PART 4 - Staff Report — Simi Valley City Council, August 10, 2026 (part 2 of 2)

The overall property comprises 1,770 acres, but only approximately 211 acres are proposed for development at this time. Up to 364 single-family residential units and recreation amenities along with associated fuel modification will be developed per the current grading design.

METHODS
The 2024 mature tree inventory was conducted by an arborist certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) or horticulturalist trained in conducting tree assessments including Chambers Group biologists Allison Lane and Kellie Crouch, certified field botanist/horticulturalist Jessica Calvillo and senior certified field botanist/ISA-certified arborist Heather Clayton on September 3 and 4, 2024. Data recorded for each mature tree are consistent with information required as part of the City of Simi Valley Tree Removal Permit application (submitted separately). Trees were inventoried within the limits of the survey area depicted on Figure

2. Areas in which construction impacts are not anticipated (e.g., California Department of Fish and Wildlife jurisdiction) were excluded from the inventory.

The following tasks were conducted during the inventory:

1. Mature trees with a DBH equal to or greater than 5 inches for oak trees or 9.5 inches for other tree species were mapped. The DBH of each tree was calculated and recorded. In the case of mature trees with multiple trunks, the total diameter was calculated by summing the individual diameters of all trunks that were equal to or greater than 3 inches. Global Positioning System (GPS) coordinates, with sub-meter accuracy, were recorded for each tree; and points were overlaid onto an aerial photograph and correspond to the tree identification (ID) numbers on the Tree Impact Status Results Map (Figure 2).

2. Trees were tagged with numbered aluminum tags and identified to species during the 2018 inventory.

The tags were affixed to the tree’s trunk and correspond to the tree ID numbers on the Tree Impact Status Results Map (Figure 2). To the extent feasible, all tags were attached to the north side of the tree, or in a logical location most visible from existing access paths. Any new trees added to the inventory in 2024 or trees with missing tags received a new tag and tree ID number.

3. The tree canopy spread was estimated by averaging the greatest extent of two perpendicular canopy widths.

4. An overall physical condition score was assigned to each tree based on an evaluation of its health, structure, form, and age. Table 1 through Table 4 present the criteria used to establish each rating. The health of the tree includes such adverse factors as damage caused by various pests including termites, wood-boring beetles, fungus, and hemi-parasitic plants (e.g., mistletoe). Other factors affecting tree health include mechanical damage caused by fire, or by human activities resulting in soil compaction, undercutting, damaged root systems, or improperly pruned limbs. The form and structural stability of each tree was also examined. Trees that are unstable (e.g., with root systems undercut, trees growing on steep slopes subject to slides) are assumed to have a shorter potential life span.

5. If a tree was growing in a parking lot or adjacent to a building such that the presence or potential for root/pavement conflict existed, the tree received a 25 to 35 percent reduction in the functional limitation score. External limitations (e.g., restrictions on size, competing infrastructure, utility lines, water use limitations, the presence of serious pests in in the area) were also evaluated. 1128
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 3 ends

6. Trees were also assessed for their potential for transplantation. Mature trees were considered as good candidates for transplantation if trees were in good or excellent health with full foliage, good canopy cover (75 percent or more of coverage), few broken branches, and little to no insect damage or disease (typically with a health grade of B or better). Equipment access for tree removal also played a minimal role in the potential for transplantation determinations. If a tree was deemed suitable for transplantation and was found within the limits of the proposed Phase 1 project grading limits, it was identified as “To Be Relocated.” Trees not suitable for transplanting within the project limits were identified as “To Be Removed.”

Table 1. Grading Criteria for Tree Health
Health Rating
(%) Description (Vigor)
A 81 – 100 High vigor and nearby perfect health with little or no twig dieback, discoloration, or defoliation
B 61 – 80 Vigor is normal for the species. No significant damage due to diseases or pests.

Any twig dieback, defoliation, or discoloration is minor.

C 31 – 60 Reduced vigor. Damage due to insects or diseases may be significant and associated with defoliation but is not likely to be fatal. Twig dieback, defoliation, discoloration, and/or dead branches may comprise up to 50% of the crown.

D 1 – 30 Unhealthy and declining in appearance. Poor vigor. Low foliage density and poor foliage color are present. Appears to be dying and in the last stages of life.

Potentially fatal pest infestation. Extensive twig and/or branch dieback.

F 0 Last stages of life or dead.

Table 2. Grading Criteria for Tree Structure
Structure Rating
(%) Description (Trunk Structural Integrity)
Excellent 81 – 100 Nearly ideal and free of defects.

Good 61 – 80 Well-developed structure. Defects are minor and can be corrected.

Fair 41 – 60 A single defect of a significant nature or multiple moderate defects. Defects are not practical to correct or would require multiple treatments over several years. 1129
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 4 ends

Structure Rating
(%) Description (Trunk Structural Integrity)
Poor 21 – 40 A single serious defect or multiple significant defects. Recent change in tree orientation. Observed structural problems cannot be corrected. Failure may occur at any time.

Very Poor 6 – 20 Single or multiple severe defects. Failure is probably or imminent.

Dead 0 – 5 Dead

Table 3. Grading Criteria for Tree Form
Form Rating
(%) Description (Habit: shape or silhouette and position relative to other trees) Excellent 81 – 100 Nearly ideal for the species. Generally symmetric. Consistent with the intended use.

Good 61 – 80 Minor asymmetries/deviations from species norm. Mostly consistent with the intended use. Function and aesthetics are not compromised.

Fair 41 – 60 Major asymmetries/deviations from species norm and/or aesthetics are compromised.

Poor 21 – 40 Largely asymmetric/abnormal. Detracts from intended use and/or aesthetics to a significant degree.

Very Poor 6 – 20 Visually unappealing. Provides little or no function in the landscape.

Dead 0 – 5 Dead

Table 4. Grading Criteria for Tree Age
Age State of Development
Young Seedling/sapling
Semi-Mature Nearing fruit production
Mature Has flowered/produced fruit
Overmature Senescent, nearing the end of its life
1130
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 5 ends

TREE SPECIES
There are 145 mature trees of interest present within the approximately 211-acre proposed impact areas and associated ‘Backbone’ or infrastructure areas within the 2024 Tree Survey Area (Figure 2), representing 9 of the 16 different tree species present on site. Five of the tree species are native to California, meaning that they are indigenous to California prior to European colonization. Four tree species are non-native, meaning they are not indigenous to California, but have been introduced from another region or country. Although there are multiple tree species classified as invasive non-native species that are not native to California and known to cause harm to the environment, economy, or human health (California Invasive Plant Council 2024) they fit the definition of a mature tree and thus have been included as part of the tree permit for the City of Simi Valley. These non-native trees, however are not afforded special protection by CDFW. Table 5 presents a list of the species included in the inventory that were found within or adjacent to the proposed impact areas.

Table 5. Mature Trees Included in the Inventory
Number of
Individuals Scientific Name Common Name Status
1 Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven Non-Native
3 Arbutus unedo strawberry tree Non-Native
5 Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum Non-Native
16 Juglans californica black walnut Native
4 Olea europea olive Non-Native
15 Platanus racemosa California sycamore Native
7 Populus fremontii subsp. fremontii Fremont cottonwood Native 88 Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Native
6 Quercus lobata valley oak Native
145 Total Trees in and adjacent to Proposed Impact Areas

SIMI VALLEY MATURE TREE PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
The Mature Tree Preservation Ordinance requires an approved Tree Removal Permit prior to beginning any grading for projects that will remove mature trees. Grading of the Backbone and Phase 1 areas will require the removal of mature trees. The City’s tree ordinance also requires the replacement of all mature trees, especially oak trees in the genus Quercus, and that the value of those trees be determined by appraisal. Further details regarding tree protection measures during construction is discussed under separate cover as an updated Mature Tree Protection, Relocation, and Regeneration Plan.

1131
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 6 ends

The Simi Valley Municipal Code of Ordinances for Tree Preservation, Cutting, and Removal states:
 9-38.070 – Tree Removal Permits
o A.1. Tree Permit Required. “No protected tree shall be removed, relocated, cut down, or otherwise destroyed, unless a Tree Removal Permit has been first issued by the Director.” o D.4. Conditions of Approval. “If relocation of the tree(s) is not feasible, the Director may require that the appraised value of the tree(s) be used to replant trees on the subject site.”  9-38.080 – Standards for Granting or Disapproving Tree Removal Permits, Mandatory Criteria o A.2. “It is necessary to remove the trees in order to construct improvements which allow economic enjoyment of the property.”

MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS
The invasive tree species that are listed on the California Invasive Plant Council’s (Cal-IPC) Invasive Plant Inventory are prohibited from being planted or maintained within the Project footprint as stipulated in the Project’s Biological Opinion (BO), Environmental Impact Report (EIR), and Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) and are required to be removed from the Project site. Cal-IPC defines invasive non-native plants that threaten wildlands as plants that (1) are not native to, yet can spread into, wildland ecosystems; and that also (2) displace native species, hybridize with native species, alter biological communities, or alter ecosystem processes. Because of the risks to native plants and communities, invasive tree species will not be protected or preserved on the site.

River red gum ( Eucalyptus camaldulensis ), olive ( Olea europea), tamarisk ( Tamarix spp.), tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and tree tobacco ( Nicotiana glauca) are invasive non-native species found growing on the site; and, per the agency requirements, they must be removed. The invasive tree species on site were included in the 2018 Tree Inventory but have been assigned an appraisal value of $0 and are proposed for removal with no mitigation.

As per the City’s Tree Removal Permit application (Item 7), Chambers Group has compiled a table with the individual tree data including: species, identification number, trunk diameter, spread, single or multi-trunk structure, form, health status, aesthetic value, damage or disease, appraised value as determined by an ISA- certified arborist, and whether the tree is proposed to be removed, relocated, or if it will be preserved in place and protected during construction activities (Attachment 1).

CHANGES FROM 2018
Appraised values in 2018 were calculated in accordance with the 9 th Edition of the “Guide for Plant Appraisal” (Guide) as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA 2000). Trees were appraised in 2024 according to the 10th Edition (third printing) of the Guide (ISA 2019, Rev. 2020) in which a number of changes in protocol were made.

The 10 th Edition of the Guide sought to avoid issues with double counting and to be more consistent with the general appraisal community. Rather than determining an appraisal value based on species, condition and location ratings, the 10 th Edition used three categories of depreciation: physical deterioration (condition), 1132
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 7 ends

functional limitations, and external limitations. Depreciation for species was included in the 9 th Edition of the Guide because the basic cost was aimed to the ideal species (i.e., one rated as 100%). Where species were less than ideal, the species factor allowed depreciation to be applied. Species rating commingled genetic factors, response to growing conditions, business practice, and personal appreciation of aesthetics. Therefore, in the 10th edition of the Guide, the “Species Rating” was replaced by incorporating it into the functional limitations score where a species genotype with a specific location allowed for a more defined assessment of performance.

Because the 2024 inventory used the 10 th Edition Guide as a standard for determining appraisal values, the eliminated species rating tended to increase the appraisal values by up to 30 percent.

Whereas in the 9 th Edition of the Guide the appraiser was tasked with calculating a replacement cost for the largest available nursery tree, typically a 48-inch box tree or greater, the 10th Edition Guide emphasizes that that replacement tree cost be based on the largest commonly available nursery tree. For the purposes of the 2024 inventory update, a 24-inch box nursery tree was used to calculate the replacement nursery tree cost as recommended by the Western Chapter of ISA. During the appraisal update, Chambers Group also used guidance from the Urban Forest Ecosystems Institute (Cal Poly 2025) in which each of the tree species present on site were placed into a group rating category (1, 2, 3, or 4) and assigned a cross-sectional area based on their appropriate group by species. Where a $1,200 replacement tree cost and similar installation cost was used for the oak, sycamore, and cottonwood trees in 2018, a lower value between $200 and $400 was applied for all tree species in 2024. The resulting appraisal value of these trees would decrease if all other conditions remained the same.

The 2018 and 2024 appraisal values for trees that are proposed to be removed that require mitigation (‡) are presented below (Table 6).

Table 6: Appraised Value of Trees for the Current Proposed Impact Area Tree Status
2018 2024
Appraised Value Count Appraised Value Count
To Be Removed $481,730.00 30 $1,226,900.00 ‡ 55
To Be Relocated $1,023,670.00 54 $929,710.00 61
To Be Preserved in Place $915,360.00 24 $1,198,990.00 29 Total $2,420,760.00 108 $3,355,600.00 145
‡ Value for which mitigation will be required.

A copy of the Appraisal Field Data Sheets is included as Attachment 2 and a summary of the individual trees within their proposed categories for removal, relocation or preservation is included in Attachment 3.

1133
John Lucarelli
December 18, 2025

Page 8 ends

Please contact me at (949) 261-5414 extension 7241 or [email protected] if you have any questions or concerns regarding this memo.

Sincerely,
CHAMBERS GROUP, INC.

Heather Clayton
CNPS Certified Botanist, CFB-0012
ISA Certified Arborist, WE-13716

FIGURES

Figure 1 – Project Location Map
Figure 2 – Tree Impact Status Results Map

ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 – Individual Tree Data Results Table
Attachment 2 – Tree Appraisal Field Data Sheets
Attachment 3 – Summary Table of Trees by Status

REFERENCES
California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC)
2024 Definition of Invasive Plants. Cal-IPC. Berkeley, CA. Accessed on September 9, 2024 from https://www.cal-ipc.org/plants/impact/.

Cal Poly State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly)
2025 SelecTree. Urban Forest Ecosystems InsƟtute (UFEI). " Regional Plant Appraisal CommiƩee Statement." 1995-2025. Accessed January 2025 from https://selectree.calpoly.edu/appraisals.

International Society of Arboriculture (ISA)
2000 Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9 th. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers. Champaign, IL. 143 pp. 2019 Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10 th Edition Revised 2020. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers.

Atlanta, GA. 181 pp.
1134

ATTACHMENT 1 – INDIVIDUAL TREE DATA RESULTS TABLE
1135
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 1
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)

ATTACHMENT 1: INDIVIDUAL TREE DATA RESULTS
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
54 Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
10 Single 14.4 20 B 62 C 50 50
Dying branches in lower canopy,
crowded and leaning from tree
55 -118.7204 34.304909 $210.00 N/A $2,900.00 x
55 Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

39.5 Multi-
Trunk 43.3 20 B 61 C 41 40 Few dead branches near bottom, major crossing branches -118.72057 34.3049592 $210.00 N/A $41,510.00 x 235
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

67.5 Multi-
Trunk 48 25 B 79 A- 80 65
Active wood rat nest in center
trunk, on a slope, scattered dead
branches
-118.72014 34.3021978 $210.00 N/A $156,380.00 x
237
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

53.5 Multi-
Trunk 60.75 31 B 78 A 70 85 Minor dead branches -118.72013 34.302589 $210.00 N/A $97,080.00 x 238
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)

25.5 Single 50.5 40 C 51 C 45 50 Thin canopy, witch’s hair, next to road -118.72029 34.3026737 $390.00 N/A $27,110.00 x
240
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

38.25 Multi-
Trunk 43.5 39 B 78 B+ 80 58
Interior branch dieback,
woodpecker holes, epicormic
shoots, ants, near wood rat nest
-118.72022 34.3032056 $210.00 N/A $49,720.00 x
249
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
39 Multi-
Trunk 49.75 45 B 79 B+ 80 70
Wood rat nest, insect damage,
healed old wounds, fissures on
major limbs, barbed wire at base
of trunk, near the road
-118.72017 34.3020056 $210.00 N/A $52,350.00 x
254
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

16.5 Single 38.35 38 B 78 B 80 65
Adjacent to wood rat nest,
canopy overhangs road, minor
flagging, few dead branches
-118.72034 34.3024867 $210.00 N/A $9,420.00 x
321
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)
39 Single 55 35 C 55 C 50 41
Minor flagging, galls, epicormic
shoots, broken branches, minor
fire damage, beehive in broken
trunk, wolf branches, growing
into barbed wire. DBH is less than
measured in 2018.
-118.72027 34.3064584 $390.00 $42,200.00 $67,800.00 x 322*
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
58 Multi-
Trunk 32 B B Barbed wire growing into trunk. -118.72008 34.310898 $157,500.00 x 348*
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)
48 Single 81 C D
Half of bark missing on trunk.

Dead limbs. Wolf tree. Thin
canopy. Bee hive inside branch.
-118.722730 34.315712 $98,600.00 x
1136
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 2
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
352*
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)
50 Single 32 C C Sparse canopy, fire damage. Tree
on a cliff. Branch die back. -118.720895 34.308298 $79,500.00 x 353*
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
27 Single 48 C C Fire damage, tip die back, wolf
tree, dead branches. -118.721027 34.308246 $24,600.00 X 354*
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
60 Multi-
Trunk 34 D C Fire damage, insects, wolf tree. -118.720984 34.308523 $72,200.00 X 356*
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
24 Multi-
Trunk 33 D C
Fire damage, dead & broken
branches, gulls, flagging. Wolf
tree.
-118.721067 34.308566 $11,700.00 x
357*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
48 Multi-
Trunk 31 C B Fire damage, broken & dead
branches, insects. -118.721659 34.309321 $22,200.00 x 362
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

46.3 Multi-
Trunk 66 37 B 66 B- 57 62
Several dead limbs, interior
foliage thin, some bark splitting,
drought stress. DBH discrepancy
due to exclusion of trunks that
are now dead.
-118.72084 34.3057254 $210.00 $174,900.00 $61,600.00 x 365
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

36.5 Multi-
Trunk 29.5 22 B 61 C 41 40
Thin canopy, fungal issue on
branches, other oak's canopy
hanging causing the tree to lean.
-118.72076 34.3061186 $210.00 $28,400.00 $35,470.00 x 366
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
30 Single 44.9 30 B 76 B 75 70
Cankers/galls on trunk, bore
holes, dead branches in inner
canopy
-118.72071 34.3060584 $210.00
$30,800.00 $29,890.00 x
367
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
22 Single 36.3 26 C 52 C 55 60
Significant bore hole damage in
trunk, sparse canopy, crowded by
other oak (#366)
-118.72067 34.3061172 $210.00
$12,500.00 $11,130.00 x
369
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
34 Multi-
Trunk 33.3 25 A 96 A 80 80
Minor signs of past insect and
sunburn damage to trunk, canopy
has dense vigorous growth
-118.7205 34.3062609 $210.00
$60,800.00 $48,360.00 x
388
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

43.5 Multi-
Trunk 30.6 24 B 80 A 85 85
Parking lot. Minor branch
dieback, minor flagging. Was
previously tree ID #4101.
-118.73408 34.3135413 $210.00
$61,300.00 $49,470.00 x
1137
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 3
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4006
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

19.5 Single 36.1 44 B 76 B+ 78 65
Insect damage on half of trunk,
thickened bark, splitting
branches. Other tag on tree not
associated with the survey is
#391.
-118.73373 34.3142771 $360.00 $10,000.00 $21,860.00 x 4007
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)

17.1 Multi-
Trunk 20.6 21 C 44 D 21 31
1/3 of canopy dead, insect
damage, broken limbs, drought
stress, twig dieback
-118.73497 34.3161618 $366.00
$2,540.00 $8,150.00 x

4047
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)
11 Multi-
Trunk 10 B C Cut, burned branches -118.732827 34.312261 $1,810.00 $1,810.00 x 4091
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

8.5 Single 20 12 B 68 B 65 63 Minimal flagging -118.73713 34.3115602 $210.00 $3,140.00 $2,340.00 x 4103*
River red
gum
(Eucalyptus
camald-
ulensis)
18 Multi-
Trunk 20 D D Damage and disease. River red
gum Lerp Psyllids present. -118.7189 34.318187 $0 x
4102*
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)
42 Multi-
Trunk 35 D C Damage, major cavity. -118.719042 34.318173 $33,700.00 x 4104*
River red
gum
(Eucalyptus
camald-
ulensis)
19 Multi-
Trunk 24 D C Damage and disease. River red
gum Lerp Psyllids present. -118.718851 34.318166 $0 x 4105*
River red
gum
(Eucalyptus
camald-
ulensis)
18 Single 25 D D Damage and disease. Insects. -118.718869 34.317951 $0 x 4106*
River red
gum
(Eucalyptus
camald-
ulensis)
16 Single 15 D D Damage and disease. River red
gum Lerp Psyllids present. -118.718879 34.317931 $0 x 4107*
River red
gum
(Eucalyptus
camald-
ulensis)
36 Multi-
Trunk 23 D D
River red gum Lerp Psyllids
present, insect. Extensive
dieback.
-118.719156 34.31719 $0 x
1138
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 4
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4121*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
42 Multi-
Trunk 40 C B Damage, broken branches.

Insects. -118.719436 34.318083 $17,000.00 x
4124*
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)
15 Multi-
Trunk 16 D D Insects. -118.721624 34.317226 $4,110.00 x 4181
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

67.5 Multi-
Trunk 49 12 C 45 D 35 10
Many large trunks died back,
resprouted from base. DBH
discrepancy due to exclusion of
dead trunks.
-118.72263 34.3099205 $342.00 $50,200.00 $145,220.00 x 4182
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

72.05 Multi-
Trunk 37.8 13 C 45 D 35 10
Fire damage, main trunks mainly
dead, a lot of current trunks are
resprouts. DBH discrepancy due
to inclusion of trunks that were
previously excluded for being too
small.
-118.72247 34.3097304 $342.00 $36,000.00 $165,410.00 x 4187
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)

21.75 Multi-
Trunk 34.35 35 C 52 C 55 61
Broken limbs, nutrient
deficiencies, drought stress, ants,
dense shrub understory
-118.72905 34.3135246 $366.00
$5,400.00 $15,240.00 x
4510
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

10.7 Single 28 15 B 67 B 60 60
Parking lot. A lot of shrubs in
understory, minor branch
dieback
-118.73427 34.3133929 $210.00 $5,700.00 $2,710.00 x 4511
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

31.1 Multi-
Trunk 31.3 16 B 74 B 70 60
Parking lot. Some spots on trunk,
thin canopy inside (interior
branch dieback). DBH
discrepancy due to inclusion of
trunks that were previously
excluded for being too small.
-118.73406 34.3132672 $210.00 $30,800.00 $23,500.00 x 4513
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

22.5 Multi-
Trunk 25.9 10.2 A 93 B 70 60
Parking lot. Gopher holes,
adjacent to large Toyon - creating
asymmetrical form. Drought-
stressed.
-118.73385 34.3133484 $210.00 $23,100.00 $15,530.00 x 4514
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

15.2 Multi-
Trunk 18.9 8.3 B 64 B- 55 45
Parking lot. Minor branch
dieback, exposed roots, super
compacted
-118.73368 34.3131943 $210.00
$9,700.00 $4,380.00 x
4515
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

17.9 Multi-
Trunk 19.3 9.5 B 74 B 70 60
Parking lot. Minor branch
dieback, oozing out of previous
prune scar. A tag not associated
to the inventory was labeled
#385.
-118.73362 34.3130953 $210.00 $12,600.00 $7,930.00 x 1139
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 5
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4516
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

32.1 Multi-
Trunk 24.6 16 C 50 B- 41 45
Parking lot. Roots exposed, small
mammal burrowing, yellowing
leaves, sparse foliage in some
areas, major crossing branches.

