The URL can be used to link to this page

Attachment 6 - July 20, 2017 Town Council Policy Committee Staff Report (with Attachments 1-3)TOWN OF LOS GATOS MEETING DATE: 07/20/2017 POLICY COMMITTEE REPORT ITEM NO: 2 DATE: JULY 17, 2017 TO: POLICY COMMITTEE FROM: LAUREL PREVVETTTI, TOWN MANAGER SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES. RECOMMENDATION: Review and discuss Section B. of Chapter II. (Constraints Analysis and Site Selection) of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines ("HDS&G) and provide direction to staff for next steps. BACKGROUND: On June 26, 2017 the Policy Committee continued their discussion of proposed modifications to Section B. of Chapter il. of the HDS&G regarding the visibility methodology. The Committee also considered comments from members of the public. Following their discussion, the Committee continued the matter to July 20, 2017 to further consider the following. 1. Categories of tree health, including the difference between a poor and a fair/poor tree condition rating, construction Impacts, and how the overall health of the tree should be considered in a visibility analysis; and 2. A process flow chart for the timing of completing a visibility analysis. PREPARED BY: JOEL PAULSON Community Development Director Reviewed by: Town Manager and Town Attorney 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 . 408-354-6832 www.losgatosca.gov ATTACHMENT 6 PAGE 2OF6 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DATE: JULY 17, 2017 DISCUSSION: In response to the Committee's continued discussion topics, staff has provided the following responses: 1. A tree data table from an arborist report for a hillside property from the Town's Consulting Arborist, Walter Levison is attached for the Committee's viewing (Attachment 1). The tree data table shows the health and structural rating of the tree as a percentage; however, the overall condition rating is provided in both a percentage and an assigned poor, fair, or good rating. For comparison, a tree data table from an arborist report from the former Consulting Arborist, Deborah Ellis is also attached (Attachment 2). Page 12 of Attachment 2 includes information on the condition ratings. Based on the arborist report information, staff recommends that trees with a poor rating (below 50 percent) should not be included in the visibility analysis. Staff has added this clarifying percentage language to bullet #9 of Section B. of Chapter II. of the HDS&G (page five of this report). 2. Chapter II. of the HDS&G requires that a development application complete a constraints analysis to identify the most appropriate area(s) on a lot for locating buildings given the existing constraints of the lot. When all constrained areas have been identified and mapped, the remaining area(s) are designated as the Least Restrictive Development Area ("LRDA") and considered the most appropriate area(s) for development. Bullet #7 of the foreword of the HDS&G states that a site plan and design should be developed only after the LRDA has been identified based on a site specific constraints analysis. In addition, Chapter II. of the HDS&G states that the elements below shall be taken into consideration as part of the site constraints analysis when determining the LRDA of a site. Applicants need to address all the elements of determining the LRDA, which includes going to the viewing areas to assess the site's visibility. • Topography, with emphasis on slopes over 30% • Vegetation such as individual trees, groupings of trees and shrubs, habitat types Drainage courses and riparian corridors • Septic systems Geologic constraints including landslides and active fault traces • Wildlife habitats and movement corridors • Visibility from off site • Areas of severe fire danger • Solar orientation and prevailing wind patterns • Significant Ridgelines N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY\2017\07.20.17\Hillsides Developrnent 5 & G\Hillsides Staff Report 7.20.17.docx 7/17/2017 1:24 PM PAGE 3 OF 6 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DATE: JULY 17, 2017 DISCUSSION (Continued): Staff has included a simplified flow chart below which illustrates when an applicant typically completes a detailed visibility analysis. Site and Constraints Analysis to determine the LRDA of the Site Preparation of plans Application and plans submitted Staff reviews application and determines if a detailed Visibility Analysis is required. If so, Story Poles or other methods are installed. Visibility Analysis completed Visibility Analysis reviewed by staff N:\MGR\AdminWorkFiles\Council Committee - POLICY \2017\07.20.17\Hillsides Development S & G\Hillsides Staff Report 7.20.17.docx 7/19/2019 1:24 PM PAGE 4 OF 6 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DATE: JULY 17, 2017 DISCUSSION (Continued): In response to the Committee's discussion at the June 26, 2017 meeting, staff has prepared the following recommended revisions to Section B. of Chapter II. of the HDS&G Visibility Analysis. At the June 26, 2017 meeting, the Committee was in consensus to remove the requirement of a deed restriction and maintenance agreement for off -site trees. Changes to bullets #8, #9, and #11 of the HDS&G are shown in strkt through and underline font to reflect the consensus of the Committee and staff's recommendation regarding tree rating. Staff looks forward to the discussion and direction of the Committee for next steps. Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines B. Visibility Analysis. 