The URL can be used to link to this page

15860, 15880, 15894 Winchester Blvd - Staff Report Exh.7-101 ~ ~ De bo rah Ellis , MS Consulti ng Arborist & Hortic ultur is t ARBORIST REPORT Tree Inventory, Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Relative to Proposed Construction Wi nchester Boulevard Office Winchester Boulevard at Shelburne Way, Los Gatos Property Owner: South Beach Partners LLC/Cumulus Capital Holdings, LLC Prepa red for: Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B . lntemational Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science FEBRUARY 12,2016 Reoort Historv: This is my fourth report for this project. My most recent previous report is dated March 23. 2015 . PO Box 3714, Sara toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah .com . Seroice since 1984 .~lT'l , Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice since 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1 SUMMARY ..................................................................................•......................................................................................................................................... 2 The Project ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 The Trees and How the Project will affect them ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 The Best Trees on Site to Save: .................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 1 Summary Tree Table ........................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 Table 2 Trees to Remove ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 3 Trees Listed as "Debatable" ................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Table 4 Trees to Save ...................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Purpose & Use of Report ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Background Information .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 METHODOLOGY .......... ~ ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 OBSERVATIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Site Conditions ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................................................•.......•................................. 15 Table 5 Complete Tree Table ......................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Tree Root Protection Distances ...................................................................................................................................................................................... 30 Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements ....................................................................................................................................................................... 31 Tree Photos ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 36 Assumptions & Limitations .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 40 Enclosures: ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 References: ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42 Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43 Cover photo : coast live oaks #1 , 2 and 3. As per the current plans , tree #1 will be removed and #2 and 3 wi ll remain , but construction is really too close to trees #2 and 3 for them to rema i n. All photos in thi s report were taken by D. Ellis on February 9 , 2016 unless otherwise noted. 1 PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah.com . TREE MAP WINCHESTER BLVD .~: ,, -F_--_-·~~·r:,~-~----· --%=-~-~~:·~~~.~1-.. - x 38 I . ----* 16 I ~ .. '1\~ * 17 ' '-I x * 9 r-------l I 1-~8~------~ i ~! i ~ X 19 9~ l O xX 11 ~ X 12M! :-il~ X .I !I fl ; ~end e Sove Tree * Oeboloble - fReed obo<JIIree) X Remove Tree 0 Undenized -_____________ ~X 43 _______ j i _ -- ---- ---·-. ,.ps_ - - ---§~ - X 42 X 0 .. I 3* I •· 2* I l X I; >-<( !; w z a: :I ID .J w :I: Ill Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist S ervice situe 1984 I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://v~;:;decah.com . ] Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 1 of 18 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horti culturist SUMMARY THE PROJECT Service since 1984 Pre-development plans proposed to merge four properties zoned 0 . demolish three existing single-family residences and accessory structures and construct a new two-story office building with below grade and at grade parking. THE TREES AND HOW THE PROJECT WILL AFFECT THEM Thirty-six (36) protected trees 1 are listed and described in this report. A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on begnning on page 4. and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table 5 (the Complete Tree Tab/e) beginning on page 15. The Complete Tree Table also provides recommended minimum root protection distances for those trees that will or may be saved . as well as other important information about individual trees . After review of the current plans and in light of individual tree condition and preservation suitability, I have listed 23 protected trees for removal. 7 trees as "Debatable" and 6 trees that can probably be saved . Separate Tables listing trees to Remove. Save or are Debatable are on pages 7 through 9. All of the protected trees are native to the immediate vicinity of the site except for London planes #S, 7, 14 and IS, weeping bottlebll'Ush #19 and golden .. ain bee #38 . There are many nice. large native oak trees here; primarily coast live oaks . There are also many fruit trees on the property which were not evaluated (fruit trees less than 18 inch trunk diameter are not considered to be protected trees). The large oak trees would be nice to retain, but it may be difficult to provide adequate space for their long term survival. Most of the oaks are in "Fair/Good" to "Good" condition . The reason for their good condition is that the tree have not been disturbed for many years , and most of them have a large 1 For the purpose of this report a protected tree is: all trees wh ich have a (4) fou r -inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when remova l relates to any review for wh ich zoning approval or subdivision approval is requ ired . Exceptions are: fruit or nut trees t hat less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter or any of the following species that are less than 24 inches in diameter: black acacia (Acacia melanoxylon), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), tree-of-Heaven (A ilanthus altissima), Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus), Red River gum Euca lyptus (Eucalyptus comaldulensis), other Eucalypt us species (£ spp.) (Hillsides only), glossy privet Lioustrum lucidum) and and cal ms (excect Phoenix canariensis). PO Bo x 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-13 57. decah@pa c be ll.ne t . http:/ /www .decah .com . Arbori s t Report for Winchester Blvd . Office . February 12 , 201 6. Page 2 of 18 Debo rah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticultu rist Service since 1984 area of unpaved soil around them with a th ick natural leaf litter (mulch) accumulation. The trees have also not been overpruned. This will all change as the property is developed, however. The goal of the developer to save many of the oaks is admirable, but it will probably not work out unless the design is modified significantly. Although it may look like these trees could be saved by looking at the Tree Disposition Plan, just because the trunk (depicted as a dot symbol on the plan) is outside of an improvement does not mean that the tree can actually be saved or that it will be viable after development occurs around it. Many of these trees are large and w ide-spreading, and they have exi sted in an undisturbed state for many years. For example, a 2-story building is proposed at 12 feet from the trunks of large and wide-spreading coast live oaks #2. and 3 . This is simply not going to work from many standpoints. Please review the photos of these trees and you will understand what I mean. A new sidewalk is also proposed on the opposite side of oaks #2 and 3, with a few to several feet from the trunks. For oaks #2 and 3 and many of the other large oaks on this site, the proposed building must be moved much farther from their trunks and canopies-preferably to at least 10 feet beyond the canopy. Even if trees adjacent to proposed buildings or other improvements are left standing, grading, construction vehicle traffic and other activities and radically changing the environment may cause them to decline and die over a period of years. Even if trees are provided with minimal root protection distances to remain, their canopies may be decimated by the clearance needed for the proposed building as well as construction of the building itself . This is difficult to visualize from the current Tree Disposition Plan , and it is often very hard to visualize from the additional construction plans which will be forthcoming. Viewing the tree photos in this report will be helpful to remind people just how large many of these trees really are, and visiting the site is also important. Story posts to depict the three dimensional size of the above-ground portion of the building is mandatory and I must review this. A basement parking area is also planned, and the excavation for this (whether there will be over-excavation beyond the actual building footprint) will be very important in determining if some of the trees near the building can actually be saved. It is important to understand however, that the depth of the excavation is not as important for trees as the distance of the excavation from the trunk of the tree, since most tree roots are shallow- within the upper 18 inches of soil. I am not trying to paint a completely negative picture of the tree preservation possibilities for this project, but I th ink that we have to be realistic. Big changes are needed in the design in order to save many of the large trees that the developer currently proposes to save. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pac bel l.net. http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 3 of 18 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 THE BEST TREES ON SITE TO SAVE: • coast live oaks #1,2,3, 9,12,16,17,18,21,23,24,25,34,39 and 41. • valley oak #40 • goldenrain tree #38 All of these trees have "Fair/Good" or better preservation suitability. Underlined trees are listed to be saved; all others are to be removed or are "debatable" save or remove. TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE This table is continued through page 6. Preservation Expected !Tree Common Trunk Suitability Construction Action Reason tl Name Dlam. & Impact Value 1 coast live oak 20 Good Severe Remove Construction $7900 2 coast live oak 15, 15, 23 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction I 23,100 3 coast live oak 19,23 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction ~.400 4 Tree less than Protected Size 5 London p lane 7 Fa1r/Poor Severe Remove 1,260 6 lfree less than Protected Size 7 London plane 6 Fa1r/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1,260 8 coast live oak 6 Fair Severe Remove Construction 1 080 9 coast live oak 30 (3) Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction 15,500 I PO Box 3714, Sarato~a . CA 9507Q._ __ 4Sl~-725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com. A r b orist Report for W i nc hest e r Bl vd . O ffi ce. Febr uary 12 , 201 6. Page 4 o f 18 I Deborah Ellis, MS Consultin g Arb orist & Horticulturist Table 1. Summarv of Trees (continued from the previous page} S ervice since 1984 Preservation Expected Tree Common Trunk Suitability Construction Acti on Reason # Name D lam. & Impact Value 10 Calif. bay 5,6 7 Fair Severe Remove Construction I 160 11 coast hve oak 7 ,9 Fa1r Severe Remove Construction ~30 12 coast l1ve oak 25 Good Severe Remove Construction 10,200 13 coast live oak 7 Fa ir/Good Severe Debatable Construction I 1,220 14 London plane 7 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction I 1,350 15 London plane 6 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1,260 16 coast live oak 25 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction I 11 ,900 17 coast live oak 21 Good Moderate Debatable Construction 8 ,000 18 coast live oak 28 Good Severe Remove Construction 14,900 19 ~eep1ng bottlebrush 7 Fair Severe Remove Construction 1,080 20 coast live oak 6 F~ir/Poor Severe Remove Construction 900 21 coast live oak 11 ,13,18 Fa ir/Good Severe Remove Construction 13,300 22 coast live oak 13 Fair Moderate Debatable Construction/Structure 2,280 23 c oa st live oak 15 Fa ir/Good Low Save 3 ,010 24 coast live oak 15,16 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 8 ,000 I PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arboris t Repo r t for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 5 of 18 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Se1'11ice since 1984 •--•-I. ¥"""'••••••-1111'1' VII •l'llli-• _ _.,,,,,,"" __ ••-••• •••-,...,,_.,., __ ..,,...,\wi~VJ• Preservation Expected ~,.. Common Trunk Suitability Construction Action Reason ., Name Olam • & Impact Value 25 coast live oak 17 Fair/Good Moderate Save ~.040 26 Tree less than Protected Size 27 co ast live oak 18 Fair Low Save I f4 ,870 I 28 !Tree less than Protected Size I I I I I I 29 ~c~ast live oak I 7 IF air I low I Save I I 1,260 ----- j30-33jTree less than Protected Size I I I I I 1 34 coast live oak 17 Good Severe Remove Construction f4 ,930 35 black walnut 23 (3 .5) Poor Severe Remove Construction/Structure 1,760 36 black walnut 19 (3 .5) Poor/ Severe Remove Construction /Structure Unacceptable f6 00 37 !free less than Protected Size 38 goldenra1n tree 19 (4) Fatr/Good Severe Remove Construction ~.840 39 coast live oak 26 Good Severe Remove Construction I 11 ,000 1 40 falley oak I 16 'Good 'Moderate 'Save I 5 ,800 4 1 coast live oak 25 Good Moderate Save 9,000 42 coast live oak 23 Good Severe Remove Construction ~.700 43 coast live oak 12 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction I --- 1 570 End of Table . 36 Protected Trees. I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arbori s t Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 6 of 18 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TABLE 2 TREES TO REMOVE ~ Preservatio n Expected Tree Commo n Trunk Suitability Reaso n # Name Dlam. & Constructio n ,- Preservation Expected !Tree Common Trunk Suitability Reaso n # Name Dlam . & ~o nstructl o n Value Impact Value Impact 1 coast live 20 Good Severe Construction 20 coast live 6 Fair/Poor Severe Construct ion oak $7900 oak 900 5 London 7 Fair/Poor Sev ere Construction plane 1,260 21 coast live 11 ,13,18 Fair/Good Severe Construction l oak 13,300 I 7 London 6 Fair/Poor Severe Construction 24 coast live 15,16 Fa ir/Good Seve re Co nstruction plane 1,260 oa k 8 ,000 I 8 coast live 6 Fair Severe Constru ction oak 1,080 34 coast live 17 Good Seve re Co nstru ction ' oak ~.930 I J 10 Calif. bay 5,6 7 Fair Severe Construction 35 black 23 (3.5) Poor Seve re Construction /Structure I 160 ~I nut 1,760 11 coast live 7 ,9 Fair Severe Construction 36 black 19 (3.5) Poor/ Severe Construction /Structu re oa k 930 12 coast li ve 25 Good Severe Construction ~I nut Unacceptab le I ~00 oak 10,200 14 London 7 Fair/Poor Severe Construct ion 38 19olden ra in 19 (4) Fair/Good Severe Construction ree 2 ,840 plane 1350 39 coast live 26 Good Seve re Co nstruction 1 15 London 6 Fair/Poo r Severe Construction plane 1260 oa k 11,000 42 coast live 23 Good Seve re Constru ction 1 18 coast live 28 Good Severe Construction oa k 8 ,700 oa k 14900 19 weeping 7 Fa ir Severe Construction 43 coast live 12 Fa ir/Poor Seve re Construction I oa k 1570 bottlebrush 1080 23 Trees I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arbor ist Re port fo r Winc hest er Bl vd. Office. Fe bruary 12 , 2016. Page 7 of 18 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Se1111Ce since 1984 TABLE 3 TREES LISTED AS "DEBATABLE" ---Preservation Expected Tree Common Trunk Suitability Constructi on Reason t Name Dlam. & Impact "Debatable" Value 2 coast live oak 15,15,23 Fair/Good Severe Construction ~3 .100 3 coast live oak 19,23 Fair/Good Severe Construction ~.400 9 coast live oak 30 (3) Good Moderate/Severe Construction 15,500 13 coast live oak 7 Fair/Good Severe Construction 1,220 16 coast live oak 25 Good Moderate/Severe Construction 11 ,900 17 coast live oak 21 Good Moderate Construction 8,000 22 coast live oak 13 Fair Moderate Construction/Structure 2280 ~~ 7 Trees PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. htt p:/ /www .decah.com . Arbo r ist Report for Win c he s ter Bl vd. Office . February 12 , 2016 . Pa ge 8 of 44 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 19 84 TABLE 4 TREES TO SAVE Preservation Expected ree Common Trunk SultabDity * Name Dlam. & Construction Value Impact 123 coast live oak 15 Fair/Good Low I 3,010 125 coast live oak 17 Fair/Good Moderate I 4,040 ---~ [27 1coast live oak [ 18 ~~~~0 [Low 129 [coast live oak I 7 ~~~~~O [Low ~40 r ofiey oak - -r 16 ~~~~Od 1Moderate 25 !Good !Moderate 19 ,000 6 Trees I PO Bo x 371 4 , S aratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.ne t . htt p:/ /www.decah.co m. I Arbori s t Report for Winches ter Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 9 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS 1) The project Is at a very preliminary design phase. and there are many Improvements that are not shown on the plan that I reviewed. For this report 1 have reviewed only the Tree Disposition Plan (Sheet 1 of 1) dated November 18, 2015. As additional plans are developed and reviewed by me 1 expect that construction impacts will increase for many trees. for example due to grading. underground utilities and landscaping. It is likely that more trees will need to be removed than are listed for removal in this report. and design revision will be recommended for some or all of the trees that may remain. I should review an site-based plans for this project as they are developed. Plans should be full-size. to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or 1:10. 2) Existing protected trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on an sHe-based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In this arborlst report. There are tree tag numbers on the Tree Disposition Plan . but in order to make the plan simpler and easier to read make the protected tree numbers larger and bold and reduce the size of the (X) symbol for trees of less than protected size to be removed. so that we can easily see and concentrate on the protected trees. Note that tree disposition is likely to change over time as the full project plans are developed. and that is fine since we all know this at the present time . 3) The proposed building Is simply too close to many of the large oak trees . even though these trees are shown to be saved. Examples are coast live oaks #2, 3, 9, 16 and 17 . The building should be moved to 10 feet beyond the actual dripline of the trees unless it can be shown (e.g . with story posts) that the building itself as well as construction of the building. will not cause excessive pruning of the canopies of these trees . 4) At this Hme H gppears that the followtng trees will need be removed based upon the plan that I reviewed: #1,5·8, 10, 1·12, 14, 15, 18-21, 24, 34-39,42 and 43 . Alternatively for those trees listed as having "Fair" or better tree preservation suitability. it may be possible to save them if the tree root protection distances listed in the Complete Tree Table as well as adequate space for the canopy can be provided. 5) Trees listed as "Debatable" at this time are: #2, 3,9, 13, 16, 17 and 22 . Read about these 7 trees in the Notes Section of the Complete Tree Table in order to determine what to do with them (can they be saved or should they be removed)? A "Debatable" designation means that there is a problem with retaining that tree. such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor species for the site . or in poor condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too close to it. The reason for the "Debatable" designation can be found in the "Reason" and "Notes" column of the Complete Tree Table. Additional action or decisions are necessary on the part of the tree owner. project architects or others involved in the project design and construction are necessary in order to resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved o r removed. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report fo r Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 10 of 44 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulti ng A r bor ist & Horti culturist Service si11ce 1984 6) The Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions will need to be incorporated into the final project plans. At this point we are probably quite way from the final plans. but I have included the Directions on pages 31 t hrough 35 so that everyone will understand what is required from the start. At this time the following 6 trees will most likely be saved: #23,25, 27, 29,40 and 41 . The Town of los Gatos Tree Protection Directions replace any tree protection notes, specifications or other directions (including detail drawings) that may be included in the plans. 7) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 6xOBH2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better. of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 6xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to t rees than the lines shown on the plans! 8) Landscaping-be aware of the follow ing as landscape plans are developed: a) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at all-please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project. b) This site contains oaks that are native to the immediate area (coast live oak and valley oak). These tree species fare best with no irrigation during the normal dry months of the year. The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies of native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root loss due to construction, and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation. Native oak species are often killed due to inappropriate landscaping that is installed around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water-use plants . large drought tolerant trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation, especially close to their trunks. California native oaks that are treated in this manner may contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots; often aaes 30 -31 for an exolanation of tree orotection root distances. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 11 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes. cars and people. It is important to landscape correctly around our native oaks ; e .g. summer dry. I have attached a publication entitled Uving among the Oaks, Keeping Native California Oaks Healthy to assist in best managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items 'b' and 'c' below. c) Around the nqtive oqks: there shall be no planting or irrigation (including drip irrigation) within a minimum radius of 10 feet from the trunks of the oaks or the inner half of the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Farther is better. Within this 1 0-foot (or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the root collar of the trees . Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought-tolerant, summer-dry plant species, preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the native oaks, may be planted. Only summer-dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of the dripline of the tree or 20 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater. Such plants may be planted from no larger than 1-gallon cans in holes that are hand-dug manually with a shovel (no power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparsely (e .g. planted no closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants shall be mulched in the same manner previously described . The drip irrigation for these plants should preferably be abandoned after a 2 to 3 year establishment period. 9) General Tree Maintenance: a) The root collars and lower trunks of some of the trees were obscured from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering . Such portions of the tree should be uncovered and the tree re-evaluated by the arborist . b) Do no unnecessgrv pruning. fertilization or other tree work . Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arbor ist Rep ort for Win c heste r Blvd . Offic e. Fe bruary 12 , 2016 . Pa ge 12 of 44 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serv ice srnce 1984 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on or adjacent to the project site that are within or close to proposed construction--their size, condition and suitability for preservation. Only Town of Los Gatos protected trees were evaluated. The audience for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve existing trees on or adjacent to the project site that are in acceptable condition, good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site. BACKGROUND INFORMATION My previous arborist report for this project are: • April 23, 2012 (Report # 1) • October 14,2013 (Report #2) • March 23, 2015 (Report #3) All protected trees were re-measured and re-evaluated on February 9, 20 16for this current report. Since my last report dated March 23, 2015 the Tree Protection Section of the Los Gatos Town Code was revised. Trunk diameter measurement height was c hanged from 3 to 4.5 feet above the ground. This change caused some trees which had been reported on previously to move out of the protected tree classification. Previous reports had also included some trees of less than protected size, which w e re numbe red and reported on. This current report lists only the protected trees , which are 36 out of the originally 43 tagged trees . I PO Bo x 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72 5-13 57 . decah @ pac bel l.~~t .-http ~//www.decah .com . ----) Arborist Report for Winch ester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 13 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 1984 METHODOLOGY I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees from the ground on February 9, 2016. Tree characteristics such as form. weight distribution. foliage color and density. wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were taken from: • American National Standard A-300 (Part 5)-2012 for Tree Care Operations-Tree. Shrub & Other Woodv Plant Management-Standard Practices (Management of Trees. & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction>. • International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices: • Managing Trees during Construction. 2008 • Tree Inventories. 2013 The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree evaluation and written findings and recommendations for trees on construction sites prior. during and after site development. Each of the trees was tagged in the field (exceptions noted) with metal number tags that correspond with the tree numbers referenced in this report and on the Tree Map. I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 4.5 feet above the ground (DBH). which is also the required trunk diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. DBH is used calculate tree protection distances and other tree-related factors . Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I estimated the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional notes for trees when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable} proposed use of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital camera. Some of these photos are included in this report. but all photos are available from me by email if requested . I PO Box 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .c om . I Arbori s t Report for Win c hes ter Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 14 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice since 198-1 OBSERV AllONS SITE CONDITIONS Si t e t o p ogra phy is main ly level. The re are two existing houses on the si te, plus severa l small er accessory buildings. The Northeast corner of the property is currently being used as an office and sto rage yard for a construction company. Most of the uncovered ground area of t he site is currently an old o rc hard remnant including walnuts and other small fruit trees. There is more landscaping in the southwes t quadrant of the site which contains the largest house, but landscaping consists main ly of fruit trees and native coast live oaks that are probably of natural growth (they were not planted). Most of the planted areas are probably not irrigated. Landscape maintenance is of a "low" level. Sun exp osure for th e trees vari es fro m f ull to part ly shaded, depending upon proximity to existi ng buildings and to other trees. APPENDIX TABLE 5 COMPLETE TREE TABLE This Table is continued through page 25. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 25 to 30 TREE ROOT CON DITION P reservation PROTE CTION Sp ecies DISTANCES Tree & Trun k S uitability Expected # Common Diam. Size ! & Constructio n Action Reason Notes ... .a V al ue Impa ct ::r: ::r: N Name 0 m m 0.. CD (J c c > s 1-~ )( 0 fl) CD 1 Quercus 20 35x30 75 80 Good Severe Remove Construction Construction: trunk is at 5 10 15 agrifolia , $7900 entrance driveway/sidewalk. coast live Condition : ivy partly covers oak lower t runk including, including large-diamete r ivy stems . Cyclone fence engulfed by runk . -- PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 15 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE ROOT CONDmON PROTECTION Speclu Prnervation DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Suitability Expected II Common Dlam. Size f & Construction Action Reason Notes ... ~ Value Impact ::1: ::1: ~ Name 0 ID ID at u Q Q .... s: ~ )( : 0 C') 2 coast live 15, 15, 40x35 85 50 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction Construction: the trunk of this 10 19 29 I oak 23 23,100 large, tall and wide-spreading tree is shown to be 12 feet from I he proposed 2-story building and underground parking I garage. This simply will not I work and the tree must be I removed if the plans are not changed.Eventhoughthe minimum root protection distance on one side of the tree is 1 0 feet, and it this could be i met by the current design, the I canopy of the tree would be massacred and root damage I (including soil compaction due o construction traffic and I materials between the tree and he building) makes trying to save th is tree unreasonable. If his tree is to be saved then the I building should be at least 10 I feet beyond the dripline. This I tree (and adjacent oak #3 are large trees and they need a lot of space preserved around I hem if they are to remain. The I proposed s idewalk as well, less than 2 feet from the trunk , is PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. deca h@pacbel l.net. http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report f or Win che s ter Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 16 of 44 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sef'llice sirrce 1984 TREE ROOT CONDITION PROTECTION Preservation DISTANCES Species t--.--4 Suitability Expected Tr#ee C & 6r;unk Size ! & Construction Action Reason Notes ommon am. '" ~ Value Impact J: J: N Name 0 t) m m a. 5P 2 Q Q ..... > -~ ~ 0 t/) likely to cause damage to or cause the removal of large support roots close to the trunk . Condition : cyclone fence including top rail are embedded in trunk . 3 coast live 19,23 45x35 70 70 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction Construction: similar to 5 10 14 oak ~,400 previous oak #2 . Condition : same as previous oak#2. 1· ~~f~: I I I I I I I I I I l l 5 Platanus x 7 20x18 90 50 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction : new s idewal k in 5 5 5 hispanica, 1,260 vicinity of tree will extend to London curb ; perhaps for a bus stop . plane ~: this is a Town Street Tree installed in a 3-foot wide parkstrip planter between sidewalk and curb . Pavement damage wou ld occur in the future from this large-growing ree species , were it to remain in its current location and conditions. I 6 ~~~e~~~~~l I I I I I ____ L__ I I I I t~ PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decan@pacbe ll.net. http://www .decan .com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12, 2016 . Page 17 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist S ervia since 1984 TREE ROOT PONDITION PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTAN CES Tree & Trunk suttabnlty Expected # Common Dl am. Size ! & Construction Action Reason Notes .. a Value Impact ::1: ::1: N Name 0 11:1 11:1 0.. m u Q Q ... > 5 )( )( 0 U) .., "' 7 london 6 20x18 90 50 Fai r/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction: new s idewalk 5 5 5 plane 1,260 c onfiguration proposed around I I ree, with curb in location of I runk. Condition: same as #5 8 coast live 6 20x18 80 40 Fai r Severe Remove Construction Construction: tree at comer of 5 5 5 I oak 1,080 proposed building. I 9 ~astiive 30 (3) 45x40 80 60 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction l"onstruction: tree trunk is 7 15 22 I oak 15,500 shown to be 16 feet from edge I of proposed building, and there rMII be a new sidewalk at about I 2 3 feet to the west. Potential I root damage should be at a I olerable level as long as there i s minimal over-excavation beyond the actual building and basement. Significant canopy reductio n pruning may be necessary however, and story I posts are necessary to accurately assess the extent of h i s impact. Also a part of construction impact is demo of I he ex isting building and I pavement 15 -22 feet from the i ~n k. 10 Umbellularia 5 ,6 7 40x25 80 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction: tree is within 5 5 5 I califomi ca , 160 proposed building. Calif . bay !Condition: stump sprout. I L PO Bo x 3714 , Sarat og a , CA 95070 . 408 -72 5 -13 57. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com . I Arbori st Re po r t f or Winchester Blvd. O f f i ce. February 12, 2016. Pag e 18 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S em ce since 1984 TREE ROOT ~ON D ITIO N Preservati on PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Suitability Expected # Common Dlam. Size f & Construction Action Reason Notes .. ~ Value Impact J: J: N Name 0 .. ID ID 0.. 0) u c c > ~ 1- b )( )( 0 CIJ C') CD 11 coast live 7 ,9 35x20 70 50 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction: tree is within 5 5 5 oak 930 proposed building. Condition: root collar obscured by leaf litter. 12 coast live 25 50x40 70 70 Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : tree is within 6 13 19 oak 10,200 proposed building. 13 coast live 7 20x12 75 60 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction Construction : a new sidewalk is 5 5 5 oak 1,220 proposed right up to the edge of the trunk . Even if the tree survives , it will cause sign ificant pavement damage in the future . Either remove the ree or transplant it elsewhere. The tree is in good enough condition and accessible for ransplanting . 