the plan area), 2028 through 2031 (the period during which most housing might first become available for sale or rent in the plan area), and 2028 through 2043 (the remainder of the 20-year period used as a basis for the analysis). The estimated market demand is provided in Table 7.

The analysis suggests that in the four years when new housing in the plan area may first become available to purchase or rent, the demand from expected Table 8: Market Demand for Ownership Housing by Income Category, Costa Mesa, 2024 to 2043 Income Category: Total Low Income Moderate,
Below Median
Moderate,
Above Median Above Moderate Income
Income Range (2023 dollars): $71,801 to
$114,800
$114,801 to
$127,800
$127,801 to
$153,400
$153,401 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$249,999
$250,000 and
above
Share of Household Growth, 2012 to 2022 100% 7.3% 9.8% 6.1% 22.8% 17.6% 36.5% Total Household Growth 2024 through 2027 1,863 136 182 113 425 327 679 Total Household Growth 2028 through 2031 4,245 311 415 257 968 746 1,548 Total Household Growth 2032 through 2043 5,222 382 511 316 1,191 918 1,905 Total 20-Year Increase in Households 11,330 829 1,108 687 2,584 1,991 4,132 Home Ownership Rate 2022 50.3% 47.6% 64.4% 55.4% 61.6% 76.4% New Owner Households 2024 through 2027 1,184 69 87 73 235 201 519 New Owner Households 2028 through 2031 2,698 156 197 166 537 459 1,183 New Owner Households 2032 through 2043 3,319 192 243 204 660 565 1,455 Total New Owner Households 2024 through
2043 7,200 417 527 442 1,432 1,225 3,156
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023.
828
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 37
above-moderate income households, 2,180 households, will greatly exceed the anticipated 690 units of above-moderate-income households in the plan area.

For moderate-income households, the expected demand for ownership housing, 360 households, will be less than half of the anticipated 690 moderateincome housing units. Thus, a majority of the moderate-income housing will need to be offered for rent, as discussed below. Finally, the analysis indicates that there could be a small amount of demand for ownership housing among low-income households, 156 units. However, it is important to note that even if low- and moderate-income households are eligible for subsidized ownership housing, each household must still qualify for conventional financing for the portion of the housing cost that is not subsidized.

MARKET DEMAND FOR RENTAL HOUSING
Estimating the market demand for rental housing follows the same process as that for ownership housing, as far as determining the percentage of likely renters among those in each income category who are moving to the area. The analysis is presented in Table 8.

As with ownership housing, the analysis indicates that there will be more demand from above-moderate-income households for rental housing than there are anticipated to be above-moderate-income housing units in the plan area.

In contrast, the analysis indicates that in the four years when new housing may first become available for rent or to purchase, the demand from moderate-income households (363 ownership households and 309 renter households) may slightly lag the anticipated 690 units of moderate-income housing in the plan area. Finally, the demand from low-income households over the four years, 311 new households, will be slightly less than the anticipated 354 lowincome housing units in the plan area.

It is worth noting that the forecast for growth in low- and moderate-income households represents new households in these income categories. However, SCAG’s RHNA process also took into consideration housing needed to alleviate overcrowding as well as the need to provide more affordable housing in areas close to the region’s job centers and high-quality transit corridors. In its recently adopted Housing Element, Costa Mesa indicated that 9 percent of its housing stock was overcrowded as of 2019. Thus, the number of low- and moderateincome households that could occupy new affordable housing is higher than the growth forecast.

Notes to Table 7:

1. The share of household growth is taken from Table 6.

2. The total household growth in each of the three time periods is based on the forecast growth in the total number of households prepared by PlaceWorks and the share of household growth for each income category.

3. The home ownership rate in 2022 is derived from an analysis of the US Census Bureau Public Use Microdata Set for 2022 for Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.

4. The new owner households for each time period is determined by multiplying the homeownership rate by the total household growth for each income category. 829

MARKET DEMAND FROM OVERCROWDING
In addition to the new housing demand generated by the net increase in new households, there is latent housing demand accounted for among existing Costa Mesa households living in overworded conditions. As used in this section, overcrowding is defined as having more than 1.00 persons per room5 . Table 8 provides the data for the number of households in Costa Mesa by household size, overcrowding, and the presence of subfamilies.

Based on Census Bureau data, the analysis estimates that about 3,250 households in Costa Mesa were residing in overcrowded conditions in 2022. This included 500 owner households and 2,750 renter households. In some cases, these households simply need a larger dwelling. In such a case, the overcrowding does not reflect net demand for a new housing unit—the overcrowded household moving to a larger home leaves a vacant home behind. However, this could include some demand for new housing, for instance where adult children are still living at home but desire to live on their own.

Some households living in overcrowded conditions have more than one family living together. The Census Bureau refers to these as subfamilies, which may be related to each other, and which may include married-couple families and single-parent households. In these cases, alleviating the overcrowding would result in demand for a new housing unit—the current housing unit for one family and the new housing unit for the subfamily. The analysis estimates that there were 1,530 households in Costa Mesa in 2022 living in overcrowded 5 The California Department of Housing and Community Development suggests a threshold of one person per room excluding kitchens and bathrooms. However, that level of detail as to the types of rooms is not readily available.
housing with one or more subfamilies. This included 100 owner households and 1,430 renter households.

The available data do not provide sufficient detail for how many of the overcrowded households without subfamilies are a single family simply in need of a larger home and how many include other adults and might need another housing unit in addition to their current residence to alleviate overcrowding. Thus, the net demand for new housing to alleviate overcrowding among existing residents is between 1,530 and 3,250. 830
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 39
Table 9: Estimated Total Number of Households and Overcrowded Households by Number of Persons and Presence of Subfamilies; Costa Mesa; 2022 Persons per
Room:

Less than or
Equal to 0.50 0.50 to 1.00 1.01 to 1.50 1.51 to 2.00 2.01 or More Total Number of Households
Number of
Overcrowded
Households
Overcrowded
Households
with
Subfamilies
All Tenure
1-person 9,770 1,220 0 0 0 10,990 0 0
2-person 10,430 2,730 0 420 0 13,580 420 0
3-person 3,290 3,760 170 0 10 7,230 190 0
4-person 640 3,780 300 60 100 4,880 470 310
5-person 80 1,730 770 90 0 2,660 860 150
6-person 10 430 730 110 0 1,290 840 490
7+ persons 0 290 360 120 0 760 470 580
Total 24,220 13,940 2,330 800 110 41,390 3,250 1,530
Owner
1-person 3,410 20 0 0 0 3,430 0 0
2-person 5,550 130 0 0 0 5,670 0 0
3-person 2,110 840 10 0 0 2,970 10 0
4-person 530 1,780 20 0 0 2,330 20 0
5-person 50 1,070 110 30 0 1,260 140 0
6-person 0 310 180 0 0 490 180 20
7+ persons 0 130 120 30 0 270 150 80
Total 11,650 4,280 440 60 0 16,420 500 100
Renter
1-person 6,370 1,200 0 0 0 7,570 0 0
2-person 4,880 2,600 0 420 0 7,910 420 0
3-person 1,170 2,920 160 0 10 4,270 170 0
4-person 110 2,000 280 60 100 2,550 450 310
5-person 20 650 660 60 0 1,400 720 150
6-person 10 120 550 110 0 790 660 470
7+ persons 0 160 240 90 0 490 330 500
Total 12,560 9,650 1,890 740 110 24,980 2,750 1,430
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024, using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates and 2022 Public Use Microdata Set. 831

MARKET DEMAND FROM IN-COMMUTING WORKERS
Costa Mesa is a jobs center in Orange County—there are more jobs in the city than there are residents who are in the labor force. While the city has a diverse local economy, there are some large-employment sectors in Costa Mesa in which the average pay is below a living wage.

Calculating market demand from in-commuting works is fraught with data challenges. First, there were 1.63 employed residents per housing in 2022.

However, no single household had 1.63 working adults; each had 0, or 1, or 2, or more. Similarly, the average household size was 2.51, but again, household might have 2 people or 3. In addition, we do not have information on the wages of each individual worker or resident; the best that is available is the average wage in each economic sector across Orange County. Finally, most employed people in Southern California work in a city different from where they live; there is no way to know how many would choose to live closer to where they work if affordable housing were available. Thus, the following analysis is intended to provide an estimate of the order of magnitude of potential housing demand.

Table 9 provides relevant data for each economic sector for the number of jobs in Costa Mesa, the number of residents working in each sector regardless of where their job is, and the average weekly wage in that sector. The employment data is from 2021, the most recent year for which data are available. The wage data is adjusted for inflation to 2024 dollars to allow comparison to a living wage, as described below.

Table 9 shows the net inflow of workers in each economic sector. For example, there were 219 residents working in the utilities sector and 134 jobs in Costa Mesa in the utilities sector. If every utilities job in the city were filled by a resident, then at least 85 residents had to commute to a job outside of the city.

Similarly, if retail businesses in the city employed all 4,772 residents who worked in retail, then there would still need to be at least 7,356 workers commuting to Costa Mesa to fill the remaining retail jobs. Overall, there were at least 38,940 workers commuting to Costa Mesa to work. Not all these people would choose to live here. Nevertheless, this is a large pool of potential new residents that might make up the demand for new rental and for-sale housing.

Within this pool of potential residents, there are many who likely do sufficient income to afford to live in Costa Mesa even if they wanted to. The MIT Living Wage Calculator (https://livingwage.mit.edu/counties/06059) estimates the amount of a living wage based on the number of working adults and the number of children. Their estimates range from $27.63 per hour, for a household with two working adults and one child to $46.43 for two adults, one working, and one child.

With two working adults, there are six sectors in which the average wage would be below a living wage (retail, admin and support, education, arts and recreation, accommodation and food service, and other services). At least 21,660 workers commute to Costa Mesa to work in these sectors. These workers represent a large pool of potential residents for affordable housing in Costa Mesa, depending on how many would choose to live in the city if affordable housing were available.
832
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 41
Table 10: Number of Jobs and Employed Residents in Costa Mesa and Estimated Average Hourly Wage in Orange County, by Economic Sector; 2024 Economic Sector Jobs in
Costa Mesa
Residents
with Jobs
Net Inflow
of Workers
Average
Hourly Wage
Agriculture, Forestry, Fishing and Hunting 65 282 -217 28.63 Mining, Quarrying, and Oil and Gas Extraction 4 18 -14 28.63 Utilities 134 219 -85 80.15
Construction 4,290 2,719 1,571 46.02
Manufacturing 4,772 3,631 1,141 51.18
Wholesale Trade 4,594 2,303 2,291 54.39
Retail Trade 12,128 4,772 7,356 25.62
Transportation and Warehousing 1,482 1,308 174 31.92
Information 1,312 1,370 -58 77.57
Finance and Insurance 4,972 2,766 2,206 79.16
Real Estate and Rental and Leasing 1,960 1,410 550 51.72 Professional, Scientific, and Technical Services 9,719 4,891 4,828 62.98 Management of Companies and Enterprises 5,395 1,160 4,235 75.92 Administration & Support, Waste Management and Remediation 10,333 3,783 6,550 26.30 Educational Services 6,597 3,480 3,117 25.79
Health Care and Social Assistance 7,437 6,221 1,216 32.14 Arts, Entertainment, and Recreation 1,072 705 367 25.39 Accommodation and Food Services 7,565 4,592 2,973 16.23 Other Services (excluding Public Administration) 2,763 1,466 1,297 24.43 Public Administration 538 1,096 -558 43.05
Total Net Inflow of Workers 38,940
Source: PlaceWorks, 2024, using employment data from the US Census Bureau’s Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics Program and wage data from the CA Employment Development Department. 833

ESTIMATED PRICE POINTS
The final residential market demand consideration is the price point at which new housing would be affordable to households in each of the income categories analyzed. Housing is defined as affordable when a household spends no more than 30 percent of its gross income on total housing cost, which includes rent or mortgage payments, utilities, insurance, and taxes. In its most recent housing element update, Costa Mesa indicated that 32 percent of homeowners and 49 percent of renters spent more than 30 percent of their income on housing costs in 2017.

Table 10 estimates the monthly rent or mortgage payment that would be affordable with the average income in each of the income categories. 834
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 43
Table 11:Affordable Rents and Home Purchase Prices by Household Income, Costa Mesa, 2023 Income Category Low Income Moderate,
Below Median
Moderate,
Above Median Above Moderate
Income Range (2023 dollars) $71,801 to
$114,800
$114,801 to
$127,800
$127,801 to
$153,400
$153,401 to
$199,999
$200,000 to
$249,999
$250,000 and
above
Average Household Income 92,645 121,342 140,586 174,715 221,077 420,519 Annual Affordable Housing Cost (@30%) 27,793 36,403 42,176 52,415 66,323 126,156 Utility Allowance 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
Annual Affordable Rent Payment 24,293 32,903 38,676 48,915 62,823 122,656 Monthly Affordable Rent Payment 2,024 2,742 3,223 4,076 5,235 10,221 Present Value of Monthly Affordable Housing Payment 320,290 208,897 245,551 649,083 833,646 1,627,606 Other Housing Payment Costs 586 382 450 1,062 1,363 2,662 Mortgage Amount 227,520 373,290 438,789 480,050 616,549 1,203,748 Mortgage Down Payment 8,252 13,539 15,915 120,012 154,137 300,937 Home Purchase Price 235,772 386,829 454,703 600,062 770,686 1,504,685 Total Upfront Cost 12,234 20,072 23,593
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023.

Notes to Table 9:

1. Average household income is based on data from the US Census Bureau’s Public Use Microdata set for Costa Mesa, Fountain Valley, Huntington Beach, and Santa Ana.

2. The utility allowance is based on information from the Orange County Housing Authority and represents utility costs for a four-person household in a three-bedroom home.

3. The annual affordable housing payment is 30 percent of the average household income minus the utility allowance.

4. The monthly affordable rent payment is the annual affordable housing payment divided by 12 months. 835

Notes to Table 9 (continued):

5. The present value of the monthly affordable rent payment is the amount of funding that a mortgage could provide with a monthly payment that equals the monthly affordable rent payment.

6. The analysis assumes that low- and moderate-income households would use a Federal Housing Administration (FHA)-insured loan to finance a home purchase, and that above-moderate-income households would use conventional mortgage financing. For FHA loans, the analysis assumes a 3.5 percent down payment, a 6.5 percent APR, a 1.75 percent upfront payment for mortgage insurance (assumed to be paid in cash with the down payment), a 0.55 percent monthly mortgage insurance payment, 1.0 percent property tax, and 0.57 percent property insurance. For conventional loans, the analysis assumes a 20 percent downpayment, which should avoid the need for private mortgage insurance, a 6.44 percent APR, 1.0 percent property tax, and 0.57 percent for property insurance. Both loan types are calculated as 30-year fixed-rate mortgages.

7. For FHA-insured mortgages for low- and moderate-income households, the total upfront cost includes the down payment and the upfront payment for mortgage insurance. For conventional loans for above-moderate-income households, the upfront cost consists only of the down payment. 836
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 45
Santa Ana | Berkeley | Los Angles | Ontario | Sacramento | San Luis Obispo

5. Nonresidential Market Potential

5. Non-Residential Market Potential
This chapter assesses the market demand for nonresidential uses. The intent is to focus on nonresidential development that complements and is ancillary to the residential neighborhoods that will be developed in the plan area. Because the plan area does not lie directly on and does not have good visibility from Harbor Boulevard, it would be a challenging location to develop a commercial center that relies on attracting consumers from across a large trade area. Thus, the market analysis focuses on the spending of the future residents in the plan area and the type and scale of businesses that spending could support. Finally, because there is a substantial number of existing retail businesses along Harbor Boulevard and Adams Avenue, it is unlikely that commercial businesses would be successful operating in the plan area if they needed to attract a substantial number of customers from outside of the plan area.

MARKET ANALYSIS BASICS
Retail Types
From a land use perspective, the retail market can be categorized into two broad groups: convenience goods and services and comparison goods. Eating and drinking places are a cross between convenience and comparison shopping. Finally, experience-oriented shopping is a hybrid type of retail.

Convenience Goods and Services
Convenience goods and services are those that people need on a regular basis.

For these regular purchases, most consumers have built knowledge of where to go to get what they want, whether their discriminator is price, convenience, or quality. Groceries, medicines, and hair care are typical convenience goods and services. Because convenience goods and services usually have low cost margins and high sales volumes, convenience retailers are located throughout an area, close to concentrations of households. Convenience goods retailers typically operate in convenience-goods centers (less than 30,000 sq. ft.) and neighborhood-scale centers (less than 100,000 sq. ft.), and they typically draw customers from a ½- to 1½-mile radius.

Comparison Goods
Comparison goods are retail items that consumers purchase more infrequently or rarely. For these purchases, consumers tend to compare goods across brands and across retailers. This habit of comparing induces retailers to locate near each other. It also promotes larger-scale retailers who can stock many different brands of similar products. Clothing, electronics, and furniture are quintessential comparison goods. Because comparison goods have higher cost margins and lower sales volumes and because consumers purchase these goods infrequently, comparison goods retailers tend to locate close to major transportation corridors that give access to a greater number of consumers. These businesses typically locate in community-scale centers (100,000+ sq. ft.) and regional-scale centers (300,000+ sq. ft.), and they draw customers from a 3- to 5-mile radius up to an 8- to 12-mile radius, depending on the center’s size and retailer mix.

Eating and Drinking Places
Eating and drinking places do not fit squarely within the two previous categories. Sometimes consumers are looking for convenience when buying food away from home. Fast food and limited-service restaurants typically satisfy this convenience demand. Other times, consumers are looking for higher quality 837

and are willing to travel longer distances and pay more for the cuisine they desire.

Experience-Oriented Shopping
In experience-oriented shopping, the experience of the trip is of equal if not greater importance than the material needs for a good or service. The experience’s value may accrue from socialization with friends, activities and entertainment, or the quality of the place. Downtowns, new town centers, lifestyle centers, and even shopping malls all attempt to enhance the shopping experience and provide a mix of businesses and amenities to create an enjoyable shopping experience. Because most consumers infrequently invest their time in experiential shopping, most are willing to travel further and forego quick and easy access for the value of the experience. Experience-oriented shopping is a destination trip and draws from a community, regional, or even super-regional size trade area, even if it does not offer the commensurate amount of retail square footage.

Consumer Spending
The household is the basic economic unit in retail analysis. The Consumer Expenditure Survey, published annually by the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, details how households spend their annual income, stratified by income, age, geography, household size, and other demographic characteristics. Claritas, a leading national provider of marketing data, interprets that data for individual locations based on the demographics and lifestyle characteristics of the households residing in that area. They report the data using standard retail business categories from the North American Industrial Classification System Estimated Retail Sales
The Claritas spending report also estimates the amount of retail sales at businesses operating in the trade area. However, the analysis is not focused on identifying and filling retail gaps in the city, so the estimated retail sales is not applicable to this study.

Sales Efficiency
Sales efficiency is the average annual sales per square foot of retail businesses.

Sales efficiency varies by store type, by individual business, and among different locations of an individual retail chain. This report estimates retail sales efficiency by type of store based on information from Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers / The SCORE, published by the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers; annual 10K reports filed by retail corporations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and the US Census Bureau’s Economic Census.

SUPPORTABLE RETAIL BUILDING SPACE
The market analysis considers convenience goods separately from comparison goods. The plan area could likely capture a larger share of residents’ convenience goods spending because these types of businesses are often located near where people live. In contrast, comparison goods retailers typically have to draw customers from a larger area, and the plan area is not well suited for such businesses. Table 11 provides estimated market potential for retail uses in the plan area. The estimates assume that the average household residing in the plan area will have similar consumer spending patterns as the average current city resident has.
838
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 47
Table 12: Retail Market Potential in Square Feet of Gross Floor Area Store Type
Citywide
Household
Spending ($)
Spending per
Household
Supportable Sq.

Ft. per
Household
Plan Area Total
Support
Recommended Plan
Area Retail
Convenience Goods and Services
Food and beverage stores 364,241,837 8,655 14.6 33,514
- Grocery stores 326,355,243 7,755 12.4 28,466 10,000 to 14,000 - Specialty food stores 9,438,622 224 0.9 2,048 Up to 1,000 - Beer, wine, and liquor stores 28,447,972 676 1.3 3,001 Up to 2,400 Health and personal care stores 148,970,904 3,540 9.1 20,829 10,000 to 12,500 Gasoline stations 204,029,031 4,848 2.8 6,461 2,000 to 3,000 Food services and drinking places 319,999,833 7,604 15.2 34,853 - Drinking places (alcoholic beverages) 10,614,864 252 0.8 1,835 Up to 1,500 - Restaurants and other eating places 284,599,040 6,762 13.2 30,318 2,500 to 5,000 Convenience Goods and Services
Furniture and home furnishings stores 54,006,877 1,283 5.3 12,195 - Furniture stores 30,826,535 732 3.8 8,778
- Home furnishings stores 23,180,342 551 1.5 3,416 Up to 1,000 Electronics and appliance stores 40,434,354 961 2.1 4,834 Building mat. and garden equipment and supplies dealers 182,834,384 4,344 10.0 22,941 - Building material and supplies dealers 159,276,607 3,785 8.9 20,398 - Lawn and garden equipment and supplies stores 23,557,777 560 1.1 2,543 Clothing and clothing accessories stores 124,273,916 2,953 8.4 19,411 - Clothing stores 85,003,769 2,020 5.8 13,236 2,000 to 3,000 - Shoe stores 13,864,837 329 1.2 2,856
- Jewelry, luggage, and leather goods stores 25,405,311 604 1.4 3,320 839

Table 11 (continued)
Store Type
Citywide
Household
Spending ($)
Spending per
Household
Supportable Sq.

Ft. per
Household
Plan Area Total
Support
Recommended Plan
Area Retail
Sporting goods, hobby, musical instrument, and bookstores 40,849,021 971 2.8 6,499 - Sporting goods, hobby, and musical instrument stores 35,951,073 854 2.4 5,600 - Book stores and news dealers 4,897,948 116 0.4 900
General merchandise stores (NAICS 452) 321,811,538 7,647 17.5 40,145 - Department stores (NAICS 4522) 43,455,352 1,033 3.3 7,548 - Other general merchandise stores (NAICS 4523) 278,356,186 6,614 14.2 32,597 Up to 10,000 Miscellaneous store retailers (NAICS 453) 54,306,288 1,290 5.4 12,526 - Florists (NAICS 4531) 2,539,149 60 0.2 364
- Office supplies, stationery, and gift stores (NAICS 4532) 9,986,078 237 0.9 2,074 - Used merchandise stores (NAICS 4533) 7,860,024 187 0.6 1,450 - Other miscellaneous store retailers (NAICS 4539) 33,921,037 806 2.7 6,256 1,000 to 1,500 - Tire dealers (NAICS 44132) 18,282,673 434 1.0 2,383
TOTAL 29,500 to 55,900
Source: PlaceWorks, 2023, using retail spending estimates from Claritas.

Notes to Table 11:

1. Citywide household spending by retail store type are estimates from Claritas and represent the estimated amount spend by households residing in Costa Mesa in stores for each of the retail store types. Spending per household is the citywide spending divided by the total number of households residing in Costa Mesa as estimated by Claritas.

2. The supportable sq. ft. per household represents that gross floor area of retail building space that can be supported by the spending of the average Costa Mesa household. It is derived by dividing the spending per household by the average sales efficiency (dollars per square foot). The average sales efficiency is estimated by PlaceWorks based on information and data from Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers / The SCORE, published by the Urban Land Institute and the International Council of Shopping Centers; annual 10K reports filed by retail corporations with the US Securities and Exchange Commission; and the US Census Bureau’s Economic Census.

3. Plan area total support is the total gross floor area of retail building space, in square feet, that could be supported by new consumer spending by plan area residents. It is important to note that the supportable retail building space would not all be captured by businesses in the trade area. 840
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 49
Table 11 provides the estimated gross floor area, in square feet, that can be supported by the new retail spending of plan area residents. It is important to note that a substantial amount of the spending, and hence the building space it could support, will flow to existing businesses located elsewhere in Costa Mesa. Furthermore, the amount of building space that can be supported is less than a typical store size.

For example, the analysis indicates that spending by the plan area’s 2,300 new households could support 28,500 square feet of new grocery store. A typical supermarket would be 50,000 to 60,000 square feet in size. Thus, a supermarket located in the plan area would have to attract customers from outside of the plan area. Given that there is an existing Von’s supermarket and a Northgate market just north and south of the plan area, it is unlikely that another grocery operator would invest in a supermarket in the plan area.

Retail businesses in the plan area are likely to capture a larger share of residents’ spending than are comparison goods businesses. One is less likely to drive past a nearby pharmacy to go to one farther away than one is to drive past a nearby boutique clothing store to go to a mall with many such retailers.

This is reflected in the amount of retail building space that this market study recommends for the plan area, as shown in Table 11.

Retail Recommendations
Overall, the analysis suggests that 32,000 to 52,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area for retail businesses be included in the specific plan. The recommendations for other types of commercial uses are presented in the next section.

For grocery stores, as discussed above, the plan area is unlikely to support a full-service supermarket. However, there would be sufficient spending to potential support a small format or specialty grocer. Retailers in the plan area are unlikely to capture all the residents’ spending at specialty food stores and at beer, wine, and liquor stores. However, in both cases there is sufficient spending to support one specialty food store and one store selling beer, wine, and liquor.

There would be sufficient spending to support the operation of one pharmacy, about 12,500 square feet. The pharmacy and a small format or specialty grocer would likely anchor a commercial district in the plan area.

Residents’ spending could support one or two gas stations. Residents’ spending could also support quite a few restaurants. However, much of that spending will go to restaurants elsewhere in the area. Nevertheless, it would be reasonable to include 2,500 to about 5,000 square feet of floor area for restaurant and food service businesses.

For comparison goods businesses, there are very few categories where residents’ spending alone would be sufficient to support an individual business. A possible exception is a general merchandise store (other than a department store). This would likely be a dollar store type of business. In addition, it would be reasonable to plan for a few thousand square feet of retail floor space for other types of comparison goods retailers, where an independent retail business might be successful in the plan area.

Altogether, the analysis finds that consumer spending by households residing in the plan area would likely support about 29,500 to 55,900 square feet of gross retail floor space in the plan area. This amount of retail should help reduce traffic, both from residents having to leave the community for every retail 841

need and from businesses needing to attract customers from outside of the plan area. However, this does not preclude planning to accommodate more or less retail.

Finally, it is worth noting that the individual retail store types are used as a basis for estimating the appropriate amount of retail. These are the types of stores most likely to be successful operating in the plan area. However, this does not mean that these types of stores will definitely open in the plan area, and it does not mean that other types of stores will not open in the plan area and be successful.

SUPPORTABLE BUILDING SPACE FOR OTHER

COMMERCIAL USES
To estimate the amount of building space that could be supported by plan area residents for other commercial uses, the analysis determines the number of businesses per household in Orange County and then multiplies this by the anticipated number of households in the plan area. The most recent dataset available for this is the 2017 Economic Census. The economy has changed since then. However, the businesses identified below serve local customers and are less prone to working at home, which has generally reduced market demand for office space. The results for non-commercial uses that could be supported by plan area households are presented in Table 12. Based on the analysis, the plan area could support up to 76,750 square feet of gross floor area for medical offices, professional offices, and other commercial uses.

PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES
The market potential for non-residential uses presented in Table 11 and Table 12 reflect a concept for the plan area that is predominantly residential, with limited non-residential uses that support and are supported by the households residing in the plan area. This does not preclude a different vision for the specific plan.

For example, the vision could be for exclusively residential uses to maximize the amount of housing that can be developed. This vision might have greater traffic impacts, but the fact that there is market demand for commercial uses does not mean that the specific plan must accommodate such uses.

Similarly, the vision could be for a unique destination with a walkable, experience-oriented commercial core that adds value to surrounding residential development. This would require attracting customers from outside of the plan area to support a greater number and variety of commercial businesses. Again, this vision might have greater traffic impacts, but the fact that the market demand from plan area households would not support more commercial activity does not mean that the specific plan cannot promote this vision. 842
DRAFT January 2024, revised 11/2024 Page 51
Table 13: Supportable Gross Floor Area (sq. ft.) for Other Commercial Uses Type of Business
Number of
Establishments per
1,000 Households
Number of
Establishments
Supported by Plan
Area Households
Supportable
Number of
Businesses for
Plan Area
Estimated
Supportable Gross
Floor Area (sq. ft.)
Type of Building
Space
Offices of real estate agents and brokers 2.08 4.8 5 10,320 Commercial or Office Veterinary services 0.31 0.7 1 2,400 Commercial
Offices of physicians 3.82 8.8 9 21,600 Medical Office
Offices of dentists 2.60 6.0 6 14,400 Medical Office
Personal care services 1.47 3.4 3 4,320 Commercial
Fitness and recreational sports centers 0.44 1.0 1 20,600 Commercial Other automotive repair and maintenance 0.32 0.7 1 2,930 Commercial Total 76,570
Source: PlaceWorks, using data from the US Census Bureau’s 2017 Economic Census and the CA Department of Finance. 843

APPENDIX
General Plan
Policies
D
844
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
2 Land Use Element
The Land Use (LU) Element is the most important General Plan element for new development and its physical form in the city because it indicates the location and extent of development that is permitted. This Specific Plan is an implementation tool that is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Land Use Element:

Goal LU-1: A Balanced Community with a Mix of Land Uses to Meet Resident and Business Needs.
ƒ Objective LU-1A: Establish and maintain a balance of
land uses throughout the community to preserve the
residential character of the City at a level no greater than can be supported by the infrastructure.
‡ Policy LU-1.1: Provide for the development of a mix and balance of housing opportunities, commercial goods and
services, and employment opportunities in consideration of the needs of the business and residential segments of the community.
‡ Policy LU-1.3: Strongly encourage the development of
residential uses and owner-occupied housing (singlefamily detached residences, condominiums, townhouses) where feasible to improve the balance between rental
and ownership housing opportunities.
‡ Policy LU-1.4: Promote housing and employment
opportunities within planned development areas to the
extent feasible.