1. Viewing areas. Each development project with the potential for being visible (see glossary for definition) from any established viewing areas shall be subject to a visibility analysis. ("Potential" is defined as capable of being seen from a viewing area if trees or large shrubs are removed, significantly pruned or impacted by construction.) The visibility analysis shall be conducted in compliance with established Town procedures using story poles that identify the building envelope. After installing the story poles, the applicant shall take photographs of the project from appropriate established viewing areas that clearly show the story poles and/or house and subject property. Visual aids such as photo simulations or three dimensional illustrations and/or a scale model may be required when it is deemed necessary to fully understand the impacts of a proposed project. The following steps shall be taken in completing a visibility analysis: • Install story poles per adopted policy. • After the installation of story poles, photographs of the project shall be taken from the applicable viewing areas using 50 MM and 300 MM lenses. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director may be chosen in addition to the existing viewing areas. • A photograph with a 50 MM lens will represent the visibility of the proposed residence from the naked eye. • A photograph with a 300 MM lens will represent an up -close perspective and help identify any visible story poles, netting, trees, and/or shrubbery. N:\MGR\AdminWorkfiles\Council Committee - POL1CY\2017107.20.17\Hillsides Development 5 & G\Hillsides Staff Report 7.20.17.docx 7/17/2017 1:24 PM PAGE5OF6 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION 8. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DATE: JULY 17, 2017 DISCUSSION (Continued): • Existing vegetation and/or landscaping proposed to be removed entirely or partially shall not be included in the visibility analysis. If determined necessary by the Community Development Director, three dimensional illustrations or photo simulations of the structure may be required. • A visible home is defined as a single-family residence where 24.5% or more of an elevation can be seen from any of the Town's established viewing areas. Percentages shall be rounded to the nearest whole number. A Deed Restriction shall be required that identifies the on -site and -off -site trees that were used to provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their replacement if they die or are removed. Trees with a poor health rating (less than 50 percent overall condition rating) shall not be included in the visibility analysis. The Community Development Director shall determine if the use of a third party consultant is required to peer review an applicant's visibility analysis. • A five year Maintenance Agreement shall be required for on -site acre trees that were used to provide screening in the visibility analysis and requires their preservation. The locations of the viewing areas are shown on the map on the next page, and are as follows. 1. Blossom Hill Road/Los Gatos Boulevard 2. Los Gatos - Almaden Road/Selinda Way (across from Leigh High School) 3. Hwy 17 overcrossing/Los Gatos - Saratoga Road (Highway 9) 4. Main Street/Bayview Avenue 5. Other location(s) as deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director Viewing area locations are intended to provide a general vicinity for the visibility analysis and photo locations. Where there are obstructions (buildings, signs, or foreground vegetation) that block a clear and unobstructed view of the site, the origination point shall be adjusted so that a clear and unobstructed view is obtained by moving away from the viewing area location along a public road up to 500 feet in any direction. N:1MGR\AdminWorRfiles\Council Committee - POLICY \2017\07.20.17\Hillsides DevelopmentS & G\Hillsides Staff Report 7.20.17.dotx 7/17/2017 1:24 PM PAGE6OF6 SUBJECT: REVIEW AND DISCUSS SECTION B. OF CHAPTER II. (CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND SITE SELECTION) OF THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES DATE: JULY 17, 2017 COORDINATION: The preparation of this report was coordinated with the Town Manager's Office and the Town Attorney. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Arborist Report for 15680 Gum Tree Arborist Report by Consulting Arborist (eight pages) 2. Arborist Report for 16350 Blackberry Hill Road by Former Consulting Arborist (seven pages) 3. Public Comment (five pages) N:1MGR\AdminWorkFileACouncil Committee - POLICY\20017\07,20.171Hillsides Development S & G\Hillsides Staff Report 7.20.17.docx 7/17/2017 1:24 PM — 4dg eallTramoo AZYZod LT/OZ/L 41) CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered COnsulting Adhorist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Quallfled ! ISA Certified Arborist MC-3172 Walter Levison 13.0 Tree Data Table kit. cell (415) 203-0990 f drtree@sbcglobal.net * i Species Name $ Q rt i . .k M 1 Condition'� RatingElf (O b 109'Xa fl ii iIr I. •8 le il 2 li I II it - ilii j iiiii i'll 1oouglasfi Blue 31.T 31.7 Minor to moderate. depending A hIslorketly performed root Crown excavation want lop for Per CIA's - oak - 35035 3541r poor YBS X mot damage from Imposed NI. southdown. exposing the actual MOM. resullrgl a eleroeald damage, map in SOS repo!. Fin. TB Oestrus 30 Per CTA's 2 loba� Valley oak 19.5 - - 19.5 30 65165 65% fair X Mirdmal. map ill S i6 report. RPZ W Tree not noted on the GowanCoastilva 15/ spplkant'a ParCTAs 3 4406 oak 5.6 - 5.0 9 90l90 86% good X Minimal. piers sheets. Rolglt platted by Me map in this repo. RPZ CTA, CluetCuS Coast live 25r1 - Fill soli *Ill be ParCTA's 4 ag►Xdta oak 10 10 - 20 25 60l60 75% good X Minimal to moderate. placed On mat side of lie root cone. map in this won' RPZ Tree rat noted on tha applicant's plan sheets. Rough Ouaroea Cant live 13i plotted by the Per CIA's 5 oak - -- 5.0 6 75175 75% good X Moderate _ Ci . root sid zone wAl be completely covered with neveelper plan. is ot i RPZ Sint Address. 