14 London 7 20x20 90 60 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction and Other: same 5 5 5 I plane 1,350 as previous London plane street trees #5 and 7. 15 London p 18x20 90 50 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction and Other: same 5 5 5 plane 1 ,260 as previous London plane street trees #5, 7 and 14. 16 coast live 25 50x35 80 70 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction Construction : tree trunk is 6 13 19 oak 11 ,900 shown to be 24 feet from edge of proposed build ing, and there ~II be a new s idewalk at about 15 feet to the west. Potential root damage is probably far L PO Box 3714 , Sarat~ga , -CA-95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www .de cah .com . I Arbori s t Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12, 2016 . Page 19 of 4 4 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE ROOT CONDmON PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTANCES Suitability Expected Tree & Trunk Size ! & Construction Action Reason Notes tl Common Dlam. .. .a Value Impact l: :r: ~ Name 0 CD CD at u Q Q 1-> s II( II( 0 f') CD (/) enough from the trunk so that I he t ree can rema in viable , b ut story posts should also be used o assess effect on the canopy . Also a part of construction I impact is demo of the existing I build ing 5 feet from the trunk . I Condition: shrubs and a short brick wall obstruct root collar. Shrub roots beg inn ing to g irdle ree roots ; these shrubs roots should be cut and removed. 17 coast live 21 50x40 85 70 Good Moderate Debatable Construction Construction : a proposed 5 11 16 oak 8 ,000 parking space is 9 feet from the ru nk, building at 21 feet and sidewalk at 22 feet. From a root preservation standpoint since there are disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk there should be no soil disturbance I I closer than 14 feet. As with I several of the previous large oaks that are shown to remain , story posts are needed to see if his will really work. Also a part of construction impact is demo j of the existing building and I pavem ent 7 feet from the trunk I ! PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72 5-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www .decah.c om . · Ar borist Re po r t f or Winc hest er Blvd . Off ice . Febr uary 12, 2016 . Page 20 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consultin g Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice since 1984 TREE ROOT ~ONDITION PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Suitability Expected # Common Clam. Size f & Construction Action Reason Notes ... =' Value Impact J: J: N Name 0 .. m m a. Cl C,) c c 1-> =' )( )( 0 b M CD Cl) 18 coast live 28 60x40 80 70 Good Severe Remove Construction 7 14 21 oak 14,900 19 Callistemon 7 12x10 60 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed 5 5 9 vinimalis, 1,080 building . tweeping bottlebrush 20 coast live ~ 22x16 60 40 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed 5 5 5 oak 900 driveway. 21 coast live 11,13,18 45x40 70 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed 8 15 23 I oak 13,300 parking area. 22 coast live 13 40x22 80 50 Fair Moderate Debatable Construction/Structure Construction : proposed curb 3 7 7 oak 2,280 and driveway 16-17 feet from trunk which is fine, but tree leans significantly toward roadway (about 20 degrees). Not sure if construction traffic rMII not be compatible with tree canopy , and also future vehicle raffle through s ite after construction complete . This must be investigated further. 23 coast live 15 35x25 80 50 Fair/Good Low Save Construction : proposed curb 4 8 8 oak 3,010 and driveway 17-18 feet from runk/ Cond it ion : s ign ificant trunk crook . 24 coast live 15,16 45x40 70 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : with in proposed 6 12 18 oak 8,000 parking area . I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@p(l~bel l.net .. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winc he ster Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 21 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE ROOT ~ONDmON PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Su!Ublllty Expected # Common Dlam. Size ! & Construction Action Reason Notes ... ~ Value Impact ::z:: ::z:: ~ Name 0 CD CD Cll u 0 0 .... > s )l( )l( 0 "' Ul U) 25 coast live 17 50x30 70 60 Fair/Good Moderate Save Construction : proposed pari<ing 4 9 9 I oak ~.040 area curb 6 feet from trunk. I Check canopy clearance for future pari<ing. Condition: ivy grows up trunk. 26 !Tree less 5 5 5 I !th an I Protected I Size 27 coast live 18 35x20 80 60 Fair Low Save Construction : proposed pari<ing 4 9 14 oak ~.870 lot 17-18 feet from trunk. Condition : much of lower 10 feet of trunk covered with ivy and debris . so trunk diameter is I I estimated . I 1·· ~lt: I I I I I I I I I 1 5 1 5 1 5 29 coast live 7 20x18 80 60 Fair Low Save "onstruction: proposed pari<ing 5 5 5 oak 1,260 area 15 feet from trun k. rondition : ivy and debris obscure trunk and lower portion of tree . I ~~~~lr:l I ll I I I I I 1 5 1 5 1 5 PO Box 37 14 , S ar atoga , CA 95070. 408-72 5-1357. decah@pacbell .net . http:/ /www .deca h.c om . Ar borist Re po r t f or Winc hest e r Blvd. Off ice. Fe br uary 12 , 201 6. Page 22 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Cons ulting Arbori st & Horticulturi s t S eroice si11ce 1984 ~ON D ITI ON T RE E ROOT PR OTECTI ON Species Pres ervation D ISTANCES T ree & Trunk Suitab ility Expected i # Commo n Dlam. Size f & Cons t ruction Action R ea s o n Notes .. ~ Value Im pact :J: :J: N Name 0 m m Q. Cll u 0 0 .... > s )( )( 0 M "' 0 34 coast live 17 35x35 75 70 Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed 4 9 9 I oak ~.930 parking area. 35 Jug/ans 23 (3.5) 4035 40 40 Poor Severe Remove Construction/Structure Construction : sidewa lk will be 6 11 5 califomica 1,760 reconfigured and tru nk is in its hindsii, path. black wal nut Condition : large mechanical r,vounds (past vehicle impacts) o trunk have resulted in dead ~ecayed wood . Tree is too high risk to keep in this location anyway. Tree is deciduous and leafless now, so it is hard to tell r,vith certainty how much of canopy is dead, but there are !defin itely many dead branches. 36 black wal nut 19 (3.5) 30x30 20 20 Poor/ Severe Remove Construction/Structure Construction : same as previous 5 9 5 Unacceptable Condition : same as previous 1600 but worse . 37 Tree less 5 5 5 han Protected Size 38 Koelreuteria 19 (4) 30x33 70 70 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : trunk is about 7 5 9 19 IPanicu/ata, 2 ,840 feet from proposed parking golden rain area, but this tree is shown to ree be removed. Assume that removal is d ue to grading because tree is located very - I PO Box 3714 , Saratog a , CA 95070. 4 08-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.ne t . http://www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 23 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Servia since 1984 TREE ROOT ~ONDmON PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTANCES Suitability Expected Tree & Trunk Size & Construction Action Reason Notes ., Common Dlam . ! .. .a Value Impact :I: :I: N Name 0 m m Q. at u 0 0 .... > s )( )( 0 f") CD Cl) close to decorative wall to west and existing driveway slopes ~ownward to garage. I think ~ere will probably be fill soil placed in this area. Branches are fa irly low and much of I canopy would need to be removed for clearance. 39 coast live 26 35x30 80 60 Good Severe Remove Construction Construction: located within 6 13 20 1 oak 11 ,000 proposed parking area. 40 Quercus 16 50x35 75 70 Good Moderate Save Construction: proposed parking 4 8 12 I /obsta , 5,800 area is 10 -11 feet from trunk. r.-alley oak Canopy is very high right now, I so this should work. Also a part I of construction impact is demo of the existing buildings 7 to 11 !feet from the trunk. Condition : base of trunk is 2 feet from base of trunk of adjacent oak #41 . 41 coast live 25 45x40 75 60 Good Moderate Save Construction : proposed parking 6 13 19 I oak ~.ooo area is 14 teet from trunk. Canopy is fairly high , so I probably no problem with clearance. Also a part of construction impact is demo of I the exi sting buildings 8 to 1 0 I feet from the trunk. I Condition : asymmetric canopy I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9507 0 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arborist Re port for Wi nc hest er Bl vd. Of f ice. February 12 , 20 16 . Page 24 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 1984 TREE ROOT !CONDITION PROTECTION Species Preservation DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Suitability Expected # Common Dlam. Size f & Construction Action Reason Notes ... .a Value Impact l: l: N Name 0 ID ID 11. 1:11 u 0 0 1-> s )( )( 0 M co tn ~ue to canopy interference by I adjacent oak #40. 42 coast live 23 45x45 70 70 Good Severe Remove Construction Construction: located within 6 12 11 I oak 8,700 proposed building . 43 coast live 12 30x22 70 40 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction: located within 5 6 oak 1 ,570 proposed building. Condition : very grove affected 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 Specifications 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 i s 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 DBH . Tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height" (measured at 4.5 feet above ground level). This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree-related calculations . It is also the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of los Gatos. For multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. Trunk diameter is measured when possible, and estimated when it is not possible or safe to physically measure. A number in parentheses (3) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbell.net. http:/ /www .decah .com . 6 Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 25 of 44 I Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seroice since 1984 was not possible to measure the trunk at 4.5 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 a diameter of 18 inches at 4.5feet above the ground. An H18 (3" means that trunk diameter was 18 inches measured at 3 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 4.5 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 site --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 (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead . • Relative to the scope 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. • 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 expla ined in Table 6 on the next page . This is based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live 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. I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 26 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist S ervice since 1984 Table 6 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide Excellent 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 . E;_quivalent to academic grade 'A'. 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 Good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees equivalent to academic arade ·s·. 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 Fair most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good " category. Retention oftrees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes . Equivalent to academic grade ·c·. These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline Poor regardless of management. The tree 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 ·o·. These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to ris k None or other issues . In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including decomposers. Equivalellttoacademic grade 'F'. 