Goal LU-3: Development That Maintains Neighborhood
Integrity and Character
ƒ Objective LU-3A: Establish policies, standards, and
procedures to minimize blighting influences, and maintain the integrity of stable neighborhoods.
‡ Policy LU-3.5: Provide opportunities for the development of well planned and designed projects which, through
vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the
development of compatible residential, commercial,
industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project or neighborhood.
‡ Policy LU-3.8: Ensure that new development reflects
existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development and surrounding
residential neighborhoods.
‡ Policy LU-3.12: Ensure that new development reflects
existing design standards, qualities, and features that are in context with nearby development.
845
3 Appendix E: General Plan Policies
Goal LU-5: Adequate Community Services, Transportation
System, and Infrastructure to Meet Growth
ƒ Objective LU-5A: Ensure availability of adequate
community facilities and provision of the highest level of public services possible, taking into consideration
budgetary constraints and effects on the surrounding
area.
‡ Policy LU-5.6: Promote development of revenuegenerating land uses to help defray the costs of high quality public services.
‡ Policy LU-5.7: Encourage new development that
is organized around compact, walkable, mixed-use
neighborhoods and districts to conserve open space
resources, minimize infrastructure costs, and reduce
reliance on the automobile.

Goal LU-6: Economically Viable and Productive Land Uses that Increase the City’s Tax Base
ƒ Objective LU-6A: Ensure the long-term productivity and viability of the community’s economic base.
‡ Policy LU-6.1: Encourage a mixed of land uses that
maintain and improve the City’s long-term fiscal health. ‡ Policy LU-6.2: Continue to promote and support the
vitality of commercial uses to meet the needs of local
residents and that support regional-serving commercial
centers.
ƒ Objective LU-6B: Encourage and facilitate activities that expand the City’s revenue base.
‡ Policy LU-6.11: Provide opportunities for mixed-use,
office, manufacturing, and retail development that
respond to market and community needs in terms of size, location, and cost.
‡ Policy LU-6.13: Encourage new development along
major corridors that are pedestrian oriented and includes a mixture of retail/service, residential, and office uses.

Goal LU-8: Promote a range of multiple uses at the Fairview Developmental Center Site.
‡ Policy LU-8.1: In anticipation of the potential closure or repurposing of the Fairview Development Center site, the City will work with appropriate State agencies or private entity (if the property is sold) to plan for a complementary mix of low scale residential, institutional, public facilities, open spaces, and recreational uses within a campus
setting.
846
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
4 Housing Element
This Specific Plan is consistent with the following goals and policies of the 2021-2029 Housing (HOU) Element.

Goal HOU-2: Facilitate the creation and availability of housing for residents at all income levels and for those with special housing needs.
‡ Policy HOU-2.1: Facilitate the development of housing that meets the needs of all segments of the population
including affordable housing and households with
specialized needs.
‡ Policy HOU-2.2: Promote the use of State density bonus provisions to encourage the development of affordable
housing for lower and moderate-income households,
as well as senior housing through the dissemination of
informational materials and discussions with project
applicants.

Goal HOU-3: Identify adequate, suitable sites for residential use and development to meet the City’s Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) at all income levels and promote a range of housing types to meet the needs of all segments of the Costa Mesa community.
‡ Policy HOU-3.2: Encourage the development of wellplanned and designed residential or mixed-use projects which, through vertical or horizontal integration, provide for the development of compatible residential, commercial, industrial, institutional, or public uses within a single project, neighborhood, or geographic area within the City.

Goal HOU-4: Provide housing opportunities to residents
of all social and economic segments of the community
without discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, disability/medical conditions, national origin or ancestry, marital status, age, household composition or size, source of income, or any other arbitrary factors.
‡ Policy HOU-4.3: Encourage and support the construction, maintenance and preservation of residential developments which will meet the needs of families and individuals with specialized housing requirements, including those with
developmental disabilities.
847
5 Open Space and Recreation Element
The Open Space and Recreation Element is intended to help ensure the sustainability of open space and recreational resources available to the community of Costa Mesa. The goals, policies, and objectives from this chapter of the General Plan work to protect, maintain, and enhance open spaces and recreational opportunities. This Specific Plan is consistent with the following goals and policies of the Open Space and Recreation (OSR) Element of the General Plan.

Goal OSR-1A: Maintain and preserve existing parks, and
strive to provide additional parks, public spaces, and
recreation facilities that meet the community’s evolving needs.
‡ Policy OSR-1.1: Maintain a system of Neighborhood
and Community Parks that provide a variety of active and passive recreational opportunities throughout the City. ‡ Policy OSR-1.2: Provide parks and recreation facilities appropriate for the individual neighborhoods in which
they are located and reflective of the needs and interests of the population they serve.
‡ Policy OSR-1.5: Maximize public space by requiring
plazas and public gathering spaces in private
developments that can serve multiple uses, including
recreation and social needs
‡ Policy OSR-1.18: Provide a minimum of 4.26 acres of
parkland per 1,000 residents.
‡ Policy OSR-1.20: Enhance pedestrian, bicycle, and
transit linkages to meet the needs of residents and to
provide better access to parks, recreation, and public
spaces.

Appendix E: General Plan Policies
848

APPENDIX
Microwave Path
Clearance
Report
E
849
Microwave Infrastructure Unit 12/20/2024
Microwave Path Clearance Report for Proposed Southern REOC Location Summary: This report details the microwave clearance criteria for the proposed tower location at the Fairview Developmental Center in Costa Mesa, part of the Southern REOC project. It outlines the structure clearance requirements on the State of California’s property for the proposed microwave paths to La Habra Peak (357.48°), Santiago Peak (81.28°), and Rolling Hills (286.30°). The proposed tower coordinates are 33°39’39.64" N, 117°55’35.86" W, with the property boundaries set according to the Boundary Establishment & Index Map provided by ALTA/NSPS AND LAND TITLE SURVEY for DGS FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENT CENTER with Project Number 1CAL010108 dated November 14,2019.

Using the Pathloss 6 design tool, the minimum clearance for each microwave path was determined, adhering to a clearance criterion of 100% of the first Fresnel zone in each azimuth direction. Within the property boundary, low clearance areas are identified, and width of the 1
st Fresnel zones are shown for each possible microwave paths. Antenna clearance reports from Pathloss 6 design tool are included in this report for reference. 850
Microwave Infrastructure Unit 12/20/2024
Clearance Criteria Results: Southern REOC<>Santiago Peak SREOC Tower Loca�on
Microwave Path towards San�ago Pk
[Az = 81.28°, Path Dist = 22.85 mi ]

0.00 mi

0.05 mi

0.025 mi

0.1 mi 0.20 mi 0.25 mi

0.075 mi 0.125 mi 0.225 mi

0.275 mi

0.175 mi

0.15 mi
Cri�cal area – Lowest
clearance
851
Microwave Infrastructure Unit 12/20/2024
Clearance Criteria Results: Southern REOC<>La Habra Peak SREOC Tower Loca�on Microwave Path towards La Habra
[Az =357.48°, Path Dist = 21.5 mi ]

0.00 mi

0.05 mi

0.025 mi

0.1 mi

0.15 mi

0.20 mi

0.25 mi

0.30 mi

0.35 mi

0.075 mi

0.125 mi

0.225 mi

0.275 mi

0.175 mi

0.325 mi
852
Microwave Infrastructure Unit 12/20/2024
Clearance Criteria Results: Southern REOC<>Rolling Hills SREOC Tower Loca�on
Microwave Path towards Rolling Hills
[Az = 286.30°, PathDist= 26.95 mi]

0.00 mi

0.05 mi

0.025 mi

0.1 mi

0.075 mi
853
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-SANTIAGO W.pl6 Company Name
Southern REOC ("school") SANTIAGO W
Latitude 33 42 41.10 N
Longitude
33 39 39.64 N
117 55 35.86 W 117 32 04.20 W
True Azimuth (°) 81.15 261.37
Vertical angle (°) 2.49 -2.73
Path Length (mi) 22.86
Elevation (ft) 79.54 5626.20
Frequency (MHz) 6250.00
Clearance tolerance (ft) 1000.0
Southern REOC ("school") DR Antenna Height 55.00 ft
SANTIAGO W TR Antenna Height 50.00 ft
Clearance criteria - Diversity
1st criteria K 1.33
1st criteria %F1 100.00
Minimum foreground clearance (ft) 2.00
Dist (mi) Elev (ft) Struct (ft) Clear (ft) K (ft) %F1 (ft) FH (ft) Crit

0.005 79.7 54.0 0.1 2.0 1

0.010 79.7 54.2 0.1 2.9 1

0.015 79.7 54.8 0.2 3.5 1

0.020 79.6 55.5 0.2 4.1 1

0.025 79.6 56.1 0.3 4.6 1

0.030 79.7 56.8 0.3 5.0 1

0.035 79.8 57.4 0.4 5.4 1

0.040 79.9 58.1 0.5 5.8 1

0.045 79.9 59.0 0.5 6.1 1

0.050 79.7 60.0 0.6 6.4 1

0.055 79.3 61.1 0.6 6.8 1

0.060 79.2 62.2 0.7 7.1 1

0.065 79.4 62.8 0.7 7.3 1

0.070 79.8 63.3 0.8 7.6 1

0.075 80.0 63.9 0.9 7.9 1

0.080 80.2 64.7 0.9 8.1 1

0.085 80.2 65.6 1.0 8.4 1

0.090 80.2 66.5 1.0 8.6 1

0.095 80.0 67.6 1.1 8.9 1

0.100 80.0 68.5 1.1 9.1 1

0.105 79.9 69.6 1.2 9.3 1

0.110 79.7 70.7 1.3 9.5 1

0.115 79.4 71.9 1.3 9.8 1

0.120 79.0 73.3 1.4 10.0 1

0.125 78.4 74.9 1.4 10.2 1

0.130 77.8 76.4 1.5 10.4 1

0.135 77.6 77.6 1.5 10.6 1

0.140 77.8 78.3 1.6 10.8 1

0.145 77.9 79.2 1.7 10.9 1

0.150 77.9 80.2 1.7 11.1 1

0.155 78.2 80.8 1.8 11.3 1

0.160 78.4 81.6 1.8 11.5 1

0.165 78.7 82.3 1.9 11.7 1

0.170 78.8 83.1 1.9 11.8 1
854
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-SANTIAGO W.pl6 Company Name

0.175 78.6 84.3 2.0 12.0 1

0.180 78.3 85.7 2.0 12.2 1

0.185 78.1 86.9 2.1 12.4 1

0.190 78.2 87.8 2.2 12.5 1

0.195 78.3 88.6 2.2 12.7 1

0.200 78.3 89.6 2.3 12.8 1

0.205 78.2 90.7 2.3 13.0 1

0.210 77.9 92.0 2.4 13.2 1

0.215 77.6 93.3 2.4 13.3 1

0.220 77.3 94.7 2.5 13.5 1

0.225 77.0 95.9 2.6 13.6 1

0.230 76.8 97.1 2.6 13.8 1

0.235 76.6 98.4 2.7 13.9 1

0.240 76.5 99.5 2.7 14.1 1

0.245 76.6 100.4 2.8 14.2 1

0.250 76.5 101.4 2.8 14.3 1

0.255 76.4 102.6 2.9 14.5 1

0.260 76.2 103.8 2.9 14.6 1

0.265 76.0 105.0 3.0 14.8 1

0.270 75.8 106.2 3.1 14.9 1

0.275 75.9 107.2 3.1 15.0 1

0.280 76.2 107.9 3.2 15.2 1

0.285 77.6 107.5 3.2 15.3 1

0.290 78.6 107.5 3.3 15.4 1

0.295 77.9 109.3 3.3 15.6 1

0.300 77.0 111.2 3.4 15.7 1

0.305 76.7 112.6 3.4 15.8 1

0.310 76.8 113.4 3.5 15.9 1

0.315 77.3 114.0 3.6 16.1 1

0.320 77.9 114.4 3.6 16.2 1

0.325 78.1 115.2 3.7 16.3 1

0.330 78.0 116.4 3.7 16.4 1

0.335 78.5 116.9 3.8 16.6 1

0.340 79.0 117.5 3.8 16.7 1

0.345 78.9 118.6 3.9 16.8 1

0.350 78.7 119.8 3.9 16.9 1

0.355 77.7 121.8 4.0 17.0 1

0.360 77.3 123.3 4.1 17.2 1

0.365 77.4 124.2 4.1 17.3 1

0.370 77.7 125.0 4.2 17.4 1

0.375 77.9 125.8 4.2 17.5 1

0.380 77.1 127.6 4.3 17.6 1

0.385 75.8 129.9 4.3 17.7 1

0.390 74.7 132.1 4.4 17.9 1

0.395 74.2 133.6 4.4 18.0 1

0.400 74.6 134.3 4.5 18.1 1

0.405 75.0 134.9 4.6 18.2 1

0.410 74.4 136.7 4.6 18.3 1

0.415 73.1 139.0 4.7 18.4 1

0.420 73.6 139.5 4.7 18.5 1

0.425 74.2 140.0 4.8 18.6 1

0.430 74.8 140.4 4.8 18.7 1

0.435 75.0 141.3 4.9 18.8 1

0.440 74.6 142.7 4.9 18.9 1
855
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-SANTIAGO W.pl6 Company Name

0.445 74.5 143.8 5.0 19.1 1

0.450 74.9 144.5 5.1 19.2 1

0.455 75.6 144.9 5.1 19.3 1

0.460 76.0 145.5 5.2 19.4 1

0.465 75.8 146.8 5.2 19.5 1

0.470 75.1 148.5 5.3 19.6 1

0.475 74.8 149.9 5.3 19.7 1

0.480 74.7 151.1 5.4 19.8 1

0.485 74.3 152.5 5.4 19.9 1

0.490 73.8 154.1 5.5 20.0 1

0.495 73.0 155.9 5.5 20.1 1

0.500 73.7 156.3 5.6 20.2 1

0.505 76.1 154.9 5.7 20.3 1

0.510 76.9 155.2 5.7 20.4 1

0.515 76.4 156.7 5.8 20.5 1

0.520 76.1 158.1 5.8 20.6 1

0.525 75.8 159.5 5.9 20.7 1

0.530 75.4 161.0 5.9 20.8 1

0.535 75.1 162.3 6.0 20.8 1

0.540 74.5 164.0 6.0 20.9 1

0.545 74.0 165.5 6.1 21.0 1

0.550 73.5 167.1 6.2 21.1 1

0.555 72.5 169.1 6.2 21.2 1

0.560 72.3 170.4 6.3 21.3 1

0.565 72.1 171.7 6.3 21.4 1

0.570 72.1 172.8 6.4 21.5 1

0.575 72.5 173.4 6.4 21.6 1

0.580 73.5 173.5 6.5 21.7 1

0.585 73.9 174.1 6.5 21.8 1

0.590 73.2 175.9 6.6 21.9 1

0.595 72.3 177.9 6.6 22.0 1

0.600 72.6 178.6 6.7 22.0 1

0.605 73.8 178.5 6.7 22.1 1

0.610 73.8 179.6 6.8 22.2 1

0.615 73.6 180.9 6.9 22.3 1

0.620 73.3 182.2 6.9 22.4 1

0.625 72.6 184.0 7.0 22.5 1

0.630 72.6 185.1 7.0 22.6 1

0.635 73.0 185.7 7.1 22.7 1

0.640 73.5 186.3 7.1 22.7 1

0.645 73.8 187.1 7.2 22.8 1

0.650 73.9 188.1 7.2 22.9 1

0.655 73.7 189.4 7.3 23.0 1

0.660 73.3 190.8 7.3 23.1 1

0.665 73.0 192.2 7.4 23.2 1

0.670 72.6 193.7 7.5 23.3 1

0.675 72.0 195.4 7.5 23.3 1

0.680 71.9 196.5 7.6 23.4 1

0.685 72.4 197.1 7.6 23.5 1

0.690 72.8 197.7 7.7 23.6 1

0.695 73.1 198.5 7.7 23.7 1

0.700 73.5 199.2 7.8 23.8 1

0.705 73.7 200.0 7.8 23.8 1

0.710 73.8 201.0 7.9 23.9 1
856
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-SANTIAGO W.pl6 Company Name

0.715 73.6 202.3 7.9 24.0 1

0.720 73.1 204.0 8.0 24.1 1

0.725 72.4 205.7 8.0 24.2 1

0.730 72.3 206.9 8.1 24.2 1

0.735 72.9 207.3 8.2 24.3 1

0.740 73.7 207.6 8.2 24.4 1

0.745 74.0 208.4 8.3 24.5 1

0.750 74.1 209.4 8.3 24.6 1

0.755 74.3 210.2 8.4 24.6 1

0.760 74.4 211.3 8.4 24.7 1

0.765 74.2 212.6 8.5 24.8 1

0.770 73.5 214.3 8.5 24.9 1

0.775 72.9 216.0 8.6 25.0 1

0.780 72.8 217.2 8.6 25.0 1

0.785 73.2 217.9 8.7 25.1 1

0.790 73.6 218.5 8.7 25.2 1

0.795 73.8 219.4 8.8 25.3 1

0.800 74.0 220.3 8.8 25.3 1

0.805 74.4 221.0 8.9 25.4 1

0.810 74.6 221.8 9.0 25.5 1

0.815 74.5 223.1 9.0 25.6 1

0.820 73.9 224.7 9.1 25.6 1

0.825 73.1 226.6 9.1 25.7 1

0.830 73.0 227.8 9.2 25.8 1

0.835 73.4 228.5 9.2 25.9 1

0.840 74.0 229.0 9.3 25.9 1

0.845 74.4 229.7 9.3 26.0 1

0.850 74.7 230.5 9.4 26.1 1

0.855 75.0 231.2 9.4 26.2 1

0.860 75.1 232.2 9.5 26.2 1

0.865 75.0 233.4 9.5 26.3 1

0.870 74.6 234.9 9.6 26.4 1

0.875 73.8 236.8 9.6 26.5 1

0.880 73.6 238.0 9.7 26.5 1

0.885 73.8 239.0 9.7 26.6 1

0.890 74.4 239.5 9.8 26.7 1

0.895 75.2 239.7 9.9 26.7 1

0.900 75.4 240.6 9.9 26.8 1

0.905 75.7 241.4 10.0 26.9 1

0.910 75.8 242.4 10.0 27.0 1

0.915 75.8 243.5 10.1 27.0 1

0.920 75.6 244.7 10.1 27.1 1

0.925 75.1 246.3 10.2 27.2 1

0.930 74.5 248.0 10.2 27.2 1

0.935 74.4 249.3 10.3 27.3 1

0.940 74.9 249.9 10.3 27.4 1

0.945 75.6 250.2 10.4 27.5 1

0.950 75.9 250.9 10.4 27.5 1

0.955 76.2 251.8 10.5 27.6 1

0.960 76.4 252.7 10.5 27.7 1

0.965 76.3 253.9 10.6 27.7 1

0.970 75.8 255.4 10.6 27.8 1

0.975 75.0 257.4 10.7 27.9 1

0.980 74.6 258.9 10.7 27.9 1
857
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-SANTIAGO W.pl6 Company Name

0.985 74.6 260.0 10.8 28.0 1

0.990 74.9 260.7 10.9 28.1 1

0.995 75.6 261.1 10.9 28.1 1

1.000 76.2 261.6 11.0 28.2 1
858
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-LA HABRA PK_V3.pl6 Company Name Southern REOC ("school") LA HABRA PK
Latitude 33 58 24.00 N
Longitude
33 39 39.64 N
117 55 35.86 W 117 56 35.20 W
True Azimuth (°) 357.49 177.48
Vertical angle (°) 0.52 -0.76
Path Length (mi) 21.55
Elevation (ft) 79.54 1412.81
Frequency (MHz) 6250.00
Clearance tolerance (ft) 1000.0
Southern REOC ("school") DR Antenna Height 55.00 ft
LA HABRA PK TR Antenna Height 30.00 ft
Clearance criteria - Diversity
1st criteria K 1.33
1st criteria %F1 100.00
Minimum foreground clearance (ft) 2.00
Dist (mi) Elev (ft) Struct (ft) Clear (ft) K (ft) %F1 (ft) FH (ft) Crit

0.005 79.4 53.3 0.1 2.0 1

0.010 79.5 52.7 0.1 2.9 1

0.015 79.6 52.1 0.2 3.5 1

0.020 79.7 51.7 0.2 4.1 1

0.025 79.7 51.5 0.3 4.6 1

0.030 79.7 51.4 0.3 5.0 1

0.035 79.7 51.2 0.4 5.4 1

0.040 79.8 51.0 0.4 5.8 1

0.045 80.0 50.7 0.5 6.1 1

0.050 80.4 50.2 0.5 6.4 1

0.055 80.8 49.8 0.6 6.8 1

0.060 80.9 49.6 0.6 7.1 1

0.065 80.7 49.7 0.7 7.3 1

0.070 80.3 50.1 0.8 7.6 1

0.075 80.0 50.4 0.8 7.9 1

0.080 79.1 51.3 0.9 8.1 1

0.085 78.1 52.3 0.9 8.4 1

0.090 77.3 53.1 1.0 8.6 1

0.095 77.1 53.4 1.0 8.9 1

0.100 77.2 53.3 1.1 9.1 1

0.105 77.4 53.0 1.1 9.3 1

0.110 77.7 52.8 1.2 9.5 1

0.115 77.7 52.9 1.2 9.8 1

0.120 77.5 53.1 1.3 10.0 1

0.125 77.4 53.2 1.3 10.2 1

0.130 77.4 53.3 1.4 10.4 1

0.135 77.3 53.4 1.4 10.6 1

0.140 77.4 53.4 1.5 10.8 1

0.145 77.4 53.4 1.6 10.9 1

0.150 77.4 53.5 1.6 11.1 1

0.155 77.3 53.7 1.7 11.3 1

0.160 77.2 53.8 1.7 11.5 1

0.165 77.2 53.9 1.8 11.7 1
859
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-LA HABRA PK_V3.pl6 Company Name

0.170 77.1 54.1 1.8 11.8 1

0.175 77.0 54.3 1.9 12.0 1

0.180 77.0 54.3 1.9 12.2 1

0.185 77.1 54.4 2.0 12.4 1

0.190 77.0 54.5 2.0 12.5 1

0.195 77.1 54.5 2.1 12.7 1

0.200 77.1 54.6 2.1 12.8 1

0.205 77.1 54.7 2.2 13.0 1

0.210 76.9 55.0 2.2 13.2 1

0.215 76.8 55.2 2.3 13.3 1

0.220 76.7 55.4 2.4 13.5 1

0.225 76.5 55.7 2.4 13.6 1

0.230 75.9 56.4 2.5 13.8 1

0.235 75.3 57.1 2.5 13.9 1

0.240 75.2 57.3 2.6 14.0 1

0.245 75.0 57.6 2.6 14.2 1

0.250 74.8 57.9 2.7 14.3 1

0.255 74.6 58.2 2.7 14.5 1

0.260 74.8 58.2 2.8 14.6 1

0.265 74.8 58.3 2.8 14.8 1

0.270 74.4 58.7 2.9 14.9 1

0.275 73.9 59.4 2.9 15.0 1

0.280 73.4 60.0 3.0 15.2 1

0.285 73.1 60.4 3.0 15.3 1

0.290 73.1 60.6 3.1 15.4 1

0.295 73.2 60.6 3.1 15.6 1

0.300 73.3 60.6 3.2 15.7 1

0.305 73.5 60.5 3.2 15.8 1

0.310 73.5 60.6 3.3 15.9 1

0.315 73.5 60.8 3.4 16.1 1

0.320 73.2 61.1 3.4 16.2 1

0.325 73.0 61.5 3.5 16.3 1

0.330 72.8 61.8 3.5 16.4 1

0.335 72.6 62.1 3.6 16.6 1

0.340 72.5 62.4 3.6 16.7 1

0.345 72.4 62.7 3.7 16.8 1

0.350 72.4 62.7 3.7 16.9 1

0.355 73.5 61.8 3.8 17.0 1

0.360 74.5 60.9 3.8 17.2 1

0.365 74.7 60.9 3.9 17.3 1

0.370 73.0 62.7 3.9 17.4 1

0.375 72.5 63.3 4.0 17.5 1

0.380 72.4 63.6 4.0 17.6 1

0.385 72.4 63.7 4.1 17.7 1

0.390 72.5 63.8 4.1 17.8 1

0.395 72.5 63.9 4.2 18.0 1

0.400 72.4 64.1 4.2 18.1 1

0.405 72.4 64.3 4.3 18.2 1

0.410 72.4 64.4 4.3 18.3 1

0.415 72.4 64.6 4.4 18.4 1

0.420 72.2 64.9 4.4 18.5 1

0.425 71.9 65.3 4.5 18.6 1

0.430 71.8 65.6 4.6 18.7 1

0.435 71.8 65.7 4.6 18.8 1
860
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-LA HABRA PK_V3.pl6 Company Name

0.440 71.8 65.9 4.7 18.9 1

0.445 71.3 66.5 4.7 19.0 1

0.450 70.9 67.0 4.8 19.1 1

0.455 70.7 67.4 4.8 19.2 1

0.460 70.5 67.7 4.9 19.4 1

0.465 70.6 67.8 4.9 19.5 1

0.470 70.9 67.7 5.0 19.6 1

0.475 71.1 67.7 5.0 19.7 1

0.480 70.9 67.9 5.1 19.8 1

0.485 70.7 68.3 5.1 19.9 1

0.490 70.5 68.6 5.2 20.0 1

0.495 70.1 69.2 5.2 20.1 1

0.500 69.6 69.9 5.3 20.2 1

0.505 68.9 70.7 5.3 20.3 1

0.510 68.1 71.7 5.4 20.4 1

0.515 66.6 73.4 5.4 20.4 1

0.520 64.7 75.4 5.5 20.5 1

0.525 64.2 76.1 5.5 20.6 1

0.530 66.9 73.6 5.6 20.7 1

0.535 67.1 73.5 5.6 20.8 1

0.540 67.0 73.7 5.7 20.9 1

0.545 67.0 73.9 5.7 21.0 1

0.550 67.3 73.8 5.8 21.1 1

0.555 67.6 73.6 5.8 21.2 1

0.560 67.8 73.6 5.9 21.3 1

0.565 67.9 73.7 5.9 21.4 1

0.570 67.8 73.9 6.0 21.5 1

0.575 67.6 74.3 6.0 21.6 1

0.580 67.5 74.5 6.1 21.7 1

0.585 67.5 74.7 6.1 21.8 1

0.590 67.4 74.9 6.2 21.8 1

0.595 67.2 75.2 6.2 21.9 1

0.600 67.2 75.4 6.3 22.0 1

0.605 66.7 76.1 6.4 22.1 1

0.610 66.0 77.0 6.4 22.2 1

0.615 65.2 78.0 6.5 22.3 1

0.620 64.4 79.0 6.5 22.4 1

0.625 63.6 79.9 6.6 22.5 1

0.630 64.3 79.3 6.6 22.6 1

0.635 65.1 78.7 6.7 22.6 1

0.640 65.6 78.3 6.7 22.7 1

0.645 65.9 78.2 6.8 22.8 1

0.650 66.1 78.2 6.8 22.9 1

0.655 66.3 78.2 6.9 23.0 1

0.660 66.3 78.4 6.9 23.1 1

0.665 66.0 78.8 7.0 23.2 1

0.670 65.5 79.4 7.0 23.2 1

0.675 64.6 80.5 7.1 23.3 1

0.680 64.2 81.1 7.1 23.4 1

0.685 64.3 81.1 7.2 23.5 1

0.690 64.8 80.9 7.2 23.6 1

0.695 64.4 81.4 7.3 23.7 1

0.700 63.0 83.0 7.3 23.7 1

0.705 61.6 84.5 7.4 23.8 1
861
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-LA HABRA PK_V3.pl6 Company Name

0.710 60.7 85.7 7.4 23.9 1

0.715 60.6 86.0 7.5 24.0 1

0.720 61.7 85.0 7.5 24.1 1

0.725 63.2 83.6 7.6 24.1 1

0.730 64.3 82.7 7.6 24.2 1

0.735 64.5 82.8 7.7 24.3 1

0.740 64.0 83.4 7.7 24.4 1

0.745 64.2 83.3 7.8 24.5 1

0.750 64.6 83.2 7.8 24.5 1

0.755 64.9 83.0 7.9 24.6 1

0.760 65.2 82.9 7.9 24.7 1

0.765 65.6 82.7 8.0 24.8 1

0.770 65.5 82.9 8.0 24.9 1

0.775 64.9 83.7 8.1 24.9 1

0.780 63.8 85.0 8.1 25.0 1

0.785 62.9 86.1 8.2 25.1 1

0.790 63.1 86.0 8.2 25.2 1

0.795 63.4 85.9 8.3 25.2 1

0.800 63.6 85.9 8.3 25.3 1

0.805 63.5 86.2 8.4 25.4 1

0.810 63.1 86.8 8.4 25.5 1

0.815 62.9 87.1 8.5 25.5 1

0.820 62.8 87.4 8.5 25.6 1

0.825 62.8 87.6 8.6 25.7 1

0.830 62.7 87.9 8.6 25.8 1

0.835 62.6 88.1 8.7 25.8 1

0.840 62.4 88.5 8.7 25.9 1

0.845 62.3 88.8 8.8 26.0 1

0.850 62.2 89.1 8.8 26.1 1

0.855 62.2 89.3 8.9 26.1 1

0.860 62.1 89.5 8.9 26.2 1

0.865 62.1 89.8 9.0 26.3 1

0.870 62.0 90.0 9.0 26.4 1

0.875 61.8 90.4 9.1 26.4 1

0.880 61.9 90.5 9.1 26.5 1

0.885 61.9 90.6 9.2 26.6 1

0.890 61.9 90.9 9.2 26.6 1

0.895 61.7 91.2 9.3 26.7 1

0.900 61.6 91.5 9.3 26.8 1

0.905 61.6 91.6 9.4 26.9 1

0.910 61.6 91.9 9.4 26.9 1

0.915 61.5 92.1 9.5 27.0 1

0.920 61.4 92.5 9.5 27.1 1

0.925 60.6 93.4 9.6 27.1 1

0.930 59.6 94.6 9.6 27.2 1

0.935 59.4 94.9 9.7 27.3 1

0.940 60.0 94.5 9.7 27.3 1

0.945 61.0 93.7 9.8 27.4 1

0.950 61.3 93.6 9.8 27.5 1

0.955 61.3 93.8 9.9 27.6 1

0.960 61.2 94.1 9.9 27.6 1

0.965 60.9 94.6 10.0 27.7 1

0.970 60.7 95.0 10.0 27.8 1

0.975 60.3 95.6 10.1 27.8 1
862
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-LA HABRA PK_V3.pl6 Company Name