DBH discrepancy due to inclusion
of trunks that were previously
excluded for being too small.
-118.73372 34.3131399 $210.00 $28,000.00 $16,980.00 x 4517
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

25.8 Multi-
Trunk 29 20 C 59 B+ 50 90
Parking lot. Ants, fissures,
decaying regions, insect damage
(boring), exposed roots,
burrowing mammals, interior
canopy thin. DBH discrepancy
due to exclusion of trunks that
were now dead.
-118.73411 34.3131256 $210.00 $64,400.00 $12,990.00 x 4518
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
30 Multi-
Trunk 29.5 15 B 78 B+ 83 80
Parking lot. Exposed roots,
gopher damage, moderate
branch dieback, bottom branches
bigger than top
-118.73419 34.3130857 $210.00 $26,100.00 $23,050.00 x 4519
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

14.2 Single 33.8 21 B 66 B 50 62
Parking lot. Minor of insect
damage on trunk, small mammal
root exposure, surrounded by
concrete, leaning
-118.73406 34.3130743 $210.00 $9,600.00 $4,540.00 x 4520* Olive (Olea
europea) 17 Multi-
Trunk 18 A A Insects. -118.734538 34.31292 $0 x
4521* Olive (Olea
europea) 16 Multi-
Trunk 18 A A Insects. -118.734577 34.312856 $0 x
4522* Olive (Olea
europea) 13 Multi-
Trunk 14 A A Insects. -118.734374 34.312839 $0 x
4523
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

12.5 Single 27.3 18 B 66 B 50 58 Parking lot. Ants, tree leaning -118.7341 34.3129518 $210.00 $9,600.00 $3,570.00 x 4524
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

29.4 Multi-
Trunk 30.1 18 A 87 C+ 75 78
Parking lot. Exposed roots,
burrowing, some crossing
branches. DBH discrepancy due
to inclusion of trunks that were
previously excluded for being too
small.
-118.73396 34.3129293 $210.00 $17,900.00 $24,680.00 x 4525
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

16.6 Multi-
Trunk 20.9 14.5 B 65 B+ 50 50 Parking lot. Grassy understory, significant crossing branches -118.73391 34.3128803 $210.00 $9,600.00 $6,040.00 x
4526
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

13.8 Single 26.5 9.5 A 95 A 75 81
Parking lot. Mammal burrows
near exposed roots, weedy
understory
-118.73371 34.3129447 $210.00
$11,100.00 $6,100.00 x
1140
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 6
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4527
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
22 Multi-
Trunk 23.2 10 A 88 C+ 80 60 Parking lot. Exposed roots with burrowing mammals -118.73359 34.3129537 $210.00
$13,800.00 $14,070.00 x
4529
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

8.7 Multi-
Trunk 21.45 14 B 66 B- 65 60
Parking lot. Small mammal
burrows at base of trunk, minor
flagging
-118.73457 34.3127195 $210.00
$4,240.00 $1,840.00 x
4530
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

16.5 Multi-
Trunk 22.75 16 B 72 B+ 60 78
Parking lot. Insect damage, ants,
dense understory, adjacent to
shrubs
-118.73426 34.3126755 $210.00
$9,600.00 $6,590.00 x
4531
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

14.95 Multi-
Trunk 22 17 B 77 A- 76 79 Parking lot. Burrowing mammals underneath -118.73416 34.3126565 $210.00 $11,100.00 $5,810.00 x 4532
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

8.7 Single 26.5 15 B 77 B+ 82 80
Parking lot. Thin canopy,
surrounded on 3 sides by
pavement, adjacent to large
coyote brush
-118.73413 34.3125936 $210.00 $2,200.00 $2,110.00 x 4536
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

13.5 Single 28.5 22 B 74 B 78 78
Parking lot. Minor flagging,
branches touching ground, some
interior branch dieback
-118.73375 34.3126849 $210.00 $8,200.00 $4,600.00 x 4537
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

14.2 Multi-
Trunk 22 16 B 68 B+ 58 75 Parking lot. Shrubs in understory, secondary trunk with offshoots -118.73364 34.312521 $210.00 $4,260.00 $4,670.00 x
4538
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

12.5 Multi-
Trunk 15.75 14 B 67 B- 68 61
Parking lot. Two competing stems
at base, shrubs in understory,
minor twig dieback
-118.73361 34.3124477 $210.00
$5,900.00 $3,620.00 x
4539
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
15 Multi-
Trunk 24.25 19 C 57 C+ 75 60
Parking lot. Major sapsucker
damage, boring insect damage,
shrubs under canopy, thin canopy
-118.7337 34.3124869 $210.00
$7,200.00 $4,380.00 x
4541
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

22.8 Multi-
Trunk 30.25 21 C 58 B 78 80
Parking lot. Insect damage, large
canker on trunk, ants, twig
dieback, small mammal burrows
under roots. DBH discrepancy
due to inclusion of trunks that
were previously excluded for
being too small.
-118.73402 34.3124552 $210.00 $16,600.00 $10,020.00 x 4542
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

7.75 Single 20.5 22 C 52 C+ 55 60 Parking lot. Epicormic shoots, close to pavement on 2 sides -118.73415 34.3124914 $210.00 $1,450.00 $1,230.00 x
1141
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 7
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4543
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

9.25 Single 21.75 20 C 52 C+ 55 60
Parking lot. Branch dieback,
surrounded on 3 sides by
pavement, drought stressed,
thinning canopy
-118.7341 34.3124112 $210.00 $4,240.00 $1,660.00 x
4544
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

26.55 Multi-
Trunk 25.75 22 B 70 B+ 60 68
Parking lot. Crossed stems,
epicormic shoots, minor branch
dieback
-118.73436 34.3124367 $210.00
$30,800.00 $16,270.00 x
4545
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

31.9 Multi-
Trunk 33.5 22 B 67 B+ 61 61
Parking lot. Small mammal
burrows, fungal issues on trunk,
minor flagging, surrounded by
pavement on 3 sides
-118.73434 34.3124713 $210.00 $53,000.00 $22,400.00 x 4546* Olive (Olea
europea) 11
Multi-
Trunk 12 A A Insects. -118.734418 34.312463 $0.00 x 4547
Strawberry
tree
(Arbutus
unedo)
14 Multi-
Trunk 12 C D Insects, dieback. -118.734513 34.312465 No mitigation
required due
to small size

x
(not on
map)

4548
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

16.5 Single 32 48 B 77 A- 78 83
Parking lot. Claw marks,
thickened bark in patches,
adjacent to building
-118.73459 34.3125315 $360.00 $14,600.00 $12,050.00 x 4549
Strawberry
tree
(Arbutus
unedo)

19.25 Multi-
Trunk 18.75 14 B 66 B 61 58 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73476 34.3125408 $384.00 $2,910.00 $23,310.00 x 4550
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)
9 Single 20 C D Insects, drought stressed. -118.734975 34.312552 No mitigation
required due
to small size

x
(not on
map)

4554
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

17.05 Multi-
Trunk 18.8 12 A 96 A 80 81
Parking lot. Minor flagging, dead
branches inside canopy, some
wolf branches. DBH discrepancy
due to inclusion of trunks that
were previously excluded for
being too small.
-118.73433 34.3122569 $210.00 $12,800.00 $9,290.00 x 4555
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

28.1 Multi-
Trunk 30.5 20 B 67 A 60 65
Parking lot. Leaves slightly sparse,
mistletoe. DBH discrepancy due
to inclusion of trunks that were
previously excluded for being too
small.
-118.73431 34.3122771 $378.00 $22,500.00 $17,590.00 x 4556
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
43 Multi-
Trunk 35 18 A 96 A 80 80 Parking lot. Minimal dead
branches -118.73427 34.3123188 $210.00
$80,300.00 $57,970.00 x
1142
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 8
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4557
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

17.5 Multi-
Trunk 25 15 A 96 A 81 80
Parking lot. Some areas of sparse
leaves, roots exposed by
burrowing mammals
-118.73379 34.3123239 $210.00
$20,500.00 $9,780.00 x
4558
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

22.5 Multi-
Trunk 23.3 9 B 62 C 50 50
Parking lot. Old dead branches,
lots of new growth, asymmetric
form. DBH discrepancy due to
inclusion of trunks that were
previously excluded for being too
small.
-118.73397 34.3122604 $210.00 $6,500.00 $10,420.00 x 4559
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

11.3 Single 30.5 15 A 93 A 70 60
Parking lot. Leaning, minor insect
damage, branches touching
ground
-118.73415 34.3122415 $210.00 $6,600.00 $4,070.00 x
4560
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

21.7 Multi-
Trunk 25.5 15 A 97 A 81 81 Tree is in good health. -118.73415 34.3120871 $210.00 $20,000.00 $20,030.00 x 4562
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

15.75 Multi-
Trunk 23.8 18 B 63 A 55 55 Insect damage, dieback -118.73377 34.3120625 $210.00 $6,100.00 $6,990.00 x 4563
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

35.5 Multi-
Trunk 42.5 20 A 96 A 80 81 Minor flagging, dead branches in middle of canopy -118.73371 34.311981 $210.00
$45,500.00 $52,700.00

4564
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
27 Multi-
Trunk 22.8 20 B 75 A- 70 70 Parking lot. Insect damage, oozing on trunk -118.73371 34.3120903 $210.00
$30,400.00 $18,000.00 x
4565
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
8 Single 17 9 B 67 B 61 61 Parking lot. Epicormic growth at base -118.73365 34.3121241 $210.00
$2,610.00 $1,610.00 x
4566
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

11.5 Multi-
Trunk 16 10 B 77 A 80 75 Twig dieback -118.73344 34.3121451 $210.00 $8,000.00 $4,630.00 x 4567
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

29.8 Multi-
Trunk 30.8 20 A 97 A 81 85 Minor twig dieback -118.73347 34.3121377 $210.00 $39,000.00 $37,580.00

4568
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

9.5 Single 27.8 20 B 61 D 41 41
Minor twig dieback, leaf fungal
damage, form of branches
unbalanced
-118.73342 34.3120035 $360.00
$5,100.00 $4,450.00

1143
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 9
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4569
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)
10 Single 15 F F
Drought stress observed in 2018;
Health was D. Tree is dead -- died
of natural causes between 2022
and 2023 and was dead in 2024.
-118.73344 34.311875 $0 $0
x
(not on
map)

4570
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

18.5 Multi-
Trunk 22 15 A 93 A 70 70 Minor asymmetry -118.7334 34.3121452 $210.00 $14,500.00 $14,020.00

4571
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

23.5 Multi-
Trunk 26.5 9.5 B 76 C 80 50 Minor dead branches -118.73384 34.3133677 $210.00 $7,800.00 $18,420.00 x 4572
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

30.85 Multi-
Trunk 38.9 18 A 98 A 82 81
Parking lot. Sapsucker damage,
burrowing mammals. DBH
discrepancy due to inclusion of
trunks that were previously
excluded for being too small.
-118.73353 34.3140206 $210.00 $12,400.00 $30,560.00 x 4576
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

16.6 Multi-
Trunk 14 8 B 65 B- 64 61 Several branches dying back -118.73346 34.312207 $210.00 $7,900.00 $7,980.00 x 4577
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
27 Multi-
Trunk 32.8 11 A 96 A 80 80
Minimal dead branches within
inner canopy, some branches
touching ground. DBH
discrepancy due to inclusion of
trunks that were previously
excluded for being too small.

Previously recorded as tree ID
#4561
-118.73434 34.312063 $210.00 N/A $30,570.00 x
4578
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

23.2 Multi-
Trunk 26.5 20 A 97 A 81 81
Parking lot. Minimal dead
branches within canopy. Was
previously tree ID #4553
-118.73445 34.3123304 $210.00
$18,600.00 $17,200.00 x
4579
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
5 Single 14 10 D 24 C- 21 35
Parking lot. Newly identified tree
in 2024. Previous DBH fell below
threshold for protection. Very
sparse leaves, dead branches,
epicormic growth from base.
-118.73416 34.3122317 $210.00 N/A $410.00 x
4580
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

9.1 Single 24 24 B 77 B+ 81 78 Minor fungal leaf issues. -118.73341 34.3119454 $360.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 x 4597
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

41.45 Multi-
Trunk 28.4 10 D 15 F 4 25
Branch dieback, leaf dieback from
fungus, sparse canopy, resprout
from fire. Was previously
recorded as tree ID #4700.
-118.72263 34.3096852 $342.00 $14,700.00 $18,550.00 x
1144
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 10
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4598
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

29.7 Multi-
Trunk 35 12 C 46 C 41 21
Newly identified tree in 2024.

Tree previously fell outside
grading limits. Growing on
hillside, some bare branches,
drooping, dead branches inside
canopy/low density canopy.
-118.72012 34.3063328 $210.00 N/A $17,820.00 x
4599
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

44.7 Multi-
Trunk 38.3 16 B 62 C 50 30
Newly identified tree in 2024.

Tree previously fell outside
grading limits. Growing/drooping
on hillside toward road, some
branch die-off.
-118.7201 34.3062325 $210.00 N/A $53,960.00 x
4600
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

19.8 Single 27.2 18 B 64 C+ 45 61
Newly identified tree in 2024.

Tree previously fell outside
grading limits. Insect damage to
main trunk, scraggly branches
growing from trunk base, sparse
foliage due to fungal infection
under canopy, some branch
dieback
-118.72048 34.306242 $210.00 N/A $11,100.00 x
4625*
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)
12 Single 22 B B Minor leaf necrosis. -118.722805 34.307263 $2,420.00 x 4627*
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)
18 Multi-
Trunk 12 C C Putrid oozing sap, brown in color,
foliage thin. -118.722828 34.3072 $3,300.00 x
4628*
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)
19 Single 26 B B None. -118.722704 34.307026 $5,370.00 x 4629*
Fremont
cottonwood
(Populus
fremontii)
13 Single 16 B B None. -118.722647 34.306922 $2,760.00 x 4631
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)
34 Multi-
Trunk 27.7 35 C 35 D 22 25
Thickened bark at base, some
dead branches, very narrow
canopy, mistletoe present
-118.72109 34.3059846 $360.00
$48,300.00 $30,450.00 x
4632
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)
0 N/A N/A N/A F 0 N/A 0 0
Tree is dead. In 2018 DBH was 24
inches and Health was C. Tree
health declined and was dead in
2024
-118.72097 34.3060174 $0.00 $19,500.00 $0 x
4633
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

29.5 Multi-
Trunk 32 34 B 75 B 75 65 Thin canopy, drought stress,
shrubby understory -118.72102 34.3058913 $360.00
$26,500.00 $48,910.00 x
1145
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 11
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4634
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

28.7 Single 41.6 30 B 71 B 62 70
Fungal issues, crossing branches.

DBH discrepancy due to exclusion
of trunks that were now dead.
-118.72098 34.3058904 $210.00
$103,800.00 $25,580.00 x
4635
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

27.6 Multi-
Trunk 36 18 C 51 D+ 61 45
Minor oozing, insect damage,
thin canopy impacted by
crowding from # 4634, dying
branches
-118.72095 34.3057973 $210.00 $21,200.00 $17,070.00 x 4636
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
24 Multi-
Trunk 42 19 B 63 C 55 58
Wood rat scat on floor, insect
damage, minor fungal issues, thin
canopy, dying branches,
competing for light. DBH
discrepancy due to inclusion of
trunks that were previously
excluded for being too small.
-118.72087 34.3058274 $210.00 $36,600.00 $15,950.00 x 4637
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

12.75 Single 35.5 30 B 68 B 65 60
Slight lean, area used for parking,
exposed roots, soil compaction &
weathering
-118.72071 34.3057497 $210.00 $4,200.00 $5,010.00 x 4638
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

20.8 Single 50.25 25 B 73 B 70 65
Area under trees compacted
from parked cars, exposed roots,
soil weathering, adjacent to road
-118.72064 34.3057211 $210.00
$10,000.00 $13,910.00 x
4640
Valley oak
(Quercus
lobata)
44 Single 47.5 35 D 15 D 15 35
Burl, broken branches, 2 larger
limbs remain but others have
died and broken off, old fire
damage
-118.72035 34.3063696 $390.00 $29,500.00 $23,790.00 x 4641
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
19 Single 35.4 20 A 98 A 87 85 Minor branch dieback in inner canopy -118.72037 34.3063825 $210.00
$8,700.00 $15,560.00 x
4642
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

23.9 Multi-
Trunk 30.3 10 D 22 D 21 21
Fire damage, dead branches,
insect damage, sparse foliage
with fungus. DBH discrepancy
due to inclusion of trunks that
were previously excluded for
being too small.
-118.72255 34.3097067 $342.00 $5,400.00 $9,220.00 x 4643
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

34.3 Multi-
Trunk 31.5 11 D 28 D 40 23
Many dead branches, old fire
damage, sparse foliage with
fungus, insect damage
-118.72229 34.3097672 $342.00 $10,600.00 $23,620.00 x 4644
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

35.8 Multi-
Trunk 32.5 12 D 25 D 25 40
Large woodrat nest at base, old
fire damage, insect damage, dead
and broken branches, sparse
foliage with fungus
-118.72222 34.3110102 $342.00 $11,700.00 $22,980.00 x 4645
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

39.5 Multi-
Trunk 32.3 10 D 25 D 25 40
Old fire damage, dead branches,
sparse foliage with fungus. DBH
discrepancy due to exclusion of
trunks that were now dead.
-118.72229 34.3096437 $342.00 $1,310.00 $27,900.00 x 1146
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 12
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4646*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
54 Multi-
Trunk 41 B B Fire damage, broken & dead
branches, girdling, insects. -118.721872 34.309437 $39,400.00

x
4647*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
33 Single 30 C C Fire damage, insects, broken &
dead branches. -118.721344 34.30898 $9,500.00

x
4648*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
36 Multi-
Trunk 22 C C Fire damage, insects, broken &
dead branches. -118.721451 34.308883 $11,300.00

x
4649*
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)
25 Multi-
Trunk 25 C C Fire damage, insects, dead
branches. -118.721136 34.308638 $5,400.00

x
4657
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

32.6 Multi-
Trunk 43 38 B 62 C+ 50 60 Bore holes from insects, fungal issues on leaves -118.72097 34.3060718 $360.00
$26,500.00 $49,370.00 x
4664
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

24.75 Multi-
Trunk 24 20 C 57 B 70 75 A few dead branches, signs of
Anthracnose -118.72107 34.3061501 $360.00
$20,100.00 $26,330.00 x
4811
Tree of
heaven
(Ailanthus
altissima)
23 Single 12 C C None. -118.719301 34.308239 $0 $0 x 4819
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
5 Single 10 C B Bark splitting, galls present -118.719431 34.307676 $1,200.00

x
4850
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

5.6 Single 12.6 8.4 C 51 C- 41 61
Parking lot. Thin canopy, dying
branches, insect damage, sparse
& sickly foliage, potential fungal
infection. Tree was below
minimum DBH threshold for
protection in 2018.
-118.73375 34.3132632 $210.00 N/A $730.00 x
4851
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

10.2 Single 27.3 14 C 51 C 50 50
Parking lot. Yellowing leaves, thin
canopy, 3 sides surrounded by
concrete. Was previously tree ID
#4512
-118.73411 34.3132367 $210.00 $3,670.00 $1,940.00 x 4852
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

16.75 Single 40.25 42 A 96 A 80 80
Past pruning created minor
asymmetry to keep away from
building, minimal insect damage.

Was previously tree ID #4005
-118.7338 34.3143032 $360.00 $8,400.00 $20,390.00 x
4854
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

25.5 Single 46.5 26 C 53 C 62 58
Crossing branches, twig dieback
(particularly in the interior
canopy), area used to park under,
drought stress, old insect damage
-118.7207 34.3055285 $210.00 N/A $15,160.00 x
1147
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 13
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4855
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)
23 Single 50.25 32 B 76 B+ 70 80
Minor flagging, area used to park
under, adjacent to road, exposed
roots
-118.72061 34.3054998 $210.00 N/A $17,650.00 x
4856
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

21.1 Single 39 28 B 68 C+ 68 65
Minor staining on some upper
branches, area used to park
under, adjacent to road
-118.72062 34.3054089 $210.00 N/A $13,350.00 x
4857
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

19.5 Multi-
Trunk 24 35 B 66 C 60 58
Trunk fissure, crossing branches,
close competition with walnut,
adjacent to road
-118.72067 34.3027827 $210.00 N/A $11,100.00 x
4858
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

43.7 Multi-
Trunk 25 18 B
72 C 50 60
Large cable running through
trunk, many dead stems from
base, crossing branches, dying
limbs, insect damage
-118.72038 34.3025993 $342.00 N/A $97,500.00 x
4859
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

10.75 Multi-
Trunk 17 11 C 57 D 40 42
leaning, growing along the
ground, shaded by other walnut,
cut branches, adjacent to
distribution pool, near the road
-118.72037 34.3026161 $342.00 N/A $5,000.00 x
4860
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

22.75 Multi-
Trunk 34 16 C 49 D 38 42
Growing along ground, major
diseased limb, shaded by other
oak, on a slope, wood rat nest
-118.72023 34.3020506 $210.00 N/A $11,210.00 x
4861
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

31.95 Multi-
Trunk 42 18 B 76 B- 82 78 Dead branches on the interior, minor flagging, drought stress -118.72011 34.3024585 $210.00 N/A $33,870.00 x 4862
Black walnut
(Juglans
californica)

22.5 Multi-
Trunk 31 16 B 73 B 75 62
Small mammal burrows
underneath trunk, some interior
branch dieback, shrubs in the
understory, adjacent to road
-118.72027 34.3029081 $342.00 N/A $26,450.00 x
4863
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

54.1 Single 68.25 45 C 53 C 55 60
Loss of major limb, other dead
branches, crossing stems, cavity
in trunk, insect damage, some
fungal issues
-118.72023 34.3030721 $210.00 N/A $67,510.00 x
4864
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

23.75 Multi-
Trunk 19.25 18 C 53 C+ 62 58
Parking lot. Ants present, interior
branch dieback, canker at base of
trunk, insect damage. Was
previously tree ID #4528
-118.73462 34.3127314 $210.00 $17,000.00 $9,940.00 x 4865
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

16.5 Multi-
Trunk 19.25 13 C 53 B- 45 60
Parking lot. Some fissures and
spreading back on several stems,
crossing limbs. New tree
previously not recorded in
parking lot.
-118.7346 34.3128049 $210.00 N/A $4,910.00 x
1148
2024 Mature Tree Inventory for Lost Canyons Development Project Simi Valley, Ventura County, California
Chambers Group, Inc. Attachment 1 14
21091.01 (Rev. 12/18/25)
Tree ID Species
2024
DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%)
Form
(%) Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2018
Appraisal
Value
2024
Appraised
Value
To Be
Removed
To Be
Relocated
To be
Preserved
4866
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

12.3 Single 35 50 A 97 A 82 81
Ants present, shrubs at base of
trunk causing thickened bark on
one side. Was previously tree ID
#4552.
-118.73482 34.3126576 $360.00 $6,100.00 $11,280.00 x 4867
California
sycamore
(Platanus
racemosa)

16.5 Single 31.35 45 B 65 C 62 50
Parking lot. Growing adjacent to
building, leaning, near culvert,
epicormic shoots, thickened bark.