6} Value: Tree monetary appraisal is based upon: (1) Cost of Installation plus (2) its increase in value over a container-size tree if a larger size tree being appraised . This value is then adjusted according to: (a) Species (according to regional published species ratings), (b) Condition of the tree, and (c) Location of the tree (an average of the sub-categories of Site, Contribution and Placement). The methodology and calculations for the Trunk Formula Method are taken from two industry standard texts-The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council ofTree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Species Classification and Group Assignment , 2004, published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The cross-sectional trunk diameter price presented in this text has been adjusted slightly downward to match the current actual average wholesale cost of a 24-inch box nursery tree in this area . Note that the values produced for this r eport PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com . Arboris t Report for Winche st er Blvd . Office . February 12 , 2016 . Page 27 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 are meant for reference only and may not reflect the true value of the tree that could be calculated by a thorough and more detailed analysis of each individual tree. a) caveats regarding tree values : The values in this report have not been subjected to a "reasonableness test" which compares the value of trees and landscaping to the total value of the property. The values in the report were calculated quickly and are intended to be approximate and for reference only. Research on tree and landscape values has shown that landscaping can contribute up to 20% of the total property value. in some cases however, tree appraisals have produced tree values that exceed the value of the entire property. Performing a reasonableness test screens for this error. For certain trees in this report I have decreased or increased tree values when I felt that the calculated values were too high or too low. b) The Trunk Formula Method is used for trees that are too large for practical replacement with a similar size nursery container-grown tree. This method applies to trees with trunk diameters that are larger than 8-inches, measured at 12 inches above the ground. For the purpose of this report, ail trees with trunk diameters of 8 inches or greater measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. c) The Replacement Cost Method is used for smaller trees with trunk diameters up to 4-inches in diameter measured at 12 inches above the ground. This is generally equivalent to a 48-inch box-size tree. The replacement cost for such a tree shall be the average wholesale cost of the tree multiplied by two to include transportation to the site, planting and other costs. This price is then adjusted (usually downward) based upon the Condition ratings percentages for the appraised tree. For the purpose of this report, ail trees with trunk diameters of 7 inches or less measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. The following cost basis is used (based upon the average of wholesale tree prices from Boething Treeland Nursery, Portola Valley and Valley Crest Tree Nursery, Sunol, 2/2/2015): Trunk OBH <1" to 1" 2-3" 4-5" 6-7" Reolacement tree size Reolacement Tree Wholesale Cost x 2 (for installation. etc.) 15 gallon $47 .50 x 2 = $95 24" box $162.50 x 2 = $325 36" box $412 .50 x 2 = $825 48" box $900 x 2 = $1800 d) Tree values for tree protection bonds: Prior to commencing work, the tree-regulating authority may require that the contractor furnish a bond equal to some portion of the total appraised value of the trees on the site based upon the values presented in the Arborist Report. Bond money will be returned to the contractor upon the completion of the project with deductions or additional fines imposed based upon tree protection compliance and the final condition of the trees . Tree values are often used to establish a benchmark amount to fine the contractor if non- compliance with the Tree Protection Specifications or other negligence causes a subject tree to be removed or unnecessarily damaged. The full value amount should be charged to the contractor if a tree is damaged to the degree that it must be removed . A portion of the value of the tree ( PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 28 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consultin g Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice stnce 1984 plus any necessary remediation costs, as determined by the tree owner, should be charged to the contractor if the tree is damaged but does not have to be removed. 7) 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. c) 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 (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too much damage to 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 t issue 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 i nformation provided in this report as well as the owner's own preferences. • Species : 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) 8) 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 Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (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) 9} 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. r PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 29 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulti n g Arborist & Horticultur ist S ervice since 1984 10} Tree Protection Distances: a) Root Protection: see pages 30-31 for a detailed explanation. b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection. c) I have increased a few of the calculated tree protection distances for certain individual trees based upon my professional judgment and relative to site constraints. For example the minimum root protection distance I will list for any tree is 5 feet. TREE RO OT PROTECTION DISTANCES No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to effect tree stabil ity or health at a low , moderate or severe degree--there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or ant1c1pate . 3xOBH however , is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any soil disturbance should be from the edge of the trunk~ s1de of the trunk. Th is is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley , Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). DBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example , using the 3X DBH guideline an excavat ion s hould be no closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. For trees with multiple trunks, an adjusted DBH is often calculated using lOO ~o of the largest trunk plus 50 ~o of the remaining smaller trunks. Such distances are guidelines only , and shou ld be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans , decay, structural problems , etc. I will generally not recommend a root protection distance of less than 5 feet for any tree, even very small trees. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipa ted by the guidelines . 3xDB H may be more of on aid in preserving t r ee stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 6 to 18 X DBH is the minimum distance which is recommended in the ANSI {American National Standard) A300 (Part 5)-2012 Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, S ite Development, & Construction, and also in the co mpanion publication from the International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction, 2008. When the 6 to 18 x DBH distance cannot be met, "appropriate mitigation or determmation that the work will not impact tree health and stability shall be performed", according to the ANSI Standard. ANSI A300 (Port 8)-2013 Root Management , states: "When roots are damaged within 6 times the trunk diameter (DBH) mitigation shall be recommended ." For practical purposes I use the 6 x DBH distance as the minimal distance acceptable (in most circumstances) in order to maintain good tree health and structural stability. The 6 x DBH distance or greater should definitely be used when there are soil disturbances on more than one side of the trunk. I PO Box 3714 . Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 30 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Co nsulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice since 1984 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): OTPZ is the distance m feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree , that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected , then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good . This method takes into account tree age and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum d istance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability , there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricu ltural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Ma theny et al., International Society of Arbor1culture , 1998. Due to t he crowded. const rained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 6X DBH . LOS G ATOS TREE PROTECTION REQUI RE MENTS LOS GATOS TOWN CODE Chapter 29-ZONING REGULATIONS Article I. -IN GENERAL Division 2. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 29 .1 0.1005. Protection of trees during construction. (a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following : (1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing , mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 1 0-foot spacing . For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan , posts may be supported by a concrete base . (2) Area type to be fenced . Type 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II : Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip : chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange pla stic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. (3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing . Fencing shall be erected before demolition , grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. (4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: 'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 3 1 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 (b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions: (1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction . (2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation , grading , drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. (3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials with in the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. (4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. (5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. (6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved . The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all si te visits. (7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered . (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance. All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree , Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard Practices , (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report , a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified. (1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work , including pruning , which may cause injury to a protected tree . (e.g. cable lVIfiber optic trenching , gas, water, sewer trench, etc.). (2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)-Pruning, Sect ion 5.9 Utility Pruning . Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no other alternative is available , is prohibited. (3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other spec ies approved by the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating where pruning is proposed . c-PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 32 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 (4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in diameter (12.5 " in circumference) without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division. (Ord . No. 2114, §§I, II, 8-4-03) Sec . 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority. Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authority of the Town under Division 29 of Title 29 (Zoning Regulations). Title 26 (Public Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to require trees and other plants to be identified , retained , protected , and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this division and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The more protective requirements shall prevail. (Ord . No. 2114 , §§ I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29 .10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement. All officers and employees of the Town shall report violations of this division to the Director of Community Development. Whenever an Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1.30.015 of the Town Code determines that a violation of this code has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.020 of the Town Code Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred , the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation . (Ord. No. 2114, §§I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement-Remedies for violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law. the following remedies shall be available to the Town for violation of this division: (1) Tree removals in absence of or in anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the absence of or prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the Director may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the subject property. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division . If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree PO Bo x 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbe ll.net. http://www.decah.com . Ar borist Re port f or Win c he s t e r Bl vd. Of f ice. February 12, 201 6. Pag e 33 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arbori st & Horticulturist Service since 1984 or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (2) Pending development applications. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.1 0. 0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (3) Projects under construction . a . If a violation occurs during construction . the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading. demolition. and/or building permit(s) (including construction. inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both , and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. b. The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, landscaping, construction or other business in the Town shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (4) Civil penalties. Notwithstanding section 29.20.950 relating to criminal penalty. any person found to have violated section 29.10.0965 shall be liable to pay the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a . through d . a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this division a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. b. Where the violation has resutted in removal of a protected tree. the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed frve thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed. or the replacement value of each such tree. whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the Town and deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund. Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined I PO Bo x 3714 , S aratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah .com . I Arbor ist Re port for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 34 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 1984 utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal , as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the Species and Group Classification Guide published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. c. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation . the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition . The property owne r shall execute a five year written ma intenance agreement with the Town. d. The cost of enforcing this division, which shall include all costs , staff time, and attorneys' fees . (5) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. (6) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this division in which the Town prevails , the court shall award to the Town all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action , and reasonable attorney fees . (Ord . No . 2114 , §§ I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.1 0.1 030. Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution , prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule shall accompany the removal or pruning permit application submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division. (Ord. No. 2114, §§I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29 .1 0.1 035. Severability. If any prov ision of this division or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this division which can be given effect without the invalid provision or appl ication , and to this end the provisions of this division are declared to be severable. (Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1040. Notices. All notices required under this division shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code. Sec. 29.1 0.1 045. Appeals. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 29.20.260 of the Town Code . All appeals shall comply with the public noticing provisions of section 29.20.450 of the Town Code. (Ord. No. 2114 , §§ I, II , 8-4-03) I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12, 2016. Page 35 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 TREE PHOTOS This is a partial side-view of coast live oaks #2 and 3 from the southwest. Imagine a 2 -story bu ilding 12 feet from the trunks of these trees, which tucked well inside the canopy . Now imagtne trying to construct the 2-story building without having to cut off all the branches on the bu il ding side of the trunk . Such prumng will be necessary if the building is constructed as shown on the plan I reviewed. This photo was taken Apr il 9 , 2012 so the trees have probably grown obit larger since then. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 36 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirue 198-1 Upper Left: coast live oak #8 (foreground) with large coast live oak #9 in the background . W inchester Blv d . to the r ight. Lower Left: coast live oaks #12 and 16. Win chester Blvd . to t he left. Right : coast live oaks #17 and 18. Winchester Blv d . is toward the foregro und . PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Pa ge 37 of 44 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist Service sin ce 1984 Upper Left : coast live oaks #21-23. Lower Left: coast live oaks #25, 27 and 34. Right : coast live oaks #29 and 41 , with valley oak #40 in the background . PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 38 of 44 Upper photo: coast live oak #42 , w1th smaller coast live oak #43 in the background . Lower photo: ground surface around coast live oak# 17 . which is typical for many of the trees on site -natural leaf and twig litter mulch . This is the best ground cover ing for most trees . although I would pull it away from the root collars. The soil is very loose and fr1able , and this probably has a lot to do with the h igh vigor rat ings for many of these oaks . Deborah Ellis, MS Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist Se rvice si11ce 1984 [ PO Box 3714 , Saratoga , CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www .decah .com . . --] Arbori s t Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 39 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS l . Tree locations were provided by an unknown party and are shown on the Tree Map on page l of this report. The tree map is a reduced partial copy of the Tree Disposition Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field . 2 . The Conditfon Ratings for deciduous trees that are out of leaf (because they have shed their leaves for winter dormancy) are estimated. More accurate condition ratings for these trees can be obtained after they have fully leafed out {usually mid-May through September). Deciduous trees on this site that were completely leafless or in the process of shedding their leaves are: London plane, black walnut. golden raintree and valley oak. 3. A Level2 Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described in this report was performed on February 9, 2016 for the purpose of this report. This is a brief visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as extensive digging, boring or removing samples . The tree is viewed by walking all around it, unless this is not possible. This type of evaluation is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional. more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. An assessment of tree risk was not performed during the evaluation. 4. Trees on neighboring properlles were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site . I did not enter the neighboring property to inspect these trees up close. 5 . Some trees had their root eolian and or lower trunks covered with soil . vegetation o r debris and were obstructed from view when I conducted my tree evaluation. If these trees may remain , the obstructions should be removed and I should re-examine these previously covered areas. 6. I did the best I could at estimating construction Impacts to trees based upon the plans, but this Is difficult to accomplish wHh cerlalnty at a scale of 1:20. I do not have knowledge about the construction methods that will be used on this project and how the site will be staged for construction -these factors can increase or decrease the effect of construction on trees . How heavy equipment will move on the site is another factor we are unaware of-even though trees may not be located close to improvements, they may be located within equipment travel or staging areas. It is possible therefore, that more trees will need to be removed than are presently listed for removal in this report. On the other hand I may have overestimated construction impact in some cases-so that some trees that are listed for removal may not end up having to be removed after all. 7 . Any Information and descriptions provtded to me for the purpose of my Investigation In this case and the preparation of this reporl are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title. 8. The Information contained In this reporl covers only those Hems that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 9. Loss or removal of any pari of this reporl invalidates the entire report . [ n---·· ,>~3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com . I Arbor is t Rep ort for Win c he s ter Bl vd. Offi ce. Feb r uary 12, 2016 . Pag e 40 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturi st Service since 198.J 10. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not Imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand. 11 . This report and the ratings or values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported. 