0.980 59.7 96.4 10.1 27.9 1

0.985 59.1 97.1 10.2 28.0 1

0.990 59.0 97.4 10.2 28.0 1

0.995 59.2 97.4 10.3 28.1 1

1.000 59.8 97.0 10.3 28.2 1
863
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-ROLLING HIL.pl6 Company Name
Southern REOC ("school") ROLLING HIL
Latitude 33 46 12.00 N
Longitude
33 39 39.64 N
117 55 35.86 W 118 22 34.20 W
True Azimuth (°) 286.30 106.05
Vertical angle (°) 0.28 -0.58
Path Length (mi) 26.96
Elevation (ft) 79.54 1185.71
Frequency (MHz) 6250.00
Clearance tolerance (ft) 1000.0
Southern REOC ("school") DR Antenna Height 55.00 ft
ROLLING HIL TR Antenna Height 60.00 ft
Clearance criteria - Diversity
1st criteria K 1.33
1st criteria %F1 100.00
Minimum foreground clearance (ft) 2.00
Dist (mi) Elev (ft) Struct (ft) Clear (ft) K (ft) %F1 (ft) FH (ft) Crit

0.005 79.3 53.4 0.1 2.0 1

0.010 79.1 52.9 0.1 2.9 1

0.015 78.9 52.5 0.2 3.5 1

0.020 79.1 51.9 0.3 4.1 1

0.025 79.5 51.2 0.3 4.6 1

0.030 80.0 50.4 0.4 5.0 1

0.035 80.1 50.0 0.5 5.4 1

0.040 80.1 49.8 0.5 5.8 1

0.045 80.0 49.7 0.6 6.1 1

0.050 80.0 49.5 0.7 6.4 1

0.055 80.0 49.3 0.7 6.8 1

0.060 80.1 49.1 0.8 7.1 1

0.065 80.1 48.9 0.9 7.3 1

0.070 80.1 48.8 0.9 7.6 1

0.075 79.9 48.8 1.0 7.9 1

0.080 79.7 48.9 1.1 8.1 1

0.085 79.6 48.9 1.1 8.4 1

0.090 79.5 48.9 1.2 8.6 1

0.095 79.5 48.8 1.3 8.9 1

0.100 79.3 48.9 1.3 9.1 1

0.105 79.4 48.7 1.4 9.3 1

0.110 79.5 48.6 1.5 9.5 1

0.115 79.5 48.5 1.5 9.8 1

0.120 79.6 48.3 1.6 10.0 1

0.125 79.7 48.1 1.7 10.2 1

0.130 80.0 47.8 1.7 10.4 1

0.135 80.2 47.5 1.8 10.6 1

0.140 79.7 47.9 1.9 10.8 1

0.145 79.2 48.4 1.9 11.0 1

0.150 78.9 48.7 2.0 11.1 1

0.155 78.7 48.9 2.1 11.3 1

0.160 78.5 49.0 2.1 11.5 1

0.165 78.4 49.0 2.2 11.7 1
864
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-ROLLING HIL.pl6 Company Name

0.170 78.4 49.0 2.3 11.9 1

0.175 78.4 49.0 2.3 12.0 1

0.180 79.0 48.3 2.4 12.2 1

0.185 81.0 46.3 2.5 12.4 1

0.190 82.5 44.8 2.5 12.5 1

0.195 82.1 45.2 2.6 12.7 1

0.200 81.1 46.1 2.7 12.8 1

0.205 80.5 46.7 2.7 13.0 1

0.210 80.9 46.3 2.8 13.2 1

0.215 81.9 45.3 2.9 13.3 1

0.220 82.7 44.5 2.9 13.5 1

0.225 82.5 44.6 3.0 13.6 1

0.230 80.9 46.3 3.1 13.8 1

0.235 79.7 47.4 3.1 13.9 1

0.240 79.1 48.1 3.2 14.1 1

0.245 79.0 48.1 3.3 14.2 1

0.250 79.1 48.0 3.3 14.4 1

0.255 79.5 47.7 3.4 14.5 1

0.260 79.8 47.4 3.5 14.6 1

0.265 80.1 47.0 3.5 14.8 1

0.270 81.1 46.1 3.6 14.9 1

0.275 82.3 44.9 3.7 15.0 1

0.280 83.0 44.1 3.7 15.2 1

0.285 83.3 43.9 3.8 15.3 1

0.290 82.8 44.4 3.9 15.4 1

0.295 81.5 45.7 3.9 15.6 1

0.300 82.1 45.1 4.0 15.7 1

0.305 83.4 43.8 4.1 15.8 1

0.310 84.0 43.3 4.1 16.0 1

0.315 83.4 43.8 4.2 16.1 1

0.320 82.0 45.3 4.3 16.2 1

0.325 80.2 47.0 4.3 16.3 1

0.330 78.6 48.7 4.4 16.5 1

0.335 77.4 49.9 4.5 16.6 1

0.340 76.6 50.7 4.5 16.7 1

0.345 76.1 51.3 4.6 16.8 1

0.350 75.4 51.9 4.7 17.0 1

0.355 74.7 52.6 4.7 17.1 1

0.360 74.1 53.3 4.8 17.2 1

0.365 73.3 54.1 4.9 17.3 1

0.370 72.6 54.9 4.9 17.4 1

0.375 72.0 55.5 5.0 17.5 1

0.380 71.8 55.7 5.1 17.7 1

0.385 71.6 55.9 5.1 17.8 1

0.390 72.1 55.5 5.2 17.9 1

0.395 72.4 55.2 5.3 18.0 1

0.400 72.4 55.2 5.3 18.1 1

0.405 72.1 55.5 5.4 18.2 1

0.410 71.6 56.1 5.5 18.3 1

0.415 71.0 56.7 5.5 18.4 1

0.420 70.2 57.6 5.6 18.5 1

0.425 69.2 58.5 5.7 18.7 1

0.430 68.1 59.7 5.7 18.8 1

0.435 67.6 60.3 5.8 18.9 1
865
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-ROLLING HIL.pl6 Company Name

0.440 67.3 60.5 5.8 19.0 1

0.445 66.9 60.9 5.9 19.1 1

0.450 66.1 61.8 6.0 19.2 1

0.455 64.3 63.7 6.0 19.3 1

0.460 62.4 65.6 6.1 19.4 1

0.465 62.4 65.6 6.2 19.5 1

0.470 64.1 63.9 6.2 19.6 1

0.475 66.1 62.1 6.3 19.7 1

0.480 66.5 61.6 6.4 19.8 1

0.485 67.2 61.0 6.4 19.9 1

0.490 69.4 58.8 6.5 20.0 1

0.495 71.4 56.9 6.6 20.1 1

0.500 72.5 55.8 6.6 20.2 1

0.505 73.4 55.0 6.7 20.3 1

0.510 74.7 53.7 6.8 20.4 1

0.515 76.2 52.2 6.8 20.5 1

0.520 77.2 51.2 6.9 20.6 1

0.525 77.7 50.9 7.0 20.7 1

0.530 78.1 50.5 7.0 20.8 1

0.535 78.5 50.1 7.1 20.9 1

0.540 78.7 50.0 7.2 21.0 1

0.545 78.5 50.3 7.2 21.1 1

0.550 77.7 51.1 7.3 21.2 1

0.555 77.4 51.4 7.3 21.3 1

0.560 77.5 51.4 7.4 21.4 1

0.565 78.0 50.9 7.5 21.4 1

0.570 78.3 50.6 7.5 21.5 1

0.575 78.4 50.6 7.6 21.6 1

0.580 78.4 50.6 7.7 21.7 1

0.585 78.3 50.8 7.7 21.8 1

0.590 78.3 50.9 7.8 21.9 1

0.595 78.5 50.7 7.9 22.0 1

0.600 79.1 50.2 7.9 22.1 1

0.605 79.9 49.4 8.0 22.2 1

0.610 80.5 48.8 8.1 22.3 1

0.615 80.8 48.6 8.1 22.4 1

0.620 81.0 48.5 8.2 22.4 1

0.625 81.1 48.5 8.3 22.5 1

0.630 81.1 48.5 8.3 22.6 1

0.635 80.8 48.8 8.4 22.7 1

0.640 80.2 49.5 8.4 22.8 1

0.645 79.7 50.0 8.5 22.9 1

0.650 79.6 50.2 8.6 23.0 1

0.655 79.5 50.3 8.6 23.1 1

0.660 79.4 50.5 8.7 23.1 1

0.665 79.0 51.0 8.8 23.2 1

0.670 78.1 51.9 8.8 23.3 1

0.675 77.2 52.9 8.9 23.4 1

0.680 77.3 52.8 9.0 23.5 1

0.685 77.1 53.1 9.0 23.6 1

0.690 77.4 52.8 9.1 23.6 1

0.695 78.6 51.7 9.1 23.7 1

0.700 79.1 51.3 9.2 23.8 1

0.705 79.0 51.4 9.3 23.9 1
866
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-ROLLING HIL.pl6 Company Name

0.710 78.9 51.6 9.3 24.0 1

0.715 78.8 51.8 9.4 24.1 1

0.720 78.8 51.8 9.5 24.1 1

0.725 78.7 52.0 9.5 24.2 1

0.730 78.6 52.1 9.6 24.3 1

0.735 78.6 52.2 9.7 24.4 1

0.740 78.8 52.1 9.7 24.5 1

0.745 78.8 52.1 9.8 24.5 1

0.750 78.2 52.7 9.9 24.6 1

0.755 77.2 53.8 9.9 24.7 1

0.760 76.0 55.1 10.0 24.8 1

0.765 74.3 56.8 10.0 24.9 1

0.770 71.4 59.8 10.1 24.9 1

0.775 65.5 65.8 10.2 25.0 1

0.780 56.7 74.7 10.2 25.1 1

0.785 53.1 78.3 10.3 25.2 1

0.790 54.1 77.3 10.4 25.3 1

0.795 59.0 72.6 10.4 25.3 1

0.800 63.6 68.0 10.5 25.4 1

0.805 65.9 65.8 10.6 25.5 1

0.810 66.5 65.3 10.6 25.6 1

0.815 67.1 64.7 10.7 25.6 1

0.820 67.9 64.0 10.7 25.7 1

0.825 68.1 63.9 10.8 25.8 1

0.830 68.6 63.4 10.9 25.9 1

0.835 70.2 61.9 10.9 25.9 1

0.840 72.8 59.4 11.0 26.0 1

0.845 75.4 56.9 11.1 26.1 1

0.850 77.1 55.2 11.1 26.2 1

0.855 78.0 54.3 11.2 26.2 1

0.860 78.5 53.9 11.3 26.3 1

0.865 78.9 53.6 11.3 26.4 1

0.870 79.0 53.6 11.4 26.5 1

0.875 79.1 53.6 11.4 26.5 1

0.880 79.0 53.7 11.5 26.6 1

0.885 78.8 53.9 11.6 26.7 1

0.890 78.3 54.5 11.6 26.8 1

0.895 77.8 55.1 11.7 26.8 1

0.900 77.3 55.7 11.8 26.9 1

0.905 76.9 56.2 11.8 27.0 1

0.910 76.0 57.1 11.9 27.0 1

0.915 74.5 58.7 11.9 27.1 1

0.920 73.2 60.1 12.0 27.2 1

0.925 71.8 61.5 12.1 27.3 1

0.930 70.2 63.3 12.1 27.3 1

0.935 66.9 66.6 12.2 27.4 1

0.940 62.0 71.6 12.3 27.5 1

0.945 53.6 80.0 12.3 27.5 1

0.950 42.1 91.6 12.4 27.6 1

0.955 31.1 102.7 12.4 27.7 1

0.960 22.6 111.2 12.5 27.7 1

0.965 16.4 117.6 12.6 27.8 1

0.970 13.1 120.9 12.6 27.9 1

0.975 12.9 121.2 12.7 28.0 1
867
Antenna clearance December 20, 2024
Southern REOC (Red Hill)-ROLLING HIL.pl6 Company Name

0.980 13.5 120.6 12.8 28.0 1

0.985 13.7 120.5 12.8 28.1 1

0.990 13.5 120.8 12.9 28.2 1

0.995 13.3 121.1 12.9 28.2 1

1.000 13.3 121.2 13.0 28.3 1
868

APPENDIX
Tree
Inventory
F
869
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

870
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

871
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

872
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

APPENDIX A - TREE SPECIES OBSERVED
Note - This tree survey details recorded below are meant to characterize the trees within the property based on a limited “visual only” evaluation (see Section 2.8 above). The goal was to accumulate enough data to make a judgment as to what role, if any, the existing trees may have in the proposed project.

KEY Health Rating:
1= Good, 2 = Fair, 3 = Poor, 4 = Dying/Imminent Hazard
Structural/Stature Rating:
1 – Good, 2- Fair, 3- Potential Hazard 4- Imminent Hazard Risk of Failure:
1 – Improbable, 2- Possible, 3 – Probable, 4 - Imminent Tree Type and Location DBH (inches) North on Top
Location
Tree
Tag
#
Species 1st
Stem
2nd
Stem
3rd
Stem
4th
Stem
5th
Stem
6th
Stem Total Height
(feet)
Canopy Width
(feet)
Canopy
Cover (sq ft) Health Structur
e
Ris
k
Conclusion Additional Comments
FDC
15 Chinese Pistache 14 14 26 23 1256 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Sprawling canopy, good vigor, minor flare decay 17 23
17 FDC
16 Western
Sycamore 28.5 28.5 54 20 2247 32-3 3
Remove
Infested with borers, vigor is fair, fungal growth 22 43 22 FDC
17 Green Ash 40 40 56 32 2686 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, large specimen 21 32
32 FDC
18 Indian Laurel Fig 31.5 31.5 55 30 2641 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Fair form and vigor, included bark 22 33
31 FDC
19 Indian Laurel Fig 24 24 48 20 1017 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Fair form and vigor, structural root decay 17 17
18 FDC
20 Indian Laurel Fig 28.5 28.5 53 28 2332 2-3 2 2-3 Remove Fair form and vigor, structural root decay 32 20
29 FDC
21 Indian Laurel Fig 34 34 55 32 2550 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, multiple structural roots with decay, large branch cut 22 30 30 FDC
22 Indian Laurel Fig 21 21 32 17 1075 2-3 2 2-3 Remove
Good form and fair vigor multiple structural roots with decay 17 21 19 FDC
23 Indian Laurel Fig 27 27 47 19 1451 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and big art, large branch cut 24 21
22 FDC
24 Indian Laurel Fig 25 25 35 19 1385 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, minor decay in branch cut 24 22
19 FDC
25 Indian Laurel Fig 27.5 27.5 54 24 2375 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, surficial structural root decay noted 27 29 30 FDC
26 Sawleaf Zelkova 15 15 24 14 415 3 2-3 3 Remove
Topped, diseased primary limb 11 9
12 FDC
28 Sawleaf Zelkova 15 15 31 17 572 3 2-3 3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, fungal mass on root crown 15 14
8 FDC 29 Peruvian Pepper 4.5 6.5 6.5 9 26.5 24 12 660 2 2 2 Preserve 873
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good form and vigor 13 17
16 FDC
30 Chinese Elm 8.5 8.5 27 12 962332-3 Remove
Poor form, decreased vigor, better to replace the specimen 18 18 22 FDC
31 Chinese Elm 11.5 13 24.5 247 12252-332-3 Remove
Excessive lean, poor form, decay and upper canopy 6 36
30 FDC
32 Paperbark 9.5 11 6.5 27 30 14 4712-333 Remove
Good vigor, poor crotch development 10 14
11 FDC
33 Siberian Elm 17 17 33 18 75432-32-3 Remove
Decline, moderate retrenchment 13 18
13 FDC
34 Brazilian Pepper6 7.5 5.54 23 32 18 6832-32-32-3 Remove Embedded fence in tissue, half specimen is within project site 13 12 16 FDC
35 Shamel Ash3521 11 226 2012-333 Preserve
Fair form and vigor, competing canopy, remove #36 to keep6 12 8 FDC
36 Brazilian Pepper65 1.51 13.5 22 15 4152-333 Remove
Embedded fence in tissue 7 13
11 FDC
37 Brazilian Pepper2323 10 127 1332-32-32-3 Preserve
Multi stemmed specimen, subordinate codominant leaders 67 6 FDC
38 Brazilian Pepper5 8.54 17.5 27 16 707333 Remove
Embedded fence and tissue, termite infested 13 17
14 FDC
39 Mexican Fan
Palm 16.5 16.5 19
7 1652
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 77
8 FDC
40 Chinese Juniper9 12.5 13 34.5 22 16 3462-32-32 Preserve Good form and vigor, lean, minorly topped 8 14 4
FDC
41 Chinese Juniper 19 19 23 20 5942-32-32 Preserve
Good form and vigor, lean, minorly topped 10 19 6
FDC
42 Chinese Elm 19 19 43 27 2506333 Remove
Good form and vigor, large split in branch 29 25
32 FDC
43 Chinese Elm 17.5 17.5 43 24 16972-32-32-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, large flush cut 31 23
15 FDC
44 Chinese Elm 16 16 33 31 212332-33 Remove
Good form and vigor 29 26
18 FDC
45 Sawleaf Zelkova 19 19 37 19 66032-32-3 Remove
Longitudinal canker in stem 16 15 8
FDC
46 Camphor 13 13 33 14 63832-33 Remove
Severe retrenchment 12 17
14 FDC
47 Camphor 14 14 40 19 9892-32-32-3 Preserve
Mild to moderate retrenchment 13 22
17 874
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
48 Camphor 9.5 9.5 19 10 2032-33 Remove
Severe retrenchment 00
0 FDC
49 Camphor 11.5 11.5 30 19 33032-33 Remove
Severe retrenchment 180
4 FDC
50 Chinese Elm 10 12 22 30 13 8812-332-3 Remove
Fair to good vigor codominant stem, poor form 17 17
20 FDC
51 Mexican Fan
Palm 13 13 12
5 952
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 66
5 FDC
52 Mexican Fan
Palm 13 13 13
5 872
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 56
5 FDC
53 Brazilian Pepper65 11 24 12 3632-332-3 Remove
Fence embedded in tissue, cankers noted 98
14 FDC
54 Peruvian Pepper 10 10 26 12 434222 Remove
Specimen on fence line, remove specimen or remove fence 7 16 12 FDC
55 Shamel Ash55 28 15 471222 Remove
Poor location 6 14
14 FDC
56 Peruvian Pepper 1564 25 27 16 75422-32 Preserve Pruning needed Good vigor, fair form, 14 17
15 FDC
57 Peruvian Pepper7 14 11 32 27 19 90722-32 Preserve Pruning needed Near fence line, fence embedded in tissue 18 16
15 FDC
58 Red River Gum 36 36 67 18 17712-32-32-3 Preserve
Large specimen, good form and vigor 30 27
20 FDC
59 Brazilian Pepper 11.5 15 13 12.5 52 33 19 9072-332-3 Remove Multi stem specimen, congested multi stemmed canopy 17 16 16 FDC
60 Shamel Ash 29.5 29.5 59 35 32662-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, large specimen 23 38
33 FDC
61 Mexican Fan
Palm 19 19 45
9 3302
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 10
11 FDC
62 Silk Oak Tree 18 18 45 14 88132-32-3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment with indication of termites 11 20 22 FDC
63 Chinese Elm99 28 16 7542-32-32-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 16
16 FDC
64 Mexican Fan
Palm 13 13 16
6 1132
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 57
6 FDC 65 Mexican Fan
Palm 13 13 15
6 1132
22 Preserve
875
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good form and vigor 66
6 FDC
66 Weeping
Bottlebrush 9.5 9.5 14
8 792
32-3
Remove
Lean, poor form 120
0 FDC
67 Mexican Fan
Palm 15 15 22
7 1772
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 78
8 FDC
68 Shamel Ash88 9.5 25.5 38 17 779333 Remove
Embedded into tissue 13 17
16 FDC
69 Brazilian Pepper 6.56 12.5 31 15 3632-332-3 Remove Evaluate risk to preserve Multi stem, poor form, good vigor 7 14 7
FDC
70 Brazilian Pepper75 6.5 18.5 32 16 4342-332-3 Remove
Multi stem, poor form, good vigor 11 13 7
FDC
71 Brazilian Pepper754 7.5 23.5 50 21 9072-332-3 Remove Multi stem, poor form, good vigor 10 24
13 FDC
118 Mexican Fan
Palm 15 15 21
8 1892
22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor yellowing palm fronds 87
8 FDC
150 Brazilian Pepper 15 15 28 14 6832-332-3 Preserve
Flush cut branch scars, minor retrenchment 12 17
16 FDC
151 Brazilian Pepper 29.5 29.5 34 10 63832-32-3 Remove
Large canker on N side of stem, evidence of termites noted 17 14 16 FDC
152 Brazilian Pepper 20.5 20.5 27 19 8552-32-32-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 18 16
13 FDC
153 Silk Oak Tree 20 20 57 18 13202-32-32-3 Preserve
Some retrenchment noted, minor cavities 21 21
22 FDC
154 Indian Laurel Fig 22 22 53 22 21642-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, flush cut branch scars 28 22
33 FDC
155 Indian Laurel Fig 28 28 52 26 24622-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, flush cut branch scars 23 33
30 FDC
156 Silk Oak Tree 16 16 56 18 9892-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, cankers in mid stem but are small 14 23 16 FDC
157 Indian Laurel Fig 30 30 58 29 25952-322-3 Preserve
Exuding sap 30 24
32 FDC
158 Green Ash 17.5 17.5 57 21 11642-332-3 Remove
Cankers hat flare, indication of termites 20 18
18 FDC
160 Toyon8 10.5 18.5 256 346333 Remove
Codominant stems 13 12
11 876
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
161 Glossy Privet 3 3.5 3.5 5