15600 Qum Ime Line. Los Gatos. CA Regained5Mnber. nmenein Saoety aCamWA5Adman end Member 01 ere alrxnaeonal 6oaely al Arawini*u s a! Water Lemon 2016 Air limas Bosomed 3001 Veraav 7t211201G 7/20/17 Policy Committee Rpt - ATTACHMENT 1 0 CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #4011 ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arbor1st %WC-3172 Walter Levison cell (415) 203-09901 drtreeesbcglobal.net Genus i Species Cornnron Name Ma 1 1 I r i .. U y `' H I..111 d Yi 1 I Overall Coedits n i1aYr b ti fk t �@r�r� 3fi i ii �Qlj y ii li I 3 I! g f ilh 11/1 W Iiin 1 lin 5 Clams agrifofie Coast ova oak 8 5 20 201 15 90l50 70% good X Moderate.exhibit The plot pit of this tree appears to be incorrect. Actual trunk burdenmay to door to existing road than d shown en tie applicants Sheets. Cddomtnatn maInstems a bark inclusion it 1 foot above grade. g Root Systefe may be darneged Or destroyed an the north side by Moused deep fits that will cover the shallow oxygenated root system. Per CTA's map in this report. RPZ 7 Quartos Keit& Cowl live oak 4.8 4.2 - gA 15 80/85 77% good X The p101 point of this tree appears to be intonset. Actual Punk location may be r,loser to existing road than's shown on the applicants sheets. Root system may be damaged or destroyed on the norm aide by proposed deep fill that will cover the shallow oxygenated mot system. Per CIA's map in this report. RPZ 8 Quarcua afedia Coast live el 5.3 - 14.2 75A5 75% good X The plot paint of this tree appears to be ehromeul. Actual trunk location existing hoed trait I shown on the applicant's shoats. Root system maybe damaged or de5ir0yed on the north side by proposed deep Natal will hover the shallow oxygenated root system Per CIA's map in this repot. RPZ g Nalarnnr�.s er811[ifolie California7A rayon 4.0 - 11.0 18i 12 80140 58% fair no X -. to the reMOvetl. - 31 .1 38 8H. melees: 15650 Gum Tree Lens. Los Gabs. CA R rite e Ma**r. American Snd.ry e1 Consulates Arbmrsis and Member M Me lraim.lote.r Sooty M Arbaieuaws a, wain Leman Zola AA NOM Miasma Merman: 7/21/2015 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBQRIST ASCA Registered Consulting Atbodst #401 ! ISA Tree Risk Agent Qualified! ISA Certified Arbo►ist tNWC-3172 cell (415) 2203-09901 drtroeesbcglobsl.net 1 Tree Tap Minima *Nabs Name i $ li • A11hil (9 tlb 1t►aiG1 aI1� fi s 1 itI$i LIL Lh t0 areldis Coast kOva 57 - - 5.7 112 60r60 60%fair X - To be removed. - Needs root crown en cevabon. 11d01414411 slit. oak 15.3 - - 13.3 35 30130 30% poor X IuRner to moderate South X SuggestRP2. relocate the Posed add for the Per CTA's Snap to ills RCX. and locate trio dram pipe autleti ID storm dram such that the rack pse a tether from the trans of report fanner from the trunk base. Ms Vet. Tres appears to he a sprout mass that amsa ISOM a a stump. The entire ray wasters of these sprouts atterng tram a oar CIA's RPZ. end do not Ixad any 12 ouemos 49tila c Coast live oak 30 20 16 a0 MI 90V 45area- 75r35 43St. poor YES X Munor South stump cut This' is a Non risk tree (do not nrmlall any silting areas onto the landscape moo in INS orL silting areas within 45 feet of mainetem nie56, - %thin 45 feet o( the ' mai nalem cluster, Mk Address 15e00 Gum Tree Law, Lei Gales. CA maimed eeemaer, Ammon Satiety ofCarecu10 Mons% and meow of 4u International. sanely of Arbssioultert X Wailer Leeson 2014 OM Slights Redwood Version' 7r2112018 41/ Walter Levison CONSULTING AASORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborlst 0401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist OWC-3172 At\ cell (415) 203-09901 drtree@5bcglobal.net Tree Tap Number L 'Common Trwk2 (Remoter 1 r- i i S Height & Canopy sa (FL) I ^ r l g Overall riEtlrMldllhl!9FiLjij 4e to ten) 4 li !II i w d leg•_ W ++ a '- 13 001 4iirliFil Slue oak ta — — 8' 35/ 5 35035 35�I,poor X Minor Tree could improve in vigor vialQuercus lointonth water at 25feet aut from m=Ylstem. Per CTA's ap in this mrePolt RPZ, and once ea monthly Irrigation l26 foal out 14 us Oma' lobela Valley oak 16.2 - - 16.2 45 80180 B0%good X MddorMs X Needs toot Crown excavation. Work proposed is relatively dose to malninam. Per CTA's map in this report. RPZ, RCX. 15 QuerPer $ fobare15 Valley oak 10.5 — — . 10.5 70/45 57% fair X Minor CTA's map in this report. RPZ 16 CuercuLargo to Mr Valley oak 11.9 11.6 — 1 23.5 20tMinor 80/65 75% good X rodent tunnel at base of tree. Per CTA'e map m this report RPZ 17 Quercu28/ S lobate Valley oak 8 — — a 13 65r45 55% fair X Minors South Per CIA's map in this report. RPZ 18 Ortencas aydrbria Coast five oak 7 7 — Est. 14 3Gf 35 80f75 78%good X Minor Corldr6on assessed from afar. diameters estimated. Per CIA's , in this report, RPZ 33 or 36 Bah Memos: 156sti Oum Tree Lana. Los Gatos. CA Rapist so Member.ArMncanSmelly dConsuul6MlMonett and Member dImInternationalSoosteofAr6onwrlwe 0 WOO" Loosen 2016 Per Roos Reserved Version- 7a12016 110 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Alborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified f ISA CefdMed Atborist MC-3172 1 cel (415) 203-09901 drtree@sboglobal.net a 11 Gann i SpscMs Common Name i I L 1(a T Cendldert RW to logrX.) i !i � !iLij1 1. 