Was previously tree ID #4551.
-118.73493 34.3126502 $360.00 $8,700.00 $8,920.00 x
4868
Strawberry
tree
(Arbutus
unedo)

16.5 Multi-
Trunk 19.5 14 A 95 A- 78 65 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73467 34.3125408 $384.00 N/A $28,350.00 x 4869
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

20.5 Multi-
Trunk 30.75 18 B 67 B 60 70
Parking lot. Minor flagging, major
trunk lean, mistletoe. Was
previously tree ID #4540.
-118.73393 34.3124719 $210.00
$11,100.00 $9,370.00 x

4870
Coast live
oak
(Quercus
agrifolia)

4.5 Multi-
Trunk 16.75 14 B 61 B- 45 41
Parking lot. Crossed branches,
competing with other shrubs,
thin canopy
-118.7338 34.3124417 $210.00 N/A $610.00

Total Appraisal Value $1,226,900 $929,710 $1,198,990

*These trees were not evaluated in 2024 because they are located outside of the new Impact Area. This data is from the 2018 Inventory. 1149
Los t Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Tap
o
Ca
nyon Rd
Felix Ave
Tap
o Can
yon R
d
Pres idio Dr
San
Bernardino
Kern
Ventura
RiversideOrange
Imperial
Los Angeles
San Diego
Project Location
Figure 1
Lost Canyons
Project Location and Vicinity
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 5/22/2025 5:10 PM Author: pcarlos
0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
´
Project Location
1150
Lost Cany ons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Tap
o
Ca
nyo
n
Rd
Mid
dl
e
Ridg
e
Fir
e
Rd
Feli x Ave
Tap
o Can
yo
n
Rd
8 4
6 5
14 15
7 9
2 1
10 11
13 12
3 0 1,000 2,000500
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

OVERVIEW
Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results Within 2024
Project Limits
Olive
Strawberry tree
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Black walnut
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Fremont cottonwood
River red gum
Tree of heaven
Valley oak
Current Trees To Be Removed
Black walnut
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Fremont cottonwood
Valley oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
Black walnut
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Strawberry tree
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Valley oak
1151
Dry
Ca
nyon
Rd
Bennett Rd
4107
4105
4102 4103
4104
4106
4121
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 1 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Black walnut
California sycamore
River red gum
1152
Dry Ca
nyon
Rd
Dry Canyon Rd
4124
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 2 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Valley oak
1153
Dry Canyon Rd
Dry Canyon
Rd
Dry Cany
on Rd
348
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 3 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Valley oak
1154
4007
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 4 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Current Trees To Be Removed
Fremont cottonwood
1155
Lost Ca
ny
ons Dr
Lost Cany
ons
Dr
Los
tCan
yons Dr
Dry Canyon Rd
388
4852
4527
4523
4516
4510 4571
4851
4519
4511
4518
4517 4515
4525
4526
4513
4524
4514
4572
4865
4006
4850
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 5 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results Within 2024
Project Limits
Olive
Strawberry tree
Current Trees To Be Removed
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
California sycamore
Coast live oak
1156
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Ca nyons Dr
4091
4091
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 6 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Coast live oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
Coast live oak
1157
Los t Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons D
r
Lost Canyons Dr
Los
tCan
yons Dr
4563
4530 4536
4565
4537
4556
4564
4549
4560
4864
4570
4532
4531
4567
4544
4557
4543
4545
4577
4554
4866
4542
4529
4869
4566
4558
4580
4868
4870
4568
4539
4541
4559
4562
4548
4555
4538
4867
4578
4579
4576
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 7 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results Within 2024
Project Limits
Olive
Strawberry tree
Current Trees To Be Removed
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Strawberry tree
1158
4187
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 8 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Current Trees To Be Removed
Fremont cottonwood
1159
Los
t Can
yons
Dr
Lo
st Ca
nyons
Dr
4182
4645
4643
4642
4644
4597
4181
4182
357
4645
4643
4642
4646
4648
4644
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 9 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Black walnut
Current Trees To Be Removed
Black walnut
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Black walnut
1160
Lo
st Ca
nyons
Dr
Lost Canyons D
r
4627
4625
4628
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 10 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Fremont cottonwood
1161
Lost C
anyons D
r
4630
4629
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 11 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Fremont cottonwood
Valley oak
1162
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
322
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 12 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Coast live oak
1163
Ta
po Canyon
Rd
Tapo Canyon R
d
4819
4811
352
353
356
354
4649
4647
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 13 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Tree of heaven
Valley oak
1164
Tap
oCan
yon Rd
Tapo Ca
nyon
Rd
Lost
Cany ons Dr
4640
4599
4598
4637
369
367
4638
4641
4664
4600
4855
4631
4635
365
362
4633
321
4636
366
4632
4634
4657
55 54
4856
4854
4640
0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 14 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Impacts Areas as Defined in 2018
Area of Permanent Impact
Area of Temporary Impact
2018 Tree Survey Results To Be Preserved
Outside of 2024 Project Limits
Valley oak
Current Trees To Be Removed
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
California sycamore
Coast live oak
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Coast live oak
Valley oak
1165
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
Presidio
Dr
240
4863
4861
254
4862
238
4859
4857
4858
235
4860
237
249 0 90 18045
Feet
Name: 21091 Lost Canyons Restoration and Monitoring Services.Mxd Print Date: 12/18/2025 8:53 PM Author: pcarlos
´
Figure 2
Lost Canyons
Tree Survey 2018/2024 Comparison

Page 15 of 15 ends

Project Limits (2024)
Current Trees To Be Removed
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Valley oak
Currrent Trees To Be Relocated
Black walnut
Coast live oak
Current Trees To be Preserved Outside of
Project Limits
Coast live oak
1166

ATTACHMENT 2 – TREE APPRAISAL WORKSHEETS
1167
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 54
dbh @ : 10in Height: 20ft Area: 14.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 62%
Comments: dying branches in lower canopy, crowded and leaning from tree 55 Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: crowding and leaning caused by tree #55

Photo of Tree

1168
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 55
dbh @ : 6, 12, 14, 3.5, 4in Height: 20ft Area: 43.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 40%
Condition 61%
Comments: few dead branches near bottom, major crossing branches Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Crowding with tree #54

Photo of Tree

1169
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 235
dbh @ : 20.25, 10.75, 16.5, 20in Height: 25ft Area: 48ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 80%
Form: 65%
Condition 79%
Comments: active wood rat nest in center trunk, on a slope, scattered dead branches Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1170
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 237
dbh @ : 20.5, 33in Height: 31ft Area: 60.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 85%
Condition 78%
Comments: minor dead branches
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1171
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 238
dbh @ : 25.5in Height: 40ft Area: 50.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 45%
Form: 50%
Condition 51%
Comments: thin canopy, witch’s hair, next to road
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1172
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 240
dbh @ : 29, 9.25in Height: 39ft Area: 43.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 80%
Form: 58%
Condition 78%
Comments: interior branch dieback, woodpecker holes, epicormic shoots, ants, near wood rat nest Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1173
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 249
dbh @ : 18, 21 Height: 45ft Area: 49.75
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 80%
Form: 70%
Condition 79%
Comments: Wood rat nest, insect damage, healed old wounds, fissures on major limbs, barbed wire at base of trunk, near the road
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1174
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 254
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 38ft Area: 38.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 80%
Form: 65%
Condition 78%
Comments: adjacent to wood rat nest, canopy overhangs road, minor flagging, few dead branches Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1175
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 321
dbh @ : 39in Height: 35ft Area: 55ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 41%
Condition 55%
Comments: Minor flagging, galls, epicormic shoots, broken branches, minor fire damage, beehive in broken trunk, wolf branches, growing into barbed wire. DBH is less than measured in 2018.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Potential: wolf branches

Photo of Tree

1176
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 362
dbh @ : 13, 33.3in Height: 37ft Area: 66ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 57%
Form: 62%
Condition 66%
Comments: Several dead limbs, interior foliage thin, some bark splitting, drought stress. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that are now dead.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree
No image captured of tree.

1177
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 365
dbh @ : 12.2, 14, 6, 4.3in Height: 22ft Area: 29.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 40%
Condition 61%
Comments: Thin canopy, fungal issue on branches, other oak's canopy hanging causing the tree to lean Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Asymmetrical growth

Photo of Tree

1178
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 366
dbh @ : 30in Height: 30ft Area: 44.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 70%
Condition 76%
Comments: cankers/galls on trunk, bore holes, dead branches in inner canopy Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1179
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 367
dbh @ : 22in Height: 26ft Area: 36.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 52%
Comments: significant bore hole damage in trunk, sparse canopy, crowded by other oak (366) Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: Insect damage

Photo of Tree

1180
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 369
dbh @ : 29, 5in Height: 25ft Area: 33.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: minor signs of past insect and sunburn damage to trunk, canopy has dense vigorous growth Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1181
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 388
dbh @ : 13.6, 12.5, 14.2, 3.2in Height: 24ft Area: 30.6ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 85%
Form: 85%
Condition 80%
Comments: Minor branch dieback, minor flagging. Was previously tree ID #4101.

Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1182
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4006
dbh @ : 19.5in Height: 44ft Area: 36.1ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 78%
Form: 65%
Condition 76%
Comments: Insect damage on half of trunk, thickened bark, splitting branches. Other tag on tree not associated with the survey is #391.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1183
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Fremont cottonwood ID: 4007
dbh @ : 8.7, 8.4in Height: 21ft Area: 20.6ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 21%
Form: 31%
Condition 44%
Comments: 1/3 of canopy dead, insect damage, broken limbs, drought stress, twig dieback Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1184
4047 Lost Canyon 10/7/18
Gerhard Bombe, ASLA, Certified Arborist #WC1888A
Populus fremontii
70 11
80 70 80
76 50

5.5 23.75
1,200
1,200
2,400
62 121

94.99 94.99
62 2,400
50 70
1,810
76 1,813.29

71.24 6,816.88
6,816.88

23.75 71.24
1185
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4091
dbh @ : 8.5in Height: 12ft Area: 20ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 65%
Form: 63%
Condition 68%
Comments: minimal flagging
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1186
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4181
dbh @ : 5.5, 6.5, 6.5, 5, 4, 4, 6, 5, 4.5, 5, 4, 4, 4,

3.5in
Height: 12ft Area: 49ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 35%
Form: 10%
Condition 45%
Comments: Many large trunks died back, resprouted from base. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of dead trunks.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1187
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4182
dbh @ : 12.5, 4, 3.8, 13.75, 3, 3.5, 4, 4, 3.5, 3.5,

3.5, 4, 4, 5in
Height: 13ft Area: 37.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 35%
Form: 10%
Condition 45%
Comments: Fire damage, main trunks mainly dead, a lot of current trunks are resprouts. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential: dieback and regrowth form not ideal for transplant

Photo of Tree

1188
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Fremont cottonwood ID: 4187
dbh @ : 12.5, 9.25in Height: 35ft Area: 34.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 61%
Condition 52%
Comments: broken limbs, nutrient deficiencies, drought stress, ants, dense shrub understory Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1189
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4510
dbh @ : 10.7in Height: 15ft Area: 28ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 60%
Form: 60%
Condition 67%
Comments: A lot of shrubs in understory, minor branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1190
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4511
dbh @ : 7.5, 6.2, 6.7, 5.2, 5.5in Height: 16ft Area: 31.3ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 74%
Comments: Some spots on trunk, thin canopy inside (interior branch dieback). DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1191
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4513
dbh @ : 7.7, 6.2, 8.6in Height: 10.2ft Area: 25.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 93%
Comments: Gopher holes, adjacent to large Toyon – creating asymmetrical form. Drought-stressed Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1192
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: ID:
dbh @ : 10, 5.2in Height: 8.3ft Area: 18.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 55%
Form: 45%
Condition 64%
Comments: minor branch dieback, exposed roots, super compacted Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1193
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4515
dbh @ : 4.6, 8, 5.3in Height: 9.5ft Area: 19.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 74%
Comments: Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, oozing out of previous prune scar. A tag not associated to the inventory was labeled #385.

Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1194
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4516
dbh @ : 5, 3.8, 4.3, 4.5, 9, 5.5in Height: 16ft Area: 24.6ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 41%
Form: 45%
Condition 50%
Comments: Roots exposed, small mammal burrowing, yellowing leaves, sparse foliage in some areas, major crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1195
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4517
dbh @ : 13.3, 12.5in Height: 20ft Area: 29ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 50%
Form: 90%
Condition 59%
Comments: Ants, fissures, decaying regions, insect damage (boring), exposed roots, burrowing mammals, interior canopy thin. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1196
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4518
dbh @ : 8.5, 7, 14.5in Height: 15ft Area: 29.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 83%
Form: 80%
Condition 78%
Comments: bottom branches bigger than top. Exposed roots, gopher damage, moderate branch dieback, bottom branches bigger than top
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1197
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4519
dbh @ : 14.2in Height: 21ft Area: 33.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 50%
Form: 62%
Condition 66%
Comments: Minor insect damage on trunk, small mammal root exposure, surrounded by concrete, leaning Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1198
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4523
dbh @ : 12.5in Height: 18ft Area: 27.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 50%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Ants, tree leaning
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1199
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4524
dbh @ : 10.8, 4, 14.6in Height: 18ft Area: 30.1ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 75%
Form: 78%
Condition 87%
Comments: Exposed roots, burrowing, some crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential: originally assessed as non-transplantable by Chambers Group, but re-assessed by Senna Tree Company and they are confident it can be relocated. Tree has been changed to Transplantable now.

Photo of Tree

1200
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4525
dbh @ : 9.8, 6.8in Height: 14.5ft Area: 20.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 65%
Comments: Grassy understory, significant crossing branches Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1201
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4526
dbh @ : 13.8in Height: 9.5ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 75%
Form: 81%
Condition 95%
Comments: Mammal burrows near exposed roots, weedy understory Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1202
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4527
dbh @ : 8, 3, 4.5, 6.5in Height: 10ft Area: 23.2ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 80%
Form: 60%
Condition 88%
Comments: Exposed roots with burrowing mammals
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1203
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4529
dbh @ : 8.7in Height: 14ft Area: 21.45ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 65%
Form: 60%
Condition 66%
Comments: Small mammal burrows at base of trunk, minor flagging Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1204
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4530
dbh @ : 8, 8.5in Height: 16ft Area: 22.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 60%
Form: 78%
Condition 72%
Comments: Insect damage, ants, dense understory, adjacent to shrubs Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1205
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4531
dbh @ : 9.7, 5.25in Height: 17ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 76%
Form: 79%
Condition 77%
Comments: Burrowing mammals underneath
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1206
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4532
dbh @ : 8.7in Height: 15ft Area: 26.5
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 82%
Form: 80%
Condition 77%
Comments: Thin canopy, surrounded on 3 sides by pavement, adjacent to large coyote brush Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1207
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4536
dbh @ : 13.5in Height: 22ft Area: 28.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 78%
Form: 78%
Condition 74%
Comments: Minor flagging, branches touching ground, some interior branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1208
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4537
dbh @ : 8.2, 6in Height: 16ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 58%
Form: 75%
Condition 68%
Comments: Shrubs in understory, secondary trunk with offshoots Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1209
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4538
dbh @ : 3, 4.5, 5in Height: 14ft Area: 15.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 68%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Two competing stems at base, shrubs in understory, minor twig dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1210
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4539
dbh @ : 10.5, 4.5in Height: 19ft Area: 24.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 75%
Form: 60%
Condition 57%
Comments: Major sapsucker damage, boring insect damage, shrubs under canopy, thin canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1211
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4541
dbh @ : 13.5, 5.3, 4in Height: 21ft Area: 30.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 78%
Form: 80%
Condition 58%
Comments: Insect damage, large canker on trunk, ants, twig dieback, small mammal burrows under roots. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1212
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4542
dbh @ : 7.75in Height: 22ft Area: 20.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 52%
Comments:. Epicormic shoots, close to pavement on 2 sides Functional limitations: Parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1213
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4543
dbh @ : 9.25in Height: 20ft Area: 21.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 55
Form: 60
Condition 52%
Comments: Branch dieback, surrounded on 3 sides by pavement, drought stressed, thinning canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1214
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4544
dbh @ : 5.75, 6.8, 5.5, 8.5in Height: 22ft Area: 25.75ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 60%
Form: 68%
Condition 70%
Comments: Crossed stems, epicormic shoots, minor branch dieback Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1215
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4545
dbh @ : 6.1, 7.8, 9.5, 8.5in Height: 22ft Area: 33.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 61%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Small mammal burrows, fungal issues on trunk, minor flagging, surrounded by pavement on 3 sides Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1216
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4548
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 48ft Area: 32ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 78%
Form: 83%
Condition 77%
Comments: Claw marks, thickened bark in patches, adjacent to building Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1217
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Strawberry tree ID: 4549
dbh @ : 3.75, 3, 4.5, 4, 4in Height: 14ft Area: 18.75ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 61%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Parking lot. Adjacent to building
Functional limitations: Parking lot. Adjacent to building

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1218
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4554
dbh @ : 3.3, 6, 7.75in Height: 12ft Area: 18.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 81%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minor flagging, dead branches inside canopy, some wolf branches. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1219
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: coast live oak ID: 4555
dbh @ : 5.5, 5.3, 4.7, 3.7, 5.6, 3.3in Height: 20ft Area: 30.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 60%
Form: 65%
Condition 67%
Comments: Leaves slightly sparse, mistletoe. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1220
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4556
dbh @ : 8.5, 5.2, 7.6, 11, 6, 4.7in Height: 18ft Area: 35ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minimal dead branches
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1221
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4557
dbh @ : 14.5, 3in Height: 15ft Area: 25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments:. Some areas of sparse leaves, roots exposed by burrowing mammals Functional limitations: Parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1222
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4558
dbh @ : 9, 4.1, 4.8, 4.6in Height: 9ft Area: 23.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 62%
Comments: Old dead branches, lots of new growth, asymmetric form. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1223
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4559
dbh @ : 11.3in Height: 15ft Area: 30.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 60%
Condition 93%
Comments: Leaning, minor insect damage, branches touching ground Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1224
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4560
dbh @ : 10.3, 11.4in Height: 15ft Area: 25.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Tree is in good health.

Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1225
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4562
dbh @ : 6.75, 9in Height: 18ft Area: 23.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 55%
Form: 55%
Condition 63%
Comments: Insect damage, dieback
Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1226
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4563
dbh @ : 19.75, 11, 4.75in Height: 20ft Area: 42.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 81%
Condition 96%
Comments: minor flagging, dead branches in middle of canopy Functional limitations: from parking lot
Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1227
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4564
dbh @ : 13, 10, 4in Height: 20ft Area: 22.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 70%
Form: 70%
Condition 75%
Comments: Insect damage, oozing on trunk
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1228
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4565
dbh @ : 8in Height: 9ft Area: 17ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 61%
Form: 61%
Condition 67%
Comments: Epicormic growth at base
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1229
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4566
dbh @ : 5.2, 3.1, 3.2in Height: 10ft Area: 16ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 75%
Condition 77%
Comments: twig dieback
Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1230
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4567
dbh @ : 9, 6.5, 8, 6.3in Height: 20ft Area: 30.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 85%
Condition 97%
Comments: minor twig dieback
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1231
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4568
dbh @ : 9.5in Height: 20ft Area: 27.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 41%
Form: 41%
Condition 61%
Comments: some twig dieback, leaf fungal damage, form of branches unbalanced Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1232
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4570
dbh @ : 7.5, 3.5, 4.5, 3in Height: 15ft Area: 22ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 70%
Form: 70%
Condition 93%
Comments: minor asymmetry
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1233
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4571
dbh @ : 6.25, 11.25, 6in Height: 9.5ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 80%
Form: 50%
Condition 76%
Comments: Minor dead branches
Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1234
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4572
dbh @ : 14.75, 10.6, 5.5in Height: 18ft Area: 38.9ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 82%
Form: 81%
Condition 98%
Comments: Sapsucker damage, burrowing mammals. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1235
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4576
dbh @ : 4.2, 4.4, 4.9, 3.1in Height: 8ft Area: 14ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 64%
Form: 61%
Condition 65%
Comments: several branches dying back
Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1236
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4577
dbh @ : 7, 12, 8in Height: 11ft Area: 32.8ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Minimal dead branches within inner canopy, some branches touching ground. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small. Previously recorded as tree ID #4561.

Functional limitations: from parking lot

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1237
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4578
dbh @ : 11, 12.2in Height: 20ft Area: 26.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 81%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Minimal dead branches within canopy. Was previously tree ID #4553 Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1238
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4579
dbh @ : 5in Height:10ft Area: 14ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: C-
Structure: 21%
Form: 35%
Condition 24%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Previous DBH fell below threshold for protection. Very sparse leaves, dead branches, epicormic growth from base.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1239
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4580
dbh @ : 9.1in Height: 24ft Area: 24ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 81%
Form: 78%
Condition 77%
Comments: Minor fungal leaf issues. Was previously tree ID #4570 Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1240
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660 Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4597
dbh @ : 5.75, 3.2, 3.5, 4, 5.1, 3.1, 3.3, 4, 3.2, 3.1,

3.2in
Height: 10ft Area: 28.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: F
Structure: 4%
Form: 25%
Condition 15%
Comments: Branch dieback, leaf dieback from fungus, sparse canopy, resprout from fire. Previously recorded as Tree ID #4700.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo o
f Tree
1241
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4598
dbh @ : 11.8, 4.4, 9.5, 4in Height: 12ft Area: 35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 41%
Form: 21%
Condition 46%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Growing on hillside, some bare branches, drooping, dead branches inside canopy/low density canopy.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1242
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4599
dbh @ : 11.7, 9, 10, 7, 7in Height: 16ft Area: 38.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 30%
Condition 62%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Growing/drooping on hillside toward road, some branch die-off.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1243
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4600
dbh @ : 19.8in Height:18ft Area: 27.2ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 45%
Form: 61%
Condition 64%
Comments: Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree previously fell outside grading limits. Insect damage to main trunk, scraggly branches growing from trunk base, sparse foliage due to fungal infection under canopy, some branch dieback
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1244
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4631
dbh @ : 6, 12.75, 10.75, 4.5in Height: 35ft Area: 27.7ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 22%
Form: 25%
Condition 35%
Comments: thickened bark at base, some dead branches, very narrow canopy, mistletoe present Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1245
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4632
dbh @ : N/A Height: N/A Area: N/A
Age/stage of development: Dead Core collected: No
Health: F
Aesthetics: F
Structure: 0
Form: 0
Condition 0%
Comments: Tree is dead. In 2018 DBH was 24 inches and Health was C. Tree health declined and was dead in 2024
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1246
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4633
dbh @ : 9.8, 10.7, 9in Height: 34ft Area: 32ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 65%
Condition 75%
Comments: thin canopy, drought stress, shrubby understory Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1247
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4634
dbh @ : 28.7in Height: 30ft Area: 41.6ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 62%
Form: 70%
Condition 71%
Comments: Fungal issues, crossing branches. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1248
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4635
dbh @ : 14, 13.6in Height: 18ft Area: Area: 36ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D+
Structure: 61%
Form: 45%
Condition 51%
Comments: Minor oozing, insect damage, thin canopy impacted by crowding from # 4634, dying branches Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1249
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4636
dbh @ : 20, 4in Height: 19ft Area: 42ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 58%
Condition 63%
Comments: Wood rat scat on floor, insect damage, minor fungal issues, thin canopy, dying branches, competing for light. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1250
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4637
dbh @ : 12.75in Height: 30ft Area: 35.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 65%
Form: 60%
Condition 68%
Comments: Slight lean, area used for parking, exposed roots, soil compaction & weathering Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1251
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4638
dbh @ : 20.8in Height: 25ft Area: 50.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 65%
Condition 73%
Comments: Area under trees compacted from parked cars, exposed roots, soil weathering, adjacent to road Functional limitations: Area under trees compacted from parked cars, exposed roots, soil weathering, adjacent to road

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1252
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Valley oak ID: 4640
dbh @ : 44in Height: 35ft Area: 47.5ft
Age/stage of development: Over-mature Core collected: No Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 15%
Form: 35%
Condition 15%
Comments: Burl, broken branches, 2 larger limbs remain but others have died and broken off, old fire damage Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1253
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4641
dbh @ : 19in Height: 20ft Area: 35.4ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 87%
Form: 85%
Condition 98%
Comments: Minor branch dieback in inner canopy
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1254
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4642
dbh @ : 6, 3.3, 3.7, 3.4, 4, 3.5in Height: 10ft Area: 30.3ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 21%
Form: 21%
Condition 22%
Comments: Fire damage, dead branches, insect damage, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy due to inclusion of trunks that were previously excluded for being too small.