2.5 |

3.5 4.5 |

4.5 30 24 14 452 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve Prune deadwood
Good bigger, sprawling canopy 12 12
10 FDC
162 Pygmy Date
Palm 5.5 5.5 10 4 50 32-3 3
Remove
Two dead meristems 4 4
4 FDC
163 Pygmy Date
Palm 6 6 12 11 5 87 32-3 3
Remove
Two dead meristems 6 4
6 FDC
164 Magenta Lilly
Pilly 7.5 5.5 11 9 8.5 41.5 39 19 855 22 2
Preserve Prune codominant stem for
safety
Good form and vigor, minor retrenchment, codominant stems 19 13 15 FDC
165 Sawleaf Zelkova 12.5 12.5 19 11 330 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Severe retrenchment, diseased limb 8 13
9 FDC
166 American
Sweetgum 12 12 37 9 572 32-3 1-3
Remove
Minor retrenchment, diseased structural roots 16 15
14 FDC
167 American
Sweetgum 13 13 41 8 660 2-32-3 2-3
Remove
Minor retrenchment, diseased structural roots 18 18
14 FDC
168 Sawleaf Zelkova 12.5 12.5 12 5 28 3-4 3 3 Remove
Fungal infested Deadwood 7 0
0 FDC
169 American
Sweetgum 18 18 41 18 934 33 3
Remove
Fungus on roots 17 17
17 FDC
170 Chinese Juniper 6 4.5 4.5 5 8 3.5 31.5 30 13 283 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Sprawling, good form and vigor, epiphytic English ivy 11 5 9 FDC
171 Chinese Juniper 4.5 6 4.5 11.5 8 9 43.5 27 17 434 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Multi stemmed, epiphytic English Ivy covering plant 12 11 7 FDC
172 American
Sweetgum 20.5 20.5 43 14 855 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, small canker on flare, minor stained bark 19 13 20 FDC
173 Carob Tree 31 31 39 30 2247 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Can keep if reevaluated for risk Senescent specimen, some termite damage, vigor is good, increased liability, cavity and included bark on stem 17 29 31 FDC
174 Sawleaf Zelkova 20 20 41 18 754 3 2-3 3 Remove
Leaf tip burn, termites in two open branch cuts, decayed flush cut in crotch 13 18 13 FDC
175 Coast Redwood 44 44 58 14 1134 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Reevaluate for risk if keeping Good vigor, codominant stems, epicormic sprouting at base 20 23 19 FDC
176 Silk Floss Tree 31 31 38 20 1451 2 2 2-3 Preserve
Senescent specimen, good form and vigor 21 18
27 877
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
177 Weeping
Bottlebrush 14 14 33 8 363 2-32 3
Preserve
Decay noted in Crocs of secondary limb, good form and vigor 15 9 11 FDC
178 Silk Floss Tree 16 16 31 17 1017 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 15 22
18 FDC
179 Silk Floss Tree 17 17 31 8 551 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve
Fair form and vigor, some retrenchment noted 15 12
18 FDC
180 Chinese Elm 5 5 21 11 434 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 13
11 FDC
181 Chinese Elm 7 7 26 15 660 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 14
14 FDC
182 Chinese Elm 10 10 30 17 962 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 17
18 FDC
183 Chinese Juniper 6 10 16 19 13 314 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, codominant stems with unclosed branch cuts, low liability of failure 7 11 9 FDC
184 Silk Oak Tree 35.5 35.5 63 21 1352 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Some diseased upper limbs, good form and vigor 18 20
24 FDC
185 Shamel Ash 34.5 34.5 66 30 2462 3 2-3 3 Remove
Longitudinal decay on upper stem, decayed branch cut 29 22 31 FDC
186 Weeping
Bottlebrush 11.5 11.5 32 11 240 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Offset canopy mass, good vigor 4 13
7 FDC
187 Indian Laurel Fig 26.5 26.5 47 24 1923 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large unclosed branch cut 28 17
30 FDC
188 Weeping
Bottlebrush 13 13 32 7 283 33 3
Remove
Fair vigor with some retrenchment, indication of termites, flush cut scars 12 6 13 FDC
189 Blue Jacaranda 10 11 21 25 16 638 2-3 2 2-3 Remove
Canker on root flare, decayed structural root 12 12
17 FDC
190 Lemon Scented
Gum 17.5 17.5 65 11 1418 32-3 3
Remove
Multiple cankers in canopy, sever stem flare damage 13 30 31 FDC
191 Indian Laurel Fig 24.5 21 45.5 46 23 1923 2 2 3 Preserve Brace codominant stems and Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cuts, included bark 22 24 re-evaluate to keep 30 FDC
192 Lemon Scented
Gum 20.5 20.5 73 21 1385 32 3
Remove
Sparse canopy, girdling roots, severe damage to flare 23 17 23 FDC
193 Indian Laurel Fig 27 27 36 19 1134 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large unclosed branch cut 20 19
18 FDC 194 Red Iron Bark 27 27 66 30 1451 3 2-3 2-3 Remove 878
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Reduced vigor, epiphytic English Ivy on stem 17 21
18 FDC
195 Shamel Ash 5 5 10 43 20 330 2-3 3 3 Remove
Inappropriate location 7 12
2 FDC
196 Red Iron Bark 11.5 11.5 39 12 491 3 3 3 Remove
Specimen strangled by English Ivy, decreased vigor 15 13 10 FDC
197 Indian Laurel Fig 30 30 47 17 1385 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Remove ivy Epiphytic English Ivy on stem 17 30
20 FDC
198 Indian Laurel Fig 28 28 44 15 1485 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Reevaluate to keep Detritus obscuring crotch, increased liability 18 24
30 FDC
199 Umbrella Tree 5.5 4.5 10 13 2 104 3-4 3 3 Remove
Codominant stems, decline, possible black soot mold, decayed wood 5 8 8 FDC
200 Indian Laurel Fig 30 30 44 21 1590 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor with some upper canopy Deadwood, large branch cuts, small exuding cankers 22 22 25 FDC
201 Indian Laurel Fig 25.5 25.5 40 19 1046 3 2-3 3 Remove Fungal fruiting bodies on roots 19 18
17 FDC
202 Indian Laurel Fig 29 29 31 15 683 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Fresh cut branch scars hand indication of termites 13 17 14 FDC
203 Indian Laurel Fig 24.5 24.5 41 18 881 2-3 2-3 3 Remove For branch union, flush cut failure 14 18
17 FDC
204 Indian Laurel Fig 24 24 37 20 1134 2-3 3 3 Remove
Multiple structural roots with decay, included bark with codominant stems 17 24 15 FDC
205 Indian Laurel Fig 24 24 49 20 1256 3 2-3 3 Remove
Cavity and root crown 15 27
18 FDC
206 Indian Laurel Fig 33.5 33.5 52 18 1418 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove Indication of termites, large flush cut branch scars 19 24 24 FDC
207 Brazilian Pepper 36 36 28 18 779 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Minimal retrenchment, small cavity, evidence of termites 16 16 13 FDC
208 Brazilian Pepper 26 26 29 17 1104 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 19 21
18 FDC
209 Brazilian Pepper 14 14 23 12 415 3 2-3 3 Remove
Mild to moderate retrenchment, termites 11 12
11 FDC
210 Brazilian Pepper 22 22 26 10 415 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Exuding sap on stem, poor prognosis, good vigor, termites 12 11 13 FDC
211 Brazilian Pepper 14.5 14.5 23 12 269 3 2-3 3 Remove Indication of termites at multiple locations, minor retrenchment 8 10 7 FDC
212 Brazilian Pepper 19 19 28 18 594 3 2-3 3 Remove
Large canker on major branch, bigger is good 14 9
14 FDC 213 Brazilian Pepper 13 12 25 24 11 415 2-3 2-3 3 Remove 879
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Decay in crotch, minor retrenchment, lean, indication of termites 9 14 12 FDC
214 Brazilian Pepper 23.5 23.5 36 15 779 3 2-3 3 Remove Two failed branches, ground squirrel burrows, minor termite damage 15 18 15 FDC
215 Brazilian Pepper 17.5 17.5 20 10 254 3 2-3 3 Remove Topped pruning, decay at flare, major decay and poorly trimmed, termites on large branch cut, retrenchment 10 8 8 FDC
216 Brazilian Pepper 18 18 12 415 3 2-3 3 Remove
Decay at lower stem and flare, failed branch 10 11
13 FDC
217 Italian Cypress 10 10 23 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 2 2
2 FDC
218 Italian Cypress 6.5 6 12.5 24 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, codominant stems 2 2
2 FDC
219 Italian Cypress 8 8 24 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 2 2
2 FDC
220 Italian Cypress 6 6 22 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 2 2
2 FDC
221 Italian Cypress 13 13 39 3 28 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, codominant stems, exuding sap 3 3
3 FDC
222 Italian Cypress 7 7 28 3 28 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, codominant stems, exuding sap 3 3
3 FDC
223 Italian Cypress 4.5 8 4 5.5 22 28 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve Form and bigger, multi stemmed 2 2
2 FDC
224 Italian Cypress 8 5 3 16 27 3 28 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 3 3
3 FDC
225 Italian Cypress 8.5 7 4 19.5 28 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 2 2
2 FDC
226 Italian Cypress 4.5 5 4 2 15.5 31 2 13 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor, tag removed 2 2
2 FDC
227 Italian Cypress 7 3 10 32 3 28 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, tag removed 3 3
3 FDC
228 Italian Cypress 8 8 16 32 3 28 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, tag removed 3 3
3 FDC
229 Italian Cypress 8 3.5 5 3 19.5 30 3 28 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor, tag removed 3 3
3 FDC
230 Brazilian Pepper 17.5 17.5 24 7 254 3 3 3 Remove
Falling tree, compromised footing due to ground squirrel Burrows 5 11 13 FDC
231 Brazilian Pepper 30 30 37 17 829 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Good form and vigor, ground squirrel burrows, bracket fungus 20 14 14 FDC 232 Brazilian Pepper 21 21 27 12 572 2-3 2-3 3 Remove 880
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Indication of termites on flush cut scar, retrenchment, good bigger and form, flush cut at branch union 11 17 14 FDC
233 European Olive 19 19 31 10 491 2-3 3 3 Preserve
Vigor fair, multiple unclosed branch cuts, ground squirrel burrows, active bee hive 8 15 17 FDC
234 European Olive 18 18 32 13 491 2-3 3 3 Remove
Vigor fair, multiple unclosed branch cuts 6 18
13 FDC
235 European Olive 18 18 31 10 380 2-3 3 3 Remove
Vigor fair, multiple unclosed branch cuts 6 15
13 FDC
236 Sawleaf Zelkova 29 29 39 19 1134 3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Minor retrenchment, minimum retrenchment, decay nutted and unclosed branch cut 19 19 19 FDC
237 Sawleaf Zelkova 27 27 43 27 1923 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Large flush cut with branch tear, indication of termites, good vigor, poor prognosis 22 29 21 FDC
238 Chinese Juniper 14.5 7 5 26.5 25 9 330 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor touches building 7 14
11 FDC
239 Chinese Juniper 6 6 7 9 28 25 17 415 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor touches building 7 15
7 FDC
240 Camphor 9.5 9.5 28 10 254 3 2-3 3 Remove
Severe retrenchment 8 9
9 FDC
241 Sawleaf Zelkova 16.5 16.5 35 19 962 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 17 17
17 FDC
242 Sawleaf Zelkova 19.5 19.5 38 14 452 3 2-3 3 Remove
Moderate to severe retrenchment 12 13
9 FDC
243 Chinese Juniper 8.5 8.5 7 7 7 | 6 7.5 | 9 53.5 30 22 804 3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Fair form, good vigor 12 19
11 FDC
244 Chinese Juniper 6 11 6.5 4 27.5 30 9 434 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Fair form, good vigor 4 16
18 FDC
245 Chinese Juniper 11 6.5 6.5 24 30 12 471 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Fair form, good vigor 9 17
11 FDC
246 Sawleaf Zelkova 20.5 20.5 22 16 594 3 2-3 3 Remove
Severe retrenchment 12 17
10 FDC
247 Camphor 12 12 28 11 491 3 2-3 3 Remove
Minor retrenchment, decay at Ric Flair, indication of termites and poor prognosis 14 14 11 FDC
248 Camphor 13 13 26 10 227 3 2-3 3 Remove
Severe flare damage 5 10
9 FDC
249 Camphor 11.5 11.5 30 11 380 3 2-3 3 Remove
Cavity in flare, flare damage, moderate retrenchment 8 13 12 FDC
250 Indian Laurel Fig 31.5 31.5 52 19 1590 3 2-3 3 Remove Flush cuts with decay, included bark, severe damage rip collar 18 25 28 FDC 251 Indian Laurel Fig 25 25 52 18 1734 3 2-3 3 Remove 881
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Unclosed branch cuts with decay, multiple structural root cankers 28 20 28 FDC
252 Indian Laurel Fig 28.5 28.5 55 29 22892-32-33 Remove Root collar damage, increased liability 18 30
31 FDC
253 Indian Laurel Fig 30 30 56 31 8552-32-33 Remove
Root collar damage, increased liability 18 17 0
FDC
254 Indian Laurel Fig 8.5 12 11.5 1178 58 55 32 9342-32-33 Remove Root collar damage, increased liability 22 15 0
FDC
255 Indian Laurel Fig 29 29 61 30 24622-32-33 Remove
Root collar damage, increased liability 32 20
30 FDC
256 Cook Pine997 2692-32-32-3 Preserve
Lean, good vigor 98
13 FDC
301 American
Sweetgum
99 32 12 397
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, decreased canopy 10 12
11 FDC
302 American
Sweetgum 15.5 15.5 47
7 5512-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 17
18 FDC
303 American
Sweetgum 20.5 20.5 43
9 5102-3
2-33
Remove
Good form and vigor, structural root decay 13 14
15 FDC
304 Sawleaf Zelkova 18 18 37 17 61532-33 Remove
Indication of borrowers noted 16 13
10 FDC
305 Silk Floss 21.5 21.5 32 13 43432-32-3 Remove
Diseased, decay at lower stem 13 16 5
FDC
306 Silk Floss 18.5 18.5 277 38032-33 Remove
Advanced termite infestation in primary branch, included bark, minor retrenchment 159 13 FDC
307 Sawleaf Zelkova 22.5 22.5 42 19 93432-32-3 Remove
Primary branch removed, moderate retrenchment 10 19
21 FDC
308 Canary Island
Pine 37.5 37.5 64 22 907
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, irregular scaffolding in canopy 14 18 14 FDC
309 Canary Island
Pine 19 19 63 10 491
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 13
15 FDC
310 Canary Island
Pine 20 20 51 12 683
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 17
16 FDC
311 Canary Island
Pine 28.5 28.5 56 18 754
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 21 8
882
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
312 Canary Island
Pine 15.5 15.5 53 13 551
3 2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, sapsucker damage 13 13
14 FDC
313 Italian Stone Pine 35.5 35.5 47 29 15542-32-32-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, codominant stems, offset canopy 27 18 15 FDC
314 Shamel Ash 27 27 63 31 19632-32-33 Preserve Remove diseased limb Stained bark, good vigor trim primary branch to keep 24 23 22 FDC
315 Chinese Juniper8649 27 31 13 240222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, multi stemmed 2 11 9
FDC
316 Carob Tree 33 33 41 24 132032-33 Remove
Multiple bodies of yellow fungus 21 19
18 FDC
317 Canary Island
Pine 25 25 43 19 804
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, codominant stems 15 14
16 FDC
318 Canary Island
Pine 24 24 72 18 907
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 16
17 FDC
319 Canary Island
Pine 25 25 74 12 855
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 18
19 FDC
320 Sawleaf Zelkova 16 16 33 12 51032-32-3 Remove
Leaf tip burn, large branch cut 17 10
12 FDC
321 Sawleaf Zelkova 18 18 36 24 14182-32-32-3 Preserve
Minor retrenchment, fair form and vigor 18 24
19 FDC
322 Sawleaf Zelkova 16 16 36 18 80432-33 Remove
Minor retrenchment, fair form and vigor, decayed structural root 15 14 17 FDC
323 Sawleaf Zelkova 19 19 41 27 135232-33 Remove
Internal decay noted 17 19
20 FDC
324 Sawleaf Zelkova 17.5 17.5 46 24 16612-32-32-3 Preserve Good health and vigor, ground squirrel burrow minor retrenchment 27 21 20 FDC
325 Sawleaf Zelkova 19 19 40 26 122522-33 Remove
Indication of borers in upper limbs 21 18
14 FDC
326 Sawleaf Zelkova 19.5 19.5 36 18 82932-33 Remove
Multiple areas of decay in root flare and crown 16 18
13 FDC
327 Carrotwood 16 16 35 17 57232-32-3 Remove
Minor retrenchment, flare damage, diseased 15 13 9
FDC
328 Carrotwood 15 15 30 16 7542-333 Remove
Minor retrenchment, decay and crotch 15 16
15 FDC 329 Red Iron wood 37 37 66 27 1963
32-33 Remove
Good to fair form and vigor, bracket fungus noted 20 23 883
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

30 FDC
330 Red Iron Wood 35.5 35.5 54 23 1451 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Evaluate for risk and brace if Good form and vigor, included bark 20 22 needed
21 FDC
331 Sawleaf Zelkova 12.5 12.5 32 18 1017 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Beef tip burn, good to fair vigor 18 18
18 FDC
332 Shamel Ash 16 16 24 10 283 2-3 2-3 3-4 Remove
Topped, good health and vigor, hollowed cavity in crotch 8 13 7 FDC
335 Brazilian Pepper 8 8 18 8 214 2-3 3 2-3 Remove
On fence line, poor location, lean 9 6
10 FDC
336 Shamel Ash 2.5 3 1.5 2.5 9.5 18 10 269 2 2 2 Preserve subordinate codominant stem Multi stem, good vigor 9 12
6 FDC
337 Brazilian Pepper 6 5 11 16 13 346 2-3 3 2-3 Remove
Good vigor, four form with embedded tissue infants, multi stem, grows on both sides of fence 10 8 11 FDC
338 Brazilian Pepper 3.5 4 7.5 12 7 123 2-3 3 2-3 Remove Codominant stems, on fence line, poor location 8 3
7 FDC
339 Brazilian Pepper 4.5 3.5 8 13 10 154 2-3 3 2-3 Remove Codominant stems, grows on both sides of the fence, Tissue embeds fence 7 3 8 FDC
340 Shamel Ash 3.5 3 2.5 9 15 5 64 2-3 3 2-3 Remove
Stump sprouter, poor form, embeds fence and tissue 5 4
4 FDC
342 Mexican Fan
Palm 16 16 47 9 283 22-3 2-3
Preserve
On fence line, good form and vigor 10 10
9 FDC
344 Brazilian Pepper 7 5.5 5 17.5 21 13 298 2-3 3 2 Remove Poor form, tissue embeds fence 10 6
10 FDC
345 Mexican Fan
Palm 15 15 42 11 346 2-33 2-3
Remove Remove neighboring tree to
keep
Canopy is intertwined with Brazilian pepper, remove pepper to keep 10 10 11 FDC
346 Brazilian Pepper 5.5 9 14.5 16 11 380 2-3 3 2-3 Remove Poor form 14 6
13 FDC
356 Shamel Ash 5 4.5 9.5 24 8 227 3 3 3 Remove
Reduced vigor, disease 9 9
8 FDC
358 Red Iron Bark 16 16 60 24 2289 3 3 3 Remove
Codominance stems with one failed stem 25 29
30 FDC
359 Red Iron Bark 26 15 41 15 25 1625 3-4 3 3-4 Remove
Indication of boars noted, termites, Codominant stems, retrenchment 28 23 15 FDC
360 Red Iron Bark 19 19 47 13 594 3 3 3 Remove
Failed stem, former predominant tree with included park 20 7 15 FDC
361 Red Iron Bark 20 20 51 32 1734 3 3 3 Remove
Branch, decreased vigor 18 16
28 884
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
362 Red Iron Bark 15.5 18 33.5 53 23 1923 2-3
3 3
Remove Read evaluate embrace if
needed
Competing canopy, lean, Co dominant stems with included bark, failed neighboring tree 14 32 30 FDC
363 Myoporum 4.5 5 9.5 15 11 397 3 3 3 Remove
Poor form, diseased 12 12
10 FDC
364 Carrotwood 7.5 7 6.5 21 35 16 594 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Poor scaffolding, competing canopies 13 8
18 FDC
365 Red Iron Bark 12.5 13 13.5 39 44 19 1164 3 3 3 Remove Large failed branch, failed stem 13 29
16 FDC
366 Red Iron Bark 28 28 52 18 1590 3 3 3 Remove
Large failed stem and branch, lean, 21 28
23 FDC
367 Paperbark 5.5 5 5.5 16 20 11 177 2-3 3 2-3 Remove
Poor form, replace, multi stemmed 8 6
5 FDC
368 Mexican Fan
Palm 18.5 18.5 60 11 314 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor, competes with adjacent Brazilian pepper tree 13 7 9 FDC
382 Mexican Fan
Palm 19 19 47 7 269 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 9 11
10 FDC
383 Mexican Fan
Palm 18 18 71 8 254 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 7
11 FDC
384 Silk Floss Tree 12.5 12.5 14 8 201 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Diseased limbs, indication of termites 7 9
8 FDC
385 Silk Floss Tree 10.5 10.5 24 11 227 3 2-3 3 Remove
Cavity noted in flare 6 9
8 FDC
386 African Fern Pine 18.5 18.5 50 30 1590 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Minor upper canopy Deadwood, large area of decay 18 25
17 FDC
387 African Fern Pine 12.5 12.5 51 18 551 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Competing canopy, sleeping, lean 13 14
8 FDC
388 Brazilian Pepper 33 33 44 30 2418 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large specimen 28 27
26 FDC
389 Mexican Fan
Palm 16 16 71 5 133 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 7 7
7 FDC
390 African Fern Pine 15.5 15.5 40 13 683 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, minor lean 15 13
18 FDC
391 African Fern Pine 14.5 14.5 38 14 962 3
2 2-3
Preserve Reevaluate post development if
keeping
Good form and vigor, decreased canopy on north side, decayed structural roots, minor upper canopy Deadwood 17 23 16 885
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
392 Green Ash 15 15 53 19 1046 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Moderate upper canopy Deadwood 18 18
18 FDC
393 Mexican Fan
Palm 18 18 58 6 143 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 7 6
8 FDC
394 Mexican Fan
Palm 20.5 20.5 56 6 189 2-32 2
Preserve
Aerial roots noted 8 8
9 FDC
395 Silk Floss Tree 29.5 29.5 39 19 1225 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Ground squirrel burrow infested root crown, good form and vigor 21 19 20 FDC
396 Silk Floss Tree 31 31 38 11 754 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Fair vigor, termite interested 15 18
18 FDC
397 Silk Floss Tree 9.5 9.5 14 7 113 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Poorly developed canopy and indication of termites 7 4
6 FDC
398 Indian Laurel Fig 28.5 28.5 57 18 1661 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut, fair vigor 30 24
20 FDC
399 Indian Laurel Fig 28 28 45 18 1225 3 2-3 3 Remove
Reduced canopy health with internal decay, ground squirrel curls beneath red crown, compromised stability 17 22 22 FDC
400 Indian Laurel Fig 22 22 44 19 1075 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut appears to be closing 18 19
18 FDC
401 Canary Island
Pine 16 16 67 10 298 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 10
11 FDC
402 Canary Island
Pine 18 18 66 11 314 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 10
11 FDC
403 Canary Island
Pine 20 20 67 11 346 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 11
10 FDC
404 Canary Island
Pine 19 19 51 12 434 2-32 2-3
Preserve Subordinate codominant stem
Good form and vigor, codominant stems 10 13
12 FDC
405 Canary Island
Pine 18.5 18.5 54 15 531 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 12
14 FDC
406 Canary Island
Pine 24.5 24.5 90 12 452 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 13
12 FDC
407 Canary Island
Pine 18 18 62 13 452 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 10
12 886
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
408 Canary Island
Pine 22.5 22.5 74 14 594 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 12
16 FDC
409 Canary Island
Pine 16 16 64 13 415 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Fair form and vigor, reduced canopy 11 11
11 FDC
410 Chinese Elm 22.5 22.5 40 21 1385 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Prune decayed branch Flash cuts, exuding sap, decayed branch 20 22
21 FDC
413 Sawleaf Zelkova 15.5 15.5 32 13 240 3-4 3 3 Remove
Steep decline, termites 14 5
3 FDC
414 South African
Coral Tree 14.5 19.5 12 16.5 14.5 77 43 20 1194 2-33 3
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace if
needed
Good vigor, included bark with codominant stems, poor form 14 15 29 FDC
415 Red Iron Bark 33.5 33.5 86 29 2595 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 25 31
30 FDC
416 Red Iron Bark 27.5 27.5 68 17 829 2 2 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 14
17 FDC
417 Red Iron Bark 29.5 29.5 64 17 1134 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, minor decay in structural root 16 21 22 FDC
418 Red Iron Bark 36.5 36.5 77 21 2641 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 32 31
32 FDC
419 Red Iron Bark 42 42 78 33 3577 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 35 34
33 FDC
420 Silk Floss 27 27 48 25 2123 3 2-3 3 Remove Potential heritage tree Severe decline or retrenchment, decayed branches, heritage tree 24 30 25 FDC
421 Silk Floss 20 20 52 18 1046 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Decline or retrenchment, poor prognosis 24 17
14 FDC
422 Canary Island
Pine 25.5 25.5 72 16 1104 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, possible minor borer damage 16 22
21 FDC
423 Red Iron Bark 35 35 71 27 2779 3-4 2-3 3-4 Remove
Good form and vigor, shelf fungus 30 27
35 FDC
424 Red Iron Bark 35 35 69 27 2969 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, ground squirrel Burrows 34 30
32 FDC
425 Red Iron Bark 14.5 14.5 41 7 415 3 2-3 3 Remove
Decay at lower stem with indication of termites, retrenchment 13 12 14 FDC
426 Red Iron Bark 40 40 80 28 3215 3 2-3 3 Remove
Branch stubs at branch bark ridge, fair vigor, some decay at stem, bracket fungus 33 31 36 FDC 427 Weeping Fig 10.5 8 8 14 40.5 46 24 1771 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good health and vigor, large branch cut, included bark, low risk 20 21 887
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

30 FDC
428 Indian Laurel Fig 10 9 9 4 9 41 45 27 1385 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Multiple unclosed branch cuts, decay, good vigor, low risk 18 20 19 FDC
429 Blue Jacaranda 7 7 16 11 314 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Good vigor, included bark, low risk 7 12
10 FDC
430 Blue Jacaranda 4 5 9 14 6 283 3 2-3 2 Remove
Minor retrenchment, decay at lower stem, poor form, young 6 13 13 FDC
431 Shamel Ash 4 3.5 7.5 32 7 298 2 2 3 Remove
Codominant stems, good vigor, poor location 8 11
13 FDC
432 Shamel Ash 5.5 5.5 32 10 283 2 2 3 Remove
Good form and vigor, some lean, poor location 5 18
5 FDC
433 Shamel Ash 5.5 5.5 36 7 123 2 2-3 3 Remove
Poor location, competing canopy 5 7
6 FDC
434 Shamel Ash 3.5 3.5 34 6 227 2 2-3 3 Remove
Poor location, competing canopy 8 11
9 FDC
435 Chinese Juniper 19.5 19.5 33 16 434 3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Planted too close to building, low risk, fair vigor 16 11 4 FDC
436 Lemon Scented
Gum 31 31 86 21 2595 22-3 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, sweep lean 33 28
33 FDC
437 Red Iron Bark 37.5 37.5 59 25 1352 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, bird nest noted 18 19
21 FDC
438 Carrotwood 14 14 22 10 415 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, indication of termites, included bark 13 12 11 FDC
439 Carrotwood 14 14 27 14 683 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cuts 16 16
13 FDC
440 Carrotwood 18 18 38 18 1046 3 3 3 Remove
Sapsucker damage, decayed at branch union 22 14
19 FDC
441 American
Sweetgum 17 17 45 18 1017 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Decreased canopy development, minor border damage, the form is good, mild to moderate retrenchment, decayed structural route
18 18
18 FDC
442 Carrotwood 13.5 13.5 28 16 594 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Large canker, diseased 13 12
14 FDC
443 Red Iron Bark 49 49 68 18 1385 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve
Decreased crown development, good form 22 24
20 FDC
444 Canary Island
Pine 15.5 15.5 57 9 380 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 10
15 FDC 445 Brazilian Pepper 16.5 16.5 28 16 397 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cuts 9 12
888
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

8 FDC
446 Brazilian Pepper 14.5 14.5 23 13 34632-32-3 Remove
Good vigor, lean, 3 failed branches 10 11 8
FDC
447 Indian Laurel Fig 36 36 55 25 25952-32-32-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, many unclosed branch cuts 29 31
30 FDC
448 Brazilian Pepper 22 22 35 15 7302-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, girdling roots 16 15
15 FDC
449 Sawleaf Zelkova 11 11 18 11 1773-433 Remove
Advanced decay and retrenchment 75
7 FDC
450 Shamel Ash44 258 2012-332-3 Remove
Fence embedded in plant tissue, included bark 105
9 FDC
451 Shamel Ash56 11 27 13 2832-332-3 Remove
Fence embedded in plant tissue, included bark 115
9 FDC
452 Red Flower Gum 8.5 8.5 33 13 638222-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 188
18 FDC
453 Brazilian Pepper 11.5 10.58 30 30 21 6382-333 Remove Core flare development, included bark 185
13 FDC
455 Mimosa4 3.53 10.5 24 10 254332-3 Remove
Minor to moderate decay and retrenchment, decay on primary stem, codominant stems 108 8 FDC
456 Mimosa 6.5 9.5 16 23 11 63832-33 Remove
Mild to moderate retrenchment, decay flare 18 12
16 FDC
457 Mimosa5 4.5 3.5 13 155 330332-3 Remove
Decayed stem severe retrenchment 12 12
12 FDC
458 Myoporum5 3.5 4.5 3.556 27.5 19 18 34632-32-3 Remove Retrenchment, embedded fence 114
9 FDC
459 Silver Dollar
Gum 13 13 26 51 18 907
2-3
33 Remove
Increase liability, decay at branch union, good vigor, included bark 22 12 16 FDC
460 Red Iron Bark 22 22 57 24 122522-32-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 19 12
24 FDC
461 Aleppo Pine 18.5 18.5 50 17 8042-32-32-3 Preserve
Lean, good form and fair vigor, 2 needles per bundle 10 19 18 FDC
462 Yew Pine 7.5 5.5 13 198 13322-32-3 Preserve
Codominant stems, good to fair form and vigor 57
6 FDC
463 Silk Oak Tree 28.5 28.5 48 16 77932-33 Remove
Moderate upper canopy Deadwood, internal decay noted, active bee hive 13 17 17 FDC
464 Indian Laurel Fig 37 37 48 26 22892-32-33 Remove
Access decay in structural roots, increased liability 31 24 27 FDC 465 Indian Laurel Fig 31 31 47 25 14852-32-33 Remove 889
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good vigor, severe decay in structural roots 23 18
21 FDC
466 Indian Laurel Fig 28.5 28.5 50 25 2082 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Large branch cut at the branch union, decay at structural roots 27 22 29 FDC
468 Indian Laurel Fig 33 33 45 20 2002 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Remove diseased branch Fair form and vigor, large branch cuts with included bark, damaging hardscape 28 25 28 FDC
469 Indian Laurel Fig 34 34 47 14 1194 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut, included bark, damaging hardscape 19 18 27 FDC
470 Indian Laurel Fig 39.5 39.5 49 25 1418 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut, included bark 19 19
22 FDC
471 Silk Oak Tree 32 32 42 13 572 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, opportunist Mexican fan palm in crotch 12 13 16 FDC
472 Strawberry Tree 10 10 6 165 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Large canker in stem 9 5
9 FDC
473 Red Iron Bark 40 40 68 32 3116 2-3 2 3 Remove
Good form and fair vigor, bracket fungus 31 30
33 FDC
474 Red Iron Bark 37 37 68 26 1225 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Minor included bark, decreased canopy, bracket fungus 12 17 24 FDC 475 Red Iron Bark 33.5 33.5 72 20 1451 3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Decreased canopy 18 20
28 FDC
476 Red Iron Bark 36 36 74 32 2826 2 2 3 Remove
Good form and vigor, some stained bark, bracket fungus 33 28 27 FDC
477 Red Iron Bark 26.5 26.5 46 21 962 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut and fair form 17 20
12 FDC
478 Canary Island
Pine 17.5 16 19.5 53 50 15 779 22 2
Preserve
Good vigor, multi-stemmed, gummosis noted 14 16
18 FDC
479 Canary Island
Pine 22 22 70 17 779 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 17
17 FDC
480 Red Iron Bark 41 41 69 18 1451 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Included bark, increased liability, brace and re-evaluate to keep 26 23 19 FDC
481 Red Iron Bark 29 29 72 17 1046 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 23 12
21 FDC
482 Red Iron Bark 28 28 52 19 1194 3 2-3 3 Remove
Significant canker in upper stem, increased liability, bracket fungus 19 21 19 FDC
483 Carrotwood 9 9 15 11 346 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good vigor, decay at flair, flush cut branch unclosed, upper canopy deadwood 12 10 9 FDC 484 Carrotwood 11 11 14 9 314 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Sapsucker damage, their form and vigor 10 11
890
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

10 FDC
485 Guava 3 3 2.5 3 4 | 3 2 | 2 18.5 12 9 227 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Diseased 9 8
8 FDC
486 Carrotwood 10.5 10.5 15 11 531 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Minor retrenchment 15 12
14 FDC
487 Carrotwood 7 7 13 5 113 3 3 2-3 Remove
Diseased 7 6
6 FDC
488 Red Iron Bark 36 36 85 30 2969 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 31 32
30 FDC
489 White Mulberry 17.5 17.5 26 13 754 3 2-3 3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, decay at branch 18 16
15 FDC
490 Carrotwood 12.5 12.5 16 16 510 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Lean, decay in union on stem 12 12
11 FDC
491 Carrotwood 14 14 18 8 452 3 2-3 3 Remove
Decay at flare moderate retrenchment 13 13
14 FDC
492 Carrotwood 19 19 34 22 1075 3 2-3 3 Remove
Get bigger, massive canker at site of former failed branch 17 17 18 FDC
493 American
Sweetgum 15.5 15.5 38 19 829 2-32-3 2-3
Remove
Good vigor with minor retrenchment, termites in decayed branch cut, marginal 13 17 16 FDC
494 Sawleaf Zelkova 21 21 28 10 240 3 2-3 3 Remove
Indication of bores noted 8 8
9 FDC
495 American
Sweetgum 21 21 47 16 934 2-32-3 2-3
Remove
Girdling roots, moderate retrenchment, stained bark with decayed stem 17 18 18 FDC
496 American
Sweetgum 9 927 14 572 2-32-3 2-3
Remove
Minor retrenchment, decrease prognosis, longitudinal decay on stem 16 11 13 FDC
497 American
Sweetgum 20 20 28 14 779 32-3 3
Remove
Moderate retrenchment 15 17
17 FDC
498 American
Sweetgum 10 10 21 13 380 32-3 3
Remove
Diseased 11 8
12 FDC
499 Guava 5 4 7 16 15 10 330 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Treat mold if keeping Possible black sooty mold on leaves 12 8
11 FDC
500 American
Sweetgum 15 15 47 18 989 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve Reevaluate if keeping post
development
Good form and vigor, decreased canopy 19 18
16 FDC 501 Weeping
Bottlebrush 16 16 34 10 615 2-32 2-3
Preserve
891
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good form and vigor 15 14
17 FDC
502 Brisbane Box 17 17 39 17 660222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 14
13 FDC
503 Brisbane Box 10.5 10.5 37 11 33032-32-3 Preserve
Fair form and vigor, minor to moderate retrenchment 9 11 10 FDC
504 Lemon Scented
Gum 18 18 56 18 1554
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Decreased canopy vigor 26 20
25 FDC
505 Mexican Fan
Palm 19 19 60
8 3802
22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 11
13 FDC
506 Southern
Magnolia
55 15
9 1772-3
22-3
Preserve
Decreased canopy health 87
6 FDC
507 Southern
Magnolia 13 13 27 11 363
3 22-3
Remove
Decreased canopy health and decay in branch crotch 119
12 FDC
508 Southern
Magnolia
99 16 10 452
3 22-3
Remove
Decreased canopy health, decay on stem 14 10
14 FDC
509 Southern
Magnolia
66 12
7 2142-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Decreased canopy health minor with minor retrenchment 108 8 FDC
510 European Olive 109 14 33 33 17 80432-32-3 Remove
Multiple points of decay, retrenchment 20 13
14 FDC
511 Magenta Lilly
Pilly
66 8.5 20.5 32 12 363
2-332-3
Preserve
Multi stemmed specimen 129
10 FDC
512 Weeping
Bottlebrush 14.5 14.5 36
8 551
2-32-32-3
Preserve
Unclosed branch cut 10 18
17 FDC
513 Brazilian Pepper 37 37 34 22 98932-33 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, epicormic sprouting, senescent 18 13 18 FDC
514 Brazilian Pepper 35 35 34 21 11042-32-33 Remove
Water sprouting, cavity in flare 19 18
17 FDC
515 Brisbane Box 16.5 16.5 399 434222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 11
13 FDC
516 Peruvian Pepper 11.56 10.5 28 27 15 75422-32-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, Codominant stems with poor crotch formation 14 15 18 FDC 517 Peruvian Pepper 10 14
87 39 16 18 110432-33 Remove
Tissue embeds fence, increased liability, cavity and limb 12 22 892
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