1 1 1,<r ii Ili 19 taPerCTAa uerrwe eue'ciie Coast live oak 192 — — 12.2 36 50150 50% fair X minor toMantonmop moderato Root crown visa done • weft In INS RPZ 20 ClUeillli nada Coast klive 203 — — 20.3 301 38 40130 35% poor X Minor South Banc inclusion at 7 feet. Per CIA's map to this report. RPZ 2i Cuercus Coed live Oak 14.7 — 14.7 9� 7t155 70% X Minor Rd* down alICIMItfOn done welt already, Scar noted et 4 to Sleet above grade. Per CIA's rap In this report. RPZaggaps 22 Cowes lob=40 Valley oak 25 16 10 Total rat. 51 40130 36% poor yE X cos of 4 marielems was removed al grade. Three ndnstems remain. Canopyconafstsof T sproutsmaintains.PerGTA's derma/ ae is nd *Walston, ar a 'retrenched"On' specimen. map m s111 RPZ °MMU23 a labola(dowmicipi Valley oak 15.5 14.5 -• 30.0 30, 50125 30%poor YES X Minor South Root Clown decayou tower else or marnstem. Per CIA's map in tlra report. RPZ 24 Quemea fo Valley oak 11.0 — - 11.0 11.0 4n 75175 75% good X Minor Needs Crow) excavation. Per CTA11 map in ids report RPZ. RCX 34 d13$ Stia Address: 15580 Gum Trae Loa, Los Gifa, CA Ra0aniied laanmer.'woman Sociatyof Cowling Arbonem W Member aim louanaaaW SDairy d Areonaellurn M, Waller Wiesen 2016 Al Rolm Resorted Vassar 712112O1e 41 CONSULTING ARBORiST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 ! ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ! ISA Certified Arbosist #WC-3172 Walter Levison �.4 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobalnet Tres Tag Number Genus f. *NeboNarna Ceanmon i 1 li. i ? mV 1... l� Can Balky- o1 - i !hiIIIJ'11 iiu�+ II ;6 1 $. i i=W Ili 1 51- 1°12 25 Marcus agrOfola Coast live oak 24 22 46 35/ AO 75175 75% good YES X Moderate to Severe Root crown excavation done already is OK. Existing trunk buffer map wee not done correctly, and should be removed and redone. Pat CTA's maps in NEW TB. RPZ 26 Ouercusj� dougAs&spast Blue oak 15.9 - - 15.3 70170 70% good X281 (Impactsneeded to road Root crown excavation to remove lilt soil placed ind wad during road development • h the past. Per CTA's map In this report. RCX, RPZ 27 Opercu30/ lobaa Valley oak 11.7 — - 11.7 25 80170 75% good X Moderate Saudi over street Per CTA's map in this report. RPZ 28 Ouaecua douglasilone Blue oak 9.9 — — 8.9 60r80 60% lair X Moderatedevelopin Stem cankers are on25 noticeably or two stems. Per CTA's meP in this report' RPZ F 29 1 35or3e Site Address: ISM Gum tree Lane. Lae Gatti*, CA Rrrildriered Member. American Society of Comintern, maim ervi Member of the Mtaneeanai Society dhrbaiwwre m Waiter Leaser; 2016 P3 Rights Reserved Veatch: 7ntn0t6 Walter Levisnn CONSULTING ARBORlST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ! ISA Certified Arborlst #WCa3172 oeR (415)203.0950 I drtree@sbcglobal.net mm B Cor snorty�� I 11 Wight IICallow Woad {FW 1 i !r1IlII1I i)ii ii r' g#g ill] 1liF c geciesy3 '15QI11 ii 'goo 1 1. 30 Warm loo s Valley oak 18.3 - — 18.3 30, 80110 TB%good X MOdera� to South X Root crown excavation needed. Proposed water fineRPZ, trench and the proposed atom drain line trench rosy causemeinstem asters rapt loss el the north side of rootzo ne if eut along Lament wowed alignment, Recommend reroute the ed lwc proposlfelslres. or use direGbnai bore to avoid trenching altogether, PerCTAs map 1n this e it RCX, TB, RP. and is/Rio/0 vaaterdeeply as far use from as pose b e. Reroute waterline trench and line tine t rench or use directions/ bore instead of standard trenching method. &re Maces: 15680 Gum Tree tins, Las Gees, CA Ragaaered Meaner. Air nwi Seemly al Ca sulang Areon,5 and Hemet dm leernalanar Soaely or Admac also 0 Wafts Leeson 2016 Al kights Re®s sd Vefeaon 712112016 Walter Levison CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arbarist *401 t ISA Tree Risk Assessment Ouall ied 11SA Certified Arbortst *VC-31 T2 AA;\AVIIC cell (415) 203-09901 drtree®abaglobaLnet zGenus i r� L Species Common Name 1- r- " ill RMinY (pta100%} ' ' !M ii II 1.1 tf li11 c p� , z !Ili W1.fi i Eli liii 91 dousinffas Blue oak 15.8 1E.0 12.5 49.3 50/50 50% Fair YES X Severe Tree condtionis recovering alter decline in vigor from extended drought. Proposed construction work will surround the sae. causing root loss end root Clampmap wall as hydrologic& changes to most portons dike trees remaining root zone in oil directions. Stall should consider this tree to be a "remover for tee purposes. Per CTA'e in min ►sport. RPZ, TB, RP, and txlmonth waterdeaply aster out torn mainstem as possible. Restrict Proposed work cut depths to as shallows* possible to avoid undue mot loss and root damage. 371838 Sere Address: 15680 Gum Tree Lana. Loa Gatos. CA RagipaedMambr. Mariam Smiley of Consulting Areertsfe and Member rOarniarnationsiSodMyarArpplWaura fe Wailer Levson 2018 As Rlplrrs Reserved Versipc 72211201E qdg aai4Tmaoj £aj-Eod LT/OZ/L Deborah Ellis, MS TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TABLE S wice since 19114 This Table is continued through page 11. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 12 to 15. col Species Trtmk & Diem. Common fit. Name (In.) 1 10uercus agrifolia, coast live leak 19 ornoN She 35'125 PreservationExpected Suitability Construction Action Impact BO iGood Local 'save Construction: a room will be added to the Moderate house and the existing roof will be modified at a distance of 13 feet from the trunk. Roof construction may interfere with the canopy of this tree somewhat, although past pruning has kept the canopy mostly away from the house. Erect story posts and have a qualified tree service provide the minimum necessary pruning prior to demo and construction in order to aftow construction waiters to complete their work without damaging branches of the tree. 