Functional limitations: damage at base, bad form

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1255
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4643
dbh @ : 5, 3.6, 3.6, 4, 3, 4.6, 4, 3, 3.5in Height: 11ft Area: 31.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 40%
Form: 23%
Condition 28%
Comments: Many dead branches, old fire damage, sparse foliage with fungus, insect damage Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1256
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4644
dbh @ : 4.2, 5, 3.3, 3, 3.6, 4.4, 4.5, 4, 3.8in Height: 12ft Area: 32.5ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 25%
Form: 40%
Condition 25%
Comments: Large woodrat nest at base, old fire damage, insect damage, dead and broken branches, sparse foliage with fungus
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1257
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4645
dbh @ : 4.8, 3.7, 3.5, 3.5, 3.8, 3.3, 3, 4.2, 3.1, 3.3,

3.3in
Height: 10ft Area: 32.3ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: D
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 25%
Form: 40%
Condition 25%
Comments: Old fire damage, dead branches, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks that were now dead.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1258
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4657
dbh @ : 13.8, 7.2, 11.6in Height: 38ft Area: 43ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 50%
Form: 60%
Condition 62%
Comments: Bore holes from insects, fungal issues on leaves, long horizontal branches Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1259
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4664
dbh @ : 5.25, 6, 4.5, 3.5, 5.5in Height: 20ft Area: 24ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 70%
Form: 75%
Condition 57%
Comments: A few dead branches, signs of Anthracnose
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1260
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4850
dbh @ : 5.6in Height: 8.4ft Area: 12.6ft
Age/stage of development: Semi-mature Core collected: No Health: C
Aesthetic: C-
Structure: 41%
Form: 61%
Condition 51%
Comments: Thin canopy, dying branches, insect damage, sparse & sickly foliage, potential fungal infection. Tree was below minimum DBH threshold for protection in 2018.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1261
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4851
dbh @ :10.2 Height: 14 Area: 27.3
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 50%
Condition 51
Comments: Parking lot. Yellowing leaves, thin canopy, 3 sides surrounded by concrete. Was previously tree ID #4512
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1262
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4852
dbh @ : 16.75in Height: 42ft Area: 40.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 80%
Form: 80%
Condition 96%
Comments: Past pruning created minor asymmetry to keep away from building, minimal insect damage. Was previously tree ID #4005
Functional limitations: Parking lot and beside building.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1263
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4854
dbh @ : 25.5in Height: 26ft Area: 46.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 62%
Form: 58%
Condition 53%
Comments: Crossing branches, twig dieback (particularly in the interior canopy), area used to park under, drought stress, old insect damage
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1264
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4855
dbh @ : 23in Height: 32ft Area: 50.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B+
Structure: 70%
Form: 80%
Condition 76%
Comments: minor flagging, area used to park under, adjacent to road, exposed roots Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1265
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4856
dbh @ : 21.1in Height: 28ft Area: 39ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 68%
Form: 65%
Condition 68%
Comments: Minor staining on some upper branches, area used to park under, adjacent to road Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1266
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4857
dbh @ : 15.5, 4in Height: 35ft Area: 24ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 60%
Form: 58%
Condition 66%
Comments: Trunk fissure, crossing branches, close competition with walnut, adjacent to road Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1267
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4858
dbh @ : 8.5, 4.2, 9.5, 8, 3, 3, 3.5, 4in Height: 18ft Area: 25ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 50%
Form: 60%
Condition 72%
Comments: Large cable running through trunk, many dead stems from base, crossing branches, dying limbs, insect damage
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1268
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4859
dbh @ : 6, 4.75in Height: 11ft Area: 17ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 40%
Form: 42%
Condition 57%
Comments: leaning, growing along the ground, shaded by other walnut, cut branches, adjacent to distribution pool, near the road
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1269
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4860
dbh @ : 13, 9.75in Height: 16ft Area: 34ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: D
Structure: 38%
Form: 42%
Condition 49%
Comments: Growing along ground, major diseased limb, shaded by other oak, on a slope, wood rat nest Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1270
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4861
dbh @ : 9.5, 12.2, 10.25in Height: 18ft Area: 42ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 82%
Form: 78%
Condition 76%
Comments: Dead branches on the interior, minor flagging, drought stress Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1271
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Black walnut ID: 4862
dbh @ : 3, 3, 4.5, 3.5, 4, 4.5in Height: 16ft Area: 31ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 75%
Form: 62%
Condition 73%
Comments: Small mammal burrows underneath trunk, some interior branch dieback, shrubs in the understory, adjacent to road
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1272
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4863
dbh @ : 54.1in Height: 45ft Area: 68.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 55%
Form: 60%
Condition 53%
Comments: Loss of major limb, other dead branches, crossing stems, cavity in trunk, insect damage, some fungal issues
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1273
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4864
dbh @ : 9, 8.25, 6.5in Height: 18ft Area: 19.25ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: C+
Structure: 62%
Form: 58%
Condition 53%
Comments: Ants present, interior branch dieback, canker at base of trunk, insect damage. Was previously tree ID #4528
Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1274
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4865
dbh @ : 4.5, 4.5, 4, 3.5, 2in Height: 13ft Area: 19.25ft Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: C
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 45%
Form: 60%
Condition 53%
Comments: Some fissures and spreading back on several stems, crossing limbs. New tree previously not recorded in parking lot.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1275
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4866
dbh @ : 12.3in Height: 50ft Area: 35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A
Structure: 82%
Form: 81%
Condition 97%
Comments: Ants present, shrubs at base of trunk causing thickened bark on one side. Was previously tree ID #4552
Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1276
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: California sycamore ID: 4867
dbh @ : 16.5in Height: 45ft Area: 31.35ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: C
Structure: 62%
Form: 50%
Condition 65%
Comments: Growing adjacent to building, leaning, near culvert, epicormic shoots, thickened bark. Was previously tree ID #4551.

Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: No
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1277
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Strawberry tree ID: 4868
dbh @ : 3, 4, 3, 3, 3.5in Height: 14ft Area: 19.5ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: A
Aesthetic: A-
Structure: 78%
Form: 65%
Condition 95%
Comments: Adjacent to building
Functional limitations: Parking lot and adjacent to building

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1278
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4869
dbh @ : 11, 9.5in Height: 18ft Area: 30.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B
Structure: 60%
Form: 70%
Condition 67%
Comments: Parking lot. Minor flagging, major trunk lean, mistletoe. Was previously tree ID #4540.

Functional limitations:

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1279
Appraisal Field Data Sheet

Page 1 ends

Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers (CTLA). 2019. Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition. International Society of Arboriculture, Atlanta, GA.

Current as of October 2020.

Client Name: Newport Pacific
Land
Date: September 4, 2024 Case #: 21091.01-002
Phone: 949-945-2290 E-mail: [email protected]
Address: 100 Bayview Circle, Suite 240, Newport Beach, CA 92660

Tree Information
Species: Coast live oak ID: 4870
dbh @ : 4.5in Height: 14ft Area: 16.75ft
Age/stage of development: Mature Core collected: No
Health: B
Aesthetic: B-
Structure: 45%
Form: 41%
Condition 61%
Comments: Crossed branches, competing with other shrubs, thin canopy Functional limitations: Parking lot.

Transplantable?: Yes
Notes on Transplant Potential:

Photo of Tree

1280

ATTACHMENT 3 – SUMMARY TABLE OF TREES BY STATUS
1281
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
54 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10 Single 78.50 $55.27 $4,338.84 14.4 20 B 62 C 50 50 $2,690.08 $2,690.08 Dying branches in lower canopy, crowded and leaning from tree 55 -118.7204 34.304909 $210.00 $2,900.00 N/A x N 55 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 39.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,224.80 $55.27 $67,696.80 43.3 20 B 61 C 41 40 $41,295.05 $41,295.05 Few dead branches near bottom, major crossing branches -118.72057 34.3049592 $210.00 $41,510.00 N/A x N 235 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 67.5 Multi-
Trunk 3,576.66 $55.27 $197,688.53 48 25 B 79 A- 80 65 $156,173.94 $156,173.94 Active wood rat nest in center trunk, on a slope, scattered dead branches, -118.72014 34.3021978 $210.00 $156,380.00 N/A x N 237 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 53.5 Multi-
Trunk 2,246.87 $55.27 $124,188.53 60.75 31 B 78 A 70 85 $96,867.06 $96,867.06 Minor dead branches -118.72013 34.302589 $210.00 $97,080.00 N/A x N 238 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 25.5 Single 510.45 $102.65 $52,396.18 50.5 40 C 51 C 45 50 $26,722.05 $26,722.05 Thin canopy, witch’s hair, next to road -118.72029 34.3026737 $390.00 $27,110.00 N/A x N 240 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 38.25 Multi-
Trunk 1,148.50 $55.27 $63,479.98 43.5 39 B 78 B+ 80 58 $49,514.39 $49,514.39 Interior branch dieback, woodpecker
holes, epicormic shoots, ants, near wood
t t
-118.72022 34.3032056 $210.00 $49,720.00 N/A x N
249 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 39 Multi-
Trunk 1,193.99 $55.27 $65,993.80 49.75 45 B 79 B+ 80 70 $52,135.10 $52,135.10 Wood rat nest, insect damage, healed
old wounds, fissures on major limbs,
b b d i t b f t k th
-118.72017 34.3020056 $210.00 $52,350.00 N/A x N
254 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Single 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 38.35 38 B 78 B 80 65 $9,213.75 $9,213.75 Adjacent to wood rat nest, canopy
overhangs road, minor flagging, few
d d b h
-118.72034 34.3024867 $210.00 $9,420.00 N/A x Y
321 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 39 Single 1,193.99 $102.65 $122,559.92 55 35 C 55 C 50 41 $67,407.95 $67,407.95 Minor flagging, galls, epicormic shoots,
broken branches, minor fire damage,
b hi i b k t k lf b h
-118.72027 34.3064584 $390.00 $67,800.00 $42,200.00 x N 362 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 46.3 Multi-
Trunk 1,682.80 $55.27 $93,011.34 66 37 B 66 B- 57 62 $61,387.49 $61,387.49 Several dead limbs, interior foliage thin,
some bark splitting, drought stress. DBH
di d t l i f t k
-118.72084 34.3057254 $210.00 $61,600.00 $174,900.00 x N 365 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 36.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,045.82 $55.27 $57,804.24 29.5 22 B 61 C 41 40 $35,260.58 $35,260.58 Thin canopy, fungal issue on branches,
other oak's canopy hanging causing the
t t l
-118.72076 34.3061186 $210.00 $35,470.00 $28,400.00 x N 366 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30 Single 706.50 $55.27 $39,049.59 44.9 30 B 76 B 75 70 $29,677.69 $29,677.69 Cankers/galls on trunk, bore holes, dead branches in inner canopy -118.72071 34.3060584 $210.00 $29,890.00 $30,800.00 x N 367 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22 Single 379.94 $55.27 $21,000.00 36.3 26 C 52 C 55 60 $10,920.00 $10,920.00 Significant bore hole damage in trunk,
sparse canopy, crowded by other oak
(366)
-118.72067 34.3061172 $210.00 $11,130.00 $12,500.00 x Y 369 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 34 Multi-
Trunk 907.46 $55.27 $50,157.02 33.3 25 A 96 A 80 80 $48,150.74 $48,150.74 Minor signs of past insect and sunburn
damage to trunk, canopy has dense
i th
-118.7205 34.3062609 $210.00 $48,360.00 $60,800.00 x Y
388 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 43.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,485.42 $55.27 $82,101.76 30.6 24 B 80 A 85 85 $65,681.40 $49,261.05 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, minor flagging. Was previously tree ID #4101. -118.73408 34.3135413 $210.00 $49,470.00 $61,300.00 x Y 4006 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 19.5 Single 298.50 $94.75 $28,283.06 36.1 44 B 76 B+ 78 65 $21,495.12 $21,495.12 Insect damage on half of trunk,
thickened bark, splitting branches. Other
t t t i t d ith th
-118.73373 34.3142771 $360.00 $21,860.00 $10,000.00 x N 4007 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii) 17.1 Multi-
Trunk 229.54 $77.04 $17,684.92 20.6 21 C 44 D 21 31 $7,781.36 $7,781.36 1/3 of canopy dead, insect damage,
broken limbs, drought stress, twig
di b k
-118.73497 34.3161618 $366.00 $8,150.00 $2,540.00 x N
4047 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii ) 11 Multi-
Trunk 10 B C Cut, burned branches. -118.73283 34.312261 $366.00 $1,810.00 $1,810.00 x 4091 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.5 Single 56.72 $55.27 $3,134.81 20 12 B 68 B 65 63 $2,131.67 $2,131.67 Minimal flagging -118.73713 34.3115602 $210.00 $2,340.00 $3,140.00 x Y 4181 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 67.5 Multi-
Trunk 3,576.66 $90.01 $321,949.90 49 12 C 45 D 35 10 $144,877.45 $144,877.45 Many large trunks died back, resprouted
from base. DBH discrepancy due to
l i f d d t k
-118.72263 34.3099205 $342.00 $145,220.00 $50,200.00 x N 4182 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 72.05 Multi-
Trunk 4,075.09 $90.01 $366,816.38 37.8 13 C 45 D 35 10 $165,067.37 $165,067.37 Fire damage, main trunks mainly dead, a
lot of current trunks are resprouts. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.72247 34.3097304 $342.00 $165,410.00 $36,000.00 x N 4187 Fremont cottonwood
(Populus fremontii) 21.75 Multi-
Trunk 371.35 $77.04 $28,610.76 34.35 35 C 52 C 55 61 $14,877.60 $14,877.60 Broken limbs, nutrient deficiencies,
drought stress, ants, dense shrub
dt
-118.72905 34.3135246 $366.00 $15,240.00 $5,400.00 x N
4510 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10.7 Single 89.87 $55.27 $4,967.54 28 15 B 67 B 60 60 $3,328.25 $2,496.19 Parking lot. A lot of shrubs in understory, minor branch dieback -118.73427 34.3133929 $210.00 $2,710.00 $5,700.00 x Y 4511 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.1 Multi-
Trunk 759.26 $55.27 $41,965.72 31.3 16 B 74 B 70 60 $31,054.64 $23,290.98 Parking lot. Some spots on trunk, thin
canopy inside (interior branch dieback).

DBH di d t i l i f
-118.73406 34.3132672 $210.00 $23,500.00 $30,800.00 x Y 4513 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $55.27 $21,965.39 25.9 10.2 A 93 B 70 60 $20,427.82 $15,320.86 Parking lot. Gopher holes, adjacent to
large Toyon - creating asymmetrical
f D ht t d
-118.73385 34.3133484 $210.00 $15,530.00 $23,100.00 x Y 4514 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15.2 Multi-
Trunk 181.37 $55.27 $10,024.46 18.9 8.3 B 64 B- 55 45 $6,415.66 $4,170.18 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback, exposed roots, super compacted -118.73368 34.3131943 $210.00 $4,380.00 $9,700.00 x Y 4515 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.9 Multi-
Trunk 251.52 $55.27 $13,902.09 19.3 9.5 B 74 B 70 60 $10,287.54 $7,715.66 Parking lot. Minor branch dieback,
oozing out of previous prune scar. A tag
t i t d t th i t
-118.73362 34.3130953 $210.00 $7,930.00 $12,600.00 x Y
4516 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 32.1 Multi-
Trunk 808.87 $55.27 $44,707.87 24.6 16 C 50 B- 41 45 $22,353.94 $16,765.45 Parking lot. Roots exposed, small
mammal burrowing, yellowing leaves,
f li i j
-118.73372 34.3131399 $210.00 $16,980.00 $28,000.00 x Y 4517 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 25.8 Multi-
Trunk 522.53 $55.27 $28,881.07 29 20 C 59 B+ 50 90 $17,039.83 $12,779.88 Parking lot. Ants, fissures, decaying
regions, insect damage (boring), exposed
t b i l it i
-118.73411 34.3131256 $210.00 $12,990.00 $64,400.00 x Y 4518 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30 Multi-
Trunk 706.50 $55.27 $39,049.59 29.5 15 B 78 B+ 83 80 $30,458.68 $22,844.01 Parking lot. Exposed roots, gopher
damage, moderate branch dieback,
b tt b h bi th t
-118.73419 34.3130857 $210.00 $23,050.00 $26,100.00 x Y 4519 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.2 Single 158.29 $55.27 $8,748.84 33.8 21 B 66 B 50 62 $5,774.24 $4,330.68 Parking lot. Minor of insect damage on
trunk, small mammal root exposure,
d d b t l i
-118.73406 34.3130743 $210.00 $4,540.00 $9,600.00 x Y
4523 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.5 Single 122.66 $55.27 $6,779.44 27.3 18 B 66 B 50 58 $4,474.43 $3,355.82 Parking lot. Ants, tree leaning -118.7341 34.3129518 $210.00 $3,570.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4524 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.4 Multi-
Trunk 678.52 $55.27 $37,503.22 30.1 18 A 87 C+ 75 78 $32,627.80 $24,470.85 Parking lot. Exposed roots, burrowing,
some crossing branches. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.73396 34.3129293 $210.00 $24,680.00 $17,900.00 x Y 4525 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.6 Multi-
Trunk 216.31 $55.27 $11,956.12 20.9 14.5 B 65 B+ 50 50 $7,771.48 $5,828.61 Parking lot. Grassy understory, significant crossing branches -118.73391 34.3128803 $210.00 $6,040.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4526 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 13.8 Single 149.50 $55.27 $8,262.89 26.5 9.5 A 95 A 75 81 $7,849.75 $5,887.31 Parking lot. Mammal burrows near exposed roots, weedy understory -118.73371 34.3129447 $210.00 $6,100.00 $11,100.00 x Y 4527 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22 Multi-
Trunk 379.94 $55.27 $21,000.00 23.2 10 A 88 C+ 80 60 $18,480.00 $13,860.00 Parking lot. Exposed roots with burrowing mammals -118.73359 34.3129537 $210.00 $14,070.00 $13,800.00 x Y 4529 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.7 Multi-
Trunk 59.42 $55.27 $3,284.07 21.45 14 B 66 B- 65 60 $2,167.49 $1,625.61 Parking lot. Small mammal burrows at base of trunk, minor flagging -118.73457 34.3127195 $210.00 $1,840.00 $4,240.00 x Y 4530 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 22.75 16 B 72 B+ 60 78 $8,505.00 $6,378.75 Parking lot. Insect damage, ants, dense understory, adjacent to shrubs -118.73426 34.3126755 $210.00 $6,590.00 $9,600.00 x Y 4531 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.95 Multi-
Trunk 175.45 $55.27 $9,697.42 22 17 B 77 A- 76 79 $7,467.02 $5,600.26 Parking lot. Burrowing mammals underneath -118.73416 34.3126565 $210.00 $5,810.00 $11,100.00 x Y 4532 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8.7 Single 59.42 $55.27 $3,284.07 26.5 15 B 77 B+ 82 80 $2,528.73 $1,896.55 Parking lot. Thin canopy, surrounded on
3 sides by pavement, adjacent to large
t b h
-118.73413 34.3125936 $210.00 $2,110.00 $2,200.00 x Y
4536 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 13.5 Single 143.07 $55.27 $7,907.54 28.5 22 B 74 B 78 78 $5,851.58 $4,388.69 Parking lot. Minor flagging, branches
touching ground, some interior branch
di b k
-118.73375 34.3126849 $210.00 $4,600.00 $8,200.00 x Y
4537 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 14.2 Multi-
Trunk 158.29 $55.27 $8,748.84 22 16 B 68 B+ 58 75 $5,949.21 $4,461.91 Parking lot. Shrubs in understory, secondary trunk with offshoots -118.73364 34.312521 $210.00 $4,670.00 $4,260.00 x Y 4538 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.5 Multi-
Trunk 122.66 $55.27 $6,779.44 15.75 14 B 67 B- 68 61 $4,542.23 $3,406.67 Parking lot. Two competing stems at
base, shrubs in understory, minor twig
di b k
-118.73361 34.3124477 $210.00 $3,620.00 $5,900.00 x N
4539 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15 Multi-
Trunk 176.63 $55.27 $9,762.40 24.25 19 C 57 C+ 75 60 $5,564.57 $4,173.42 Parking lot. Major sapsucker damage,
boring insect damage, shrubs under
thi
-118.7337 34.3124869 $210.00 $4,380.00 $7,200.00 x N
4541 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.8 Multi-
Trunk 408.07 $55.27 $22,555.04 30.25 21 C 58 B 78 80 $13,081.92 $9,811.44 Parking lot. Insect damage, large canker
on trunk, ants, twig dieback, small
l b d t DBH
-118.73402 34.3124552 $210.00 $10,020.00 $16,600.00 x N 4542 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 7.75 Single 47.15 $55.27 $2,606.02 20.5 22 C 52 C+ 55 60 $1,355.13 $1,016.35 Parking lot. Epicormic shoots, close to pavement on 2 sides -118.73415 34.3124914 $210.00 $1,230.00 $1,450.00 x Y Not Calculated in 2018.
1282
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
4543 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 9.25 Single 67.17 $55.27 $3,712.42 21.75 20 C 52 C+ 55 60 $1,930.46 $1,447.84 Parking lot. Branch dieback, surrounded
on 3 sides by pavement, drought
t d thi i
-118.7341 34.3124112 $210.00 $1,660.00 $4,240.00 x Y
4544 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 26.55 Multi-
Trunk 553.35 $55.27 $30,584.61 25.75 22 B 70 B+ 60 68 $21,409.23 $16,056.92 Parking lot. Crossed stems, epicormic shoots, minor branch dieback -118.73436 34.3124367 $210.00 $16,270.00 $30,800.00 x Y 4545 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.9 Multi-
Trunk 798.82 $55.27 $44,152.50 33.5 22 B 67 B+ 61 61 $29,582.18 $22,186.63 Parking lot. Small mammal burrows,
fungal issues on trunk, minor flagging,
d d b t 3 id
-118.73434 34.3124713 $210.00 $22,400.00 $53,000.00 x Y 4548 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.5 Single 213.72 $94.75 $20,250.00 32 48 B 77 A- 78 83 $15,592.50 $11,694.38 Parking lot. Claw marks, thickened bark in patches, adjacent to building -118.73459 34.3125315 $360.00 $12,050.00 $14,600.00 x N 4549 Strawberry tree
(Arbutus unedo) 19.25 Multi-
Trunk 290.89 $183.69 $53,432.51 18.75 14 B 66 B 61 58 $35,265.46 $22,922.55 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73476 34.3125408 $384.00 $23,310.00 $2,910.00 x Y 4554 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.05 Multi-
Trunk 228.20 $55.27 $12,613.13 18.8 12 A 96 A 80 81 $12,108.60 $9,081.45 Parking lot. Minor flagging, dead
branches inside canopy, some wolf
b h DBH di d t
-118.73433 34.3122569 $210.00 $9,290.00 $12,800.00 x Y
4555 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 28.1 Multi-
Trunk 619.84 $55.27 $34,259.94 30.5 20 B 67 A 60 65 $22,954.16 $17,215.62 Parking lot. Previously misidentified as
coast live oak. Leaves slightly sparse,
i tl t DBH di d t
-118.73431 34.3122771 $378.00 $17,590.00 $22,500.00 x N 4556 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 43 Multi-
Trunk 1,451.47 $55.27 $80,225.21 35 18 A 96 A 80 80 $77,016.20 $57,762.15 Parking lot. Minimal dead branches -118.73427 34.3123188 $210.00 $57,970.00 $80,300.00 x Y 4557 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 17.5 Multi-
Trunk 240.41 $55.27 $13,287.71 25 15 A 96 A 81 80 $12,756.20 $9,567.15 Parking lot. Some areas of sparse leaves, roots exposed by burrowing mammals -118.73379 34.3123239 $210.00 $9,780.00 $20,500.00 x Y 4558 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $55.27 $21,965.39 23.3 9 B 62 C 50 50 $13,618.54 $10,213.91 Parking lot. Old dead branches, lots of
new growth, asymmetric form. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.73397 34.3122604 $210.00 $10,420.00 $6,500.00 x Y
4559 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 11.3 Single 100.24 $55.27 $5,540.27 30.5 15 A 93 A 70 60 $5,152.45 $3,864.34 Parking lot. Leaning, minor insect damage, branches touching ground -118.73415 34.3122415 $210.00 $4,070.00 $6,600.00 x N 4560 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 21.7 Multi-
Trunk 369.65 $55.27 $20,431.18 25.5 15 A 97 A 81 81 $19,818.24 $19,818.24 Tree is in good health. -118.73415 34.3120871 $210.00 $20,030.00 $20,000.00 x Y 4562 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 15.75 Multi-
Trunk 194.73 $55.27 $10,763.04 23.8 18 B 63 A 55 55 $6,780.72 $6,780.72 Insect damage, dieback -118.73377 34.3120625 $210.00 $6,990.00 $6,100.00 x N 4563 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 35.5 Multi-
Trunk 989.30 $55.27 $54,680.27 42.5 20 A 96 A 80 81 $52,493.06 $52,493.06 Minor flagging, dead branches in middle o -118.73371 34.311981 $210.00 $52,700.00 $45,500.00 x Y 4564 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27 Multi-
Trunk 572.27 $55.27 $31,630.17 22.8 20 B 75 A- 70 70 $23,722.62 $17,791.97 Parking lot. Insect damage, oozing on trunk -118.73371 34.3120903 $210.00 $18,000.00 $30,400.00 x Y 4565 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 8 Single 50.24 $55.27 $2,776.86 17 9 B 67 B 61 61 $1,860.50 $1,395.37 Parking lot. Epicormic growth at base -118.73365 34.3121241 $210.00 $1,610.00 $2,610.00 x Y 4566 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 11.5 Multi-
Trunk 103.82 $55.27 $5,738.12 16 10 B 77 A 80 75 $4,418.35 $4,418.35 Twig dieback -118.73344 34.3121451 $210.00 $4,630.00 $8,000.00 x Y 4567 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.8 Multi-
Trunk 697.11 $55.27 $38,530.66 30.8 20 A 97 A 81 85 $37,374.74 $37,374.74 Minor twig dieback -118.73347 34.3121377 $210.00 $37,580.00 $39,000.00 x Y 4568 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 9.5 Single 70.85 $94.75 $6,712.81 27.8 20 B 61 D 41 41 $4,094.81 $4,094.81 Minor twig dieback, leaf fungal damage, f -118.73342 34.3120035 $360.00 $4,450.00 $5,100.00 x Y 4570 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 18.5 Multi-
Trunk 268.67 $55.27 $14,849.69 22 15 A 93 A 70 70 $13,810.21 $13,810.21 Minor asymmetry -118.7334 34.3121452 $210.00 $14,020.00 $14,500.00 x Y 4571 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.5 Multi-
Trunk 433.52 $55.27 $23,961.26 26.5 9.5 B 76 C 80 50 $18,210.56 $18,210.56 Minor dead branches -118.73384 34.3133677 $210.00 $18,420.00 $7,800.00 x Y 4572 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 30.85 Multi-
Trunk 747.10 $55.27 $41,293.74 38.9 18 A 98 A 82 81 $40,467.87 $30,350.90 Parking lot. Sapsucker damage,
burrowing mammals. DBH discrepancy
d t i l i f t k th t
-118.73353 34.3140206 $210.00 $30,560.00 $12,400.00 x Y 4576 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.6 Multi-
Trunk 216.31 $55.27 $11,956.12 14 8 B 65 B- 64 61 $7,771.48 $7,771.48 Several branches dying back -118.73346 34.312207 $210.00 $7,980.00 $7,900.00 x N 4577 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27 Multi-
Trunk 572.27 $55.27 $31,630.17 32.8 11 A 96 A 80 80 $30,364.96 $30,364.96 Minimal dead branches within inner
canopy, some branches touching ground.