23 FDC
518 Carrotwood 4 3.5 5.5 5 18 16 11 531 2-3 3 3 Remove
Competing canopy, leans into property, poor location 15 14 12 FDC
519 Mexican Fan
Palm 16 16 62 10 283 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 9 11
8 FDC
520 Golden Wattle 8.5 6 6.5 21 17 14 298 3-4 2-3 3-4 Remove Leans over fence, fungus on stem 7 13
5 FDC
521 Shamel Ash 38 38 63 25 2779 2-3 3 3 Preserve Brace and re-evaluate to keep Good vigor, codominant stems with included bark 31 31
32 FDC
522 Shamel Ash 5 8 6 19 36 17 638 2-3 3 3 Preserve Subordinate codominant stem Good vigor, multi stem 13 12
15 FDC
523 Shamel Ash 28.5 28.5 71 20 1418 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Nest observed Harvested codominant stem, minor retrenchment, nest observed 27 21 17 FDC
524 Silk oak 18 18 45 18 1075 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Minor retrenchment noted 19 18
19 FDC
525 Shamel Ash 19.5 13.5 33 59 30 2332 3 3 3-4 Remove
Hazardous specimen, codominant stems, cavity and crotch in stem, termites 24 28 27 FDC
526 African Fern Pine 16 16 38 15 594 2-3 3 3 Remove
Cankers in upper stem, good vigor, increased liability and poor prognosis, severed structural root 14 15 11 FDC
527 Shamel Ash 26 26 73 25 2418 2-3 2 3 Preserve Prune and reevaluate if keeping Decay in branch cut in upper canopy on the east side 26 30 30 FDC
528 Shamel Ash 34.5 34.5 67 32 1771 3 3 3 Remove Nest observed Moderate retrenchment, included Bark between codominant stems, nest observed 21 26 16 FDC
529 Shamel Ash 26 26 58 22 1697 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment, multiple points of decay with indications of termites 29 22 20 FDC
530 Hong Kong
Orchid Tree 10 10 22 15 510 32 3
Remove
Diseased with indication of termites 16 9
11 FDC
531 Hong Kong
Orchid Tree 7.5 7.5 18 9 346 32 3
Remove
Diseased with indication of termites 14 9
10 FDC
532 Hong Kong
Orchid Tree 7.5 7.5 21 11 227 2-3 2 3
Remove
Multiple points of decay, poor prognosis 7 8
8 FDC
533 Chinese Juniper 13 5.5 18.5 14 10 214 2-3 2-3 2 Remove Good health and vigor, topped 10 7
6 FDC
534 Blue Jacaranda 15 15 33 18 934 3 2 3 Remove
Mild retrenchment, fair form and vigor, decayed structural roots 16 18 17 893
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
535 Magenta Lilly
Pilly 14 14 32 11 380 2-3 2 3
Remove
Flare damage, increased liability 13 9
11 FDC
536 Brazilian Pepper 33.5 33.5 34 18 1017 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Treat and reevaluate Pest infested, decreased vigor 18 18
18 FDC
632 Brazilian pepper 5 6.5 3 4.5 4 5 28 24 14 201 2 2-3 2 Preserve Multi-stem, decay in open branch cut 5 9
4 FDC
634 Siberian Elm 25 25 43 21 881 3 2-3 3 Remove
Burrows in structural root crown, cavity in structural root, unclosed branch cut and scar, topped, cavity in mainstem
10 19
17 FDC
635 Indian Laurel Fig 57.5 57.5 65 32 2375 2 2-3 3 Preserve Prune decayed limb Good health and vigor, decayed limb 32 22
24 FDC
636 Silk Oak Tree 23 23 63 18 754 2-3 2 3 Remove
Cavity in primary limb, increased liability 12 17
15 FDC
637 Silk Oak Tree 26 26 61 19 638 3 2 3 Remove
Two failed limbs 9 17
12 FDC
639 Glossy Privet 5 6.5 5 4.5 3.5 5 | 5 34.5 34 13 510 2-3 3 3 Remove Multiple decayed locations at old branch cuts, increased liability 12 14 12 FDC
640 Glossy Privet 5 4.5 5 4 5 23.5 37 14 254 2-3 3 3 Remove Multiple decayed locations at old branch cuts, increased liability 8 9 5 FDC
641 Glossy Privet 6 4 4 14 38 10 189 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Diseased 4 8
9 FDC
642 Glossy Privet 4.5 4 3.5 3.5 2.5 6 | 4 28 38 16 177 3 3 2-3 Remove Diseased, multiple dead limbs 6 5
3 FDC
643 Glossy Privet 4.5 2.5 5.5 4 16.5 37 16 177 2-3 3 2-3 Remove Diseased, multiple dead limbs, decay at old branch cuts 6 5 3 FDC
644 Glossy Privet 4.5 3.5 2.5 5.5 5 4 25 41 14 346 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Advanced diseased, replacement will better serve project 7 14 7 FDC
646 Indian Laurel Fig 37 37 63 15 1104 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor deadwood in canopy 24 14
22 FDC
647 Glossy Privet 4.5 6.5 3.5 3.5 4.5 | 6 5.5 | 6 40 44 15 615 3 2-3 3 Remove Epicormic shoots sprouting, multiple diseased limbs, decline 5 16 20 FDC
648 Swiss Floss Tree 11 11 14 13 254 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Leaf tip burn, vigor fair 9 7
7 FDC
649 Swiss Floss Tree 6 6 14 8 44 3-4 3 3 Remove
Decreased aesthetics and canopy development 5 0
2 FDC
650 White Mulberry 17 17 30 21 1046 2-3 2-3 3-4 Remove
Decayed structural roots, increased liability, good vigor, fungal fruiting body 16 22 14 FDC 651 Swiss Floss 11 11 24 12 314 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Decay in branch cut 12 10
894
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

6 FDC
652 Ornamental Pear 16 16 29 19 1046 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Moderate retrenchment, flush cuts 18 20
16 FDC
653 Swiss Floss Tree 16.5 16.5 21 11 434 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Significant decay in structural roots, decreased prognosis 14 10 12 FDC
654 Chinese Juniper 6.5 6.5 6 19 16 18 363 2-3 3 3 Remove Sprawling canopy, multi-stem, decreased prognosis, flush cuts, poor form 9 10 6 FDC
655 Chinese Juniper 8 8 11 10 165 3 3 3 Remove
Offset canopy, competing canopy, poor form 9 6
4 FDC
656 Chinese Juniper 7.5 7.5 8.5 5 28.5 17 15 298 2-3 3 3 Remove Internal decay in lower stem 9 9
6 FDC
657 Chinese Juniper 5.5 3.5 5.5 4 7 5 | 6.5 37 24 16 330 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Poor form, vigor OK, offset canopy 6 11
8 FDC
658 Chinese Juniper 4.5 4.5 9 24 8 177 3 3 2-3 Remove
Poor growth form and decreased aesthetics 3 11
8 FDC
659 Chinese Juniper 5 5 7.5 17.5 22 10 201 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Competing canopy and decreased aesthetics 6 11
5 FDC
660 Chinese Juniper 6.5 6.5 12 23 1046 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Competing canopy 16 20
14 FDC
661 Shamel Ash 6.5 6.5 57 10 177 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove Can save if removing fence and Embedded fence, good health and vigor 2 12 re-evaluating 6 FDC
662 Chinese Juniper 6.5 6.5 13 21 7 214 2-3 3 2-3 Remove Flush cut pruning observed, poor form 3 16
7 FDC
663 Chinese Juniper 6.5 6.5 13 21 7 214 2-4 4 2-4 Remove Decreased aesthetics and canopy development 3 16
7 FDC
667 Blue Jacaranda 6 6.5 12.5 16 9 531 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Codominant stems, upper canopy deadwood, flush cut noted, project may be better served if replaced 13 16 14 FDC
668 Blue Jacaranda 5 5.5 5.5 5 6 27 22 9 572 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Re-evaluate post development Upper canopy Deadwood noted 15 16
14 FDC
669 Blue Jacaranda 14.5 14.5 31 11 594 1-2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good health and vigor noted, burrows in root crown, codominant stem removed 12 15 17 FDC
670 Indian Laurel Fig 25 25 42 22 1418 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Prune for safety Unclosed flush cut, good health and vigor, decayed wood in unclosed branch cut girdling roots 18 17 28 FDC
671 Indian Laurel Fig 33 33 51 26 1385 2-3
2 2-3
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace for
safety if keeping
Flush cuts noted, included bark 17 19
22 FDC
672 Indian Laurel Fig 17 12 20 15 64 47 25 0 3 2-3 3 Remove Large cavity in lower stem 12 21
21 FDC 673 Swiss Floss 21 21 31 16 0 2 2 2 Preserve
895
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good form and vigor 15 16
16 FDC
674 Senegal Date
Palm
78 5.5 20.5 27 18 3972
2-32-3
Preserve
Multiple basal sprouts, good vigor 7 19 1
FDC
675 Senegal Date
Palm
6 7.5 7.56 8.5 8.5 44 31 14 6152
2-32-3
Preserve
Multiple basal sprouts, good vigor 10 15
17 FDC
676 Scarlet Firethorn 4.53 4.5 12 106 7922-32 Preserve
Included bark in branch union, low liability 46
4 FDC
679 Indian Laurel Fig 20 17.5 21 58.5 60 30 17712-322-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 16 19
30 FDC
680 Indian Laurel Fig 57 57 62 30 18472-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 27 16
24 FDC
681 Indian Laurel Fig 40 20 60 62 24 15902-3
2-33
Preserve Re-evaluate and monitor as
needed
Decay at two branch cuts noted, low risk 22 24
20 FDC
682 Indian Laurel Fig 41 41 62 18 1963333 Remove
Internal cavity, good vigor, increased liability 26 31
25 FDC
683 Brazilian Pepper 23 23 35 18 1963333 Remove
Large enclosed branch cut, good vigor but increased liability noted, termite frass 26 31 25 FDC
684 Canary Island
Pine 25 25 66 12 471
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Lower limbs removed, good health and vigor 10 14
13 FDC
685 Canary Island
Pine 20 20 64
9 2542-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Lower limbs removed, good health and vigor 99
9 FDC
686 Brazilian Pepper 36 36 38 21 12562-32-32-3 Preserve Large flush branch cut noted 14 19
26 FDC
687 Indian Laurel Fig 45 45 57 27 196332-33 Remove
Decay noted app flare and structural roots 17 28
28 FDC
688 Indian Laurel Fig 43 43 62 25 15202-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor noted 16 20
27 FDC
690 Canary Island
Pine 27 27 58 14 452
2 22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 14
12 FDC
692 Canary Island
Pine 21.5 21.5 50 16 510
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Girdled structural roots observed, epicormic sprouting 10 13 12 FDC 693 Canary Island
Pine 31.5 31.5 45 22 962
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 18
896
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

15 FDC
694 Canary Island
Pine 14 14 52 10 165 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 6 8
5 FDC
695 Canary Island
Pine 27 27 55 15 491 2-32 2-3
Preserve Remove electrical utility line
Good form and vigor, electrical utility line wrapped on tree 10 14 11 FDC
696 Canary Island
Pine 27 27 61 11 452 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 12
13 FDC
698 Sago Palm 15 15 30 9 2 28 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 3 4
3 FDC
699 Silk Oak Tree 37.5 37.5 48 15 594 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Decreased canopy vigor and significant dieback 12 15
13 FDC
700 Silk Oak Tree 21 21 51 13 707 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Flush cut, decay at mid stem 14 14
19 FDC
701 Silk Oak Tree 20.5 20.5 49 12 962 2 2 3 Preserve
Near foundation of building 22 19
17 FDC
702 European Olive 9 12.5 8 29.5 31 13 397 2 3 3 Preserve Re-evaluate and brace for Significant tree due to name on plaque nearby, next to target, codominant stems, some decay noted 6 15 safety, potential heritage tree 11 FDC
703 Canary Island
Pine 22 22 75 16 415 22-3 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, next to target 7 12
11 FDC
704 South African
Coral Tree 39 39 44 22 1352 32-3 3-4
Remove
Hollowed stem, increased liability, red flowers 21 19
21 FDC
705 Siberian Elm 20 20 32 18 683 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve
Topped, good vigor, water sprouting 14 14
13 FDC
706 Indian Laurel Fig 33 33 54 22 1554 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor 24 24
19 FDC
707 Indian Laurel Fig 41 41 56 19 1625 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Included bark in branch union with large limb 20 30
22 FDC
708 Indian Laurel Fig 34 34 47 18 829 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Cavity under structural root and epicormic sprouts 19 12 16 FDC
709 Sawleaf Zelkova 22.5 22.5 35 21 962 3 2-3 3 Remove
Offset crown, frass noted large branch cuts 18 18
13 FDC
710 Sawleaf Zelkova 16 16 30 16 452 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Top trimming, decreased aesthetics, water sprouting, decay at primary branch cut 12 11 9 FDC
711 Sawleaf Zelkova 14 14 17 10 227 3 3 2-3 Remove
Advanced decay, removed primary stem, evidence of termites 8 12 4 897
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
712 Crape Myrtle 6.5 6.5 216 8732-32-3 Remove
Decay at flare, decline, needs irrigation and may be saved 55 5 FDC
713 Canary Island
Pine 25.5 25.5 46
8 5102-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Primary stem removed, vigor is reduced, epicormic sprouting 13 15 15 FDC
714 American
Sweetgum 17 17 40 13 754
3 2-33
Remove
Multiple areas of decay at route crown, and decrease stability 12 19 18 FDC
715 American
Sweetgum 16 16 27 14 683
3 2-33
Remove
Dead primary stem, severe decline 18 16
11 FDC
716 American
Sweetgum 23.5 23.5 44 11 434
3 32-3
Remove
Girdling roots, vigor OK, flush cuts and cankers, the decay is surficial in roots 159 12 FDC
717 Canary Island
Pine 25 25 54 12 510
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 14
15 FDC
718 Japanese Red
Pine 8.5 8.5 23
7 1432-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Minor decline 66
8 FDC
719 Japanese Red
Pine
99 24 12 491
3-4
33 Remove
Decline 7 12
19 FDC
720 Japanese Red
Pine 9.5 9.5 15
4 3142-3
32 Preserve
Poor form 13 10
13 FDC
721 Japanese Red
Pine 6.5 6.5 5.5 5.5 24 15 13 615
2-3
32-3
Preserve
Unusual form, memorial tree9 18
16 FDC
722 Japanese Red
Pine
99 17 13 380
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Fair form and vigor, low risk 10 13 8
FDC
723 Japanese Red
Pine 10 10 16 12 380
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Decline, 2 needles per bundle, 3-to-5-inch needles 10 12 10 FDC
724 Sawleaf Zelkova 19.5 19.5 295 2403-433 Remove
Large area of decay on stem, topped, tag removed 156
9 FDC
725 Sawleaf Zelkova 23 23 25 12 43432-32-3 Remove
Diseased primary limb, poor prognosis9 14
12 FDC
726 Sawleaf Zelkova 13.5 13.5 26 15 47132-32-3 Remove
Multiple cankers noted 10 12
12 FDC 727 Silk Oak Tree 32.5 32.5 54 17 855
2-32-33 Preserve Re-evaluate to keep
Possible decay at primary branch, reevaluate to keep, good vigor, increased liability 16 19 898
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

14 FDC
728 Canary Island
Pine 30 30 69 11 283 2-32-3 3
Preserve Brace to keep and re-evaluate
Included bark in codominant stem union, brace to keep 10 9 8 FDC
729 Canary Island
Pine 29.5 29.5 70 14 730 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 16
17 FDC
730 Italian Stone Pine 28.5 28.5 43 18 934 3 3 3 Remove Large cavity in stem 11 25
15 FDC
731 Italian Stone Pine 26.5 26.5 42 15 989 3 2-3 3 Remove Decay in flare, sweep lean 30 12
14 FDC
732 Chinese Elm 17.5 17.5 48 18 779 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Large branch cut noted 15 14
16 FDC
733 Chinese Elm 19 19 52 14 779 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Large flush cut 16 15
18 FDC
734 Chinese Elm 14 14 41 12 531 3 3 3 Remove
Significant lean, fair canopy development, decay at flare 14 12 14 FDC
735 Chinese Elm 18 18 44 18 855 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, offset canopy, girdling roots 22 9 17 FDC
736 Camphor 13 13 34 19 1104 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, ice plant at base 19 19
18 FDC
737 Chinese Elm 17 17 47 19 1418 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Prune branch and re-evaluate Good form and vigor, failed branch, 23 21
22 FDC
738 Chinese Elm 21 21 42 23 1418 2-3 3 2-3 Remove
Exuding sap from branch kite, improper trimming, poor prognosis, canker at roots, fair vigor 13 28 21 FDC
739 Chinese Elm 18 18 47 21 1923 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Multiple cankers at flare, large branch cut, increased liability 25 28 25 FDC
740 Chinese Elm 18 18 43 21 1385 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Large canker on east side of structure, exuding sap, canker on structural roots 25 20 18 FDC
741 Chinese Elm 15 15 43 10 730 3 3 3 Remove
Cankers at flare and upper stem, competing canopies 21 12 18 FDC
742 Chinese Elm 15 15 32 25 1164 3 3 3 Remove
Lean, multiple cankers on limbs 21 19
12 FDC
743 Camphor 5.5 7 12.5 22 16 397 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Improper location as it is next to a building, good health and vigor 11 8 10 FDC
744 Southern
Mongolia 11 11 28 13 638 22 2
Preserve
Good health and vigor, some upper canopy deadwood 14 13 17 FDC 745 Brazilian Pepper 19 19 28 11 804 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Termites found in unclosed branch cut in crotch 20 13
899
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

20 FDC
746 Brazilian Pepper 25 25 34 21 934333 Remove
Indication of termites, retrenchment, cavity under tree 15 16 17 FDC
747 Canary Island
Pine 36 36 63 18 1164
2 2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, next to building 17 22
20 FDC
748 Yew Pine88 277 1132-32-33 Remove
Next to building, dead branch, offset canopy96
2 FDC
749 Blue Jacaranda867 21 30 16 7302-332-3 Preserve Re-evaluate to keep Included bark, good vigor 22 12
11 FDC
750 Brazilian Pepper 33 33 48 14 11042-3
2-33
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace to
mitigate risk
Multiple stems with included bark, good health and vigor, increased risk 22 15 24 FDC
751 Tulip Tree 19 19 30 12 47132-32-3 Remove
Severe retrenchment, diseased primary stem 11 11
15 FDC
752 Blue Jacaranda9 126 27 48 16 855222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 15
17 FDC
753 Blue Jacaranda 13 13 30 12 660222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 14
18 FDC
754 Canary Island
Pine 22 22 36 11 240
3 2-32-3
Remove
Decline, epicormic sprouts5 10 9
FDC
755 Canary Island
Pine 38 38 25 16 804
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 18
19 FDC
756 American
Sweetgum 22 22 44 16 707
3 2-32-3
Remove
Some retrenchment, marginal tree health, better to replace 13 18 13 FDC
757 American
Sweetgum 19 19 45 16 707
2 22
Preserve
Fair form and vigor 13 18
13 FDC
758 Tulip Tree 16 16 45 12 5102-32-33 Remove
Decay and cavity at branch cut, increased liability 13 13 13 FDC
759 American
Sweetgum 17 17 49 18 804
3 2-32-3
Remove
Some upper canopy deadwood, stained bark, cankers 17 15 14 FDC
760 Chinese Elm99 30 17 5722-322 Preserve
Good form and vigor, next to building 11 17 9
FDC
761 Pencil Tree88 158 143322-3 Remove
Good form and vigor, decay on stem76
6 900
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
762 American
Sweetgum 16 16 49 15 452
3 2-32-3
Remove
Decline, multiple cankers and stained bark locations 11 11 11 FDC
763 Brazilian Pepper 21 21 36 13 8812-32-33 Remove
Large specimen, good vigor, decay at crotch 21 15
18 FDC
764 Brazilian pepper 17 17 23 10 4522-32-32-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 12
13 FDC
765 Brazilian Pepper 24 24 32 15 8552-32-33 Remove
Good form and vigor, longitudinal fissure 18 18
15 FDC
766 Chinese Elm 17 17 43 27 162532-33 Remove
Fair form and vigor, monitor post development, decay at flare 20 22 22 FDC
767 Chinese Elm 17 17 36 22 122532-33 Remove
Exuding sap from branch cut, unclosed branch cut 20 18
19 FDC
768 Chinese Elm 18 18 40 23 128832-33 Remove
Multiple decayed structural roots 16 20
22 FDC
769 American
Sweetgum 13 13 33 16 934
3 2-32-3
Remove
Dead primary stem, upper canopy deadwood, retrenchment 19 17 17 FDC
770 Southern
Magnolia 17 17 36 15 907
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 15
20 FDC
771 Chinese Pistache 12 12 269 3632-333 Remove
Flush cut, poorly trimmed in the past 10 12
12 FDC
772 Chinese Pistache 12 12 29 10 4342-32-32-3 Preserve
Epicormic sprouting 12 12
13 FDC
773 Chinese Pistache 14.5 14.5 31 14 707323 Remove
Good form and vigor, decay at primary branch 15 16
15 FDC
774 Chinese Pistache 14 14 31 16 707333 Remove
Poor branch cut lead to large canker and termites 17 14 13 FDC
775 Chinese Pistache 16 16 29 12 4712-332-3 Remove
Poorly trimmed and offset canopy mass 12 12
13 FDC
776 Silk Oak Tree 29 29 59 16 8812-322 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 13
21 FDC
777 Silk Oak Tree 30 30 59 26 152032-33 Remove
Shelf fungus at base, increased liability 17 19
26 FDC
778 Canary Island
Pine 28 28 84 14 962
2 23
Preserve Trim and subordinate
secondary stem
Codominant stems in upper canopy 16 18
22 FDC 779 Chinese Elm
567 18 24 19 96232-3 Remove
Decay at primary stem, lean, poor form and location, near target 18 16 901
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

17 FDC
780 Silk Oak Tree 33 33 61 19 1134 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Senescent specimen, increased risk liability 19 20
18 FDC
781 Umbrella Tree 6 8 9 23 24 10 227 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Decay at primary stem, multi stemmed, next to building 10 7 7 FDC
782 Canary Island
Pine 25 25 80 14 707 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 16
19 FDC
783 Canary Island
Pine 17 17 56 12 471 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 13
12 FDC
784 Chinese Elm 20 20 40 25 2205 3 3 3 Remove
Poorly trimmed, lean, possible soil lift at root crown 28 25 28 FDC
785 Chinese Elm 21 21 42 21 1520 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Cankers in structural roots 21 22
24 FDC
786 Brazilian Pepper 39 39 46 22 1661 3 2-3 3 Remove
Decay in crotch, increased liability 23 22
25 FDC
787 Brazilian Pepper 61 61 45 15 1256 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Decay at old branch cut in mid stem 17 21
27 FDC
788 Brazilian Pepper 25 25 42 13 829 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Poorly trimmed, decay at branch cut, multiple unclosed branch cut with decay 20 13 19 FDC
789 Brazilian Pepper 34 34 43 18 1485 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Fair vigor and form 24 19
26 FDC
790 Victorian Box 8 6 6 20 25 13 269 3 3 3 Remove
Decay in primary stem, codominant stems noted 9 9
6 FDC
792 Victorian Box 7 5 12 24 13 240 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Retrenchment noted decay, codominant stems and removed the primary stem noted 8 8 6 FDC
793 Coast Live Oak 22 22 43 21 2123 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, some sapsucker damage 32 19
32 FDC
794 Lemon Scented
Gum 21 21 79 29 3066 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve Prune limb over building
Multiple cankers 28 37
31 FDC
795 Silk Oak Tree 17 17 35 8 201 2-3 2 3 Remove
Good health and vigor, indication of borers noted, failed branch 9 6 9 FDC
796 Carob Tree 31.5 31.5 33 17 730 3 2 3 Remove
Multiple large cankers with termites, increased liability 17 13 14 FDC
797 Green Ash 18 18 44 18 754 3 2 3 Remove
Some upper canopy deadwood, multiple areas of decay with termites 16 17 11 FDC 798 Lemon Scented
Gum 34 34 87 19 1847 2-32 2-3
Remove
902
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Some decayed upper canopy branches, flush cuts noted, decayed crotch 32 24 22 FDC
799 Lemon Scented
Gum 24 24 87 17 1288
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 27 15
22 FDC
800 Lemon Scented
Gum 21.5 21.5 85 12 804
3 22
Remove
Poor prognosis and fit for future project 18 16
18 FDC
801 Lemon Scented
Gum 21 21 84 12 934
2 22
Preserve
Good health and vigor 23 14
20 FDC
802 Canary Island
Pine 26 26 51 18 551
2-3
22 Preserve
Good health and vigor, some exudation7 15
13 FDC
803 Red River Gum 24.5 24.5 60 23 1485323 Remove
Large decay on south side of flare/stem, increased liability, red twig 26 17 21 FDC
804 Magenta Lilly
Pilly 23 23 42
8 2402-3
2-33
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace to
mitigate risk of failure
Good health and vigor, multi-stem,89
10 FDC
805 Weeping
Bottlebrush 19.5 19.5 32
8 3802-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Fair vigor, good form 12 13
11 FDC
806 Weeping
Bottlebrush
99 18 24 11 2403
2-33
Remove
Poor branch attachment88
8 FDC
807 Weeping
Bottlebrush
8 8.5 11.5 28 26 11 2832-3
2-33
Preserve Brace to mitigate failure
Fair vigor, poor scaffolding89
10 FDC
808 Weeping
Bottlebrush
7 12.5 19.5 21 10 2832-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Fair form and vigor 109
9 FDC
809 Weeping
Bottlebrush 12.5 12.5 32 12 380
2-3
2-33
Remove
Some included bark at crotch, poor scaffolding, offset canopy 10 11 11 FDC
811 Blue Jacaranda 13.5 13.5 30 14 5722-32-32-3 Preserve Prune for safety Unclosed branch cut, good form and vigor 11 15
14 FDC
812 Southern
Magnolia 8.5 8.5 27 13 346
2-3
33 Remove
Decay at branch and flare, increased liability 6 13
10 FDC
813 Weeping
Bottlebrush 10
7 17 28 10 3302-3
2-33
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace for
safety
Fair form and vigor, codominant stems with included bark, increase risk 12 10 9 FDC 814 Weeping
Bottlebrush 10.5 11 21.5 19
9 2832-3
32-3
Remove
903
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Fair vigor, poor form with lean 8 11
10 FDC
815 Weeping
Bottlebrush 16.5 16.5 19 10 415 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Lean, fair form and vigor 11 16
9 FDC
816 Green Ash 13.5 13.5 36 14 615 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
New leaves are diseased, fair vigor, infection noted, lower canopy deadwood, decline 14 16 12 FDC
817 Weeping
Bottlebrush 11.5 8 19.5 39 5 346 2-32-3 3
Remove
Failed branch, codominant stems, cavity and flare 12 12 13 FDC
818 Weeping
Bottlebrush 8.5 5.5 6.5 20.5 18 9 177 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve Remove branch to north to
keep
Topped, needs branch removed 8 7
6 FDC
819 Glossy Privet 8 5 4 6.5 6.5 6 | 7 37 30 10 240 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Fair form and vigor, multi stemmed, old with retrenchment 6 10 9 FDC
820 Lemon Scented
Gum 29.5 29.5 84 18 2042 22 2
Remove
Good form and vigor, decay at unclosed branch cut, gummosis 33 18 33 FDC
821 Blue Jacaranda 2 7 3 5 3 20 20 10 298 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Some retrenchment, decay in branch cut 8 11
10 FDC
822 Blue Jacaranda 6.5 6.5 17 3 133 3 2-3 2 Remove
Vigor is fair, stem has lean, upper canopy deadwood 8 10 5 FDC
823 Mimosa 8 5.5 7 5.5 5.5 31.5 34 21 829 3 2 2-3 Remove Indication of borers noted, vigor is good, included bark noted, needs treatment 9 18 17 FDC
824 Blue Jacaranda 11 7.5 4.5 7 30 34 10 594 2-3 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 19 13
13 FDC
825 Green Ash 40 40 58 14 1385 2-3 2 3 Preserve Brace codominant stem and Good form but fair vigor 23 20 subordinate
27 FDC
826 Chinese Juniper 12 10.5 22.5 23 11 269 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 6 11
9 FDC
827 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 63 11 962 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cut in upper canopy, gummosis noted 13 25 21 FDC
828 Lemon Scented
Gum 7 735 10 254 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 10
8 FDC
829 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 66 13 707 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 14 15
18 FDC 830 Red Flowering
Gum 15.5 15.5 15 16 452 32 2-3
Remove
Good form and vigor, diseased limb, retrenchment, evidence of termites 10 10 904
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