'Condition: the trunk of this tree grows through a 3x3 R. hole cut into the paved patio above. The base of the trunk is about B feet below the patio. Around the base of the tree there is a storage area open to the northeast so that the lower trunk can be rset The root collar of this bee is rigid by 6 inches or more of duff which in houtd be removed and the covered area ined by a qualified arborist. PO Sox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decehepacbeli.net. httpc//www.decoh.cont. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill Rd, May 20, 2015. Page 9 of 25 7/20/17 Policy Committee Rpt - ATTACHMENT 2 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlat & Horticulturist Service since 1984 L 5peeies 3 Trunk Diem. NDITION ExPe TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Preservation OTPZ Common c3 R. Sias E Suitability CoInstructlon Action Ralson Notes m Name On.)o. 5 a o 1.2 70 60 Fair/Good Good 4 coast five { 8 16'1.5 80 70 IGood oak 1(01.5 ft) Uncertain (Debatable Constructio ow/Moderate 'Save ry : this small tree is not shown n any of the plans, but it a of protected ize and may be close to a pier for the new extension above, or even within the proposed deck extension. This tree should !be accurately shown on the plans so that �'construction impact can be assessed. The aak can be transplanted elsewhere if ecessary. Construction: a pier for the deck extension 1 8 Is 5 feet from the trunk. The new stairs will extend from the existing upper deck to the new lower deck. so there mil be no ground disturbance for that. I spoke with the architect and she was agreeable to move the pier slightly farther from the tank of the tree and cantilever the remaining comer and edge of the deck near the tree. If possible try to move the pier so that there VAN not be soil disturbance closer than 8 from the trunk. The nearest edge of e new roof extension is 19 feet from the nk which win probably not be a problem ative to the canopy of the tree, but erect ry posts to verify if any construction rance pruning will be necessary. this small tree is not shove n any of the plans, but it is of protected Ire and it is between trees #3 and 85 3 4 13 5 24 4 5 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahlgpacbelinet. http://www.dscah.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill Rd. May 20, 2015. Page 10 of 25 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arbonst & Horticutturist ert*e susri 191W ' Lee!CONDITION' 5trecles !Trunk * S Diem. gage Common 03R. Name on,) Preservation won Suitability Impact Action Reason TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Notes I II ' I I ran g. Therefore this tree should be cuich are aunt to where work will be rately shown on the plans. I do not now if workers will be wailing and rsaportlnp materiels and equipment In this rea around the side of the house. It will be opting to throw things into the shrubby rea here, and so this tree should be urrounded by the standard Los Gatos tree rotection fen ing and signage. f I 5 Cednls aflantica Glauca', blue Atlas cedar 13 125' 18 84 r I 70 Low Save 1 I thb tree Is not shown on any 3 1 5 f ( 6 I the plans, but I estimate it is about 20 from the proposed first floor addition. Because oldie same reasons mentioned r oak S4 above, this tree should also trs eluded on the plans and receive tree tenting and signage. : some upslope soil over the root sr should be removed. End of Table PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://wslw.decoh.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill Rd. May 20, 2015. Page i t of 25 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS: 1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round aluminum number tag that corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Directions and any other project plans where existing trees must be shown and referenced. 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used. 3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). Thls Is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of Pam. For multi -trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number in parentheses (e.g. 2) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter was measured at this alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree. Examples: an 18" in the Diameter column means that the tree has o diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground An "18 (2)" means that trunk diameter was 18 inches measured at 2 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5" means that this is a multi -trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet above the ground. 4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes. 5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare — like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition — vigor and structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to remove a tree from a sae — even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component 100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair IC), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead. 3 PAM is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement hei • ht that is also used in man tree -related calculations. 1 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepocbel l.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill Rd. May 20, 2015. Page 12 of 25 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sitter 1984 6) Relative to the scone of work for this report. tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition. 