DBH di d t i l i f
-118.73434 34.312063 $210.00 $30,570.00 N/A x Y
4578 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.2 Multi-
Trunk 422.52 $55.27 $23,353.39 26.5 20 A 97 A 81 81 $22,652.79 $16,989.59 Parking lot. Minimal dead branches
within canopy. Was previously tree ID
#4553
-118.73445 34.3123304 $210.00 $17,200.00 $18,600.00 x N 4579 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 5 Single 19.63 $55.27 $1,084.71 14 10 D 24 C- 21 35 $260.33 $195.25 Parking lot. Newly identified tree in
2024. Previous DBH fell below threshold
f t ti V l d d
-118.73416 34.3122317 $210.00 $410.00 N/A x N
4580 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 9.1 Single 65.01 $94.75 $6,159.42 24 24 B 77 B+ 81 78 $4,742.75 $4,742.75 Minor fungal leaf issues. Was previously tree ID #4570 -118.73341 34.3119454 $360.00 $5,100.00 $5,100.00 x Y 4597 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 41.45 Multi-
Trunk 1,348.71 $90.01 $121,403.11 28.4 10 D 15 F 4 25 $18,210.47 $18,210.47 Branch dieback, leaf dieback from
fungus, sparse canopy, resprout from
fi W i l t ID #4700
-118.72263 34.3096852 $342.00 $18,550.00 $14,700.00 x N 4598 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 29.7 Multi-
Trunk 692.44 $55.27 $38,272.50 35 12 C 46 C 41 21 $17,605.35 $17,605.35 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.

G i hill id b b h
-118.72012 34.3063328 $210.00 $17,820.00 N/A x N
4599 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 44.7 Multi-
Trunk 1,568.50 $55.27 $86,693.99 38.3 16 B 62 C 50 30 $53,750.27 $53,750.27 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.

G i /d i hill id t d
-118.7201 34.3062325 $210.00 $53,960.00 N/A x N
4600 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19.8 Single 307.75 $55.27 $17,010.00 27.2 18 B 64 C+ 45 61 $10,886.40 $10,886.40 Newly identified tree in 2024. Tree
previously fell outside grading limits.

I t d t i t k l
-118.72048 34.306242 $210.00 $11,100.00 N/A x Y
4631 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 34 Multi-
Trunk 907.46 $94.75 $85,983.47 27.7 35 C 35 D 22 25 $30,094.21 $30,094.21 Thickened bark at base, some dead
branches, very narrow canopy, mistletoe
t
-118.72109 34.3059846 $360.00 $30,450.00 $48,300.00 x N 4632 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 0 N/A 0.00 $94.75 $0.00 N/A N/A F 0 N/A 0 0 $0.00 $0.00 Tree is dead. In 2018 DBH was 24 inches
and Health was C. Tree health declined
d d d i 2024
-118.72097 34.3060174 $0.00 $0.00 $19,500.00 x N
4633 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 29.5 Multi-
Trunk 683.15 $94.75 $64,729.34 32 34 B 75 B 75 65 $48,547.00 $48,547.00 Thin canopy, drought stress, shrubby understory -118.72102 34.3058913 $360.00 $48,910.00 $26,500.00 x N 4634 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 28.7 Single 646.60 $55.27 $35,738.62 41.6 30 B 71 B 62 70 $25,374.42 $25,374.42 Fungal issues, crossing branches. DBH
discrepancy due to exclusion of trunks
th t d d
-118.72098 34.3058904 $210.00 $25,580.00 $103,800.00 x N 4635 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 27.6 Multi-
Trunk 597.98 $55.27 $33,051.57 36 18 C 51 D+ 61 45 $16,856.30 $16,856.30 Minor oozing, insect damage, thin
canopy impacted by crowding from #
4634 d i b h
-118.72095 34.3057973 $210.00 $17,070.00 $21,200.00 x N 4636 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 24 Multi-
Trunk 452.16 $55.27 $24,991.74 42 19 B 63 C 55 58 $15,744.79 $15,744.79 Wood rat scat on floor, insect damage,
minor fungal issues, thin canopy, dying
b h ti f li ht DBH
-118.72087 34.3058274 $210.00 $15,950.00 $36,600.00 x N 4637 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 12.75 Single 127.61 $55.27 $7,053.33 35.5 30 B 68 B 65 60 $4,796.27 $4,796.27 Slight lean, area used for parking,
exposed roots, soil compaction &
th i
-118.72071 34.3057497 $210.00 $5,010.00 $4,200.00 x Y
4638 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 20.8 Single 339.62 $55.27 $18,771.57 50.25 25 B 73 B 70 65 $13,703.25 $13,703.25 Area under trees compacted from
parked cars, exposed roots, soil
th i dj t t d
-118.72064 34.3057211 $210.00 $13,910.00 $10,000.00 x Y 4640 Valley oak (Quercus
lobata) 44 Single 1,519.76 $102.65 $156,000.00 47.5 35 D 15 D 15 35 $23,400.00 $23,400.00 Burl, broken branches, 2 larger limbs
remain but others have died and broken
ff ld fi d
-118.72035 34.3063696 $390.00 $23,790.00 $29,500.00 x N 4641 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19 Single 283.39 $55.27 $15,663.22 35.4 20 A 98 A 87 85 $15,349.96 $15,349.96 Minor branch dieback in inner canopy -118.72037 34.3063825 $210.00 $15,560.00 $8,700.00 x Y 4642 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 23.9 Multi-
Trunk 448.40 $90.01 $40,362.36 30.3 10 D 22 D 21 21 $8,879.72 $8,879.72 Fire damage, dead branches, insect
damage, sparse foliage with fungus. DBH
di d t i l i f t k
-118.72255 34.3097067 $342.00 $9,220.00 $5,400.00 x N
4643 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 34.3 Multi-
Trunk 923.54 $90.01 $83,132.14 31.5 11 D 28 D 40 23 $23,277.00 $23,277.00 Many dead branches, old fire damage,
sparse foliage with fungus, insect
d
-118.72229 34.3097672 $342.00 $23,620.00 $10,600.00 x N 4644 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 35.8 Multi-
Trunk 1,006.09 $90.01 $90,562.17 32.5 12 D 25 D 25 40 $22,640.54 $22,640.54 Large woodrat nest at base, old fire
damage, insect damage, dead and
b k b h f li ith
-118.72222 34.3110102 $342.00 $22,980.00 $11,700.00 x N 4645 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 39.5 Multi-
Trunk 1,224.80 $90.01 $110,249.07 32.3 10 D 25 D 25 40 $27,562.27 $27,562.27 Old fire damage, dead branches, sparse
foliage with fungus. DBH discrepancy
d t l i f t k th t
-118.72229 34.3096437 $342.00 $27,900.00 $1,310.00 x N
4657 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 32.6 Multi-
Trunk 834.27 $94.75 $79,048.26 43 38 B 62 C+ 50 60 $49,009.92 $49,009.92 Bore holes from insects, fungal issues on leaves -118.72097 34.3060718 $360.00 $49,370.00 $26,500.00 x N 1283
Tree ID Species 2024 DBH
(in)
Trunk
Form
Cross-
Sectional
Area (in^2)
Unit Cost Per
Sq. In. Basic Cost Spread
(ft)
Height
(ft) Health Condition
(%) Aesthetic Structure
(%) Form (%) Depreciated
Cost
Depreciated
Cost w/
Functional
Limitations
Notes Longitude Latitude
Additional
Costs incl.

Installation
2024 Appraised
Value*
2018 Appraisal
Value To Be Removed To Be Relocated
To be Preserved
(Outside of
Project Limits)
Transplantable (Y
or N)
4664 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 24.75 Multi-
Trunk 480.86 $94.75 $45,562.50 24 20 C 57 B 70 75 $25,970.63 $25,970.63 A few dead branches, signs of Anthracnose -118.72107 34.3061501 $360.00 $26,330.00 $20,100.00 x Y 4850 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 5.6 Single 24.62 $55.27 $1,360.66 12.6 8.4 C 51 C- 41 61 $693.94 $520.45 Parking lot. Thin canopy, dying branches,
insect damage, sparse & sickly foliage,
t ti l f l i f ti T
-118.73375 34.3132632 $210.00 $730.00 N/A x N
4851 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 10.2 Single 81.67 $55.27 $4,514.13 27.3 14 C 51 C 50 50 $2,302.21 $1,726.66 Parking lot. Yellowing leaves, thin
canopy, 3 sides surrounded by concrete.

W i l t ID #4512
-118.73411 34.3132367 $210.00 $1,940.00 $3,670.00 x Y
4852 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.75 Single 220.24 $94.75 $20,868.29 40.25 42 A 96 A 80 80 $20,033.55 $20,033.55 Past pruning created minor asymmetry
to keep away from building, minimal
i t d W i l t ID
-118.7338 34.3143032 $360.00 $20,390.00 $8,400.00 x Y
4854 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 25.5 Single 510.45 $55.27 $28,213.33 46.5 26 C 53 C 62 58 $14,953.06 $14,953.06 Crossing branches, twig dieback
(particularly in the interior canopy), area
d t k d d ht t ld
-118.7207 34.3055285 $210.00 $15,160.00 N/A x N
4855 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23 Single 415.27 $55.27 $22,952.48 50.25 32 B 76 B+ 70 80 $17,443.88 $17,443.88 minor flagging, area used to park under, adjacent to road, exposed roots -118.72061 34.3054998 $210.00 $17,650.00 N/A x Y 4856 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 21.1 Single 349.49 $55.27 $19,316.96 39 28 B 68 C+ 68 65 $13,135.53 $13,135.53 Minor staining on some upper branches,
area used to park under, adjacent to
d
-118.72062 34.3054089 $210.00 $13,350.00 N/A x N
4857 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 19.5 Multi-
Trunk 298.50 $55.27 $16,498.45 24 35 B 66 C 60 58 $10,888.98 $10,888.98 Trunk fissure, crossing branches, close
competition with walnut, adjacent to
d
-118.72067 34.3027827 $210.00 $11,100.00 N/A x N
4858 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 43.7 Multi-
Trunk 1,499.11 $90.01 $134,940.90 25 18 B 72 C 50 60 $97,157.45 $97,157.45 Large cable running through trunk, many
dead stems from base, crossing
b h d i li b i t d
-118.72038 34.3025993 $342.00 $97,500.00 N/A x N
4859 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 10.75 Multi-
Trunk 90.72 $90.01 $8,165.78 17 11 C 57 D 40 42 $4,654.49 $4,654.49 leaning, growing along the ground,
shaded by other walnut, cut branches,
dj t t di t ib ti l th
-118.72037 34.3026161 $342.00 $5,000.00 N/A x N
4860 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 22.75 Multi-
Trunk 406.29 $55.27 $22,456.22 34 16 C 49 D 38 42 $11,003.55 $11,003.55 Growing along ground, major diseased
limb, shaded by other oak, on a slope,
d t t
-118.72023 34.3020506 $210.00 $11,210.00 N/A x N
4861 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 31.95 Multi-
Trunk 801.33 $55.27 $44,291.02 42 18 B 76 B- 82 78 $33,661.17 $33,661.17 Dead branches on the interior, minor flagging, drought stress -118.72011 34.3024585 $210.00 $33,870.00 N/A x Y 4862 Black walnut (Juglans
californica) 22.5 Multi-
Trunk 397.41 $90.01 $35,770.54 31 16 B 73 B 75 62 $26,112.49 $26,112.49 Small mammal burrows underneath
trunk, some interior branch dieback,
h b i th d t dj t t
-118.72027 34.3029081 $342.00 $26,450.00 N/A x Y
4863 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 54.1 Single 2,297.55 $55.27 $126,989.69 68.25 45 C 53 C 55 60 $67,304.54 $67,304.54 Loss of major limb, other dead branches,
crossing stems, cavity in trunk, insect
d f l i
-118.72023 34.3030721 $210.00 $67,510.00 N/A x N
4864 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 23.75 Multi-
Trunk 442.79 $55.27 $24,473.79 19.25 18 C 53 C+ 62 58 $12,971.11 $9,728.33 Parking lot. Ants present, interior branch
dieback, canker at base of trunk, insect
d W i l t ID #4528
-118.73462 34.3127314 $210.00 $9,940.00 $17,000.00 x Y
4865 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $55.27 $11,812.50 19.25 13 C 53 B- 45 60 $6,260.63 $4,695.47 Parking lot. Some fissures and spreading
back on several stems, crossing limbs.

N t i l t d d i
-118.7346 34.3128049 $210.00 $4,910.00 N/A x Y
4866 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 12.3 Single 118.76 $94.75 $11,252.98 35 50 A 97 A 82 81 $10,915.39 $10,915.39 Ants present, shrubs at base of trunk
causing thickened bark on one side. Was
i l t ID #4552
-118.73482 34.3126576 $360.00 $11,280.00 $6,100.00 x Y
4867 California sycamore
(Platanus racemosa) 16.5 Single 213.72 $94.75 $20,250.00 31.35 45 B 65 C 62 50 $13,162.50 $8,555.63 Parking lot. Growing adjacent to building,
leaning, near culvert, epicormic shoots,
thi k d b k W i l t ID
-118.73493 34.3126502 $360.00 $8,920.00 $8,700.00 x N
4868 Strawberry tree
(Arbutus unedo) 16.5 Multi-
Trunk 213.72 $183.69 $39,256.54 19.5 14 A 95 A- 78 65 $37,293.71 $27,970.29 Parking lot. Adjacent to building -118.73467 34.3125408 $384.00 $28,350.00 N/A x Y 4869 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 20.5 Multi-
Trunk 329.90 $55.27 $18,233.99 30.75 18 B 67 B 60 70 $12,216.77 $9,162.58 Parking lot. Minor flagging, major trunk le -118.73393 34.3124719 $210.00 $9,370.00 $11,100.00 x N 4870 Coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia) 4.5 Multi-
Trunk 15.90 $55.27 $878.62 16.75 14 B 61 B- 45 41 $535.96 $401.97 Parking lot. Crossed branches, competing -118.7338 34.3124417 $210.00 $610.00 N/A x Y $2,618,540.00
Updated V4 NEW appraisal values $1,226,900.00 $929,710.00 $461,930.00 2024 $737,060.00 2018
$1,198,990.00 Total preserved
Total all Trees $3,355,600.00
1284
1285
1286
1287
1288
1289
1290
1291
1292
1293

APPENDIX I

TRANSPORTATION MEMORANDUM

1294

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476.9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198

M E M O R A N D U M

To:

Rick Nelson, Newport Pacific Land Company

From: Jordan Gray, PE TE, Michael Baker International

Date: November 13, 2025

Subject: Lost Canyons 180 Lots Transfer Project – Transportation

Michael Baker International (Michael Baker), formerly RBF Consulting, has completed the traffic analysis of the proposed density transfer of 180 dwelling units for the Lost Canyons Project (the proposed project) within the Whiteface Specific Plan in the City of Simi Valley (City). A similar assessment was conducted for the 32 lot transfer associated with FM 5734-1 in April of 2024. The next phase of the entitlement and the focus of this assessment would relocate the 180 dwelling units from the Dry and Tapo Canyon areas to the former golf course north of Lost Canyon Drive. The relocation of units results in a zero-sum net change and the total number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan area remains at 364 units under the proposed project.

The results of this review concluded that there are no new traffic related impacts associated with the proposed relocation of the 180 dwelling units.

As outlined in this memorandum, this traffic analysis tiers off the work done as part of the certified 2010 Environmental Impact Report (EIR) completed for the Whiteface Specific Plan Amendment 6: Lost Canyons. As such, a review of the transportation related impacts utilize the same Level-of-Service (LOS) based criteria as the 2010 EIR and is not required to consider Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT). A VMT analysis is only applicable to projects evaluated under CEQA after July 1, 2020 (CEQA Guidelines, § 15064.3(c)). Moreover, if a document meets the content requirements in effect when released for public review, “the document shall not need to be revised to conform to any new content requirements.” (CEQA Guidelines, § 15007(c).) This 180-unit transfer need only be reviewed under the LOS standard that applied at the time that the City certified the 2010 EIR.

BACKGROUND

In 2007, the original Lost Canyons Project Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) was completed as part of the CEQA documentation for the proposed project. Subsequently, a Traffic Impact Analysis Addendum (Addendum) was conducted in 2010 to assess minor modifications to the project at that time.