12 FDC
831 Lemon Scented
Gum 20 20 71 22 1225
2 2-32-3
Preserve
Good health and vigor 17 22
18 FDC
832 Lemon Scented
Gum 12 12 68 11 730
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good health and vigor with some canopy retrenchment 17 16 17 FDC
833 Lemon Scented
Gum 20.5 20.5 67 15 471
2-3
2-33
Preserve Re-evaluate for safety
Large fissure in lower stem 138
13 FDC
834 Lemon Scented
Gum 13 13 42 18 660
3 2-33
Remove
Unclosed branch cut, retrenchment, decay and upper crotch of branch 14 13 13 FDC
835 Silk Oak Tree 28 28 57 11 660322-3 Remove
Fair form and vigor, codominant stems, large canker, fungus on root crown 15 14 18 FDC
836 Lemon Scented
Gum 30.5 30.5 86 18 989
2-3
22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor gummosis 16 16
21 FDC
837 Brazilian Pepper 23.5 23.5 40 15 5312-32-33 Remove
Poor scaffolding, decay with cavity mid stem 18 10 9
FDC
838 Brazilian Pepper 36 36 39 15 6382-322-3 Preserve
Topped with water sprouting, good form and vigor, large unclosed branch cut 14 10 18 FDC
839 Brazilian Pepper 16.5 16.5 26 12 510222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 13
14 FDC
840 Lemon Scented
Gum 29.5 29.5 80 19 2873
2 22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 36 42
24 FDC
841 Lemon Scented
Gum 32.5 32.5 68 18 1485
3 2-33
Remove
Decay at branch cut, codominant stems, some upper canopy deadwood or retrenchment 18 21 30 FDC
842 Lemon Scented
Gum 16 16 81 18 989
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Minor upper canopy Deadwood, decreased canopy development 17 18 18 FDC
843 African Fern Pine 35 35 73 18 10462-32-33 Preserve Reevaluate and brace post Codominant stems with included bark 13 20 development
22 FDC
844 Silk Oak Tree 18 18 457 3802-32-33 Remove
Increased liability, decay at branch cut in mid stem 11 13 13 FDC
845 Lemon Scented
Gum 16 16 45 15 779
2-3
2-33
Remove
Large unclosed branch cut, increased liability with poor or prognosis 16 16 16 FDC 846 Lemon Scented
Gum 20.5 20.5 87 19 1194
2-3
22 Preserve
905
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good health and vigor, unclosed branch cut 20 19
20 FDC
847 Lemon Scented
Gum 23 25.5 48.5 89 28 1697
2-3
2-33
Preserve
Multi stemmed, fair crotch formation 25 18
22 FDC
848 Chinese Juniper67 13 157 1042-333 Remove
Codominant stems with weak attachment 48
4 FDC
849 Lemon Scented
Gun 19.5 19.5 78 18 1734
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor 25 27
24 FDC
850 Chinese Juniper 12 7.57 26.5 16 11 240232-3 Preserve Codominant stems, low liability,bush like in form 98
7 FDC
851 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 75 18 1418
2 22
Preserve
Good form and vigor, some decay at stem exposed structural roots 24 19 24 FDC
852 Lemon Scented
Gum 19 19 78 20 1590
2-3
2-33
Remove
Decay at branch cut and structural roots 30 22
18 FDC
853 Lemon Scented
Gum 19 19 58 10 1225
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, lean, multiple branch cuts closing 24 22 23 FDC
854 Red River Gum 38 38 77 17 96232-33 Remove
History of topped pruning, extensive decay at lower stem, decay at flare 18 17 18 FDC
855 Brazilian Pepper 23 23 14 12 43432-33 Remove
Senescent 13 10
12 FDC
856 Lemon Scented
Gum 22.5 22.5 74 21 2462
2-3
22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor gummosis, reduced canopy growth 28 30 33 FDC
857 Brazilian Pepper 16 16 15 10 20132-33 Remove
Retrenchment, decayed flare 48
10 FDC
858 Lemon Scented
Gum 21 21 75 16 934
2 22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 17
18 FDC
859 Lemon Scented
Gum 21 21 18 1288
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Bark split at stem, unclosed branch cuts 14 25
24 FDC
860 Lemon Scented
Gum 15 15 44
9 3463
2-33
Remove
Large area of decay at flare, increased liability 8 14
11 FDC
861 Red River Gum 21 21 66 18 1418222-3 Preserve
Good health and vigor, good form 25 22
20 906
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
862 Lemon Scented
Gum 23 23 77 24 2595 22 2-3
Preserve Prune deadwood
Good form and vigor 31 30
30 FDC
863 Shamel Ash 18 18 41 19 855 2 2 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 14
18 FDC
864 Shamel Ash 2.5 4.5 2.5 9.5 24 7 95 2 2-3 2-3 Remove Near a well, good vigor, poor placement, volunteer sprouts, May be able to keep if subordinating codominant stems and reevaluating
5 6
4 FDC
865 Lemon Scented
Gum 19 19 89 19 1451 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 19 23
25 FDC
866 African Fern Pine 32.5 32.5 62 23 1661 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large branch cut 19 22
28 FDC
867 Lemon Scented
Gum 21.5 21.5 57 8 660 32-3 3
Remove
Large area of decay on limb, increase liability 10 20
20 FDC
868 Lemon Scented
Gum 20 20 66 9 707 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, bark has pinkish tone 16 16
19 FDC
869 Lemon Scented
Gum 22.5 22.5 64 15 855 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Good health and vigor, unclosed branch cut 19 17
15 FDC
870 Lemon Scented
Gum 36 36 74 18 1885 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 27 33
20 FDC
871 Lemon Scented
Gum 35.5 35.5 73 20 1451 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 22 25
19 FDC
872 Brazilian Pepper 25.5 25.5 24 11 594 3 2-3 3 Remove Retrenchment, codominant stems, termites 14 12
18 FDC
873 Shamel Ash 28 28 41 19 1104 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Treat termites Indication of termites noted, unclosed branch cut 17 20 19 FDC
874 Shamel Ash 23 23 50 24 1554 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good vigor, unclosed branch cuts 27 18
20 FDC
875 California Fan
Palm 25 25 43 8 201 32-3 2-3
Preserve Treat for disease
Good form, vigor fair to poor with indication of disease 8 8 8 FDC
876 Shamel Ash 22 22 50 19 1075 3 3 3 Remove
Indication of termites, topped pruning, increased decay 15 18 22 FDC
877 Shamel Ash 27 27 49 15 1104 3 2-3 3 Remove
Multiple areas of decay, decay at root crown, increased liability 19 18 23 FDC 878 Shamel Ash 34 34 50 14 754 3 2-3 3 Remove
907
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Decay on multiple branch cuts 17 16
15 FDC
879 Shamel Ash 27.5 27.5 51 16 1164 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Prune deadwood and reDecay at upper canopy branch cuts 18 16 evaluate 27 FDC
880 Shamel Ash 39 39 52 29 2332 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Reevaluate embrace if keeping Multiple areas of included bark, good health and vigor 30 32 18 FDC
881 Mexican Fan
Palm 18.5 18.5 27 8 201 1-21-2 1-2
Preserve
Good health and vigor 8 8
8 FDC
882 Brisbane Box 17 17 38 16 531 2 2 2 Preserve
Good health and vigor 11 13
12 FDC
883 Brisbane Box 20.5 20.5 36 12 415 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Prune to rebalance canopy Lean but balanced 14 9
11 FDC
884 Indian Laurel Fig 38 38 43 16 707 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Remove ivy and re-evaluate Epiphytic growth of English Ivy, infested with possible tent camp caterpillars, possible included bark at stem branch union for risk union
16 15
13 FDC
885 Southern
Magnolia 10.5 10.5 13 11 380 32-3 3
Remove
Retrenchment 11 11
11 FDC
886 Southern
Magnolia 9 913 6 177 32-3 2-3
Remove
Retrenchment, needs irrigation 8 8
8 FDC
887 Queen Palm 11 11 13 12 227 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Offset canopy, bigger is fair 4 13
5 FDC
888 Indian Laurel Fig 33.5 33.5 38 19 683 3 2-3 3 Remove Fungus at flair, vigor fair 14 12
14 FDC
889 Indian Laurel Fig 37 37 38 16 730 3 2-3 3 Remove
Fungus at flair, vigor fair 14 12
19 FDC
890 Indian Laurel Fig 53.5 53.5 37 13 660 3 2-3 3 Remove Senescent specimen, week 12 14
19 FDC
891 Indian Laurel Fig 37.5 37.5 38 16 855 3 2-3 3 Remove Senescent specimen with decay, fungus at flare 13 18
19 FDC
892 Green Ash 10 10 30 10 380 2 2 2 Preserve
Good health and vigor 11 10
13 FDC
893 Magenta Milli
Pilli 8 8 8.5 24.5 31 11 380 2-33 3
Preserve Re-evaluate and brace that's
needed
Good form and vigor, next to building, multi stem 12 11 10 FDC
894 Brazilian Pepper 43.5 43.5 31 18 855 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Senescent specimen with fair vigor 13 18
17 FDC 895 South African
Plum 15 15 15 8 283 22 2
Preserve
Good reform and vigor 10 11
908
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

9 FDC
896 Red River Gum 12 12 45 16 330 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good vigor, mean 11 8
6 FDC
897 Peppermint Tree 17 17 31 14 452 3 3 3 Remove
Lean, large tinker in stem 13 11
10 FDC
898 Lemon Scented
Gum 18 18 78 23 1923 22 2
Preserve
Good form and vigor 26 30
20 FDC
899 Red River Gum 19.5 19.5 51 16 779 3 2-3 3 Remove
Decreased canopy development, included bark, decay, failed branch 18 14 15 FDC
900 Chinese Elm 15 15 28 19 1385 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Some dieback noted 29 16
20 FDC
901 Western
Sycamore 19.5 19.5 44 24 1320 32-3 3
Remove
Indications of borders noted, multiple small canker on stem, vigor fair to poor, exit hole 1-2mm 20 15 23 FDC
902 African Fern Pine 33 33 63 23 1134 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, multi stem with good branch union 27 12 14 FDC
903 African Fern Pine 41 41 52 17 1288 2 2-3 2-3 Remove Multi stemmed, near building, fair vigor with fair to poor branch unions with included bark 24 16 24 FDC
904 Peppermint Tree 17.5 17.5 25 6 254 3 2-3 2-3 Remove Retrenchment, decreased aesthetics, lean with poor scaffolding 13 7 10 FDC
905 Peppermint Tree 17 17 24 8 314 3 3 3-4 Remove
Lean with possible internal decay, increased liability 8 13 11 FDC
906 Brazilian Pepper 14 13 27 21 11 298 3 2-3 3 Remove
Chlorosis in foliage, senescent, multiple areas of decay with indications of termites 9 10 9 FDC
907 Weeping
Bottlebrush 19 19 21 12 346 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve
Fair vigor, codominant stems are fused 5 14
11 FDC
908 Rubber Fig 11 10.5 8 29.5 31 16 989 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Re-evaluate for bracing if Good vigor formal Co dominant stems with poor union 16 19 keeping 20 FDC
909 Chinese Juniper 12 12 21 8 201 3 3 2-3 Remove
Cavity in stem, poor form 4 11
9 FDC
910 Brazilian Pepper 34.5 34.5 35 16 779 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Large area of decay at flare 18 11
18 FDC
911 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 90 10 1734 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 24 18
42 FDC
912 Lemon Scented
Gum 29 29 88 25 1963 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 30 21
24 909
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
913 Indian Laurel Fig 35 35 47 20 1697 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Fair health and vigor, senescent specimen, large unclosed branch cuts, decay at flare 24 21 28 FDC
914 Indian Laurel Fig 35.5 35.5 46 21 1017 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Senescent specimen, decay at flare, vigor OK 16 17
18 FDC
915 Indian Laurel Fig 28.5 28.5 43 12 660 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Perform nest survey if Senescent specimen, fair form and vigor, nest in tree 15 13 removing 18 FDC
916 Indian Laurel Fig 36.5 36.5 46 23 1520 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Senescent specimen, large branch cut on lower stem 30 16 19 FDC
917 Brazilian Pepper 28 28 32 16 551 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Large codominant limb removed with decay present, water sprouting, senescent specimen with poor branch attachment
8 16
13 FDC
918 Brazilian Pepper 12 9 5.5 12 38.5 29 18 962 2-3 3 3 Remove Included bark, increased liability, multi stem with good vigor, may keep it braced and reevaluated 20 18 14 FDC
919 Shamel Ash 5.5 3.5 6 15 43 12 363 2
3 2-3
Preserve Trim to subordinate
codominant stem
Good vigor, young with included bark 7 10
14 FDC
920 Brazilian Pepper 24.5 24.5 36 14 434 3 2-3 3 Remove Broken branch, cavity in stem with indication of termites, large branch cut 13 11 9 FDC
921 Brazilian Pepper 39 39 39 18 855 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Poor branch union, increased liability 12 17
19 FDC
922 Brazilian Pepper 31 31 43 16 615 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove Multiple large branch cuts, indication of termites, poor prognosis 12 18 10 FDC
923 Brazilian Pepper 33 33 44 16 881 2-3 3 3 Remove
Internal decay with indication of termites, increased liability 15 15 21 FDC
924 Shamel Ash 28 28 48 33 2506 3 2-3 3 Remove
Multiple areas of decay at branch cuts in upper canopy, poor prognosis 29 24 27 FDC
925 Southern
Magnolia 6 613 8 143 32-3 2-3
Remove
Severe retrenchment, large longitudinal stem canker 6 7 6 FDC
926 Southern
Magnolia 12 12 16 11 346 32-3 2-3
Remove
Moderate to severe retrenchment, blooming 12 10
9 FDC
927 Edible Fig 7 6 7 20 17 9 227 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
For scaffolding, senescent 5 12
8 FDC
928 Brisbane Box 20 20 44 17 934 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor tinker nodded 16 17
19 FDC
929 Indian Laurel Fig 46.5 46.5 48 15 1661 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Reevaluate and brace if Good form and vigor, included bark 30 16 keeping
31 FDC
930 Mayten Tree 11.5 11.5 29 10 298 3 3 2-3 Remove
Decline, internal decay, alternating branching, computing canopies 7 9 13 910
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
931 Mayten Tree 11.5 11.5 29 12 363 3 3 2-3 Remove
Decline, internal decay, alternating branching, computing canopies 13 5 13 FDC
932 Mayten Tree 12 12 32 16 452 3 3 2-3 Remove
Decline, internal decay, alternating branching, competing canopies 7 9 16 FDC
933 Mayten Tree 11.5 11.5 32 14 363 3 3 2-3 Remove
Decline, internal decay, alternating branching, competing canopies, termites 11 7 11 FDC
934 Mayten Tree 10.5 10.5 31 7 254 3 3 2-3 Remove
Decline, internal decay, alternating branching, termites 7 9 13 FDC
935 Indian Laurel Fig 37 37 49 22 2375 2-3 2-3 3 Preserve Reevaluate and brace if Included bark, good form and vigor 30 30 keeping
28 FDC
936 Narrow Leaved
Ash 9 925 13 415 21-2 1-2
Preserve Treat infection if keeping
Good form and vigor with indication of bacterial infection, possible black soot mold 12 12 9 FDC
937 African Fern Pine 21 21 52 18 1225 2 2 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, near building 19 21
21 FDC
938 Indian Laurel Fig 37.5 37.5 51 22 2205 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large branch cuts 24 30
30 FDC
939 Indian Laurel Fig 36 36 51 25 2289 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Good form and vigor, large branch cuts, marginal specimen 28 26 29 FDC
940 Blue Jacaranda 9 7 16 28 13 707 3 2 2-3 Preserve
Mild to moderate retrenchment, needs water 16 17
14 FDC
941 Blue Jacaranda 11.5 11.5 21 13 754 2-3 3 3 Remove
Mild to moderate retrenchment, needs water, significant lean 13 16 20 FDC
942 Lemon Scented
Gum 20 20 33 7 397 31-3 3
Remove
Diseased with poorly developed canopy, codominant stems 16 11 11 FDC
943 Lemon Scented
Gum 26 26 95 32 2462 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, obscured crotch 24 23
33 FDC
944 Tulip Tree 19 19 49 17 855 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Fair vigor, termite infested, poor prognosis 19 17
13 FDC
945 Shamel Ash 8 8 26 8 491 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Prune internal branch with Poor scaffolding 14 10 cavity
18 FDC
946 Siberian Elm 18 18 32 14 683 3 2-3 3 Remove
Internal decay, minor retrenchment, stained bark 17 13
15 FDC
947 Siberian Elm 22.5 22.5 33 11 415 3 2-3 3 Remove
Retrenchment noted, decline, decay at flare 15 9
11 FDC
948 Peruvian Pepper 18.5 18.5 35 19 989 2-3 3 3 Preserve Prune branch with included Good form and vigor, included bark on SE branch 17 17 bark in crotch 18 911
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
949 Weeping Fig 28.5 28.5 29 19 9072-32-32-3 Preserve Clean canopy Dense canopy, lean, good vigor 18 17
14 FDC
950 American
Sweetgum 23 23 51 26 1385
3 2-32-3
Remove
Disease, retrenchment noted, girdling roots 19 17
22 FDC
951 Camphor 15 15 35 23 113432-32-3 Remove
Decline, moderate retrenchment, decay that flare 18 21
14 FDC
952 Chinese Juniper 10.5 10.5 178 18922-32-3 Preserve
Good vigor, included bark, low liability 74
12 FDC
953 Chinese Juniper76 7.5 7.5 28 17 17 31422-32-3 Preserve Good vigor, included bark, low liability 113
9 FDC
954 American
Sweetgum 16 16 44 19 829
3 2-32-3
Remove
Diseased leaves, minor retrenchment, treat infection, deep cavity 14 16 16 FDC
955 American
Sweetgum 16 16 51 18 660
3 2-32-3
Remove
Multiple points of decay, disease 14 15
11 FDC
956 Shamel Ash 19 19 46 27 1809222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, leaf tip burn 23 27
19 FDC
957 Shamel Ash 30.5 30.5 64 23 20822-322 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor decay in upper canopy 25 27
28 FDC
958 Shamel Ash 20.5 20.5 65 17 107532-33 Remove
Diseased, sweep lean, minimal to moderate retrenchment 18 25 14 FDC
959 Green Ash 27 27 57 14 45232-33-4 Remove
Decay in red crown, borers 128
14 FDC
960 Siberian Elm 33.5 33.5 31 30 363032-33-4 Remove
Multiple areas of decay, hazardous, borer holes 39 36
31 FDC
961 Brisbane Box 8.5 8.5 599 28332-33 Remove
Significant retrenchment, exfoliation 9 10
10 FDC
962 Brisbane Box 9.5 9.5 217 17732-32-3 Remove
Severe retrenchment 78
8 FDC
963 Brisbane Box 10 10 15 10 36332-32-3 Remove
Moderate retrenchment 11 10
12 FDC
964 Brisbane Box 12.5 12.5 22 15 53132-32-3 Remove
Poor vigor and moderate retrenchment, lean 12 12
13 FDC
965 Strawberry Tree 8.5 8.5 249 16532-32-3 Remove
Decline with severe retrenchment, large tanker 69
5 FDC
966 Brisbane Box 5.5 5.5 135 14332-32-3 Remove
Severe retrenchment 77
8 912
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

FDC
967 Swiss Floss 5 5 3.5 3.5 17 30 14 415 3-4 3 3-4 Remove Severe retrenchment, almost dead 17 8
7 FDC
968 China Doll Tree 7.5 7.5 38 14 452 2-3 3 3 Remove
Inappropriate location, near building, poor growth form 18 12 4 FDC
969 Brazilian Pepper 27 27 39 13 855 2-3 2-3 3 Remove Trim to remove hazardous Lean with decay at flare on opposing side, increased liability 12 19 branch 22 FDC
970 Lemon Scented
Gum 25 25 86 36 3792 22 2-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor, history of branch breakage, hazardous 31 39 33 FDC
971 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 75 20 1885 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Unclosed branch cut, good form and vigor 31 24
23 FDC
972 Lemon Scented
Gum 18.5 18.5 74 28 2082 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Unclosed branch cut, good form and vigor 19 24
32 FDC
973 Lemon Scented
Gum 22.5 22.5 84 14 1554 2-32 2-3
Preserve
Unclosed branch cut, good form and vigor, water sprouting 30 16 29 FDC
974 Chinese Juniper 10 10.5 20.5 21 18 434 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Next to building, lean 7 17
5 FDC
975 Green Ash 20 20 43 21 1046 3 2-3 3 Remove
Minor retrenchment, stained bark, decay on central stem, included bark with codominant stems 18 16 18 FDC
976 Blue Jacaranda 13.5 13.5 31 18 907 2-3 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor, decayed structural root 13 21
16 FDC
977 Shamel Ash 21 21 54 21 1697 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, poorly trimmed 17 29
26 FDC
978 Green Ash 19 19 37 16 638 3 2-3 3 Remove
Severe retrenchment, decline, indication of termites in cavities on stem 10 16 15 FDC
979 Brazilian Pepper 12 12 27 16 615 2 2 2 Preserve Trim to mitigate hazard Good form and bigger, field branch 15 13
12 FDC
980 Lemon Scented
Gum 24 24 73 16 1697 32-3 3
Remove
Decay at branch union, large canker in upper canopy 30 17 30 FDC
981 Shiny Xylosma 10.5 10 20.5 8 491 3 2-3 3 Remove
Stained wood, indication of termites, codominant stem 9 15 18 FDC
982 Carrotwood 6.5 13 5 24.5 30 9 572 2-3
2-3 2-3
Preserve Reevaluate post development if
keeping
Unclosed branch cut, included bark 13 15
17 FDC 983 Lemon Scented
Gum 28 28 80 22 1418 2-32-3 2-3
Preserve trim off cankerous limb
Marginal specimen but still has years of service 21 19
913
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

23 FDC
984 Western
Sycamore 21.5 21.5 44 18 683
3 2-33
Remove
Refined bark, lean, indication of borer infestation, multiple border holes 13 16 12 FDC
985 Japanese
Cheesewood 11 11 25 12 240
3 2-32-3
Remove
Indications of termites in deadwood of crotch, decreased prognosis 134 6 FDC
986 Western
Sycamore 22 22 64 24 1046
3 2-32-3
Remove
Borer exit holes and small cankers noted on stem and flare 12 21 16 FDC
987 Western
Sycamore 22 22 63 18 1385
3 2-32-3
Remove
Borer exit holes and small cankers noted on stem and flare 13 31 22 FDC
988 Magenta Lilli
Pilli 14 14 36 11 254
3 2-32-3
Remove
Multiple cankers noted 136
6 FDC
989 Shiny Xylosma 12 12 37 12 36332-32-3 Remove
Multiple cankers noted 9 12
10 FDC
990 Shiny Xylosma 12.58 20.5 37 11 57232-32-3 Remove
Decline or retrenchment noted, discolored 13 15
15 FDC
991 Shiny Xylosma 9.5 8.5 9.5 27.5 36 18 70732-33 Remove Large canker in primary branch 17 17 8
FDC
992 Shiny Xylosma 11 9.5 20.5 37 15 53132-32-3 Remove
Multiple areas of small cankers, flush cuts, large canker on primary branch 13 14 10 FDC
993 Shiny Xylosma 8.5 12.5 21 366 6382-32-32-3 Remove
Termites, vigor is ok 18 17
16 FDC
994 Red Flowering
Gum 19.5 19.5 45 13 1046
3 2-32-3
Remove
Mean, good bigger, termites, trimmed lower canopy 13 28 19 FDC
995 Canary Island
Pine 20 20 81
6 3142-3
22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 9 14
11 FDC
996 Canary Island
Pine 17 17 68
8 3462-3
2-32-3
Preserve
Epicormic branches at lower canopy 10 11
13 FDC
997 Canary Island
Pine 22.5 22.5 68
8 3462
22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 11
12 FDC
998 Canary Island
Pine 20 20 61 10 415
2 22-3
Preserve
Good form and vigor 149
13 FDC 999 Canary Island
Pine 17 17 58 12 434
2-3
2-32-3
Preserve
914
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Good form and vigor 11 11
13 FDC
1000 Canary Island
Pine 13.5 13.5 58 7 165 32-3 2-3
Remove
Indication of borrowers noted, exudation observed 7 8
7 FDC
3003 Red River Gum 15 15 42 10 1385 1-2 1-3 2-3 Preserve Lean, good vigor 25 27
22 FDC
3004 Myoporum 5 5 21 9 79 2-3 1-3 2-3 Remove
Poor form, Vigor ok, upper canopy deadwood mild to moderate, decreased aesthetics 7 2 2 FDC
3005 Myoporum 4 3 4.5 11.5 21 6 79 2-3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Upper canopy deadwood mild to moderate, decreased aesthetics 5 5 4 FDC
3006 Mexican Fan
Palm 14 14 14 5 79 22 2
Remove
On fence line, poor location 5 5
5 FDC
3007 Mexican Fan
Palm 14 14 14 5 79 23 2
Remove
On fence line, good vigor, can preserve if fence is removed 5 5 5 Golf Course
1001 Paperbark 12 12 39 13 415 2 2 2 Preserve
Squirrel burrows, good form and vigor, tent caterpillars 13 9 11 Golf Course
1002 Paperbark 11 11 37 10 434 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 12
15 Golf Course
1003 Red Ironbark 17 17 43 13 471 3-4 3-4 3-4 Remove
Retrenchment, elevated failure risk, lean, moderate to severe upper canopy deadwood, soil lift 10 14 12 Golf Course
1004 Lemon Scented Gum 21 21 87 14 1017 3 2 3-4 Remove Re-evaluate to keep Memorial tree, canker at flare, good vigor 23 14
21 Golf Course
1005 Mexican Fan Palm 14 14 64 2 20 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Clustered stems, good form and vigor 3 2
3 Golf Course
1006 Mexican Fan Palm 13 13 48 2 20 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Clustered stems, good form and vigor 3 2
3 Golf Course
1007 Mexican Fan Palm 13 13 46 5 79 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Clustered stems, good form and vigor 5 5
5 Golf Course
1008 Mexican Fan Palm 13 13 47 2 20 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 2 3
3 Golf Course
1009 Silver Dollar Gum 15 15 15 434 4 3 3-4 Remove
Moderate dieback, decreased aesthetics 8 12
12 Golf Course
1010 Chinese Flame Tree 13 13 27 13 531 2-3 3 2-3 Preserve Re-evaluate to keep Cankers at root crown, leaf tip burn, gummosis 15 11
13 Golf Course
1011 Silk Oak Tree 15 15 66 7 346 2 2 2-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, gummosis 9 13
13 915
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1012 Red River Gum 10 107 952-322 Preserve Trim deadwood, treat soil Retrenchment, soil compaction likely45
6 Golf Course
1013 Goodding's Willow 10 10 20 35 21 11943-433 Remove
Fallen tree, retrenchment 14 27
16 Golf Course
1014 Red Ironbark 19 19 33 10 254223 Remove
Topped, decreased aesthetics, Vigor fair89
9 Golf Course
1015 Shamel Ash66 247 104322 Remove
Leaf tip burn, central longitudinal canker56
5 Golf Course
1016 Blue Jacaranda44 216 79322-3 Remove
Weed wacker damage, moderate to severe dieback44
6 Golf Course
1017 River She-oak88 248 3461-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 11
11 Golf Course
1018 African Sumac88 29 14 363222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 116
12 Golf Course
1019 Red Ironbark 19 19 47 20 1590222 Preserve Prune deadwood Good form and vigor, minor dieback 25 19
26 Golf Course
1020 Blue Jacaranda77 307 4342-322 Preserve Prune deadwood Root crown cankers, competing canopy 11 15
14 Golf Course
1022 Canary Island Palm9926 201233 Remove
Good form and vigor, on fence line 106
10 Golf Course
1023 Green Ash 20 20 57 16 90732-32-3 Remove
Leaf tip burn, Canker on flare, moderate dieback 19 17
16 Golf Course
1024 Silver Dollar Gum 20 20 65 16 1320 ,2-333 Remove
Lean with flare canker, multiple failed branches, elevated risk 20 22 24 Golf Course
1025 Mexican Fan Palm 15 15 483 501-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor54
4 Golf Course
1026 River She-oak 11 11 578 17732-32-3 Remove
Good form and vigor, severe flare canker77
8 Golf Course
1027 Red River Gum 20 20 387 36332-33 Remove
Codominant stems with split at crotch, epicormic sprouts 12 10 14 Golf Course
1028 Western Sycamore88 21 10 240332-3 Remove
Severe upper canopy deadwood, retrenchment8 10 7
Golf Course
1029 Lemon Scented Gum77 17 510222 Preserve
Unbalanced canopy, decreased aesthetics6 16
12 Golf Course
1030 River She-oak44 145 381-222 Preserve
Ball damage, immature33
3 Golf Course
1031 River She-oak88 416 298222 Preserve
Split in bark, good form and vigor 156
12 916
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1032 Red River Gum66 395 471222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 11
15 Golf Course
1033 River She-oak44 185 791-222 Preserve
55 5
Golf Course
1034 Peruvian Pepper 10 10 33 14 638222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, irregular form 14 13
16 Golf Course
1035 Red Ironbark 23 23 78 16 6832-323 Remove
Included bark, increased failure risk, sapling growing in crotch 11 15 17 Golf Course
1036 Chinese Elm88 20 15 730222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor lean 18 18
10 Golf Course
1037 Canary Island Pine 20 20 64 20 148521-22 Preserve
Good form and vigor 22 19
26 Golf Course
1038 Red Ironbark 18 18 59 21 1590222-3 Preserve Prune for safety Broken limb, moss 28 16
25 Golf Course
1039 Red Ironbark 22 22 60 12 989333 Remove
14 25
20 Golf Course
1040 Silk Oak Tree 10 10 38 14 572233 Remove
Failed branch at mid-stem, large scar 15 15
10 Golf Course
1041 Tipu Tree77 23 15 551332 Remove
Canker at flare, good vigor, gummosis 12 13
13 Golf Course
1042 Aleppo Pine 11 11 176 165323 Remove
Needles in pairs, lean, large canker at flare7 10 6
Golf Course
1043 Peruvian Pepper 30 30 38 21 1288222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 20
23 Golf Course
1044 Peruvian Pepper 25 25 389 8042-322 Preserve Strategic prune for safety Cavity in limb to east 15 18
22 Golf Course
1045 Canary Island Pine 18 18 52 10 3801-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 108
16 Golf Course
1046 Canary Island Pine 21 21 66 20 11641-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 24
20 Golf Course
1047 Indian Laurel Fig 48 48 63 24 26412-322 Preserve Treat mold Black soot mold, good form and fair vigor 27 31
34 Golf Course
1048 Western Sycamore99 151 163-423 Remove
Severe decline14
3 Golf Course
1049 River She-oak66 366 189222 Preserve
Good form and vigor98
8 Golf Course
1050 River She-oak 12 12 44 11 24032-33 Remove Can keep if braced and re- Codominant stems, included bark57 evaluated
12 917
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1051 Black Alder88 257 143323 Remove
Failed branch, severe cavity85
7 Golf Course
1052 Western Sycamore 15 15 277 143333 Remove
Severe dieback, canker covers half the stem66
8 Golf Course
1053 Peruvian Pepper 38 38 36 23 1734333 Remove
Patches of fungal bodies (poss. ink capped mushrooms) at root crown 16 27 28 Golf Course
1054 Peruvian Pepper 13 13 329 4912-322-3 Preserve
Epicormic sprouters at base. Fair vigor 15 11
15 Golf Course
1055 River She-oak64 10 366 14322-32-3 Preserve Subordinate codominant Codominant stems, good vigor88 stem
5 Golf Course
1056 River She-oak538 352 571-222-3 Preserve Subordinate codominant Codominant stems, good vigor65 stem
4 Golf Course
1057 River She-oak78 15 368 3141-222 Preserve Subordinate codominant Codominant stems, good vigor9 10 stem
13 Golf Course
1058 Peruvian Pepper 29 29 45 25 1256222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 16 14
25 Golf Course
1059 Aleppo Pine 16 16 29 20 415333 Remove
Competing canopy, lean, termites, large longitudinal canker on stem2 17 7 Golf Course
1060 Aleppo Pine 22 22 39 28 7542-333 Remove
Severe lean, raised root crown 14 18 2
Golf Course
1061 Aleppo Pine 10 10 20 20 73022-33 Remove
Severe lean, raised root crown 228
11 Golf Course
1062 Indian Laurel Fig 26 20 46 66 35 34712-32-33 Preserve Prune: rebalance canopy Offset canopy 36 30
32 Golf Course
1063 Red River Gum 27 27 59 27 2164222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 32
31 Golf Course
1064 Peruvian Pepper 24 14 38 51 17 1194233 Remove Urgent removal of main Marginal tree, good vigor, large cavity in limb to south, urgent removal 15 18 limb to south for safety 28 Golf Course
1065 Western Sycamore 14 14 468 594222 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 18 16
13 Golf Course
1066 Western Sycamore 16 16 50 17 7792-322 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 13 13
20 Golf Course
1067 Western Sycamore 15 15 48 12 531332-3 Remove
Deep cavity at branch union 179
14 Golf Course
1068 Western Sycamore88 237 1892-32-32 Remove Can preserve if re-evaluated Fair form and vigor, weed wacker damage, cavity in stem - colony58 11 Golf Course
1069 Western Sycamore 12 12 287 415222 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 13 10
16 918
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1070 Western Sycamore 13 13 379 531222 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 12 13
18 Golf Course
1071 Peruvian Pepper 18 18 32 14 6381-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 15
15 Golf Course
1072 Red Ironbark 30 30 55 22 1225333 Remove
Failed major stem 19 17
21 Golf Course
1073 Peruvian Pepper 20 20 37 12 638332-3 Remove
Large cavity in main stem 14 15
16 Golf Course
1074 Peruvian Pepper 15 15 28 13 531222 Preserve
Good vigor, small cavity in flare 12 12
15 Golf Course
1075 Red Ironbark 28 28 44 22 1046333 Preserve Prune: structural pruning to Fair vigor, couple of failed branches, offset canopy balance9 27 rebalance canopy 15 Golf Course
1076 Aleppo Pine 13 13 25 10 415333 Remove
Poor flare development, sparse canopy, decline6 20
10 Golf Course
1077 Aleppo Pine 17 17 43 18 1320222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 21 23
20 Golf Course
1078 Green Ash 18 18 61 16 13522-322-3 Preserve
Good form and vigor, slight lean, limited root crown decay 23 22 22 Golf Course
1079 Lemon Scented Gum 16 16 554 1017223 Preserve Prune: rebalance canopy Good form and vigor, minor weed wacker damage 16 22
30 Golf Course
1080 Lemon Scented Gum88 351 165222-3 Preserve Trim deadwood Fair form and vigor, failed branch, dead branch 116
11 Golf Course
1081 Lemon Scented Gum 10 10 333 434333 Remove
Large canker 14 11
19 Golf Course
1082 Aleppo Pine 18 18 38 18 8042-322 Preserve Prune and treat Good form and vigor, dieback 14 20
12 Golf Course
1083 Aleppo Pine 36 36 75 23 122532-33 Remove
Severe decline 20 18
18 Golf Course
1084 Green Ash 22 22 59 23 1661322 Remove
Decline, fungal fruiting bodies, upper canopy deadwood 22 22 25 Golf Course
1085 Aleppo Pine 26 26 62 14 1017322 Remove
Sparse canopy, decline 20 22
16 Golf Course
1086 Green Ash 20 20 60 23 804332-3 Remove
Severe decline 15 13
13 Golf Course
1087 Green Ash 20 20 39 16 989222 Preserve
Good to fair form and vigor, leaf tip burn 20 18
17 Golf Course
1088 Red Ironbark 29 29 70 17 1520222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor upper canopy deadwood 25 16
30 919
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1089 Aleppo Pine 15 15 36 8 314 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve re-evaluate and treat Gummosis, browning canopy, decline 9 11
12 Golf Course
1090 Port Orford Cedar 10 10 31 8 269 1-2 1-2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 9 9
11 Golf Course
1091 Red Ironbark 26 26 66 33 2123 2 3 3 Remove
Major failed branch 14.5 23.5
33 Golf Course
1092 Aleppo Pine 18 18 43 19 1003 3 3 3 Remove
Hollowed stem, failed branch 12 23