12. This report has been prepared In conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. 13. My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is limited to visual examination of accessible Items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee. expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 14. I take no responsibility for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from above the ground, and as such . structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise , root collar excavations and evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated. 15. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist In the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein. should some or all of those trees remain. and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail. or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree 's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system. trunk or branches of trees . it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees. particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the sa fe ty of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. PO Box 3714 , S aratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-13 57. decah@pa cbell.net. htt p:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12, 2016 . Page 4 1 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 1984 ****************************** I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my lcnowledge. and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thonlc you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you hove questions or if I con be of further assistance. Sincerely. ~UL Deborah Ellis. MS . Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S .A . Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578 I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified ENCLOSURES: • Keeping Native Calif. Oaks Healthy. Hogen. June 1990. California Deportment of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tree Notes #7. REFERENCES: • American National Standard A300 (Part 51-20 12 for Tree Care Operations -Tree. Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices: · o {Part 5)-2012-Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning. Site Development. & Construction. o (Port 8) -2013. Root Management. o {Port 9)-2011. Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Structure Assessment. • Best Management Practices. International Society of Arboriculture: o Managing Trees during Construction. 2008 o Tree Inventories . 2013. • The Guide for Plant Aopraisal. 9th edition. 2000. edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture. • Soecies Classification & Grouo Assionment. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2004. ( u------PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95o7o.-408-i25=i35~decan@~ll.net . http ://www .de~a~com~ ) Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd. Office. February 12 , 2016. Page 42 of 4 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 GLOSSARY 1. Crooks are unnatural bends or sharp angles in branches or trunks caused by the removal of othe r attached branches or t run k s; often with a vertical growing side branch at the end. This concentrates weight at the end of the branch , and also over some inevitable decay from a prun i ng wound . 2. Dripl ine: the area under the total branch spread of the tree , all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath th is area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 3. Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that she lter each other from wind and the elements, having "k nit" canopies. If of the same species , there is usually root grafting between trees , which lends support from the ground , as well as water and mineral sharing . Removal of one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals . 4 . Project Arborist. The arborist who is appointed t o be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (I SA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Soc iety of Consultin g Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required . For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures , and being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project. 5. Qualified Consulting Arborist: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board -Certified Master Arbor ist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required . 6. Qual ified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervis ing arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for at least 5 years, in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of California Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General liability Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must understand and adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards: • Best Management Practices. Tree Pruning . International Society of Arboriculture , PO Box 3129 , Champaign , IL 61826-3129. 217-355- 9411 • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid . (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133.1 Safety Reauirements for Arboricultural Operations. Ibid. (Covers safety). 7. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar uunction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole-tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then exam ined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the large roots close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance- recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Blvd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 43 of 44 ..... Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirue 1984 excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g . underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound. 8. Root rot disease is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot) ensues on weakened , susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem . Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to frequent irrigation during our normally rain-free months, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is often worsened in fine- textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants. 9. Stump sprout trees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If the tree survives, it sends out many small shoots (suckers) from around the cut stump. Some of these suckers may survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are spaced very close together and usually have included bark between them , which reduces the strength of their union. Such trunks are prone to failure. Stump sprout trees can be very structurally unsound, particularly as they become large and old. There is often a great deal of decay associated with the mother stump, which can also reduce mechanical stability. 10. Summer Drv: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils . Therefore it is important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment underneath native oaks is non-compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood . leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar (junct ion of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting , until they are "established") and also during droughts that occur during the normal rainy season . I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .de cah.com . I Arborist Report for Winchester Bl vd . Office. February 12 , 2016 . Page 44 of 44 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Marni Moseley Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 June 10,2016 Arborist Report #5, Winchester Boulevard Office Dear Marni: Se roice siuce 1984 This report is a review and comment on the plan submittal for this project dated May 4, 2016 . This plan depicts a beautiful building with underground parking. My most recent previous report for this report is dated February 12, 2016 and that report should be used as background information for this current review. Summary: In the current plan set the following dispositions for 34 protected trees are proposed: • Removetreeduetoconstruction:22trees(#3,5,7,8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19,20,21,24,34, 35, 36 , 38, 39, 42 and 43 . • Save the following 12 trees: #1, 2, 9, 16, 17 , 22 , 23, 25 , 27 , 29,40 and 41. Actually all of these trees are "Debatable" Save or Remove due to potential construction impact, which will be discussed individually for each tree. A Summarv Table listing all trees is on pages 2-3. Recommendations for those trees which are proposed to be saved are on pages 4 -7. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. dec ah@pacb e ll.net . http://www .decah.com , Page 1 of 7 , .EXHl.Bn 8 Summary Tree Table Continued on the next page Tree Common # Name 1 coast live oak 2 coast live oak 3 coast live oak 4 Tree le ss than Protected Size 5 London plane 6 Tree less th an Protected Size 7 London plane 8 coast live oak 9 coast live oak 10 Calif. bay 11 coast live oak 12 coast live oak 13 coast live oak 14 London plane 15 London plane 16 coast live oak 17 coast live oak 18 coast live oak 19 weeping bottlebrush 20 coast live oak 21 coast live oak 22 coast live oak Trunk Diam. 20 15,15,23 19,23 7 6 6 30 (3) 5,6 7 7,9 25 7 7 6 25 21 28 7 6 11 '13, 18 13 I PO Bo x 3 7 14, Saratoga, CA 95070. Deborah Ellis, MS Cons ulting Arborist & Horticulturis t Service since 1984 Preservation Expected Suitability Construction Action Reason & Impact Value Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction $7900 Severe Fair/Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction $23,100 Severe Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 6,400 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1,260 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1,260 Fair Severe Remove Construction 1,080 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction 15,500 Fair Severe Remove Construction 160 Fair Severe Remove Construction 930 Good Severe Remove Construction 10,200 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 1,220 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1350 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 1260 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction 11 ,900 Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction I 8 ,000 Good Severe Remove Construction 14900 Fair Severe Remove Construction 1080 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 900 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 13,300 Fair Moderate Debatable Construction/ 2280 Structure 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . I Page 2 of 7 Deborah Ellis, MS Cons ulting A r borist & Horticulturist Se/1/lct s i11 ce 1984 Preservation Expected Tree Common Trunk Suitability Construction Action Reason # Name Diam. & Impact Value 23 coast live oak 15 Fair/Good Moderate Debatable Construction 3,010 24 coast live oak 15,16 Fair/Good Seve re Remove Con struction 8 ,000 25 coast live oak 17 Fair/Good Moderate Debatable Construction ~.040 26 Tree less th an Protected Size 27 coast live oak 18 Fair Moderate Debatable Construction 4,870 28 T ree less than Protected Size 29 coast live oak 7 Fair Moderate Debatable Construction 1,260 30 Tree less than Protected Si ze 31 Tree le ss than Protected Si ze 32 Tree less than Protected Size 33 Tree less th an Prote cted Size 34 coast live oak 17 Go od Severe Remove Constructio n j4 ,930 35 bl ack walnut 23 (3 .5) Poor Severe Remove Construction/Structure 1,760 36 bl ack walnut 19 (3.5) Poor/ Severe Remove Construct ion / Unacceptabl e Structure 600 37 Tree less tha n Protected Si ze 38 goldenrain t ree 19 (4) Fa ir/Good S evere Remove Construction 2,840 39 coast live oa k 26 Good Severe Remove