The approved project analyzed in the 2010 EIR included various land uses, including a mix of residential types, natural open space, a multi-purpose trail system, and an area for the development of a golf course and related commercial recreational amenities. Specifically, the following land uses were approved:
• 364 single-family dwelling units (located within a private gated community) • Private 18-hole golf course (located within a private gated community) 1295

Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 2
• Private neighborhood park (located within a private gated community) • Private 25 Golf Course Member Suite (located within a private gated community) • Private approximately 6,000 square-foot service-oriented commercial use (located within a private gated community)
• Public trail head with public parking lot
While the proposed Lost Canyons project consists of multiple components and various land uses, as documented in the 2007 TIA and referenced in the 2010 EIR , only the residential component of the project (364 single-family dwelling units) is forecast to generate net added project related trips.

The 2010 TIA Addendum updated the traffic analysis with updated traffic count data and updated intersection geometry which showed that intersection operations were forecast to result in similar acceptable level of service operations (LOS C or better) and no new traffic impacts would occur with the updated 2009 traffic count data. The 2010 TIA Addendum concluded that no traffic mitigation measures were required as a result of the updated counts and modified intersection geometry. These results were documented and incorporated into the certified 2010 EIR.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Recent modifications to the Lost Canyons development would internally relocate 180 dwelling units from Dry Canyon and Tapo Canyon, south of Lost Canyons Drive, to the Clubcore area, north of Lost Canyons Drive. This reflects a zero-sum net change in the total number of dwelling units and is an equal transfer of units within the overall tentative tract map area. The overall total dwelling units for the entire project remains at 364 single-family dwelling units for the Lost Canyons Project. Ultimately, 362 lots are planned north of Lost Canyons Drive and 2 lots south of Lost Canyons Drive. One lot in Dry Canyon and another lot is in Tapo Canyon South, both accessed on the southern property boundary from existing easements.

Attachment A contains the conceptual site plan.

APPROACH & METHODOLOGY

With the relocation of the 180 residential units, it is likely that the corresponding redistribution of traffic would change as well as the allocation of project related trips to the east and west via Erringer Road and Tapo Canyon Road. This transportation assessment evaluates the overall trip redistribution compared to the previous traffic studies. In order to provide a direct comparison to the previous 2007 and 2010 analysis, this analysis considers the same total trip generation associated with all 364 dwelling units, however the project trip distribution has been modified and is discussed in subsequent sections.

As part of this updated analysis, the study intersection listed below were analyzed. The study intersection identification numbers below are consistent with the TIA and addendum. Exhibit 1 shows the study intersections. All exhibits are included in Attachment B at the end of this document.

1. Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive

2. Erringer Road & Falcon Street

3. Erringer Road & Alamo Street

4. Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way

5. Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps

11. Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive

12. Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive

13. Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street

14. Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps

15. Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps

16. "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive
1296

5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260, Carlsbad, CA 92008
Office: 760.476.9193 | Fax: 760.476.9198
It should be noted that, as part of this analysis, the baseline “Without Project” scenarios remain unc
hanged from the original 2007 TIA and 2010 Addendum. Also, consistent with the TIA and addendum, the analysis outlined in this memorandum focuses on the following two “With Project” study scenarios:
• Existing With Project Conditions (Condition 2)
• Cumulative With Project Conditions (Condition 4)
Similarly, consistent with previous analysis efforts, the assessment outline in this memorandum was conducted using the City of Simi Valley’s Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Reports dated July 2003. As outlined in the City’s guidelines, Level of Service (LOS) analysis should be conducted using Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) methodology to calculate the volume-to-capacity ratio (V/C). This methodology describes the operation of an intersection using a range of LOS from LOS A to LOS F. Table 1 summarizes the corresponding LOS thresholds. The City’s goal for peak hour intersection operations is LOS C or better.

Table 1: LOS and V/C Thresholds
LOS Volume to Capacity
A 0.00 to 0.60
B 0.61 to 0.70
C 0.71 to 0.80
D 0.81 to 0.90
E 0.91 to 1.00
F Exceeds 1.00
Source: Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Reports (City of Simi Valley, July 2003)

TRI

P GENERATION

To maintain consistency with the TIA and addendum, the same project trip generation estimates were used for the revised analysis. Table 2 summarizes the project trip generation documented in the 2007 TIA.

Table 2: Forecast Net Trip Generation of Proposed Project Land Use AM Peak Hour Trips PM Peak Hour Trips Daily
Trips In Out Total In Out Total
Proposed Project
(364 single-family dwelling
units)
69 204 273 233 135 368 3,483
Displaced Existing Land Use
(18-hole golf course) -32 -8 -40 -22 -28 -50 -643
Total Net Project Trip
Generation 37 196 233 211 107 318 2,840
Source: Lost Canyons Project Traffic Impact Analysis (RBF, October 2007)

TRI

P DISTRIBUTION

As discussed previously, the relocation of the 180 lots changes the trip distribution assumed in the 2007 TIA and addendum analyses. Based on the new location of the 180 lots, the intersection of “B” Street and Lost Canyons Drive previously included in 2007 TIA and 2010 addendum would be eliminated. Primary access to the site would be provided by two driveways: Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive and 1297

Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 4
"A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive. It should be noted that the secondary driveway towards the western limits of the project site will serve as an emergency vehicle access driveway only. As such, all project traffic was assumed to enter and exit the site via the two primary driveways.

Additionally, two of the 364 dwelling units are proposed to be accessed on the southern property boundary with existing easements. However, the previous TIA assumed trips associated with these two remote lots were loaded to the main project driveway off Lost Canyons Drive, which provides a conservative worst-case conditions of the operations at the project driveways. This updated analysis follows this same assumption.

Revised trip distributions for the entire 364-dwelling units were developed based on the location of the relocated lots and assigned to the project driveways accordingly. Generally, the redistribution of trips associated with the relocated lots assigns more trips to the west. Therefore, more traffic is anticipated to use Erringer Road to access the site.

Exhibit 2 shows the revised trip distribution under the existing roadway network and Exhibit 3 shows the revised trip distribution under the future roadway network. Under the future roadway condition, project trips were distributed west on Falcon Street and Lost Canyons Drive, following similar roadway extension assumptions used in the 2007 TIA. Exhibits 4 and 5 show the project trip assignment for the existing and future roadway networks, respectively.

TRAFFIC VOLUMES

The Existing with Project (Condition 2) traffic volumes were developed by adding all project related trips to the existing traffic volumes, including the redistributed trips associated with the 180-lot transfer. The existing traffic volumes were sourced from Condition 1 of the 2010 addendum which included updated traffic count data. Exhibit 6 shows the updated Condition 2 traffic volumes.

Similarly, the Cumulative With Project (Condition 4) traffic volumes were developed by adding all project related trips to the cumulative traffic volumes. The cumulative traffic volumes were sourced from Condition 3 of the 2007 TIA which contained the City Traffic Model Cumulative Traffic Without Proposed Project. According to the 2010 addendum, all of the cumulative buildout volume forecasts remained unchanged as part of that analysis, thus the 2007 TIA contains the latest applicable forecasts. Exhibit 7 shows the updated Condition 4 traffic volumes with the future roadway network after adding project related trips to the cumulative traffic volumes (Condition 3). Attachments C and D contain volume excepts from the 2007 TIA and 2010 addendum.

ICU ANALYSIS

The ICU results of each condition with the revised trip distributions due to the proposed relocation are listed in Tables 3 and 4. As shown, under both the Existing With Project (Condition 2) and Cumulative With Project (Condition 4) study scenarios, all intersections are projected to operate at LOS C or better, in accordance with City’s intersection LOS goal. Tables 5 and 6 compare the traffic analysis results of each condition to the 2010 addendum results. As expected, the comparisons show a slight increase in utilization at locations along Erringer Road to the west due to the revised trip distributions. However, no new traffic impacts are identified due to the proposed dwelling unit relocation. As such, no new traffic mitigation measures are required. Attachment E contains the detailed analysis worksheets.

1298

Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 5
Table 3: AM/PM ICU Results – Condition 2
ID Study Intersection
Existing With Project
(Condition 2)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.13 A 0.18 A
2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.16 A 0.13 A
3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.41 A 0.43 A
4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.35 A 0.50 A
5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.32 A 0.50 A
11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive 0.16 A 0.16 A 12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.15 A 0.19 A
13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.47 A 0.45 A
14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.57 A 0.63 B
15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.46 A 0.54 A
16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive 0.14 A 0.14 A

Table 4 : AM/PM ICU Results – Condition 4
ID Study Intersection
Cumulative With Project
(Condition 4)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour

V/C LOS V/C LOS
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.47 A 0.39 A
2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.34 A 0.31 A
3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.69 B 0.71 C
4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.60 A 0.65 B
5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.50 C 0.59 A
11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons Drive 0.24 A 0.35 A 12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.23 A 0.36 A
13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.69 B 0.79 C
14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.67 B 0.80 C
15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.68 B 0.71 C
16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive 0.18 A 0.32 A

1299

Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 6
Table 5: ICU Comparison – Condition 2
ID Study Intersection
2010 Addendum Results 180 Lot Transfer Analysis Results Existing With Project (Condition 2) Existing With Project (Condition 2) AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Δ V/C V/C LOS Δ V/C
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.08 A 0.11 A 0.13 A 0.05 0.18 A 0.07 2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.14 A 0.11 A 0.16 A 0.02 0.13 A 0.02 3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.29 A 0.30 A 0.41 A 0.12 0.43 A 0.13 4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.32 A 0.42 A 0.35 A 0.03 0.50 A 0.08 5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.31 A 0.47 A 0.32 A 0.01 0.50 A 0.03 11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive 0.12 A 0.19 A 0.16 A 0.04 0.16 A -0.03
12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.14 A 0.17 A 0.15 A 0.01 0.19 A 0.02 13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.41 A 0.45 A 0.47 A 0.06 0.45 A 0.00 14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.47 A 0.50 A 0.57 A 0.1 0.63 B 0.13 15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.47 A 0.57 A 0.46 A -0.01 0.54 A -0.03 16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive Intersection not assessed in 2010 Addendum 0.14 A -- 0.14 A --

Table 6: ICU Comparison – Condition 4
ID Study Intersection
2010 Addendum Results 180 Lot Transfer Analysis Results Cumulative With Project
(Condition 4) Cumulative With Project (Condition 4)
AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Δ V/C V/C LOS Δ V/C
1 Erringer Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.46 A 0.28 A 0.47 A 0.01 0.39 A 0.11 2 Erringer Road & Falcon Street 0.34 A 0.30 A 0.34 A 0.00 0.31 A 0.01 3 Erringer Road & Alamo Street 0.49 A 0.53 A 0.69 B 0.20 0.71 C 0.18 4 Erringer Road & SR-118 WB Ramps/Simi
Town Center Way 0.53 A 0.61 B 0.60 A 0.07 0.65 B 0.04 5 Erringer Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.48 A 0.59 A 0.50 C 0.02 0.59 A 0.00 11 Lost Canyons Golf Club & Lost Canyons
Drive 0.18 A 0.24 A 0.24 A 0.06 0.35 A 0.11
12 Tapo Canyon Road & Lost Canyons Drive 0.23 A 0.31 A 0.23 A 0.00 0.36 A 0.05 13 Tapo Canyon Road & Alamo Street 0.64 B 0.67 B 0.69 B 0.05 0.79 C 0.12 14 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 WB Ramps 0.61 B 0.70 B 0.67 B 0.06 0.80 C 0.10 15 Tapo Canyon Road & SR-118 EB Ramps 0.68 B 0.75 C 0.68 B 0.00 0.71 C -0.04 16 "A" Street & Lost Canyons Drive Intersection not assessed in 2010 Addendum 0.18 A -- 0.32 A --

1300

Lost Canyons 180 Lot Transfer Project
Tra
ffic Analysis 7

CONCLUSION

This traffic analysis considers the proposed density transfer of 180 dwelling units within the Whiteface Specific Plan Area. This assessment follows the same methodology as the original 2007 TIA as well as the 2010 Addendum. As discussed, the relocation of units results in a zero-sum net change and the total number of dwelling units within the Specific Plan area remains at 364 units.

As discussed previously, this analysis only need consider potential transportation related impacts under CEQA using LOS thresholds and is not required to evaluate VMT.

After reviewing these proposed modifications this analysis shows that there are no new transportation related impacts and no traffic mitigation measures are required.

1301

Attachment A -
Conc
eptual Site Plan
1302
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Concept Illustrative
Source: PLACEWORKS, August 16, 2024
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
"A" Street
1303

Attac
hment B -
Exhibits

1304
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
118
Alamo St
Simi Town Center Way
Lost Canyon Dr
Erringer Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
Falcon St
Project Site
Lost Canyons
Golf Club “A” St
Exhibit 1
Study Intersection Locations
1 3
2 4
5 11
12 13
14 15
16 Legend
Project Site
(Approximate)
Existing Roadway
Future Driveway
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
#
#
1305
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 2
Project Trip Distribution - Existing Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Inbound Distribution
Outbound Distribution
Project Distribution
Legend
#
#
##%
38%
38%
38%
38%
1%
52%
13%
8%
7%
1%
31%
38%
38%
38%
5% 39%
7%
30%
38%
8%
5% 5%
5%
52%
5%
62%
62% 11%
43%
43%
11%
43%
19%
43%
27%
11% 27%11%
19%
6%
46%
38%
38%
38%
7%
1%
30%
38%
31%
52%
5%5%
8%
39%13%
5%
62%
62%
30%
70%
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1306
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 3
Project Trip Distribution - Future Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Inbound Distribution
Outbound Distribution
Project Distribution
Legend
#
#
##%
9%
12%
9%
9%
9%
52%
13%
8% 21%
17%
21%
5%
39%
17%
38%
8%
5% 5%
12%
9%
5%
52%
5%
62%
9%
43%
11%
43%
19%
43%
11%
43%
27%
11% 27%11%
19%
6%
46%
62%
21%
17%
12%
9%
9%
9%
52%
5%5%
8%
39%13%
5%
62%
62%
30%
70%
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1307
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 4
Project Trip Assignment - Existing Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ## 121 / 66
14 / 80
75 / 41
14 / 80
75 / 41
0 / 2
19 / 109
5 / 27
3 / 17
14 / 8
2 / 1
11/ 65
74 / 41
14 / 80
16 / 91
22 / 12
75 / 41
84 / 46
2 / 11 14 / 82
3 / 15
11 / 63
74 / 41
16 / 9
11 / 6
90 / 50
2 / 11 2 / 10
10 / 57
4 / 23 53 / 29
7 / 40
16 / 91
37 / 20
4 / 23
84 / 46 22 / 12
10 / 5
101 / 56
10 / 5
23 / 131
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1308
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits October 2024
Exhibit 5
Project Trip Assignment - Future Roadway Network
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
3 / 19
24 / 13
18 / 10
3 / 19
18 / 10
19 / 109
5 / 27
7 / 44
33 / 18
42 / 23
2 / 11
14 / 82
7 / 36
2 / 11
4 / 25
3 / 19
10 / 5
101 / 56
10 / 5
23 / 131
18 / 10
16 / 91
22 / 12
84 / 46
10 / 57
4 / 23
53 / 29
11 / 6
90 / 50
121 / 66
3 / 17
74 / 41
16 / 9
2 / 10
7 / 40
16 / 91
37 / 20
4 / 23
84 / 46 22 / 12
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1309
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits November 2025
Exhibit 6
Condition 2 Peak Hour Volumes (Existing + Project)
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
6 / 9
232 / 445
1 / 2
536 / 226
16 / 33
156 / 397
259 / 484
1178 / 1087
0 / 2
0 / 0
254 / 132
4 / 1
28 / 7
42 / 134
104 / 318
80 / 305
3 / 2
120 / 195
88 / 124
603 / 484
61 / 64
83 / 65
1 / 8
533 / 403
45 / 110
73 / 189
374 / 627
19 / 17
1 / 0
19 / 13 1 / 2
17 / 33
112 / 249
92 / 215
319 / 632
331 / 148
54 / 48
372 / 325
316 / 240
264 / 396
28 / 59
660 / 561
220 / 224
391 / 687
150 / 266
71 / 132
522 / 810
375 / 303
0 / 2
27 / 31
58 / 122
882 / 508
41 / 7
0 / 5
404 / 208
150 / 46
221 / 181
841 / 1117
11 / 21
340 / 474
7 / 7
322 / 383
113 / 134
298 / 513
237 / 276
16 / 91
55 / 72
84 / 46
10 / 57
59 / 66
53 / 29
2 / 3
15 / 9
0 / 2
177 / 107
15 / 15
106 / 153
48 / 22
1086 / 987
1086 / 1257
10 / 36
386 / 287
985 / 985
7 / 40
49 / 151
37 / 20
4 / 23
139 / 89
22 / 12
56 / 189
31 / 22
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1310
Not to Scale
H:\PDATA\200855_Lost Canyon Traffic\Traffic AWR 180 Lots\9_ Exhibits November 2025
Exhibit 7
Condition 4 Peak Hour Volumes (Cumulative + Project)
Project Site (Approximate)
Study Intersection
Future Intersection
Existing Roadway
Future Project Driveway
AM/PM Peak Hour Volumes
Legend
#
#
## / ##
60 / 50
551 / 632
96 / 68
692 / 686
1380 / 1290
10 / 10
40 / 30
711 / 130
268 / 194
81 / 302
190 / 480
240 / 320
10 / 20
310 / 310
280 / 288
734 / 662
140 / 178
380 / 250
260 / 300
750 / 650
40 / 20
40 / 20
190 / 320
650 / 720
440 / 260
690 / 100
50 / 40
152 / 188
109 / 199
820 / 720
480 / 510
337 / 542
80 / 80
880 / 845
10 / 60
10 / 10
290 / 450
516 / 700
260 / 330
120 / 210
729 / 779
450 / 560
11 / 20
150 / 280
192 / 216
1050 / 740
200 / 270
980 / 1410
40 / 10
467 / 400
1180 / 1288
20 / 10
10 / 30
100 / 50
50 / 20
491 / 560
10 / 10
620 / 550
189 / 319
740 / 760
340 / 400
20 / 10
83 / 412
120 / 250
150 / 140
10 / 20
850 / 680 15 / 50
451 / 892
580 / 750
10 / 30
622 / 796
170 / 120
10 / 10
20 / 10
40 / 30
221 / 166
30 / 160
16/ 91
88 / 83
84 / 46
10 / 57
196 / 318
53 / 29
42 / 43
272 / 318
35 / 50
150 / 250
51 / 41
1293 / 1256
1327 / 1558
60 / 50
7 / 40
82/ 162
37 / 20
4 / 23
276 / 341
22 / 12
78 / 182
180 / 320
Erringer Rd
Lost Canyons Dr
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Erringer Rd
Falcon St
SR-118
WB Ramps SR-118 EB Ramps
Tapo Canyon Rd
Alamo St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Tapo Canyon Rd
“A” St
Tapo Canyon Rd
Lost Canyons
Golf Club
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
Lost Canyons Dr
SR-118
WB Ramps
Alamo St Simi Town
CTR WY
Erringer Rd
SR-118 EB Ramps
13 1
3 5 11
1412 15
2 4
16 1311

Attac
hment C -
Condition 1 Volumes
Excerpt from 2010 TIA

1312
Exhibit 1H:\pdata\10107099\Traffic\Exhibits\Exh01.ai
Condition 1 AM & PM Peak Hour Intersection Volumes
OCT/2009
Not to Scale
AM/PM Peak Hour VolumesXX/XX
Legend:

Signal-Controlled Study Intersection
Stop-Controlled Study Intersection
xx
xx
Future Study Intersectionxx
98/169
17/33
1/2
0/5
41/7 0/2
0/0
179/91
218/365
6/9
461/185
1/2
2/3
15/9
259/484
142/317
16/33
150/46
329/167
0/0 83/65
1/8
533/403
0/0
4/1
28/7
331/148
308/567
92/215
808/467
58/122
42/95
73/189
374/627
42/134
104/318
1178/1085
11/21
839/1116
207/173
19/17
1/0
19/13
69/242
3/2
120/195
19/15
0/0
2/12
10/11
0/0
15/8
32/45
46/13
23/21
6/1
11/27
2/1 5/4
4/4
59/62
4/0
2/1
29/33
248/336
305/266
102/198
36/80
133/272
43/43
59/33
274/373
422/304
64/19
233/275
184/94
398/387
602/671
806/862
225/168
415/719
1168/961
80/161
666/968
169/158
86/190
15/43
305/281
33/102
353/356
1/22
1/3
17/30
37/63
1/13
55/43
31/22
47/86
27/31
0/2
0/2
56/68
150/266
372/578
220/224
51/59
502/428
78/119
52/37
372/325
316/240
111/123
298/513
237/276
375/303
517/783
71/132
996/937
37/16
232/314
28/59
660/561
15/15
106/153
10/36
1083/1240
969/976
312/246
0/0
338/464
7/7
322/383

ERRINGER RD/

ERRINGER RD

LOST CANYONS DR

LOST CNYNS
DR

ERRINGER RD/

ERRINGER RD

FALCON ST

ERRINGER RD/

ERRINGER RD

ALAMO ST

ERRINGER RD/

ERRINGER RD
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS

ERRINGER RD/

ERRINGER RD
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS

ANDERSON DR/

ANDERSON DR

AVENIDA SIMI

SYCAMORE DR/

SYCAMORE DR

AVENIDA SIMI

SYCAMORE DR/

SYCAMORE DR

ALAMO ST

SYCAMORE DR/

SYCAMORE DR
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS

SYCAMORE DR/

SYCAMORE DR
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS

LOST CANYONS GOLF CLUB/

LOST CANYONS

GOLF CLUB

LOST CANYONS DR

TAPO CANYON RD/

TAPO CANYON RD

LOST CANYONS DR

TAPO CANYON RD/

TAPO CANYON RD

ALAMO ST

TAPO CANYON RD/

TAPO CANYON RD
SR-118 WB RAMPS
SR-118 WB RAMPS

TAPO CANYON RD/

TAPO CANYON RD
SR-118 EB RAMPS
SR-118 EB RAMPS

SIMI TOWN CTR WY
118

LOST CANYONS

SIMI TOWN

CENTER WYFALCON ST AVENIDA SIMI

ALAMO ST

SYCAMORE DR

ANDERSON DR

LOST CANYONS

GOLF CLUB

TAPO CANYON RD
"A" ST
"B" ST

ERRINGER RD
1 2
3 4
5 6 7
8 9
10 11
12 13
14 15
16 17
1 2 3 4
56 7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14 15
1313