7) The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opinion on the tree's Preservation. Suitability Rating (I.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 4 below. This is based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below -ground space to survive and five a long life on the site. Ratings such as "Fair/Good" and "fair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work — and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation Excellent Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health end *trachea and provide Multiple functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the site. These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure. Equivalent to academic grade 'A'. Good These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are batter than average trees equivalent to academic grade 'S'. Fair These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to improve with treatment These are'average" trees — not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on most sires tend to fall into the category. These trees will require more Intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter fife spans than trees in the 'Good' category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivalent to academic grade'C. Poor These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The bee species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable In landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas, I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present Equivalent to academic grade D. Nona These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other issues. In certain settings however. (such as wilderness areas. dead trees am beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants includbrg decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade ' F'. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decohepacbell,net, http://www:decah.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Mi11 Rd. May 20.2015. Page 13 of 25 Deborah Ellis, MS .Sennae since 1984 S) Action (Disposition): a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or any combination of these factors. e) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table. Examples are: • The tree is shown to be saved Land may be a desirable tree to save) but pr000aed construction is too dose or is uncertain and may cause too much damartejo retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved. • Further evaluation of the tree is necessary )e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis. • Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the Information provided in this report as well as the owner's own preferences. • Suedes: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site. • Uncertain construction impact • Other (as explained for the individual tree) 9) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree Is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to: • Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile to try and save the tree) ▪ Condition (e.g. poor tree condition — either vigor, structure or both) • Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping) • Owner's Dedslon (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Specks (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated) 30) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-7255-1357. decay@pecbeII.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill Rd. May 20.2015. Page 14 of 25 1 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serr icr are 1984 11) Tree Protection Distances (See page 16). a) Root Protection: i) 3 and SxDBH: Both the 3 and 5xDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi -trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the largest trunk is added to 5O% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculations. For practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance listed Is 3 feet and the minimum 5xDBH distance is 4 feet. If disturbance cannot be kept at least 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed. il) OTPZ EOptimum Tree Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not be possible to maintain the OPT2 distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this requirement and list only the 3 and 5xDBH distances. b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection. Cj 1 have increased a few of the calculated tree orotectlon distances for individual trees based upon my professional judgment relative to site constraints. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decdhhpacbell.net. http;//www.deceh.com. Arborist Report for 16530 Blackberry Hill lid. May 20, 2015. Page 15 of 25 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank To: Joel P. and staff From: Dave Weissman Re: Policy Committee Meeting 7/20/2017, Visibility Analysis Revision Those items that address or are related to tree health 1. Trees in "poor" or "fair/poor" condition should not be counted as screening trees. Both the PC and TC decided at 2015/2016 hearings, based upon the narrative provided in the tree reports (see below), that poor and fair/poor trees would not be counted as providing screening. Specifically, Ms. Ellis stated the following about poor and fair/poor trees: Which trees to retain? Try to design around and retain as many of trees as possible with "Farr/Good"preservation suitability ratings. Trees with "Fair"preservation suitability should be saved when