17.5 Golf Course
1093 Manna Gum 14 14 33 4 138 4 3 3 Remove
Severe decline 6 7.5
9 Golf Course
1094 Red River Gum 28 28 62 12 804 2 2 2 Preserve Prune: Clean canopy Topped, water sprouting 20.5 14.5
17 Golf Course
1095 Green Ash 14 14 43 19.5 779 4 3 3 Remove
Severe decline, termites 20.5 8.5

14.5 Golf Course
1096 Silk Oak Tree 13 13 47 10.5 389 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10.5 9.5
14 Golf Course
1097 Aleppo Pine 23 23 43 17 718 3 3 3 Remove
Hollowed stem, failed branch 5.5 26
12 Golf Course
1098 Green Ash 22 22 51 14 531 3 3 3 Remove
Hollowed stems 10 16.5

11.5 Golf Course
1099 Red River Gum 24 24 52 18 948 3 3 3 Remove
Excess lean, vigor fair 20 20

11.5 Golf Course
1100 Paperbark 7 6 13 14 8 165 2 2 2 Preserve
Minor distress 8 8
5 Golf Course
1101 Paperbark 13 13 34 9 322 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12.5 9.5

9.5 Golf Course
1102 Paperbark 9 7 11 27 35 6.5 276 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 11.5

11.5 Golf Course
1103 Paperbark 14 14 32 7 227 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 9 8.5

9.5 Golf Course
1104 Paperbark 8 8 7 6 29 35 8 346 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Codominant stems with included bark. Low risk 12 7
15 Golf Course
1105 Paperbark 17 17 35 7.5 254 2 2 2 Preserve
Goof form and vigor 9 11

8.5 Golf Course
1106 Port Orford Cedar 8 5 5 4 22 19 5.5 207 2 2 3 Preserve Prune: rebalance Lean, low risk 7.5 11

8.5 Golf Course
1107 Green Ash 24 24 54 17.5 1401 2 3 2-3 Remove
Large cavity in crotch, small fig seedling, moderate upper canopy deadwood 26 18.5

22.5 920
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1108 Green Ash 20 20 45 6.5 683 3 3 3 Remove
Multiple failed branches 17.5 17
18 Golf Course
1109 Silk Oak Tree 7 7 33 8 207 2-3 3 3 Remove
Failed codominant stem. Gummosis, fair vigor, poor prognosis 7 9.5 8 Golf Course
1110 Silk Oak Tree 7 7 37 6 189 3 2 2 Remove
Diseased, multiple cankers 10.5 5.5
9 Golf Course
1111 Red Ironbark 30 30 73 19.5 1336 3 3 2 Remove
Senescent, gummosis 18.5 23.5
21 Golf Course
1112 Silk Oak Tree 11 11 44 6.5 240 2 2 2 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 13 4.5
11 Golf Course
1113 Silk Oak Tree 6 6 30 8 201 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cut with minor decay 7.5 9

7.5 Golf Course
1114 Red Ironbark 15 15 19.5 1089 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 18
24 Golf Course
1115 Peruvian Pepper 4 5 9 14 6 201 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 7.5 9.5
9 Golf Course
1116 Red River Gum 9 9 58 4.5 183 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Large stem canker 7.5 9.5
9 Golf Course
1117 Red River Gum 15 15 62 4.5 143 2 2 2 Preserve
Weed wacker damage, mild upper canopy deadwood 6.5 9.5

6.5 Golf Course
1118 River She-oak 5 3 8 29 7 148 1-2 1-2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 7.5 7
6 Golf Course
1119 Lemon Scented Gum 19 19 70 26 1679 2 2 2 Preserve Re-evaluate to keep for risk Good form and vigor, weed wacker damage 29 15 failure

22.5 Golf Course
1120 Tipu Tree 15 15 36 12 638 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Girdling root, large area stem decay 17.5 15

12.5 Golf Course
1121 Silk Oak Tree 9 9 32 10 510 2 2 2 Preserve
Squirrel burrows, good form and vigor 14 13.5

13.5 Golf Course
1122 River She-oak 4 5 5 14 37 6 183 2 3 2 Preserve Subordinate codominant Good vigor, codominant stems 8 8.5 stem
8 Golf Course
1123 River She-oak 6 6 33 7 171 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 8 6

8.5 Golf Course
1124 Aleppo pine 16 16 46 5 541 3 2 3 Preserve Prune and treat Poor flare development, decreased aesthetics, fair vigor 13 16.5 18 Golf Course
1125 Willow Acacia 7 5 12 32 6 346 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, squirrel burrows in root crown 14 7 15 Golf Course
1126 Aleppo Pine 20 20 37 18 1164 2 3 3 Remove
Excess lean, squirrel burrows in root crown 15 19
25 921
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1127 Silk Oak Tree 8 8 36 10 291 1 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10.5 9
9 Golf Course
1128 Tipu Tree 12 12 48 8 1003 2-3 3 2 Preserve
Sapsucker damage, decay at flare, increased liability 20 19.5 24 Golf Course
1129 Silk Oak Tree 16 16 65 16.5 989 3 3 2 Remove Urgent - remove hanging Multiple failed branches, hanging branch - hazard 18 12 branch

24.5 Golf Course
1130 Aleppo Pine 14 14 49 17.5 531 2 2 2 Preserve
Lean, fair form, good vigor 7 19.5
8 Golf Course
1131 River She-oak 9 9 24 12.5 672 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good vigor, fair form 19 12
15 Golf Course
1132 Green Ash 16 16 49 12 314 3 3 2-3 Remove
Severe decline 9.5 12.5
6 Golf Course
1133 Lemon Scented Gum 8 8 34 14 638 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, weed wacker damage, small cankers, squirrel burrows in root crown 15 11 17 Golf Course
1134 River She-oak 7 7 35 8 143 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good vigor, sweep lean 4.5 10.5
4 Golf Course
1135 Silk Oak Tree 8 8 36 7 247 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, upper canopy deadwood 8.5 10
10 Golf Course
1136 Lemon scented Gum 13 13 51 18 594 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Good vigor, upper canopy deadwood 8 17
12 Golf Course
1137 Lemon Scented Gum 20 20 68 19 2002 2 2 3 Remove
Large canker on structural root, severe gummosis 28 26
28 Golf Course
1138 European Olive 7 7 6 20 18 10 510 3-4 3 3 Remove
Severe retrenchment 20 11
10 Golf Course
1139 Aleppo pine 12 12 24 45 12.5 1017 2 2 2 Preserve
Moderate dieback, lower canopy deadwood 19 19.5
21 Golf Course
1140 River She-oak 7 7 42 8.5 314 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, canker at lower stem 10.5 11
10 Golf Course
1141 River She-oak 6 6 23 6 138 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, squirrel burrows in root crown, mild upper canopy deadwood, weed wacker damage 7 6.5 7 Golf Course
1142 Queen Palm 16 16 32 5.5 138 2 2 2 Preserve
Spike holes, decreased aesthetics, retrenchment, ground squirrel burrows 7.5 8

5.5 Golf Course
1143 Silver Dollar Gum 16 16 45 19 767 2 2-3 3 Remove
Multiple failed branches 13 18

12.5 Golf Course
1144 Paperbark 19 12 12 43 38 16 868 2 2 2 Preserve Subordinate codominant Codominant stems 14.5 21.5 stem

14.5 Golf Course
1145 Red River Gum 12 12 52 12 572 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, some gummosis 17 11
14 922
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1146 Silver Dollar Gum 8 10 9 27 40 24 989 2 2-3 2 Preserve Prune codominant stems for Good vigor, multi-stemmed 18 12 safety
17 Golf Course
1147 Peruvian Pepper 20 12 32 39 17 1468 3 2-3 3 Remove Severe internal stem decay 23 27.5
19 Golf Course
1148 Green Ash 21 21 46 22.5 1272 2 2 2-3 Remove May keep if re-evaluated with Level 3 Risk
assessment
17 20
21 Golf Course
1149 Blue Gum 8 8 26 9.5 551 3 2 2-3 Remove
Decayed lower stem, upper canopy deadwood, insect herbivory 13.5 14 16 Golf Course
1150 River She-oak 11 11 28 8 406 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 10.5
14 Golf Course
1151 Green Ash 16 16 45 17 1240 3 3 3 Remove
Termites, failed branch, diseased upper limbs 21.5 20
21 Golf Course
1152 Canary Island Pine 8 8 24 10 415 1-2 2 2 Preserve
3-needle pine, good form and vigor 13 12
11 Golf Course
1153 River She-oak 6 6 24 5 79 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 5 5
5 Golf Course
1154 Chinese Elm 7 7 28 12 683 2 2 2 Preserve
Fair vigor, upper canopy deadwood 12 20
15 Golf Course
1155 Indian Laurel Fig 8 5 7 20 36 12 562 2 2 2 Preserve Treat infection Galls, possible gall wasp infection 11 17

13.5 Golf Course
1156 Indian Laurel Fig 4 4 3 11 12 4 67 2 2 2 Preserve
Fair vigor, decreased canopy 3.5 7
4 Golf Course
1157 River She-oak 5 5 26 3.5 183 3 2 2 Preserve Treat by removing rope Girdling rope, decreased canopy, Strangled, but is embedding rope in tissue 6 10 11 Golf Course
1158 Brazilian Pepper 22 22 43 14.5 894 3 2 3 Remove Re-evaluate to keep Good vigor, failed upper branch, senescent 20 13
20 Golf Course
1159 Queen Palm 11 11 36 8.5 207 2 2 2 Preserve
Good to fair form and vigor 8 9
7 Golf Course
1160 Brazilian Pepper 22 22 29 11 541 2 2 2 Preserve
Epicormic sprouting from branch cuts, squirrel burrows at root crown 12 15.5 14 Golf Course
1161 Red River Gum 5 5 32 5 64 3 3 2 Remove
Diseased 3 4
6 Golf Course
1162 Brazilian Pepper 14 14 33 13.5 683 2 2 2 Preserve
Failed upper limb 12 18

15.5 Golf Course
1163 Brazilian Pepper 13 13 27 8.5 562 2 2 2 Preserve Prune for structure Good form and vigor, epicormic basal sprouting 14 14
17 Golf Course
1164 European Olive 7 8 11 26 37 9.5 638 2 2 2 Preserve Multi-stemmed, epicormic sprouting 12.5 18
17 923
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1165 Brazilian Pepper 12 12 25 12 452 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 12
12 Golf Course
1166 Queen Palm 14 14 31 5.5 131 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, spike holes 6 8.5

5.8 Golf Course
1167 Red River Gum 10 10 32 12.5 371 2 2 2 Preserve
Gummosis 11 11.5

8.5 Golf Course
1168 Red River Gum 21 21 52 16 894 3 3 2 Remove
Distressed and weak 16.5 16
19 Golf Course
1169 Brazilian Pepper 6 10 10 9 35 38 13 816 2 2 2 Preserve Multi-stemmed, good vigor 19 14

18.5 Golf Course
1170 Red River Gum 12 12 9 11 44 58 25.5 1904 2 3 2 Remove 32 13
28 Golf Course
1171 River She-oak 8 8 40 11 510 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 15 11.5

13.5 Golf Course
1172 River She-oak 9 9 39 4.5 214 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11.5 6
11 Golf Course
1173 Tipu Tree 14 14 37 21.5 1809 2 2 2 Preserve
Lean, minor structural root decay, vigor fair 28 22

24.5 Golf Course
1174 River She-oak 10 10 29 7 214 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 7 9
10 Golf Course
1175 River She-oak 8 8 27 10.5 354 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 10.5

10.5 Golf Course
1176 Red Ironbark 24 24 56 16 1060 2-3 2 2 Preserve Re-evaluate to keep Fungal bodies near root crown, vigor fair, squirrel burrows in root crown 22.5 17 18 Golf Course
1177 River She-oak 14 14 48 9.5 562 2 2 2 Preserve
Sapsucker damage, good form and vigor 17 11.5

15.5 Golf Course
1178 River She-oak 12 12 41 14.5 551 2 3 2 Remove
Gummosis, vigor fair, weed wacker damage, decay at flare 15 11.5 12 Golf Course
1179 River She-oak 15 15 47 10 452 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 13
13 Golf Course
1180 River She-oak 11 11 40 8 240 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 9.5 9.5
8 Golf Course
1181 Indian Laurel Fig 9 9 20 7 269 2 2 2 Preserve Treat infection Wasp galls - possible, good form and vigor 10 11
9 Golf Course
1182 Brazilian Pepper 23 23 32 17 742 2 2 2 Preserve Treat termites Termites, good form and vigor 15 11.5
18 Golf Course
1183 Red River Gum 16 16 80 19.5 1572 2 2 2 Preserve

40.5 16.5
13 924
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1184 Red River Gum 18 18 77 12 1104 2 2 2 Preserve
20 17
26 Golf Course
1185 Green Ash 17 17 76 18 1017 2 2 2 Preserve Trim dead limb Fair form and vigor, gummosis 16 17.5

20.5 Golf Course
1186 Green Ash 22 22 45 21.5 1119 3 3 2 Remove
Significant lower stem decay with cavity 18.5 18

17.5 Golf Course
1187 Brazilian Pepper 12 13 25 25 11 531 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 15.5 9.5
16 Golf Course
1188 Chinese Elm 7 7 27 12 452 2 2 2 Preserve
Good to fair form and vigor 11.5 13

11.5 Golf Course
1189 Green Ash 23 23 58 21.5 1607 2 2 2 Remove Re-evaluate to keep Moderate upper canopy deadwood, deep cavity in stem, brown leaf tips 19.5 22.5 27 Golf Course
1190 Brazilian Pepper 10 11 21 29 15.5 791 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 16.5 15

16.5 Golf Course
1191 Indian Laurel Fig 5 4 9 22 8.5 195 3 2 3 Remove

8.5 6

8.5 Golf Course
1192 Red River Gum 17 17 43 14 1240 3 2 2 Remove
Retrenchment - moderate to severe 20.5 20
25 Golf Course
1193 Red River Gum 20 20 63 14 1661 2 2 2 Preserve
Multiple stem cankers, fair vigor 30.5 16.5
31 Golf Course
1194 River She-oak 8 8 45 10 452 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 12 12.5

13.5 Golf Course
1195 River She-oak 4 8 12 34 7.5 234 2 2-3 2 Preserve Subordinate codominant Good form and vigor, codominant stems 10 7 stem
10 Golf Course
1196 River She-oak 5 4 5 14 32 7 201 2 2-3 2 Preserve Subordinate codominant 8 8.5 stem

8.5 Golf Course
1197 Weeping Fig 8 6 8 11 7 8 48 30 25 1256 2-3 2-3 2 Preserve Prune canopy Stem canker - mild to moderate, limited failure risk, good vigor 18 20.5

16.5 Golf Course
1198 Red River Gum 10 10 44 10 415 3 3 2-3 Remove
Tree borers, retrenchment/decline 10 9
17 Golf Course
1199 Green Ash 9 9 26 13.5 291 3 3 3 Remove
Steep decline 11 9
5 Golf Course
1200 Port Orford Cedar 13 13 35 9 322 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Goof form and vigor 12.5 9.5

9.5 Golf Course
1201 Silk Oak Tree 4 4 22 6 171 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 7.5 7.5

8.5 Golf Course
1202 Black Alder 8 8 31 4 291 3 3 3 Remove
Steep decline 14.5 9
11 925
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1203 Silver Dollar Gum 32 32 70 26.5 3140222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, good specimen 31 38
31 Golf Course
1204 River She-oak77 52 5.5 1711-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor87
9 Golf Course
1205 Blue Jacaranda88 338 322222 Preserve
Good form and vigor8 10.5
14 Golf Course
1206 Silk Oak Tree88 32 11.5 330222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 9.5 11 9
Golf Course
1207 Red River Gum 16 16 52 28 1485222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 24 19
16 Golf Course
1208 Red River Gum 19 19 56 19 1089332 Remove
Sever limb failure, retrenchment 12.5 26
17 Golf Course
1209 Tipu Tree55 248 195322 Remove
Decline6 8.5 9
Golf Course
1210 Mexican Fan Palm 10 12 22 405 28222 Preserve
Codominant stems, good form and vigor11
5 Golf Course
1211 Tipu Tree66 7.5 2342-322 Preserve
Cankers in stem, vigor fair8 11 8
Golf Course
1212 Brazilian Pepper 19 19 25 13 638222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10.5 15.5
18 Golf Course
1213 Port Orford Cedar 11 11 279 276222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, flare canker 10 8.5
10 Golf Course
1214 River She-oak538 22 7.5 143222 Preserve
Topped, upper canopy deadwood6 5.5 8
Golf Course
1215 River She-oak77 397 2201-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor7 8.5
11 Golf Course
1216 River She-oak75 12 37 7.5 3141-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 9.5 10
13 Golf Course
1217 Green Ash 13 13 41 20 8812-322 Preserve Prune upper canopy Flare canker 11 19 deadwood
17 Golf Course
1218 Green Ash 10 10 368 314332-3 Remove
Retrenchment, severe stem canker 5.5 16

10.5 Golf Course
1219 Green Ash 16 16 41 20.5 1468222 Preserve
Exposed structural roots 16.5 27.5
22 Golf Course
1220 River She-oak754 16 348 346222 Preserve
Codominant stems, good vigor 11.5 12

10.5 Golf Course
1221 River She-oak88 439 2911-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10.58
11 926
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1222 Red River Gum 23 23 62 17.5 1679 3 2 2 Preserve Treat beetle infestation Possible Australian tortoise beetle infestation, vigor ok 23 28 24 Golf Course
1223 Blue Gum 16 16 36 9 254 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Beetle infested, decline 7 10
10 Golf Course
1224 Green Ash 21 21 52 27 1503 3 2 2 Remove
Fungus at root crown, retrenchment 13 27.5
20 Golf Course
1225 Chinese Elm 7 7 26 14 594 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Root crown water puddling, fair vigor, stem cankers, minor retrenchment 11 14 16 Golf Course
1226 Blue Gum 17 17 38 7.5 234 3 2 2 Preserve
Possible beetle infestation, stained bark, poor canopy development 3.5 12

11.5 Golf Course
1227 Green Ash 25 19 44 74 29 1679 3 3 2 Preserve
Deep cavity in stem, increased liability 17.5 24
22 Golf Course
1228 Tipu Tree 7 7 22 12 452 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Increased mechanical damage, vigor fair to poor 11 14
11 Golf Course
1229 Red River Gum 24 24 76 12 1368 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 23 24.5
24 Golf Course
1230 Red River Gum 13 13 54 16 730 2-3 2 3 Preserve Urgent - prune deadwood Good form and fair vigor, upper canopy deadwood, dead limb - remove 14 18 and remove dead limb 13 Golf Course
1231 River She-oak 6 4 10 33 9 330 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 9
13 Golf Course
1232 River She-oak 7 7 33 8 247 2 2-3 2 Preserve subordinate codominant Codominant stems with included bark 7 9.5 stem
11 Golf Course
1233 Red River Gum 6 6 43 6.5 276 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 10 7
14 Golf Course
1234 Black Alder 12 12 33 7 183 3 2 2 Remove
Multiple cankers, dieback, flare canker 5 9.5
9 Golf Course
1235 Tipu Tree 15 15 52 22 1625 2-3 2 2 Preserve Prune deadwood Distressed, upper canopy deadwood, gummosis, stem cankers 23 22 24 Golf Course
1236 Port Orford Cedar 6 6 17 6 95 2 2 2 Preserve
Lean, flare canker, goof vigor, yellowing, squirrel burrows 5 5 6 Golf Course
1237 Red River Gum 7 7 49 4 138 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 7 6

9.5 Golf Course
1238 River She-oak 7 7 31 6.5 247 2 2 2 Preserve
Canker on stem 8 10
11 Golf Course
1239 Chinese Elm 13 13 37 12 660 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 16 15
15 Golf Course
1240 Myoporum 13 4 4 10 31 12 4 64 3 3 2 Remove
Split stem, large cavity 6 4
4 927
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1241 Chinese Elm55 189 220322 Preserve
Very little canopy development 6.5 9.5

8.5 Golf Course
1242 Red River Gum88 52 12 397332 Remove
Multiple areas with gummosis, vigor fair, poor prognosis 11.5 9.5 12 Golf Course
1243 Red River Gum 11 11 654 1017332 Remove
Excess mechanical damage4 36
28 Golf Course
1244 Red River Gum 14 14 66 17.5 1164222 Preserve Prune deadwood Cankers, vigor fair 16 23.5
20 Golf Course
1245 River She-oak66 266 133222 Preserve
Vigor fair7 5.5

7.5 Golf Course
1246 Green Ash 27 27 63 20 1401322 Preserve
Lower stem cankers, upper canopy deadwood 17.5 22
25 Golf Course
1247 River She-oak66 245 871-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 6.53

6.5 Golf Course
1248 Red River Gum 17 17 63 17 13522-32-32 Preserve
Weed wacker damage, upper canopy deadwood 17 33
16 Golf Course
1249 European Olive77 16 30 31 10 3712-322 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 11 10.5
12 Golf Course
1250 Green Ash 30 30 74 13 10753-433 Remove
Severe decline 19 19
23 Golf Course
1251 River She-oak66 358 123222 Preserve
Good form and vigor66
5 Golf Course
1252 River She-oak76 13 388 3221-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11.5 10
11 Golf Course
1253 River She-oak99 40 10 3142-322 Preserve
Fair form and vigor 11.58