Attac
hment D -
Condition 3 Volumes
Excerpt from 2007 TIA

1314
1315

Attachment E -
Analy
sis Worksheets
1316
Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 4 1 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Lane Settings 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Capacity 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 0 3600 0 1800 Capacity 3600 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 1 17 112 0 41 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 Hourly Volume 690 50 152 50 100 10 20 83 120 268 711 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 1 17 112 0 41 0 0 0 0 254 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 690 0 202 50 110 0 20 83 120 268 711 40 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.01 0.06 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.19 0.00 0.11 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.15 0.20 0.02 Critical Factors 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 Critical Factors 0.19 0.06 0.07 0.15 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.13 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.47 LOS = A
Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd Int. 1 Lost Canyon Drive at Erringer Rd PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 1 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 urations 3 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 1 Lane Settings 2 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 1 1 2 1 Capacity 1800 1800 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 0 3600 0 1800 Capacity 3600 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 2 33 249 5 7 0 0 0 0 132 0 2 Hourly Volume 100 40 188 20 50 30 10 412 250 194 130 30 Adjusted Hourly Volume 2 33 249 5 7 0 0 0 0 132 0 2 Adjusted Hourly Volume 100 40 228 20 80 0 10 412 250 194 130 30 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.02 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.00 0.13 0.01 0.04 0.00 0.01 0.11 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.02 Critical Factors 0.14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 Critical Factors 0.13 0.01 0.14 0.11 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.18 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.39 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1317
Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 urations 3 1 1
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 6 232 0 0 536 1 2 0 15 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 60 551 0 0 692 96 221 0 30 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 6 232 0 0 536 1 2 0 15 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 60 551 0 0 692 96 221 0 30 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.05 0.12 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.15 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.19 0.12 0.00 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.34 LOS = A
Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St Int. 2 Erringer Rd at Falcon St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 9 445 0 0 226 2 3 0 9 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 50 632 0 0 686 68 166 0 160 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 9 445 0 0 226 2 3 0 9 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 50 632 0 0 686 68 166 0 160 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.04 0.09 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.19 0.09 0.00 0.00 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.13 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.31 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1318
Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 16 156 259 150 404 0 0 4 28 533 1 83 Hourly Volume 15 451 580 170 622 10 10 20 40 850 10 150 Adjusted Hourly Volume 16 156 259 150 404 0 0 4 32 617 0 83 Adjusted Hourly Volume 15 451 580 170 632 0 0 30 70 860 0 150 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.04 0.14 0.08 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.17 0.00 0.05 Utilization Factor 0.01 0.13 0.32 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.24 0.00 0.08 Critical Factors 0.14 0.08 0.02 0.17 Critical Factors 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.24 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.41 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.69 LOS = B
Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St Int. 3 Erringer Rd at Alamo St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 1800 3600 0 0 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 33 397 484 46 208 0 0 1 7 403 8 65 Hourly Volume 50 892 750 120 796 30 10 10 30 680 20 140 Adjusted Hourly Volume 33 397 484 46 208 0 0 1 8 476 0 65 Adjusted Hourly Volume 50 892 750 120 826 0 0 20 50 700 0 140 Utilization Factor 0.02 0.11 0.27 0.03 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 0.00 0.04 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.25 0.42 0.07 0.23 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.19 0.00 0.08 Critical Factors 0.27 0.03 0.00 0.13 Critical Factors 0.42 0.07 0.03 0.19 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.43 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.71 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1319
Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 4 1 1
5 5 1
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 Lane Settings 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Capacity 3600 3600 1800 0 3600 1800 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 92 319 331 0 882 58 42 0 104 374 73 45 Hourly Volume 190 650 440 0 1050 192 81 0 190 750 260 380 Adjusted Hourly Volume 92 319 331 0 940 0 42 0 104 374 118 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 190 650 440 0 1050 192 81 0 190 750 260 380 Utilization Factor 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.00 0.17 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.03 0.10 0.07 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.05 0.18 0.24 0.00 0.29 0.11 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.14 0.21 Critical Factors 0.05 0.17 0.03 0.10 Critical Factors 0.05 0.29 0.05 0.21 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.35 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.60 LOS = A
Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 4 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Westbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 2 2 1 1 Lane Settings 2 2 1 0 2 1 1 0 2 2 1 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Capacity 3600 3600 1800 0 3600 1800 1800 0 3600 3600 1800 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 215 632 148 0 508 122 134 0 318 627 189 110 Hourly Volume 320 720 260 0 740 216 302 0 480 650 300 250 Adjusted Hourly Volume 215 632 148 0 630 0 134 0 318 627 299 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 320 720 260 0 740 216 302 0 480 650 300 250 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.18 0.08 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.09 0.17 0.17 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.09 0.20 0.14 0.00 0.21 0.12 0.17 0.00 0.13 0.18 0.17 0.14 Critical Factors 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.17 Critical Factors 0.09 0.21 0.17 0.18 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.65 LOS = B
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1320
Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1178 0 11 841 221 80 3 120 19 1 19 Hourly Volume 0 1380 10 40 980 200 240 10 310 40 0 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1178 0 11 841 221 80 0 123 39 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1390 0 40 980 200 240 0 320 80 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.22 0.00 0.01 0.23 0.12 0.04 0.00 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.02 0.27 0.11 0.13 0.00 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.23 0.07 0.02 Critical Factors 0.26 0.02 0.18 0.04 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.32 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A
Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 5 Erringer Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1087 0 21 1117 181 305 2 195 13 0 17 Hourly Volume 0 1290 10 10 1410 270 320 20 310 20 0 20 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1087 0 21 1117 181 305 0 197 0 0 30 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1300 0 10 1410 270 320 0 330 40 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.01 0.31 0.10 0.17 0.00 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.02 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.01 0.39 0.15 0.18 0.00 0.18 0.02 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.31 0.17 0.02 Critical Factors 0.00 0.39 0.18 0.02 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.50 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.59 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1321
Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 Config - (left) 2 1 urations 3 urations 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 84 0 53 10 59 0 0 55 16 Hourly Volume 84 0 46 10 196 0 0 88 16 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 137 69 59 0 0 71 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 130 10 196 0 0 104 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.01 0.11 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.08 0.04 0.04 Critical Factors 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.06 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.24 LOS = A
Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy Int. 11 Lost Canyons Dr at Golf Club Dwy PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Capacity 0 0 0 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 46 0 29 57 66 0 0 72 91 Hourly Volume 46 0 29 57 318 0 0 83 91 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 0 0 75 57 66 0 0 0 163 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 130 0 0 57 318 0 0 0 174 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 Critical Factors 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.09 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.18 0.10 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.16 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.35 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1322
Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 urations 3 urations 3 1 1
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 1800 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 56 31 0 0 27 0 0 0 177 Hourly Volume 78 180 0 0 150 11 42 0 272 Adjusted Hourly Volume 56 31 0 0 27 0 0 0 177 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 78 180 0 0 150 11 42 0 272 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.03 0.02 0.10 0.00 Critical Factors 0.04 0.04 0.15 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.15 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.23 LOS = A
Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd Int. 12 Lost Canyons Dr at Tapo Canyon Rd PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 1 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 1800 0 0 1800 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Capacity 1800 3600 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 189 22 0 0 31 2 2 0 107 Hourly Volume 182 320 0 0 280 20 43 0 318 Adjusted Hourly Volume 189 22 0 0 31 2 2 0 107 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 182 320 0 0 280 20 43 0 318 0 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.10 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.11 0.02 0.06 0.00 Critical Factors 0.10 0.08 0.18 0.00 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.19 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.36 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1323
Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 1 1 1
5 1 1 5 1 1
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 220 391 150 61 603 88 113 298 237 316 372 54 Hourly Volume 290 516 260 140 734 280 189 740 340 480 820 109 Adjusted Hourly Volume 220 541 0 61 691 0 113 298 237 316 372 54 Adjusted Hourly Volume 290 776 0 140 1014 0 189 740 340 480 820 109 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.10 0.00 0.03 0.13 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.13 0.09 0.10 0.03 Utilization Factor 0.16 0.14 0.00 0.08 0.19 0.00 0.05 0.21 0.19 0.13 0.23 0.06 Critical Factors 0.12 0.13 0.13 0.09 Critical Factors 0.16 0.19 0.21 0.13 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.47 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.69 LOS = B
Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St Int. 13 Tapo Canyon Dr at Alamo St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Lane Settings 1 3 0 1 3 0 2 2 1 2 2 1 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Capacity 1800 5400 0 1800 5400 0 3600 3600 1800 3600 3600 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 224 687 266 64 484 124 134 513 276 240 325 48 Hourly Volume 450 700 330 178 662 288 319 760 400 510 720 199 Adjusted Hourly Volume 224 953 0 64 608 0 134 513 276 240 325 48 Adjusted Hourly Volume 450 1030 0 178 950 0 319 760 400 510 720 199 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.18 0.00 0.04 0.11 0.00 0.04 0.14 0.15 0.07 0.09 0.03 Utilization Factor 0.25 0.19 0.00 0.10 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.21 0.22 0.14 0.20 0.11 Critical Factors 0.12 0.11 0.15 0.07 Critical Factors 0.25 0.18 0.22 0.14 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.45 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.79 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1324
Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 1
4 1 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 71 522 375 0 1086 48 15 0 106 660 28 246 Hourly Volume 120 729 450 0 1293 51 35 0 150 880 80 337 Adjusted Hourly Volume 71 522 375 0 1134 0 15 0 106 934 0 246 Adjusted Hourly Volume 120 729 450 0 1344 0 35 0 150 960 0 337 Utilization Factor 0.04 0.15 0.21 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.06 0.26 0.00 0.14 Utilization Factor 0.07 0.20 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.08 0.27 0.00 0.19 Critical Factors 0.04 0.21 0.06 0.26 Critical Factors 0.07 0.25 0.08 0.27 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.57 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.67 LOS = B
Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps Int. 14 Tapo Canyon Dr at SR-118 Westbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Lane Inside 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 urations 3 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Lane Settings 1 2 1 0 3 0 1 0 1 2 0 1 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Capacity 1800 3600 1800 0 5400 0 1800 0 1800 3600 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Hourly Volume 132 810 303 0 987 22 15 0 153 561 59 396 Hourly Volume 210 779 560 0 1256 41 50 0 250 845 80 542 Adjusted Hourly Volume 132 810 303 0 1009 0 15 0 153 1016 0 396 Adjusted Hourly Volume 210 779 560 0 1297 0 50 0 250 925 0 542 Utilization Factor 0.07 0.23 0.17 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.09 0.28 0.00 0.22 Utilization Factor 0.12 0.22 0.31 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.14 0.26 0.00 0.30 Critical Factors 0.07 0.19 0.09 0.28 Critical Factors 0.12 0.24 0.14 0.30 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.63 LOS = B ICU Ratio = 0.80 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1325
Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1 urations 3 1 1 1
4 4 1
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 Capacity 0 5400 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1086 10 0 985 386 340 7 322 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 0 1327 60 20 1180 467 491 10 620 10 0 10 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1096 0 0 985 386 347 0 322 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1387 0 20 1180 467 501 0 620 20 0 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.20 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.18 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.01 0.33 0.26 0.28 0.00 0.34 0.01 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.27 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.33 0.34 0.01 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.46 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.68 LOS = B
Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps Int. 15 Tapo Canyon Rd at SR-118 Eastbound Ramps PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 Lane Inside 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 3 0 0 2 1 1 0 1 0 0 1 Lane Settings 0 3 0 1 2 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 Capacity 0 5400 0 0 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 0 0 1800 Capacity 0 5400 0 1800 3600 1800 1800 0 1800 1800 0 1800 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 0 1257 36 0 985 287 474 7 383 0 0 0 Hourly Volume 0 1558 50 10 1288 400 560 10 550 10 0 60 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1293 0 0 985 287 481 0 383 0 0 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 1608 0 10 1288 400 570 0 550 10 0 60 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.24 0.00 0.00 0.27 0.16 0.27 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.00 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.30 0.00 0.01 0.36 0.22 0.32 0.00 0.31 0.01 0.00 0.03 Critical Factors 0.00 0.27 0.27 0.00 0.00 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.36 0.32 0.03 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.54 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.71 LOS = C
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1326
Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization AM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Lane Inside 1 1 1 1 1 1 Config - (left) 2 1 Config - (left) 2 1 urations 3 urations 3
4 4
5 5
6 6
Outside 7 Outside 7
Free-flow Free-flow
Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 37 22 4 139 49 7 Hourly Volume 37 0 22 4 276 82 7 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 139 0 0 56 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 59 0 0 4 276 280 89 89 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.08 0.03 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.15 0.00 AM Peak Period AM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.14 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.18 LOS = A
Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St Int. 16 Lost Canyons Dr at "A" St PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization PM Peak Period Lane Configuration for Intersection Capacity Utilization South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) South Leg (NB) North Leg (SB) West Leg (EB) East Leg (WB) Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Left Thru Right Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Lane Inside 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 Config - (left) 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 urations 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Outside 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Free-flow 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Lane Settings 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Capacity 0 0 0 1800 0 0 1800 1800 0 0 1800 0 Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the North/South phases split (Y/N)? Y Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Are the East/West phases split (Y/N)? N Hourly Volume 20 12 23 89 151 40 Hourly Volume 20 12 23 341 162 40 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 32 0 0 23 89 0 191 191 0 Adjusted Hourly Volume 0 0 0 32 0 0 23 341 0 0 202 0 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Utilization Factor 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.00 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.11 Critical Factors 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.19 0.11 PM Peak Period PM Peak Period
ICU Ratio = 0.14 LOS = A ICU Ratio = 0.32 LOS = A
Existing + Project (Condition 2) Opening Year + Project (Condition 4) 1327
From: Enviroservices
To: Sean Gibson; Elizabeth Richardson
Subject: FW: Lost Canyons Development Project (LCDP)
Date: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 4:21:29 PM
Here you go.

From: James McGillis < >
Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 2:39 PM
To: James McGillis < >
Subject: Lost Canyons Development Project (LCDP)
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.

Regarding the upcoming Lost Canyons Development Project, or (LCDP), I have reviewed the documents and stand in opposition to the approval of that project. Following are my reasons to oppose this project:

1. The Simi Valley General Plan Housing Element Goals include “balanced community development,” with housing opportunities “created for all.” In direct contradiction to the city’s housing element goals, the LCDP will be an exclusive, gate-guarded enclave, available to wealthy homeowners only.

2. In December 2001, when the project area was developed as a golf course, the City Council changed classification of Lost Canyons Drive to a minor arterial roadway. Now, with 364 homes planned for that area, that road will remain a two- lane road, with no passing lanes or turn-outs. No traffic signals are planned for either of the two entrances to the project. There is no specific stipulation requiring a traffic signal at the intersection with Tapo Canyon Road.

3. Tapo Canyon Road, north of Presidio Drive is currently designated to become a four-lane roadway, with a median, bike lanes and a sidewalk all the way to Lost Canyons Drive. To save money and let the developer off the hook, there will be a two-lane bottleneck there, with construction delayed until well into the second phase of development.

4. If we learned nothing else from the 2025 Pacific Palisades Fire, and the recent Sandy Fire, it is that a narrow, winding two-lane road is inadequate for quick and effective evacuation during an emergency. Since the LCDP is subject to potential earthquakes, fires, and floods, a narrow, two-lane egress is an obvious risk to current and future residents.

5. The potable water supply originates from the Calleguas Municipal Water District and is conveyed to the project site by Waterworks No. 8 through two pressure zones via several transmission lines of varying size. A third boost pump will be added to service the LCDP. In other words, three separate lifts will be required to service the proposed development.

6. A “Lake” is mentioned in the packet. According to revised Specific Plan maps, it will occupy a different location than the existing stormwater retention pond. That pond was designed and built as a rainwater collection and retention facility, also used for irrigation of the former golf course. Major storms in 1998, caused the Lost Canyons watercourse to flow, causing extensive flooding. The pond will be held in Attachment F
1328
check by an earthen berm on the southeast side. Will that berm be built to current seismic standards? Will it anticipate the flow from increasing rainfall events possible in the decades to come?

7. The “Fake Lake,” as I call it is not suitable for any form or recreation. At Neighborhood Council Number One, the developer admitted that the “Fake Lake” would be maintained using potable water. The entire Western U.S. is in the throes of a twenty-year drought. There is no conscionable reason for a “Fake Lake,” created as a viewshed.

8. The developer claims that the “Fake Lake” could be used by fire suppression helicopters during a wildfire event. That would put orbiting and fully loaded helicopters near the proposed recreation center and newly constructed homes. A safer, simpler, and more economical solution would be to create a helicopter dip tank, like the one currently existing near the top of Tapo Street. It could be placed near the proposed potable water tank, adjacent, but above the development.

9. Based on location and elevation, Waterworks No. 8 charges for water lift. Within two years after completion of the project, the developer will turn the HOA over to the actual homeowners. Only then will the new owners learn that they have a risky, triple-lift water system for which they must pay an additional 3.5% each year. This development is in a remote location and should be treated as such. Each home should be outfitted with at least a 500-gallon potable water tank, capable of sustaining normal household activities up to three days.

10. Ventura County Fire Station #47 is located at 2901 Erringer Road, while the Ventura County Fire Station #46 is located at 3265 Tapo Street. Station #47 is 3.1 miles from the development site, requiring over five minutes travel time at an (optimistic) average of thirty-five miles per hour. Station #46 is 2.1 miles from the development site, requiring at least four minutes travel time. Including turnout time, arrival at the private gates of Lost Hills will take a fire engine between five and six minutes. Gaining access to any given structure in the labyrinth of proposed roads could take minutes longer. Access through security gates is another impediment.

What is power to the gates is cut for some reason?

11. In “Developer Speak,” left is right and up is down, and I quote: “Building setbacks would be typically kept to a minimum to create a more defined space.” With side-setbacks of only five feet, most streets will have only ten feet between adjacent dwelling units. Picture yourself looking at your neighbor’s house on fire, only ten feet away. How safe does that make you feel?

12. Residential lots that abut shared HOA areas may have backyards as shallow as five feet deep, which is no backyard at all. The developer’s information reads, “The reduced rear yard setback will allow homeowners to have space for additional backyard amenities such as large, covered backyard patios and accessory structures.” A footnote might say, “That is only true if pigs could fly.

13. Verbally, at least, the developer plans a “solar option” for the new homes, but the architecture and site planning do not take solar collection into account. Unlike older residences in Simi Valley, the new homes are designed to maximize usable floor space, with few expansive roof areas. Any new development in such a remote location should require both solar collection and onsite battery storage. If the 1991 earthquake is any yardstick, after a future earthquake event, the LCDP could see a three-day blackout.

14. In 1985, a major earthquake struck Mexico City. Subsequent studies revealed that seismic waves traveled back and forth through the fill-dirt upon which the modern city was built. In so doing, it created a harmonic wave that resonated at the exact amplitude of the city’s midrise buildings. High-rises and single-story structures withstood the shaking, but mid-rise buildings fell in substantial numbers. 1329

15. Using fill dirt from the surrounding hills, the Lost Canyons project will be built in a constructed bowl, or depression. Seismic evaluations were completed in 2014, when the actual development site included only half the currently planned number of homes. As such, a twelve-year-old seismic evaluation is inadequate to predict earthquake ground movement, potential liquefaction, and subsidence in the project area. The additional weight and proposed location of the “Fake Lake” has not been considered in seismic evaluations.

16. According to developer information, natural gas will be piped to every house in the LCDP. Many cities in California have banned natural gas lines in both renovations and new development. Placing miles of gas lines throughout a seismic rift zone, filled with sandy soils is shear lunacy. Do earthquakes ever happen on a windy day? If a residential gas line were to rupture in a future earthquake, any subsequent fire could spread throughout the development before help could arrive.

Residents would clog the single two-lane escape route, preventing fire apparatus from reaching the flames. Lives could be lost.

Recently, our Planning Commission approved this project by unanimous vote. Before the vote, Planning Commissioner John Tolson, said, “Again we are talking about a project that has already been approved.” Commissioner Alan Mann also claimed that the project was “already approved.” Commissioner Ken Rice admitted that only Phase One of the LCDP had been previously approved. He was sheepishly forced to correct the record, if not his colleagues. The verbiage issuing forth from the dais that night indicated one of two things. ·
Commissioners Tolson and Mann did not understand what they were about to vote on, or
· Commissioners Tolson and Mann tried to mislead the public, stretch the truth, and achieve their predetermined results. They might as well have said, “Do not bother me with the facts. My mind is made up.”
If an amateur sleuth like me can find sixteen reasons to question this project, why would our Planning Commission and soon our City Council blindly accept a development plan with so many flaws?
In summary, City Staff and our Planning Commission have looked the other way or have ignored potential deficiencies in the LCDP. There are many unasked and unanswered questions in your packet. Therefore, until you receive adequate answers to these and other questions you may have, I suggest that you deny the proposed project.

My prediction is that the City Council will accept the “rubber stamp” approval by the Planning Commission as being meaningful. They will then unanimously vote to approve this project, as presented. After all, the motto of Simi Valley was recently changed from “Tree City USA” to “Simi Valley. We never met a developer we did not like.” Best Regards,

Jim McGillis
URL:

Email:

Phone:
1330
From: Sean Gibson
To: Elizabeth Richardson
Subject: FW: A Crisis In Credibility
Date: Tuesday, July 21, 2026 8:01:17 AM
From: Enviroservices <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, July 15, 2026 8:15 AM
To: Stratis Perros <[email protected]>; Sean Gibson <[email protected]> Cc: Enviroservices <[email protected]>
Subject: FW: A Crisis In Credibility

Fyi. I am not sure who should answer his questions via this email.

From: James McGillis < >
Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2026 4:38 PM
To: Mayor Cavanaugh <[email protected]>; Council Member Ayala <[email protected]>; Mayor Pro Tem Litster <[email protected]>; Council Member Judge <[email protected]>; City Mgr <[email protected]>; Enviroservices <[email protected]>; Lee Kennedy <[email protected]>; Kenneth Rice <[email protected]>; Ivana Christmann <[email protected]> Subject: A Crisis In Credibility

CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. If you suspect a phishing attempt please report it as phishing. Learn how.

I have been following the Lost Canyons Development Project (LCDP) since it was first presented to Neighborhood Council Number One. In reviewing the developer’s documentation prior to and at that meeting, I learned some pertinent facts. To this date, none of those facts have been publicly addressed. They include the following:
·        At the intersection of Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive, there is no street sign indicating that Lost Canyons Drive exists in the public domain. ·        Additionally, as of last week there was a sign at the intersection that reads, “Private Road – Vehicle Code Enforced." As you may know, Lost Canyons Drive is a public road and this sign is an obvious attempt to hide that fact from the public. That sign should be removed immediately. Additionally, proper street signage should be installed immediately.
·        The original 2014 LCDP documentation, which has now been rolled into the 2026 Phase Two General Plan Amendment, included the construction of imposing, faux roadside-towers and a faux guard gate designed to make Lost Canyons Drive appear to be a private road, which it is not.
·        A manned electronic monitoring station was also planned for the area near the faux guard gates. When I challenged the developer on that subject at Neighborhood Council Number One, he expressed that he had no knowledge of either the faux guard gate or the electronic monitoring station.
·        According to the developer, the water retention pond, previously served by a 1331
"raw water pipe," will be relocated on the property, filled, and maintained with potable water.

My questions for the City of Simi Valley are as follows:

1. Is anyone physically monitoring the facts on the ground at the LCDP and the intersection in question?

2. Will imposing towers and a faux guard gate be allowed at the entrance to Lost Canyons Drive?

3. Will a manned electronic monitoring station be allowed near the proposed faux guard gate?

4. Has anyone, I repeat, anyone in city government read and absorbed the full extent of what is proposed in Phase Two of the LCDP?