possible, but I don't recommend making a significant effort to save them. No effort should be made toretain trees with "Fair/Poor" or "Poor"preservation suitability. Trees with "Poor"preservation suitability are best removed and replaced with new, young healthy trees of species that are native to the immediate area. "Fair/Poor" trees recommended for further evaluation by the arborist should be evaluated in greater detail if they may remain. If no further evaluation will be performed on these trees then it is probably best to remove these for reasons of safety. D. Ellis provided specifics as to how she assigned her categories and ratings. They include: 1 7/20/17 Policy Committee Rpt - ATTACHMENT 3 Deborah Ellis, MS Poor Consulting Atbeitst & Horticutturrpl Table 6 Preservation SuitabiHt Ratin EXPlartatien (continued ea the nextpa Such trees are rage but they have unusually good health aria structure ar4 provide +mtrlt le funrational and aesthetic beeents 1A the ernwonment and the users of it)e see. These are great tees vettr a minimum rating of ,Good' for both got and et►uaure. Egtlivplerslto as:eoeenic,grade'A These trees may have mine minor to modem* i ru t rre1 ci con -it -Von 1'ia1 cane be improved with treatment They are not perfect bi4 they are in relatively good condition end provide at least one slgmsf ire blown] or aesthetic benefit t0 the emnierrrnentand eta risers of the site These ere better than average trees srprivele t to aaaaemic grade '6 These trees have moderate or greater health andror structural defects test 1 may or main not be possible to *move vete teatime These are 'ayereae` trees - not great Mil not to tsmltle ttlet they absolutely should be termed The moiety of trees on most sites bunt to fez into ties wry. These trees will remelt more intensive management and monitansrg and may also have shorter hoe spans than trees In the 'Good" category Retention of bees wsih moderate suitability Ice preservelme depends upon the dew of proposed sae changes. Egwwalerd to academc rade'C' Titres trees have stgntcer1 strectural detects or poor health that cannot be reasonably Improved vieh treatment. These trees can be Coshed to deal* regardless of managreero. The tree stem* themselves may ha* characteristics that am uncles able tri le cape settings or mey be trastileble for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of lakes with low fruitabr for preservation in areas atkere Of • waif be resent Equivalent to academic rode "0 These trees are dead aid are riot suitable for retenbon In their location In certxn settimps ho*e-ver. (such as wilderness areas, dead hates are benelFowl as loco end shatter far certain animals end plants rnchdieg derarnpose,s Equivalent to academic grade "F' Inane Ms. Ellis then continued to explain her rating system: r Si Coarlatan lit t 'roes art Inca `ts t«r, carrot -an an s scats c cm to 720%wrt.: zero tor, rF. tilt:.',' ore 0R1 IOU ca,:r1 a Wen vet o ^ rb .s rare - ; s.:,pr-rnaxrer m f 0r am `.err s) A 60 u "aserair' tna' a rr` a,. not te*ribtc r :heri Terra are ire ca Onprsat to trrt* tOnd t n + - vigor a rtS strut►,ne, sr,ff 'Et rviaerteat rated v-ravatr f 1Mre-ahem,' MO. ,VeP CC"rn4r•e: b+: fat u'SR:'dr bt.Gl-/ i very '4s r t.R1: fa, t .r` w G'.i cut.: R C+ a '•.'+OVG a ter!«, irrrn * f :! r situ ! the et►re' C T O^.Ent hat a h r r4Vile tYurFtf"r:i 1Ir 11,144,4 fe. eat" staa•ate conrepanrr': I. 100 is cal 6,a'r•'t to ,E.Gr._Pr.: la- A atrnrzr -{t-,.ter; 110 is Giverlei 44+a For (Cc, 40 rider t11,: 70„ Velorlfrookwle ire .-'t 0 Tr:e CC r•r+rr t,l ihe Iri'r ••>• cnr•s.r7r=.ee rr:atAre to gfrt t!rr rna : area otr•rnt N rutu°r intrndn'i c'r at r,-q• a It to tztovsa" r,r+c+p-man t' +.hc vev s kttr-rva 4.1' }d::::b:k?y ewt - 1' t "Is !h +, tier vrolt- kt'ePailt on 5ke, t t-4, to .%rOtaltt.t. a.t aisle tql v^ Y:t..* f ix the nr..l "I" ' ci 470!•tiLr sansnaliv:tr rif10-"tweNk. •uadfiresthv�,vie.ldwati to*urrvr*NI 1,reaktrog w to«r:tr R4iiu utt.S r%•Fa- ,fCkr'tl'.•-•. ;4-POTp. r" yrc .ntr InWitatt =n + „l.:r Tr w rr,rsr•vauer, Su ' abili v rat ,. POI NIi y ',e s;rrr±e tr,1Mr rsuer-,-re. ere. '+g 6wtaLna• • t*arr:.,t 1.0- t"M 4%,t1' 0GI?' writ u• tr .rturr t.seta, irnrurvP4 Mr!', auii a ,trial anima ai to tows - a'rd rf wittu.b let- vms I'+wh dr if, rm"•. ter, r r t�- Ms. Ellis also specifically addressed those rare situations where determining the condition of a deciduous tree, in winter, may be difficult because the tree is leaf-Iess. This need should be rare 2 since the vast rn.ajority of the Town's hillside trees are evergreen live oaks. But in those few cases where necessary, Deborah Ellis recommended June as an appropriate month for full leaf out evaluation. No one wants to count a dead tree, or major dead trunks and branches, as providing screening. The current arborist, W. Levison, does things a little differently. While he assigns an "overall condition rating (0 to 100%)" to each tree, he doesn't detail his methodology as well as Ellis did. But looking at the Levison tree report, dated 7/5/2016, for 15680 Gum Tree Lane, we see the following cumulative information on various trees: A. Trees rated from 30-43 , were assigned "poor" values B. Trees rated from 50-65, were assigned "fair" values C. Trees rated from 70-86, were assigned "good" values Mr. Levison works for the Town, and the Town shouldask him to simply state where he draws the line, percentage -wise, between "poor and fair and fair and good" condition trees. Trees with intermediate ratings should, for example, then be assigned an appropriate fair/poor rating if they fall in between poor and fair condition. Intermediate ratings are not a sign of arborist indecisiveness but a reflection of the fact that assigning such values is both a science and an art, and, therefore, imprecise. 