10.5 Golf Course
1254 Brazilian Pepper 38 38 38 14 10172-32-33 Preserve Brace for safety Codominant stems with included bark, good specimen 16 20 22 Golf Course
1255 Peruvian Pepper 32 32 27 13 1046332 Remove
Large cavity in lower stem 22 17
21 Golf Course
1256 Silk Oak Tree459 259 269222 Preserve Subordinate codominant Good form and vigor, codominant stems9 10 stem 9
Golf Course
1258 Tipu Tree 3.56 9.5 15 24 7071-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 12
13 Golf Course
1259 Tipu Tree 5.544 13.5 14 13 615222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, small cankers with gummosis 14 16
13 Golf Course
1260 Tipu Tree 6.5 4.5 11 17 15 707222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, small cankers with gummosis 16 14
15 928
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1261 Tipu Tree 6.5 6.5 17 11 594 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, small cankers with gummosis, mechanical damage 15 15 14 Golf Course
1262 Peruvian Pepper 13.5 13.5 24 14 269 3 2 2 Remove
Retrenchment, poor vigor 10 7
6 Golf Course
1263 River She-oak 5.5 5.5 26 10 363 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, ball damage 11 12
10 Golf Course
1264 Peruvian Pepper 13 13 29 15 683 2 3 3 Preserve Urgent: prune for safety Good vigor, fair form, hazardous failing limb 15 14
15 Golf Course
1265 River She-oak 6.5 6.5 34 10 471 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, ball damage 13 14
12 Golf Course
1266 Silver Dollar Gum 9 9 25 12 471 3 2 2 Remove
Borers, decline 12 15
10 Golf Course
1267 River She-oak 4 4 24 8 189 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Ball damage, fair to poor vigor 8 8
7 Golf Course
1268 Indian Laurel Fig 12 7 6 8 33 34 22 1134 2 2 2 Preserve Ball damage, good vigor 18 21
15 Golf Course
1269 Red River Gum 22 22 53 25 2247 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Ball damage, cankers with gummosis 31 26
25 Golf Course
1270 Mexican Fan Palm 15 15 30 8 201 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 9 7
8 Golf Course
1271 Mexican Fan Palm 16 16 17 6 123 1-2 1-2 1-2 Preserve Good form and vigor 7 6
6 Golf Course
1272 Red Ironbark 32 32 31 14 934 3 3 3 Remove
Poor form and vigor 17 15
23 Golf Course
1273 Red Ironbark 8 8 37 11 471 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 13 11
14 Golf Course
1274 Red River Gum 29 29 90 23 2289 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Treat for borers Good vigor, ball damage, stained bark, borers 27 26
32 Golf Course
1275 Silver Dollar Gum 17 17 52 15 1661 2-3 2 2-3 Preserve Prune for safety Ball damage, stained bark 31 17
29 Golf Course
1276 Water Gum 4.5 4.5 22 5 79 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Weed wacker damage 4 5
6 Golf Course
1277 Myoporum 5.5 5.5 10 5 64 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, unclosed branch cut 5 4
4 Golf Course
1278 Peruvian Pepper 4.5 4.5 22 3 143 2-3 3 3 Remove
Multi-stemmed, on fence line, competing canopy 10 5
9 Golf Course
1279 Brazilian Pepper 5.5 5.5 5 5 5 26 24 10 397 2-3 2-3 2-3 Preserve Prune form On fence line, multi-stemmed, competing canopy 12 10
13 929
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1280 Brazilian Pepper55 222 104333 Remove
Very poor form, competing canopy, decay5 10 6
Golf Course
1281 Brazilian Pepper5 6.5 5.5 17 24 10 314333 Remove
On fence line, embedded fence9 10
11 Golf Course
1282 Peruvian Pepper6 139 28 23 12 615333 Remove
Good form and Vigor, embedded in fence 11 15
18 Golf Course
1283 Carrotwood 17 17 31 15 4912-322 Preserve Treat for health Good form, extensive leaf drop 14 10
11 Golf Course
1284 Carrotwood6 4.545 19.5 328 314322 Remove
Large cankers on stem 11 10
11 Golf Course
1285 Aleppo Pine 21.5 21.5 45 22 14852-32-32 Preserve Prune deadwood Large dead limb, canker on upper stem 17 19
29 Golf Course
1286 Peruvian Pepper 16 16 26 14 3972-322-3 Preserve
Fair form and vigor, reduced canopy 12 10 9
Golf Course
1287 Indian Laurel Fig 14 14 13 10 19 70 50 28 2332222 Preserve Good form and vigor, well-maintained 25 27
29 Golf Course
1288 Red Ironbark88 387 3142-332-3 Remove
Lean, poor canopy development 175
11 Golf Course
1289 Brazilian Pepper 10 10 1089 47 42 15 7792-332 Remove Good vigor, poor form 18 14
16 Golf Course
1290 Red Ironbark 10 12.5 22.5 48 15 9072-333 Preserve Prune codominant stem for Fair form and vigor, codominant stems 20 10 safety
23 Golf Course
1291 Brazilian Pepper86877 36 42 15 660232 Remove
Embedded in fence 11 14
18 Golf Course
1292 Chinese Elm 13 13 44 17 12252-333 Remove
Codominant stems, failed branch, large cavity in lower stem 12 21 29 Golf Course
1293 Brazilian Pepper 7.57755 31.5 42 15 59422-32 Preserve Multi-stemmed, along fence 10 13
17 Golf Course
1294 Brazilian Pepper565 6.5 22.5 42 17 5722-332-3 Remove Multi-stemmed, along fence line, embedded fence 108
19 Golf Course
1295 Brazilian Pepper 6.55 7.57 26 40 16 615232 Remove
Multi-stemmed, along fence line, embedded fence 127
21 Golf Course
1296 Brazilian Pepper6 8.5 14.5 215 2692-332 Remove
Poor form, embedded in fence4 15
13 Golf Course
1297 Brazilian Pepper7 8.5 15.5 239 314222 Preserve Prune codominant stems Good vigor, codominant stems9 10
12 Golf Course
1298 Aleppo Pine 19 19 36 14 804222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 17
16 930
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1299 Mexican Fan Palm 16.5 16.5 536 1131-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor66
6 Golf Course
1300 Peruvian Pepper 11 16 27 30 16 660222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 18 13
11 Golf Course
1301 Italian Stone Pine 18 18 39 12 11042-332-3 Preserve Codominant stems, good vigor, minor lean 18 21
24 Golf Course
1302 Italian Stone Pine 16 16 30 17 638222 Preserve
Good form and vigor8 19
13 Golf Course
1303 River She-oak 10 10 41 10 3971-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 127
16 Golf Course
1304 Aleppo Pine 18 18 33 23 1288222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, golf ball damage 19 24
15 Golf Course
1305 Mondell Pine 21 21 59 19 1288222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, small longitudinal canker on stem 20 20 22 Golf Course
1306 Green Ash 21 21 39 13 5943-432 Remove
Very steep decline, termites, retrenchment 15 13
14 Golf Course
1307 Green Ash 13 13 379 26932-32 Remove
Very steep decline, termites, retrenchment6 11
11 Golf Course
1308 Green Ash9 14 23 469 491322 Remove
Retrenchment and termites 11 19
11 Golf Course
1309 Red Ironbark 28 28 56 24 17342-333 Remove
Major failed branch, increased liability 25 19
26 Golf Course
1310 River She-oak99 248 2272-332 Remove
Topped, decreased aesthetics 108
8 Golf Course
1311 River She-oak77 346 87222 Preserve
Golf ball damage63
6 Golf Course
1312 River She-oak88 418 2691-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 107
12 Golf Course
1313 Red River Gum 15 15 56 16 707222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 11
16 Golf Course
1314 Red River Gum 13 13 44 18 510322 Remove
Moderate to severe retrenchment98
16 Golf Course
1315 Red River Gum77 366 1652-32-32 Preserve
Fair vigor, poor form, competing canopy, small specimen59 9 Golf Course
1316 Silver Dollar Gum 27 27 62 29 21642-32-32-3 Preserve Prune deadwood for safety Good vigor, small failed limbs 21 26
29 Golf Course
1317 Green Ash 10 10 31 15 471333 Remove
Poor form, mature epicormic sprouters 11 13
10 931
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1318 Green Ash 25 25 45 27 2002 2 2 2 Preserve Prune deadwood Minor deadwood, girdled roots 21 31
22 Golf Course
1319 Red River Gum 17 17 64 25 1451 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 16 18
27 Golf Course
1320 Silver Dollar Gum 25 25 73 20 1809 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, squirrel burrows at base 25 23
28 Golf Course
1321 Green Ash 15 15 33 17 452 3 3 2-3 Remove
Steep retrenchment, termites, fungal bodies at root crown 7 13 11 Golf Course
1322 River She-oak 5 5 25 5 113 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, lichens 6 5
8 Golf Course
1323 Silver Dollar Gum 24 24 50 13 1352 3 2 3 Remove Prune deadwood and reMultiple broken limbs, senescent 36 12 evaluate to keep 22 Golf Course
1324 Red River Gum 14 14 51 17 962 2 2 2 Preserve
Minor upper canopy deadwood, fair form and vigor 20 14
19 Golf Course
1325 Red River Gum 16 16 58 20 962 2 2 2 Preserve
Flush cut pruning, minor to moderate upper canopy deadwood 12 19 19 Golf Course
1326 Silver Dollar Gum 20 20 71 22 1963 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, upper canopy deadwood 35 16
27 Golf Course
1327 Red River Gum 10 10 44 8 434 3 2 2 Remove
Heavy fungal infection on stem with cankers, good canopy development, poor prognosis 15 9 15 Golf Course
1328 Chinese Elm 5 4 9 24 13 397 2-3 2 2 Preserve Prune and monitor Heavy ball damage, distressed, marginal health 7 12
13 Golf Course
1329 Chinese Elm 5 4 9 24 14 330 2 2 2 Preserve
Ball damage, lean 8 10
9 Golf Course
1330 Red Ironbark 24 24 63 19 1590 3 3 2 Remove
Borers, weak, failed major limb 24 25
22 Golf Course
1331 Chinese Elm 5 2.5 7.5 18 13 346 2 2-3 2 Preserve
Lean, small specimen, small flare canker 10 13
6 Golf Course
1332 Chinese Elm 7 7 24 7 298 2 2 2 Preserve
Ball damage, small specimen 10 10
12 Golf Course
1333 Red Ironbark 19 19 44 16 1352 2-3 2-3 3 Remove
Borers, branch failure, weak 21 26
20 Golf Course
1334 Silver Dollar Gum 14 17 31 47 22 989 3-4 2 2 Remove Moderate to severe retrenchment, decline 16 14
19 Golf Course
1335 Silver Dollar Gum 20 20 59 16 1485 2-3 2 2 Preserve Prune deadwood Minor to moderate dieback, fair form, gummosis 32 13
26 Golf Course
1336 Canary Island Pine 17 17 49 14 707 1-2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 10 18
18 932
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1337 River She-oak 20 20 31 11 4342-322 Preserve Treat infection Cankers, good vigor 10 11
15 Golf Course
1338 Black Alder88 22 28 41532-32-3 Remove
Poor vigor, decline, ball damage, leaf tip burn58
5 Golf Course
1339 River She-oak 10 10 408 189222 Preserve
Ball damage, good vigor77
9 Golf Course
1340 River She-oak77 318 165222 Preserve
Healing flare canker, good form and vigor66
9 Golf Course
1341 Silver Dollar Gum 33 33 29 24 1923332 Remove Can keep if pruned for Multiple broken limbs, senescent 23 29 safety and re
-evaluated
23 Golf Course
1342 Canary Island Pine 19 19 56 11 804332 Remove
Diminished crown, increased retrenchment 19 12
22 Golf Course
1343 Red River Gum 23 23 81 17 2002222 Preserve
Good form and vigor, minor cankers at root crown 25 31
28 Golf Course
1344 Aleppo Pine 16 16 56 14 660222 Preserve
Fair to good form and vigor 149
21 Golf Course
1345 Aleppo Pine 20 20 47 23 1046222 Preserve
Lean, fair to good form and vigor, upper canopy deadwood 25 12 13 Golf Course
1346 Red River Gum 17 17 80 23 11642-32-32 Preserve Prune deadwood Ball damage, good form and vigor 28 13
13 Golf Course
1347 Mondell Pine 16 16 19 23 9622-333 Remove
Significant lean with soil lift, failure risk 21 16
10 Golf Course
1348 Green Ash 19 19 45 16 638333 Remove
Severe decline 10 19
12 Golf Course
1349 Mondell Pine 11 11 13 18 3142-333 Remove
Lean, poor form 10 12 0
Golf Course
1350 Silver Dollar Gum 14 14 31 13 491332 Remove
Termites, significant retrenchment 14 14 9
Golf Course
1351 Mexican Fan Palm 19 19 416 1891-21-22 Preserve
Good form and vigor87
10 Golf Course
1352 Port Orford Cedar99 235 20122-32-3 Preserve
Lean, low risk of failure99
9 Golf Course
1353 River She-oak99 448 2831-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 128
10 Golf Course
1354 Red Ironbark 26 26 73 25 20422-32-32-3 Preserve Re-evaluate if keeping Good form and vigor, evidence of borers, large specimen 39 22 16 Golf Course
1355 Green Ash 29 29 54 26 2375222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 24 27
33 933
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1356 Red Ironbark 29 29 43 16 10752-322 Preserve
Good to fair form and vigor 20 20
18 Golf Course
1357 Silk Oak Tree 23 23 64 16 881223 Remove
Termite frass at crotch, multiple failed branches 14 17 20 Golf Course
1358 Silk Oak Tree 12 12 47 11 26932-32-3 Remove
Large canker at mid-stem. Gummosis6 13 7
Golf Course
1359 Red River Gum 27 27 71 32 2375222 Preserve
Small failed branches 26 28
24 Golf Course
1360 Red Ironbark 29 29 71 31 1923222 Preserve Prune for safety Hangs over cart path, competing canopy, good vigor, gummosis 27 18 23 Golf Course
1361 Brazilian Pepper 13 13 217 214322-3 Remove
Termites, large flare canker79
10 Golf Course
1362 Silk Oak Tree 25 25 73 13 1661222-3 Preserve Prune for safety Good form and vigor, included bark, near cart path 26 24 29 Golf Course
1363 Silk Oak Tree 22 22 65 19 1046222-3 Preserve Prune for safety Good form and vigor, near cart path 14 20
20 Golf Course
1364 Silk Oak Tree 15 15 47 12 491333 Remove
Large flare canker, upper canopy deadwood9 12
17 Golf Course
1365 Silk Oak Tree 16 16 60 17 471323 Remove
Failed branch at crotch, small cankers 12 14 6
Golf Course
1366 Silk Oak Tree 12 12 448 240322-3 Remove
Small cankers, internal decay59
13 Golf Course
1367 Silver Dollar Gum 24 24 66 24 13202-333 Remove
Large canker at former branch cut, fig growing in decayed wood 21 18 19 Golf Course
1368 Silk Oak Tree 15 15 48 10 4912-332-3 Remove Re-evaluate for safety to Poor structure, minor upper canopy deadwood, failed stem 12 11 keep 17 Golf Course
1369 Silk Oak Tree 10 10 38 10 298222 Preserve Treat for borers Evidence of borers, gummosis, fair vigor 10 10 9
Golf Course
1370 Silk Oak Tree 13 13 47 11 397332-3 Remove
Internal decay 12 11
11 Golf Course
1371 Silk Oak Tree 13 13 489 51032-32-3 Remove
Internal decay 11 19
12 Golf Course
1372 Silk Oak Tree 19 19 52 16 101732-32-3 Remove
Borers, multiple cankers, internal decay 17 20
19 Golf Course
1373 Green Ash 37 37 70 29 2205332-3 Remove
Large internal decay with cavity, moderate upper canopy deadwood 19 24 34 Golf Course
1374 River She-oak 10 10 44 10 2831-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 126
10 934
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1375 Brazilian Pepper 16 16 25 11 240 2 2 2 Preserve
Unusual form 5 12
7 Golf Course
1376 Red Ironbark 8 8 29 15 415 2 2 2 Preserve
Small cankers, ball damage 13 11
7 Golf Course
1377 Chinese Elm 4.5 3.5 4 12 27 14 531 2-3 2 2 Preserve Ball damage 13 12
13 Golf Course
1378 Silver Dollar Gum 26 26 57 24 2289 2 2-3 2 Preserve Brace codominant stems for Codominant stems with included bark, good health 24 28 safety 32 Golf Course
1379 Red Ironbark 28 28 50 29 1847 2 2 2 Preserve Prune deadwood Good form and vigor, minor upper canopy deadwood 30 19
19 Golf Course
1380 Silver Dollar Gum 21 21 51 27 1485 2 2-3 2-3 Preserve Prune to rebalance crown Lean, small failed branch, good vigor 24 17
19 Golf Course
1381 Red Ironbark 26 26 62 19 1418 3 2-3 3 Remove
Lean, good vigor, large canker on east side 23 14
29 Golf Course
1382 River She-oak 10.5 10.5 40 13 491 1-2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 13 12
12 Golf Course
1383 Aleppo Pine 42 42 46 24 1734 3 3 2-3 Remove
Fig growing in crotch, codominant stems with included bark, severe gummosis 20 34 16 Golf Course
1384 Indian Laurel Fig 11 11 24 20 660 2 2 2 Preserve
Extensive ball damage, good vigor 14 13
11 Golf Course
1385 Indian Laurel Fig 16.5 16.5 34 26 1418 2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor, ball damage 19 19
21 Golf Course
1386 Indian Laurel Fig 9.5 9.5 24 14 551 2 2 2 Preserve Leaf galls, good vigor 13 12
14 Golf Course
1387 Red River Gum 17 17 76 32 3018 2-3 2 2 Preserve
Extensive ball damage, fair form and vigor 33 32
27 Golf Course
1388 River She-oak 11.5 11.5 38 12 615 1-2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor, sapsucker damage 15 14
15 Golf Course
1389 River She-oak 4.5 1 1 3.5 10 20 8 154 1-2 2 2 Preserve Good form and vigor 7 7
6 Golf Course
1390 Spider Gum 15 12 27 31 13 683 3 2-3 2-3 Remove
Bracket fungus at flare, senescent, abundant fruit 15 18 13 Golf Course
1391 Indian Laurel Fig 10 10 32 21 1320 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, leaf gall infection 18 21
22 Golf Course
1392 Chinese Elm 6.5 6.5 26 14 660 2-3 3 3 Remove
Excess lean, fair vigor, poor form 17 13
14 Golf Course
1393 River She-oak 6.58 6.58 31 8 298 2 2 2 Preserve
Fair form and vigor, large canker with gummosis 10 10
11 935
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1394 Indian Laurel Fig 14 14 34 17 1104333 Remove
Large failed limb, lean, ball damage, frass 19 18
21 Golf Course
1395 Indian Laurel Fig 17 17 31 22 13202-32-33 Preserve Prune for safety and re- Good form and vigor, included bark 17 21 evaluate
22 Golf Course
1396 Shamel Ash 11 11 8.59 39.5 36 31 1771222 Preserve Prune for safety and re- Leaf tip burn, good vigor 15 27 evaluate
22 Golf Course
1397 Brazilian Pepper 25.5 25.5 36 18 1046332-3 Remove
Flare canker, termites 13 21
21 Golf Course
1398 Red River Gum 8.5 8.5 22 21 730332-3 Remove
External canker at lower stem 14 12
14 Golf Course
1399 Red River Gum 12.5 12.5 52 12 8041-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor 17 17
18 Golf Course
1400 Aleppo Pine 26.5 26.5 47 19 2462233 Preserve Brace for safety Codominant stems with included bark, good vigor 28 36
29 Golf Course
1401 Mexican Fan Palm 16.5 16.5 546 1131-222 Preserve
Good form and vigor66
6 Golf Course
1402 Mexican Fan Palm 11.5 11.5 156 113233 Remove
Poor location, along fence line66
6 Golf Course
1403 Mexican Fan Palm 16 16 336 113222 Remove
On fence line, poor location66
6 Golf Course
1404 Shamel Ash66 12 228 165332-3 Remove
Termites, frass, poor form, embedded in fence86
7 Golf Course
1405 Carrotwood 12 12 27 10 363332-3 Remove
Extensive sapsucker damage, failed branch8 10
15 Golf Course
1406 Carrotwood 14.5 14.5 28 14 730332 Remove
Sapsucker damage, decline 13 16
18 Golf Course
1407 Carrotwood 5.5 5.5 275 31432-32 Remove
Sapsucker damage, decline, competing canopy 10 10
15 Golf Course
1408 River She-oak88 307 283222 Preserve
Good vigor, codominant stems98
14 Golf Course
1409 Green Ash 21 21 45 20 135232-32 Remove
Termites in stems 23 17
23 Golf Course
1410 Green Ash 11 11 39 12 683232-3 Remove
Topped, on fence line, poor canopy, water sprouting 199 19 Golf Course
1411 Brazilian Pepper 12 7.5 8.5 129 49 38 21 1046232 Remove On fence line, good vigor, multi-stemmed 26 12
14 Golf Course
1412 Brazilian Pepper 11799 11.5 47.5 47 15 1385232-3 Remove On fence line, good vigor, multi-stemmed 26 18
25 936
Tree Survey and Arborist Report

Golf Course
1413 Brazilian Pepper 13 7.5 9 11 9 49.5 46 15 1288 2 3 2-3 Remove On fence line, good vigor, multi-stemmed 27 18
21 Golf Course
1414 Brazilian Pepper 11 8.5 8 27.5 45 20 1164 2 3 2-3 Remove On fence line, good vigor, multi-stemmed 24 18
15 Golf Course
1415 Green Ash 22 22 75 30 2332 3 3 2-3 Remove
Surficial root canker, increased risk, included bark 23 31 25 Golf Course
1416 River She-oak 7 6 13 40 12 594 2 2-3 2 Preserve Prune codominant stem Codominant stems, good vigor 13 11
19 Golf Course
1417 River She-oak 7.5 7.5 35 8 415 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor 11 12
15 Golf Course
1418 Green Ash 16 16 62 20 1104 2-3 2 3 Remove
Cankers at crotch, fair form and vigor, sapsucker damage, leaf tip burn 15 17 23 Golf Course
1419 River She-oak 6 6 31 6 154 1-2 2 2 Remove
Good form and vigor 7 7
8 Golf Course
1420 Western Sycamore 8 8 49 12 551 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, upper canopy deadwood 14 13
14 Golf Course
1421 Western Sycamore 8 8 38 10 638 2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, small canker on stem 15 11
21 Golf Course
1422 Canary island Pine 11 11 36 8 254 2 2 2-3 Preserve Sweep lean, good vigor, large mechanical damaged area, canker 5 12 11 Golf Course
1423 Peruvian Pepper 9 6 15 23 2 154 3 3 2-3 Remove
Inner stem decay, decline 11 7
8 Golf Course
1424 Peruvian Pepper 11 7 18 28 9 397 3 3 2-3 Remove
Cavity in flare, small cavities in limb 8 13
15 Golf Course
NT1 Mexican Fan Palm 16 16 51 6 113 1-2 2 2 Preserve
Good form and vigor, not able to get to tree due to debris pile 6 6 6 937
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan – Zoning Code Amendments An amendment to Section 13-20 of Title 13, Chapter II “Zoning Districts Established,” of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to remove subsection (t):
“[…]
(t) Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use District. This district is intended to allow the integration of a variety of land uses and intensities. This zoning district category includes uses which are low to moderate in density and intensity and urban in character. The multi-use center designation is applicable only to the Fairview Development Center property at 2501 Harbor Boulevard.”
An amendment to Section 13-28, Subsection (g), of Title 13, Chapter III “Planning Applications” is hereby amended where strikethrough text denotes text being removed, and underlined text denotes text being added:
“[…]
(g) Master plan. Prior to development in the planned development (PD), town center (TC), shopping center (C1-S), mixed-use overlay (MU), and all types of institutional and recreational (I&R, and I&R-S, and I&R-MLT) zoning districts, a master plan is required. Preliminary master plans are required in the TC and I&R-MLT zone, are optional in PD and MU zones, and are not required in C1-S, I&R-S, and I&R zones. […]
(3) Minor amendments.
a. Minor amendments to existing master plans in planned development zones are subject to section 13-56, master plan required.
b. Minor amendments to existing master plans in the TC, C1-S, MU, I & R, and I & R-S, and I & R-MLT zones may be approved by development review if the planning division finds that the proposed construction does not materially affect required open space, floor area ratio, and parking requirements specified in the approved master plan. Furthermore, if the minor amendment results in an overall building square footage that exceeds the maximum building square footage allowed by the approved master plan, the planning division must find that the minor amendment is consistent with the floor area ratio and trip budget standards established by the general plan, as applicable.
[…]”
ATTACHMENT 3, EXHIBIT B
938
An amendment to Section 13-30, Subsection (e) and Table 13-30, of Title 13, Chapter IV “Citywide Land Use Matrix,” of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to remove reference to “I & R-MLT” zoning designation in its entirety. Subsection (e) shall be amended where strikethrough text denotes text being removed, and underlined text denotes text being added:
“(e) For the purpose of Table 13-30, Land Use Matrix, the various zoning districts are labeled as follows:

Residential zones: R1, R2-MD, R2-HD, and R3
Commercial zones: AP, CL, C1, C2, C1-S, and TC
Industrial zones: MG and MP
Planned Development Residential zones: PDR-LD, PDR-MD, PDR-HD, and PDRNCM Planned Development Commercial zone: PDC
Planned Development Industrial zone: PDI
The Parking zone: P
Institutional and Recreational zones: I & R, and I & R-S, and I & R-MLT” An amendment to Chapter V, Article 7 “Institutional and Recreational, Institutional and Recreational School Districts, and Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use” of Title 13 of the Zoning Code is hereby amended to update the title of Article 7 to remove reference to “Institutional and Recreational – Multi-Use Center” zoning designation where strikethrough text denotes text being removed and underlined text denotes text being added:

Article 7 Institutional and Recreational, and Institutional and Recreational School Districts, and Institutional and Recreational Multi-Use § 13-64 Purpose.
§ 13-65 Special district requirements.
§ 13-66 Development standards.
§ 13-64 Purpose.

This article is intended to provide development standards for both publicly and privately owned land which provide recreation, open space, health, public service, educational, and housing opportunities.
939
§ 13-65 Special district requirements.
(a) Uses incidental to the main function of the development may be permitted upon approval by the planning commission through the adoption or amendment of the master plan.
(b) In the I&R-S zones, site plans shall meet the requirements of all State agencies having jurisdiction over the design, construction and operation of public and private school facilities.
(c) In the I&R-MLT zone any future development of the site may include residential due to the unique nature of the site. Any single family residential development to occur on the site must follow the R1 residential development standards. (d) The I&R-MLT zone contains residential dwelling unit caps for single family and multi-family: For single family residential the cap is 250 units and for multiple family residential the cap is 332 units.
§ 13-66 Development standards.

TABLE 13-66

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR I&R, AND I&R-S AND I&R-MLT ZONES

DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS I&R and I&R-S I&R-MLT
Minimum lot area Six thousand square feet Six thousand square feet Minimum lot width Sixty feet Sixty feet
Maximum floor area ratio Refer to Chapter V, Article
8, floor area ratios
Refer to Chapter V, Article 8,
floor area ratios
Maximum building height Four stories south of the I405 Freeway except that special purpose housing
(e.g., affordable, elderly
and student housing) may
be granted additional
building height.

Building heights for all uses
must conform to I&R
standards; single family
residential must conform to the
R1 building height standards.

SETBACKS FOR MAIN BUILDINGS AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND STRUCTURES (Minimum distances given, unless otherwise noted. All setbacks from streets are measured from the ultimate property line shown on the Master Plan of Highways.)
Front Twenty feet Twenty feet
Side or rear, abutting a
secondary, primary or
major street
Twenty feet Twenty feet
940
TABLE 13-66

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR I&R, AND I&R-S AND I&R-MLT ZONES

DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS I&R and I&R-S I&R-MLT
Side or rear, abutting all
other streets
Ten feet Ten feet
Interior lot line Five feet. Additional
setback may be required
by the planning
commission if deemed
necessary to protect
adjacent land uses.

Five feet. Additional setback
may be required by the
planning commission if
deemed necessary to protect
adjacent land uses.

PARKING (See Chapter VI)
LANDSCAPING (See Chapter VII)
SIGNS (See Chapter VIII)

ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Master plan Required Required
Uses conducted underroof All uses permitted shall be
conducted underroof.

Exception: Uses which are
incidental to and an
integral part of the use
conducted underroof may
be conducted onsite in the
open, pursuant to the
approval of a minor
conditional use permit.

All uses permitted shall be
conducted underroof.

Exception: Uses which are
incidental to and an integral
part of the use conducted
underroof may be conducted
onsite in the open, pursuant to
the approval of a minor
conditional use permit or if the
portion of the site is developed
as a park.

Single family residential—
Minimum lot size
Residential development
not permitted
Six thousand square feet
Single family residential—
Maximum density
Residential development
not permitted
Six dwelling units per acre
Minimum and maximum
percent of site used for
single family residential
Residential development
not permitted
Fifty percent
Minimum and maximum
percent of site
Not applicable Twenty-five percent developed
for parks.

Multi-family residential—
Maximum density
Residential development
not permitted
Forty dwelling units per acre
Minimum percent share of
multi-family units for
affordable housing. Shall
Residential development
not permitted
Twenty percent
941
TABLE 13-66

DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR I&R, AND I&R-S AND I&R-MLT ZONES

DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS I&R and I&R-S I&R-MLT
comply with chapter 9,
Article 4, density bonuses
and other incentives.

An amendment to Title 13 of the City of Costa Mesa Planning, Zoning, and Development Code , also known as the Zoning Code, to add a new chapter titled “Chapter XVIII Specific Plans” commencing with Section 13-350, is hereby added to the Zoning Code in its entirety:

Chapter XVIII SPECIFIC PLANS
Section 13-350 Purpose
In order to address the unique characteristics of particular areas within Costa Mesa, and to achieve the purposes of this Code and of the General Plan of the City of Costa Mesa, the following specific plans have been adopted:
(a) East 17th Street Specific Plan
(b) Newport Boulevard Specific Plan
(c) North Costa Mesa Specific Plan
(d) One Metro West Specific Plan
(e) Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan
Section 13-351 General Provisions
Notwithstanding the provisions or standards set forth in Title 13 of this Code, individual specific plans may establish additional or separate provisions and standards for the plan area; and may adopt zones and amend the Zoning Map of the City of Costa Mesa.

Refer to the texts and maps of individual specific plans referenced above for regulations within each plan's jurisdictional boundaries.
942
Administrative Professional
Institutional Recreational
Multi-Use
Single Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential,
Medium Density
Multiple-Family Residential,
High Density
Multiple-Family Residential
General Industrial
Local Business
General Business
Shopping Center
Institutional Recreational
Institutional Recreational - School
Parking
Commercial Limited
Planned Development
Commercial
Planned Development Residential
- Low Density
Planned Development Residential
- Medium Density
Planned Development Residential
- High Density
City Limits
Specific Plan Boundary
Legend

PLACENTIA

FAIR DR
AVE

MERRIMAC WAY

HARBOR BLVD

FAIRVIEW RD

TANAGER DR

ADAMS AVE

JOANN ST

W WILSON ST

HAMILTON ST

AVOCADO ST

NEWPORT BLVD

SHELLEY CIRSHELLEY CIR
Source: City of Costa Mesa
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan:

Current Zoning
Date: 08/11/2026

VICTORIA ST
ATTACHMENT 4, EXHIBIT C
943
FDCSP
Administrative Professional
Institutional Recreational
Multi-Use
Single Family Residential
Multiple-Family Residential,
Medium Density
Multiple-Family Residential,
High Density
Multiple-Family Residential
General Industrial
Local Business
General Business
Shopping Center
Institutional Recreational
Institutional Recreational - School
Parking
Commercial Limited
Planned Development
Commercial
Planned Development Residential
- Low Density
Planned Development Residential
- Medium Density
Planned Development Residential
- High Density
City Limits
Specific Plan Boundary
Legend

PLACENTIA

FAIR DR
AVE

MERRIMAC WAY

HARBOR BLVD

FAIRVIEW RD

TANAGER DR

ADAMS AVE

JOANN ST

W WILSON ST

VICTORIA ST

HAMILTON ST

AVOCADO ST

NEWPORT BLVD

SHELLEY CIRSHELLEY CIR
Source: City of Costa Mesa
Fairview Developmental Center Specific Plan:

Proposed Zoning
Date: 08/11/2026944

CITY OF COSTA MESA
Agenda Report
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
File #: 26-421 Meeting Date: 10/6/2026
TITLE:

REVIEW OF CONCEPTUAL DESIGN FOR OPEN PARCEL ADJACENT TO SHALIMAR PARK DEPARTMENT: PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES
PRESENTED BY: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES

DIRECTOR
CONTACT INFORMATION: BRIAN GRUNER, PARKS AND COMMUNITY SERVICES DIRECTOR, (714) 754-5009
RECOMMENDATION:

Staff recommends the City Council review and approve the conceptual design plan for the proposed improvement project adjacent to Shalimar Park, located at 778 Shalimar Drive.

BACKGROUND:

Shalimar Park is a half-acre neighborhood park located in the Westside neighborhood of Costa Mesa along Shalimar Drive between Wallace Avenue and Placentia Avenue. The park was dedicated in January 1999 and has a renovated playground that is scheduled to open in early 2027.

The adjacent open parcel located at 778 Shalimar Drive, Costa Mesa, CA 92627, Assessor Parcel Number (APN) 424-051-23 was listed for sale on May 23, 2024. The City Council approved the purchase of the property in FY 24/25 for $1.5 million with the intent of developing the parcel as additional park space, doubling the park in size. Following acquisition, staff undertook asbestos removal and subsequently demolished the building on the site. The site is currently being used as a staging area for the renovation of the existing park site.

Council directed staff to conduct outreach to the community to identify community needs and wants for future park use of the acquired parcel. On July 22, 2026, the City entered into an agreement with CityFabrick and Pat West to develop and coordinate a Shalimar Park Phase II outreach program and park plan. City staff and the consultant conducted neighborhood outreach and engagement, including in-person meetings and online surveys.

ANALYSIS:

The consultant team, along with staff from Public Works and the Parks and Community Services Departments, coordinated and developed the following outreach events to obtain community input:

1. July 24, 2026: Community engagement at Shalimar Park from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

2. August 7, 2026: Community engagement at Shalimar Park from 6:00 pm to 8:00 pm.

3. August 15, 2026: Community engagement at Back-to-School Fresh event at the Costa Mesa