5. Has anyone in city government realized that an outsized use of potable water will soon be added to the volume and expense of scarce potable water supplied by Waterworks Number 8?
Although they may not fully realize it, those who sit on the dais at both the Planning Commission and the City Council are often working within a bubble of their own making.

Why is it that my own personal perusal of proposed development documents yields so many salient facts that no one in city government appears to recognize or understand? Recent projects include the Popeyes’ Restaurant, the Oak Road Development Project, the Lost Canyons Development Project and even the legalization of short-term rentals. In every case, the official public bodies have “listened to members of the public,” for a maximum of three minutes each, and then voted almost 100% against the wishes of the residents of Simi Valley. If I hear one more public official speak from the dais and say, “You have to admit, we listened to you,” I will publicly call out the hypocrisy of that oft-repeated statement.

In the past year, the City of Simi Valley has spent over $60,000 of taxpayer money to survey its residents. In both the transient occupancy tax survey and the short-term rental survey, the city received exactly the answers that they sought. I propose a third survey. It would focus on the level of satisfaction residents of Simi Valley have with their current city government.

Over
the past two years, I have conducted my own straw poll of what residents think about their current city government. For anyone who has lived here for fifteen years or more, the answer is unanimous. “They don’t listen. They don’t care. They are going to do whatever they want to do.”
Best Regards,

Jim McGillis
URL:

Email:

Phone:
1332
July 21, 2026
This is a public comment regarding the upcoming August 11, 2026, public hearing on the Lost Canyons Development Project (LCDP). Please include it in any published public comments regarding the project in question .

Respectfully submitted by:

James McGillis

On Wednesday July 15, 2026, I received a telephone call from Mr. Brent Siemer, Deputy Director of Public Works (Development), City of Simi Valley. He was calling regarding my previous public records request about work being performed at the Lost Canyons Development Project (LCDP) site.

I am happy to say that he answered several of my questions, which were as follows:

1. How can grading take place on a project that has not yet received final approval? His answer was that grading has commenced on Phase One only. The confusion on my part was that as of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) date in 201 1, Phase One would have been exclusively on the eastern side of the current LCDP . At that time, the 36-hole golf course was to remain in place and Phase Two was to include dispersed housing units on two different sites in the Tapo Canyon . In 202 3, the City Council allowed the removal of the golf course. In 2024, the City Council consolidated the LCDP , relocating thirty-two lots from the northeast corner of the Specific Plan area . By March 5, 2026, when the newest plans were presented to Neighborhood Council Number One, 362 of the total -allowed 364 lots had been consolidated into a single, contiguous area. In the currently proposed plan, Phase One construction will stretch along the site on the north side of Lost Canyons Road. This is a long way of saying th at Mr. Siemer was correct in asserting that only Phase One grading has commenced.

2. Who in Simi Valley city government approved the commencement of grading in and around Phase Two? As Mr. Siemer answered above, all current work is happening in Phase One, as approved by the Planning Commission in July 2024. In addition, Mr. Siemer identified himself as the person within city government that is overseeing grading on the current phase of the project.

3. Is that grading legal or is this an unpermitted action by the developer? Yes, it is legal, if you accept that the currently planned Phase One and Phase Two of the LCDP meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the 2011 EIR . To accept that premise, you would have to believe that since 2011, “no substantial changes are proposed in the project”.

In summary, whether I agree with the current assertations of compliance with the 2011 EIR or not, Mr. Siemer answered my questions. Therefore, I withdraw my previous request for public records on the three items listed above.
1333
During our conversation, I also asked Mr . Siemer about two related issues of interest to me and the residents of Simi Valley.
• The status of the stormwater retention pond , or “Fake Lake, ” as I call it. For Background on this issue, I attended the March 3, 2026, Neighborhood Council Number One meeting in which Mr. Rick Nelson (the developer) answered my question regarding how the water feature will be maintained as an amenity for the residents of the LCDP . His answer was that there was a “raw water supply” that had fed the pond during the operation of the golf course, and that it was drawn upon for landscape irrigation. When I pressed further on how the water feature would be maintained in the future, the developer indicated that the future use of the raw water supply was not certain, and that potable water would be used maintain the water feature.

During our recent telephone conversation, Mr. Siemer stated that the well that had previously supplied raw water to the LCDP exists on City of Simi Valley property and that water from that well would be made available to the LCDP for future use. He stated that potable water would be used to supplement the raw water source, but only as needed. This fact raises several new questions about the filling and maintenance of the Fake Lake. • Who has title to the “Magic Well” in question?
• Where is it located?
• What is the maintenance status on the well and any plumbing connecting it to the soon to be relocated Fake Lake?
• What aquifer does the Magic Well draw from?
• Will the Magic Well aquifer be affected by grading of both Phase One and Phase Two, and the relocation of the Fake Lake?
• Will the Fake Lake retention structure rely solely on grading and fill dirt, or will it have a bedrock attachment point and rock reinforcement?
• How dependable is its future supply of water?
• Who assesses and certifies that the well water is safe to use, even for a Fake Lake? • Based on historical data from its use to irrigate the former golf course, how much water in the previous detention pond was created by natural runoff and how much was drawn by the Magic Well ?
• Prior to the project being presented to NC #1 and the Planning Commission, w hy was irrigation of the LCDP landscaped areas switched from raw water to potable water?
• What is the current estimate of how much potable water will be required each year to keep the newly repositioned Fake Lake as a view scape amenity for the future residents and their HOA?
• Have Ventura County Fire officials evaluated the potential usage of the repositioned Fake Lake as a water supply during a fire emergency? Specifically, has it been evaluated as a fire helicopter water uptake point?
• By what mechanism and at what location would ground -based fire apparatus access the Fake Lake during a fire emergency?
1334

• Residential Estate Lots, Their Previous and Current Identification: Previous and current proposals for the LCDP overall site include Estate Lots (RE, RE-H), which have been redefined and reidentified in the current LCDP Specific Plan. In previous iterations of the Specific Plan , there would be a maximum of sixteen RE lots, with a minimum of twenty acres each. In the current plan there is some confusion in how the RE lots are represented . • Current Specific Plan (Page 63) maps and plans indicate that both the Anderson Road and Ditch Road properties are identified as Residential Low Density (RL), but the vast expanse between them and to their north is designated as Residential Estate (RE), with a “Horse Overlay” (RE-H).
• An additional “RE enclave,” surrounded by dedicated open space is identified west of the intersection of Tapo Canyon Road and Lost Canyons Drive. • Two large “RE” areas are designated on the south side of Lost Canyons Drive, directly across from Phase One and the Fake Lake.
• Another large “RE” area is directly north of the western end of the current Phase One, surrounding the proposed potable water tank.
• Finally, a large area adjacent to and directly south of Big Mountain (commonly known as Whiteface) is designated as Residential Estate, Horse Overlay (RE-H).

In questioning Mr. Siemer about the various “RE” properties, he indicated, if I understood him correctly, that only 364 homes could be built at the LCDP and that the proposed Estate Lots were not buildable. Further, he said, that if someone wanted to purchase an unbuildable “Estate Lot, ” for whatever reasons, those lots would remain unbuildable. I am not sure if Mr. Siemer was referring to the lots near Anderson Road and Dit ch Road only, or if his “unbuildable” assessment would extend to the remaining “RE” lots. That part of the conversation was confusing to me, so do not take my recollections as facts. Still, the ambiguity of having developable areas other than Phase One and Phase Two identified in the Specific Plan has me wondering :
• Will the land between the Anderson Road and Ditch Road properties, which includes several abandoned oil drilling sites , be developed in the future as “RE -H” property?
• Will a private enclave in the middle of the dedicated Open Space be developed as an “RE-H” property or multiple properties?
• Will development of Residential Estate (RE) properties be allowed directly across from the current Phase One and Phase Two of LCDP and directly north of the westernmost Phase One residential lots?
• Will the area directly below Whiteface, which is the defining natural landform of Simi Valley be retained as private property and developed as one or more Residential Estate “RE” lots?
o Regarding Whiteface, the Specific Plan states the following: “Private preservation will provide a greater degree of control over those portions subject to conservation by restricting access rather than open, allowing for more diligent monitoring of the preserved land. ”
1335
o If I may be allowed an opinion regarding privatizing Whiteface, the above quote is pure elitist drivel. It says that the public cannot be trusted or allowed access to the most prominent landform in Simi Valley . This unique area should not be the private estate of some billionaire . It should be undeveloped public parkland with limited trail access, for up close viewing by the public.
o Since Whiteface is an area of active seismic and lan dslide potential, to allow residential development creates a potentially dangerous situation for future permanent residents.

So, is it true that only 364 lots will ever be developed in the “Greater LCDP Area, ” or is Phase Three or Phase Four going to include development of Residential Estate lots in as many as five separate areas? The continued use of the 2011 EIR depends on there being only 364 homes in the LCDP . Would development of an undetermined number of “RE” and “RE-H” lots necessitate a new EIR for this Specific Plan?
• Purveyors – The Utility providers to the LCDP: Natural Gas service will be plumbed to every new residence in the LCDP Phase One and Phase Two . Likewise, AT&T (identified as Pacific Bell in the Specific Plan) will provide telephone service to all new homes. The cable TV purveyor is identified as “Time Warner, ” which no longer exists as a corporate entity. At the time of the 2011 EIR, there was no provider of fiber optic cable in Simi Valley. The installation of fiber optic cable is mentioned nowhere in the Specific Plan. • A quick search on Google will tell you that it is still legal for developers to include natural gas service to new developments, but that it is “highly discouraged .” • Phase One of the LCDP and Phase Two include vast areas of “ highly expansive soil. ” Laying large natural gas lines and indiv idual service connections to 362 homes in a n area that consists of 100% compacted “fill” with highly expansive soils sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.
• With current advances in low emission technology , such as heat pumps, induction cook tops, electric ranges and electric water heaters, there is no reason to provide fossil fuels to every home in the new development. This is building at 1960s standards into the 2030s .
• A quick search regarding telephone service in California yields the following: “ AT&T (which legally holds the name Pacific Bell, the successor to Pacific Telephone) is actively phasing out traditional copper -wire landlines across its service areas, including California.”
• Again, why is an archaic and soon to be obsolete utility type included in the LCDP Specific Plan?
• Green Building Techniques: And I quote from the Specific Plan , “The Green Building Techniques within the Design Guidelines will serve the following functions:
• (a) Assist in addressing AB 32 Green House Gas emission reductions. • (b) Community recycling and reclaiming resources such as water, soils, and wastes that can reduce impacts to water quality.
1336
• (c) Establish guidelines and opportunities for “practical green” solutions for residential development for effective ways in reducing energy and water consumption.
• (d) Assist project designers in preparing building design for resource efficiencies. • (e) Support new technologies that improve residential living standards more effectively.

Is it as obvious to the reader as it is to me that “Green Building Techniques” are ignored in the LCDP Phase One and Phase Two Specific Plan? If not, please read my following section regarding solar technologies.
• Solar Power and Battery Electric Storage Systems (BESS). In 2011, when the EIR for the LCDP was certified, largescale leasing of residential solar collection systems had not yet begun in Simi Valley. In 20 12, Vivint Solar began canvassing the area and providing leased solar panels in Simi Valley. Sunrun, which is the successor company to Vivint Solar did not begin to offer battery electric storage system to consumers until 2016. • When I questioned the developer at Neighborhood Council Number One about solar and BESS options, he said that there would “be a solar option” provided by the builders.
• There is a section of the LCDP Specific Plan that mentions summer and winter insolation at the homesites. However, there is no mention anywhere in the packet provided to NC #1 or the Planning Commission that solar panels or BESS systems will be an option for future homeowners within the LCDP . • Sunrun informs me that it will not lease a new solar panel system to homeowners unless it includes a BESS option .
• Since there is no apparent preplanning for solar panels or BESS systems in the Current Phase One or Phase Two of the LCDP , it is highly unlikely that solar collection or storage option s will be available to future buyers of the planned residences.
• We are entering an era of rapidly rising costs for electricity and a concurrent fall in the cost of owning, maintaining, and benefiting from solar panels and BESS systems. To preclude their installation at the LCDP is a travesty of justice and an unacceptable financial burden to the future homeowners in this development. • Water Conservation: “Several water-conserving measures are incorporated into the Project, including the use of drought -tolerant plant species and efficient irrigation systems.

This landscape design feature supports water conservation measures through the reduced need for supplemental irrigation water and utilization of non-potable water service ” (italics mine).
• The excerpt above is misleading, at best . Although landscaping may include drought-tolerant species, the only use of “non potable water service” is the planned use of the “Magic Well” to top off the Fake Lake. Elsewhere in the Specific Plan, it states clearly that potable water will be used for all landscaping purposes. • Master Homeowners Association (HOA): during the initial phases of construction, the developer will remain in control of and pay the costs of the Master HOA. 1337
• Only when the HOA is turned over to the actual homeowners will they realize that they are responsible for all landscaping and its water usage . • Only then will they realize that their Fake Lake can become a seasonal mud puddle, or they can pay the ever-increasing price to fill it with potable water, if such water is available at all.
• If the Fake Lake is all owed at all, and it should not be, there should be a covenant that it will be the very first amenity in Simi Valley to be sacrificed during inevitable drought restrictions.
• Hillside Protection: This part of the Specific Plan is one of the most dangerous issues promulgated in the Specific Plan. Since the original golf course area was considered “disturbed, ” anything goes regarding excavation and grading in that area. • Approaching the LCDP from Tapo Canyon, the entire northern side of the roadway has been bush-hogged and striped of natural vegetation. The area now looks more like a “freeway cut” through a hill than anything natural . • To reach bedrock in some areas of Phase One, excavation had to proceed to a depth of approximately one hundred feet. Mr. Siemer verified that fact to me. From there, “highly expansive soil” will be reintroduced and compacted to legally acceptable standards. That means that some homebuyers will have their dwelling units built upon up to one hundred feet of compacted fill dirt.
• At the time of the 1994 earthquake, at least one home in the Simi Valley’s Indian Hills development rested partially on “cut” and partially on “fill. ” It subsequently split in half, with one half subsiding up to twelve inches. Fortunately, the homeowner had earthquake insurance and was able to rebuild. Will the developer be providing earthquake insurance for 362 homes built partially or entirely on fill dirt?
• Minor Revisions to the Specific Plan and Related Procedures : The Specific Plan states that “This section of the Specific Plan Amendment sets forth the regulations governing minor Lost Canyons Planning Area boundary adjustments, transfers of dwelling units from one Planning Area to another, adjustments to grading on approved tentative tract maps, and other similar minor adjustments (italics mine). If a change is made to the Project which does not require a Specific Plan Amendment, such a change may be approved administratively if it does not create an environmental impact not previously studied under the EIR” (italics mine).
• In looking at the changes to the Specific Plan, I also found references to an older version of the Simi Valley General Plan, which then stated , “GOAL IIILU-1: Preserve and promote the image of the community as a tree -covered valley surrounded by the natural hillsides.”
• Protection of the character and image of “ a tree -covered valley surrounded by the natural hillsides” (italics mine) was changed to the following. “Goal LU-1: Growth and Change. Sustainable growth and change, achieved through orderly and well - planned development, meet the needs of existing and future residents and businesses, ensure the effective and equitable provision of public services, and efficiently use land and infrastructu re.”
1338
• In other words, between 2011 and 2026, the City of Simi Valley actively preserved its character and promoted itself as a “tree covered valley surrounded by the natural hillsides.” Now, it has morphed into a place that values “growth and change, ” as well as “efficient land use and infrastructure.”
Have I said enough? Of course there is much more, but I must stop somewhere. My basic thesis is that the 2011 EIR and its adherence to the CEQA is a deception, and it should be vacated immediately. What are the arguments in favor put forward by the developer, and Planning Commissioners John Tolson and Alan Mann?
• The “entire project’ was previously approved and therefore we must approve it as presented.
• There were 364 residential units planned under the original EIR and there are 364 residential units proposed in the current Specific Plan . • Since 184 of the 364 homes were approved for Phase One of the current LCDP site (including thirty-two which were “relocated”) and the remaining 178 homes will occupy the previously disturbed golf course area, the environmental impact of the new Specific Plan Amendment is less than the previously approved plan, which included a thirty -six-hole golf course, dispersed housing areas and other amenities.

And what are the arguments that the currently proposed Specific Plan for the LCDP represents a “significant change” to the 2011 EIR and therefor e requires a “negative declaration” on that EIR and that a completely new EIR to be conducted to meet CEQA guidelines?

1. There have been radical changes to site grading, almost doubling the number of lots included in the Phase One and Phase Two development area .

2. There is no publicly available documentation on what I call the “Magic Well, ” regarding its:
a. Location and ownership
b. Operation and maintenance
c. Water rights and aquifer characteristics
d. Sustainability and effects on adjacent drainages and aquifers e. Cleanliness, including potential legacy oilfield and other bacterial contamination.

3. The stormwater retention pond is to be relocated and reconstructed within the LCDP site. Questions regarding that water feature (“The Fake Lake”) include:
a. Will its new siting and construction characteristic s be compatible with expansive soils identified throughout the LCDP?
b. Will the size and water mass affect seismicity and the stability of nearby structures, including homes and the recreation center?
c. Will storm water and raw water provided by the Magic Well and used to fill the Fake Lake be compatible with adjacent recreational activities? d. Will the Fake Lake be an open body of water or will it be subjected to the same laws and rules governing fenced/unfenced swimming pools in residential areas?
1339
e. How much raw water/storm water can be expected to fill the Fake Lake, versus how much scarce and expensive potable water will be required to keep it at an acceptable water level?
f. Has the potential use of the Fake Lake as a firefighting resource been fully evaluated by Ventura County Fire officials?

4. The continued insistence that the LCDP will have exactly 364 homesites is not true. a. The inclusion of an undetermined number of Estate Lots (RE) leaves the door open for further residential development in the planning area. b. For example, the sequestering of Big Mountain (Whiteface) adjacent property as Residential Estate lots is in direct contradiction to the Simi Valley General Plan regarding public access and recreational use of significant cultural resources by all residents.
c. Contrary to the Specific Plan and its 364 homes, Residential Estate lots could be developed directly across from Lost Hills Drive, completely changing the character of the planned development .
d. Likewise Residential Estate Lots could be developed along the north western edge of the currently planned development, completely changing the viewshed and watershed north of the current project.

5. Purveyors of Utilities to the LCDP are misidentified and inappropriate for the LCDP as currently planned .
a. Piping of natural gas through the expansive soils at LCDP and all its 364 homesites was not considered in the 2011 EIR.
b. Through regulations and incentives, the State of California strongly discourages the inclusion of natural gas service to new developments. c. AT&T, which is the identified telephone provider to the LCDP is actively decommissioning copper landline service throughout California. d. Cable TV is rapidly becoming a relic of 20th century technology, but there is no mention of fiberoptic lines and their inclusion in the LCDP . e. Much has changed in infrastructure planning since the 2011 EIR, yet the current Specific Plan takes none of it into account.

6. “Green Building Techniques” are required in the Specific Plan , yet:
a. Natural gas appliances are the number one source of indoor air pollution , yet natural gas water heating, space heating, and cooking appliances will be offered to new homeowners.
b. The proposed home designs do not include any apparent way to utilize passive solar collection or onsite battery storage (BESS) in a location that is remote from any other development or services in Simi Valley.

7. Water conservation is ill-defined in the Specific Plan. a. Two distinct parts of the Specific Plan are at odds with each other, with one encouraging the use of a non-existent reclaimed water source and the other stating that reclaimed water will not be used for landscape irrigation . b. The potential filling or simpl y “topping off” of the Fake Lake could become a significant drain on increasingly scarce potable water resources within the LCDP and City of Simi Valley at large.
1340

8. Master Homeowners Association (HOA).
a. Unless specifically called out in a major disclaimer of circumstances going forward, new homeowners may not realize that they will be responsible for paying ever increasing water bills to fill the Fake Lake.

9. Hillside Protection.
a. Almost any hill with less than a 20% slope , and several with greater slope angles will be leveled, excavated, and repositioned to create what you might call a bowl , ringed by mountains on the east ern, western and northern sides. b. This south-facing “bowl” could function as a new microclimate, or crucible, which would focus sunlight within its own boundaries, thus increasing heat load and evaporation throughout the Phase One and Phase Two . c. The excavation, movement and compaction of the highly expansive soils found throughout the LCDP could result in unknown , unexpected, and unsafe land movement within the project area.

10. Minor Revisions to the Specific Plan and Related Procedures . a. The original EIR was certified in 2011, o ver fifteen years ago, making it a relic of its time and the individuals who created it .
b. Not to quote him directly, but d uring my telephone conversation with Mr.

Siemer, he indicated that he may be the sole human repository of institutional memory regarding the entire period of this project. c. Revisions to the General Plan and the Specific Plan have occurred at least six times since 1992 . In fact, the current revision of the Specific Plan is designated as Number Eight.
d. To assert that eight separate revisions to the Specific Plan over a decade and one half represents “minor revisions” flies in the face of reason.

Summary and Conclusion:

The Boeing Aircraft Company introduced its 737-100 model in 1967. It is referred to as the “Jurassic Model. ” The 737-300 was introduced in 1984 and is referred to as the “Classic Model. ” The 737-600 was introduced in 1996 and is known as the “Next Gen. ” The 737 MAX 7, or fourth generation was introduced in 2011. In 2019, civil aviation authorities around the world grounded the 737 Max after two “hull loss crashes, ” resulting in 346 casualties.

Over fifty-two years, the Federal Aviation Association certified each new Boeing 737 was a “minor revision” to its type rating. Relying on software patches , the 737 Max was designed to operate “exactly like” previous generations of the aircraft. As we know, it did not accomplish that goal . Even so, Boeing Aircraft Company subsequently patched the previous software patches and renamed the 737 MAX out of existence. If you fly a 737 today, it is a MAX model.

Is the analogy between the 737 and the Lost Canyons Specific Plan as obvious to the reader as it is to me? The 2011 Environmental Impact Report should be seen as the “Jurassic Version” of the current plan . It has been patched and revised so many times that it has little to do with what was produced and approved fifteen years ago. As such, the current Specific 1341
Plan should receive a “negative declaration,” and a completely new EIR should be commissioned prior to the approval of the LCDP Phase Two of the Specific Plan.

And what do I think will happen at the August 11, 2026, City Council Public Hearing regarding the LCDP , Phase Two? I think a few “clarifying questions” will be asked from the dais. The argument will be made that since the footprint of the newly proposed amen dment to the Specific Plan is geographically smaller than the previous version , there are no “significant changes” under consideration. I do not think any councilmember will do a backflip off the dais, but all five will bend over backwards to approve this project . After all, the new motto for the City of Simi Valley is, “Simi Valley. We Never Met a Developer We Did Not Like. ” Then, it will be time to say goodbye forever to “a tree -covered valley surrounded by the natural hillsides .”
1342

Simi Valley City CouncilAugust 10, 2026

Simi Valley City Council
August 10, 2026