2. Trees impacted by construction should not be counted as screening trees. The HDS&G (page 13) says that. trees "...impacted by construction..." shall be treated the same as "removed or significantly pruned" trees. We propose language that allows for a minor amount of construction impact without eliminating the tree from screening consideration. Specifically, trees that are subject to "no or low" construction impacts, according to the Consulting Arborist, can count as screening trees when such an impact is also coupled with a preservation suitability rating of "fair, fair/good, good, or excellent" as determined by the consulting arborist. The Tree Protection Ordinance (Sec. 29.10,1000 (b)) also requires that all trees, in the consulting arborist's tree report, be assigned a "Preservation Suitability" based on a retention rating of"high-moderate- low." Ms. Ellis used more categories (poor/fair-poor/fair/good-fair/good/etc.) for Preservation Suitability in her reports but Mr. Levison didn't specifically address this Town code requirement in his reports. (He should be so instructed, by Town staff, to include this required category in future reports). He did indicate whether or not a tree should be saved, in some situations even noting that a tree with a moderate to severe construction impact should be saved. If the Consulting Arborist indicates that a tree should be saved even in the face of potential severe impacts, especially in those cases where arborist-mandated site plan changes or restrictions are proposed, then saving the tree is a worthwhile goal. But given the potential coutstrnction obstacles, the tree should not be counted as screening. In such unpredictable situations, the decision of whether or not to count a tree as screening should favor the HDS&G vision of "Maintaining the natural appearance of the hillsides from all.vantage points including the valley floor" • Likewise, trees assessed as "disposition unclear" or "debatable action" or given some similar, 3 general, nonspecific effect from construction activities, should not be counted as screening trees. 3. Trees that need significant pruning. to permit construction, should not be counted as screening trees. Significantly pruned trees are to be treated the same as "removed trees" or trees "impacted by construction" according to the HDS&G (page 13) visibility analysis section. We propose that the (undefined) threshold for "significant pruning" be set at 25% because such a health insult can kill or severally injure a tree. As Consulting Arborist Ellis stated in her February 20, 2012, report for Highlands' Lot 6, "...excessive pruning...can be detrimental to the trees because it has removed a lot of foliage, and foliage makes the food for the tree." Also, the Town's Tree Protection Ordinance (TPO), Sec 29.10.1010 (3), requires a permit to remove more than 25% of a tree, within a 3-year period. Plus, the TPO defines "removal" of a tree as "Taking any action foreseeably leading to the death of a tree or permanent damage to its health; including but not limited to severe pruning (my emphasis), cutting, girdling, poisoning, overwatering, ...or trenching, excavating, alternating the grade, or paving within the dripline area of a tree." 4. Trees with major (> 4 inches in diameter) dead branches should have those dead branches removed before visibility calculations are done. This size threshold is consistent with TPO, Sec. 29.10.0982 which requires a pruning permit for branches exceeding 4' in diameter. Plus, such dead branch removal is also part of the HDS&G defensible space guidelines (page 25). No one wants to count a major dead trunk and branches, as providing screening. 5. Trees that are injured or harmed should not be counted as screening trees. During any pre - construction (including surveying and story pole instillation), construction, or grading activity, such injuries can result in subsequent death of that tree. By way of example, Ms. Ellis states in her Highlands' tree report, for Lot 13, dated June 4, 2015, that tree #723 has a "recent mechanical wound" that "...may become infected with a wood decay fungus that could cause the failure of this tree in the future." She then elaborates further in her Tree Value letter, to the Town Attorney, dated October 28, 2016, by stating: "It is important to understand that even if wounds are small; these can and often do serve as entry points for wood decay fungi that cause extensive decay and a failure in a part or the entire tree in the future." The potential effects of such mechanical injuries are illustrated by tree #626 on Highlands' Lot 7, as discussed in the arborist's Final Tree Report dated December 10, 2014, where a "small lower truck wound has sapwood fungal wood decay conks" resulting in a "reduced structural rating" and "preservation suitability." This stipulation will encourage the early placement of tree protection fences and good construction practices at all times. Those items that are related to timing of events regarding visibility analysis I. Storvpoles (or photo simulations) should be installed (completed) prior to the determination of the LRDA; since, on page 12 of HDS&G, "Visibility from off site" is to 4 be taken into account when determining a site's LRDA. How can such a consideration occur, when determining the LDA, in the absence of either story poles or photo simulation? 5 This Page Intentionally Left Blank