Con struction 11 ,000 40 valley oak 16 Good Moderate Debatable Construction 5,800 41 coast live oak 25 Good Moderate Debatable Construction 9,000 42 c oa st live oak 2 3 Good Severe Remove Construction 8 ,700 43 coast live oak 12 Fair/Poor S evere Remo ve Const ru ction 1570 End of Table PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Pa ge 3 of 7 Deborah Ellis, MS Con sulting Arborlst & Horticultu r ist Se n ,jce since 1984 Recommendations for Protected Trees Proposed to be Saved: All trees: • Grading, particularly surface grading for drainage. is shown close to and around all trees. This must not happen. Preferably the distance of 6xDBH a listed in my February 12, 20 16 report (Complete Tree Table) should remain free of disturbance including grubbing. surface drainage or other grading. underground utilities. etc. Is the site over-engineered from a grading for drainage standpoint? This is fine as long as there are no existing trees, but if there are trees then the grading needs to be reduced significantly in order t o save the trees. Tree roots are shallow; mostly within the upper 18 in c hes of soil. Grading not only directly damages t hese roots. but soil compaction c aused by grading causes indirec t. long term damage to roots. More undisturbed soil is necessary around trees to be saved . Limits of grading around trees must be shown on the grading plans. • Landscaping: is not specified around trees to remain. Please review pages 11-12 of my February 12, 2016 report for directions on landscaping around the native oaks. All of the trees proposed to be saved are native oaks. In summary I do not want to see any planting or irrigation around these trees; only a 4 inch depth of wood. bark or tree trimming chippings mulch spread over the soil surface underneath the canopy of these trees. Think of this a an "open. natural" look . Less is more. • Tree Protection Fence Detail, Sheet L-4 : remove this . Replace with Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions. #2 coast live oak (17 + 32"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • building: 25' • Stairs to building: 15' • Sidewalk (at Shelburne Ave.): 2' • Raised planters to east: 18' Comments: too much going on too close to the tree. In my prev ious report I asked that the building (and this includes things outside the building such as stairs) be kept at least 10 feet beyond t he dripline of the tree. This has not happened and I still recommend that this be done. Make sure this is the actual dripline in the field, as I am not sure that the dripline on the plan is accurate. Erect story posts so that we can see where the building (including stairs) will actually be located. The 6xDBH distance for this tree is 19 feet. Move the raised planters to beyond this distance. Regarding the sidewalk, for tree #2 as well as tree #3 sidewalk construction could damage large roots close to the trunk and cause the tree to die and/or fall over. Can the sidewalk be raised above grade to preserve existing roots-perhaps like decking? Or can the sidewalk area be something gold fines? Could the sidewalk be eliminated? If sidewalk construction proceeds a planned. you are taking your chances with trees #2 and 3. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Page 4 of 7 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serrtice si11 ce 1984 #3 coast live oak (19+23") Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • building: 18 1 • Stairs to building: 14 1 • Bio-retention area: 12 1 • Sidewalk (at She lburne Ave.): 3 1 Comments: same as for tree #2. Note that I found an error in my February 12, 2016 report-the 3xDBH distance for this tree should be 8.25 feet, not 5 feet, and the 6xDB H distance should be 17 feet, not 10 feet. #9 coast live oak (30") Distances from edge o f trunk to improvements: • building: 14 1 • Sidewalk (at Shelburne Ave.): 23 1 • drainage pipe centerlines 9 and 20 1 • landsca pe lighting for tree Comments: building is too close to tree . Move building and other improvements such as drainage pipes so that there will be no soil disturbance closer than 15 feet from t runk. This means the building must be farther than 15 feet from the trunk. Ideally the building should be 10 feet or more from edge of canopy. Erect story posts so that we can better understand how much. Landscape lighting must include no trenching. The 6xDBH distance for this t ree is 15 feet. #16 coast live oak (25"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • building: 24 I • Sidewalk (at Shelburne Ave.): 13 1 • drainage pipe centerlines 9 and 20 1 I • landscape lighting for tree Comments: one drainage pipe must be moved farther from the trunk so that there is no soil disturbance closer than 13 feet from the trunk. Erect story posts to see if there is any effect on canopy. Lands cape lighting must include no trenching . PO Box 3714 . Sarat oga . CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com . Page 5 of 7 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Semice si11 ce 1984 #17 coast live oak (21 "): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • building: 22' • Sidewalk (at Shelburne Ave.): 12' • drainage pipe centerline 15' • retaining wall/fill: 12 & 15', also 2-4' to cut, 1 0' other side Comments: the 6xDBH distance for this tree is 11 feet. Change the design so that there is no so il disturbance closer than 11 feet from the trunk. So me redesign of the deck/retaining wall is necessary. #22 coast live oak (13"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • parking lot: 18' Comments: the parking lot is far enough away from this tree from a root perspective, but the tree leans significantly toward the parking lot (about 20 degrees). This should be in vestiga ted further to make sure the tree will not interfere with vehicle movement and parking. The 6xDBH distance f or this tree is 7 feet. #23 coast live oak (15"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements : • parking lo t: 17' Comments: no problems for this tree except for the general grading/drainage mentioned in the first paragraph. The 6xDBH distance for this tree is 8'. #25 coast live oak (17") Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • parking lot: 6' Comments: parking lot a bit closer than preferable. but since this is a disturbance o nly one side of the tree I can accept it (if construction work is done carefull y). since at least it is beyond the 3xDBH distance o f 4.5 feet. 6xDBH 9 feet. #27 coast live oak (18"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • parking lot: 17' Comments: no problems for this tree except for the general gradin g/drainage mentioned in the first paragraph. 6xDBH dista nce f or this tree is 9 feet. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.ne t. ht tp:/ /www .decah.com . Page 6 of 7 #29 coast live oak (7"): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • parking lot planter: 1 0' Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sen•ice si nce 1984 Comments: no problems for this tree except for the general g ra ding/drainage mentioned in the f irst paragraph. 6xDBH distance for this tree is 5 feet. #40 valley oak ( 16 "): Distances from edge of trunk to improvements: • parking lot: 11-12' • bio-retention area: 22' Comments: no problems for t his tree except for the general g rading/drainage mentioned in the first paragraph. 6xDBH 8 feet. #41 coast live oak (25"): Distances from edge o f trunk to improvements: • parking lot: 15 ' • bio-retention area: 25' Comments: no problems for this tree except for the general g rading/drainage mentioned in the first paragraph. 6xDBH: 13 fe e t. • ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I certify that the in fo rmation contain ed in this report is correct to t he best of my knowledge, and t hat this report was prepared in good fai th . Than k you for the opportunity to provide serv ice again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further a ssistance. ?ikJUL Deborah Ellis , MS. Consulting Arboris t & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578 I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Page 7 of 7 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Deborah Ellis, MS Consu lti ng Arborist & Horticulturist Jocelyn Puga Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 July 22, 201 6 Winchester Office Building, Winchester Boulevard and Shelburne Way Dear Jocelyn: Serc1ice si11ce 1984 This letter summarizes my understanding of the decisions that were made at the site meeting this morning with you, Doug Rich and his design team and me. Coast live oaks ##2 and 3: sidewalk along Shelburne A venue will be concrete built on grade with no excavation, using TMI Structural Soil™ to create level base. The building will necessitate pruning to reduce canopy spread toward the building by approximately 14 feet. This is slightly over a third of the canopy spread between trunk and building, which is significant. Pruning to create the 5-foot clearance necessary between the building wall and the tree canopy will not be ideal (in many cases proper pruning cuts will not be possible) but this is a better alternative then removing the trees. It is imperative that a qualified tree service 1 be used to perform this pruning. Thought must be put into each pruning cut in order to minimize damage to the tree. I recommend Saratoga Tree Service (Blair Glenn) for this work. His phone number is: (408) 866-7200 . Coast live oak ##9 : on site we measured the wall of the proposed building to be at about the actual dripline of the tree. This will necessitate reducing the canopy spread toward the building by pruning by 5 feet. This should not be a problem as it will require small cuts made to twigs and small terminal branches. Again , a qualified tree service should perform this pruning. Coast live oaks #16 and 17: adjustments to move improvements farther from the trees will be made. For the deck around oak # 17, a minimum 1/8 inch gap should be created between deck surface boards, to allow more natural rainfall to penetrate the deck. The existing natural leaf litter mulch should not be removed underneath the deck area. 1 Qualified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for at least 5 years, in a supervisory position on the job site du ring execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of Californ ia Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must understand and adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards : Best Management Practices. Tree Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Bo x 3129, Champaign, IL 61826 -3129. 217-355-9411 ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133 .1 Safe Re uirements for Arboricultural 0 erations. Ibid. Covers safe PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa c bell.net . http:/ /www .decah.com . Page 1 of 2 l-.iXHmli9 Deborah E lli s, MS C o nsulting Arborist & Ho rticultu ri st Service sin ce 1984 Other: 1. For all trees that will remain that are adjacent to buildings, erect story posts so that I can verify the amount of pruning necessary for building clearance. 2. Retain existing natural leaf and twig litter underneath the canopy of trees that will remain . This natural mulch should only be removed in the location of improvements. ****************************** I certify that the information contained in thi s report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. /IkJ_ UL Deborah Elli s, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist C ertified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASC A Regist ered C onsulting Arborist #30 5 I.S.A. Bo ard C ertified Master Arborist WE-45 7B I.S.A . Tree Ri sk A ssessment Qualified PO Box 37 14 , S aratog a, CA 95070 . 40 8-725-13 57. de cah@pac bell.net. http://www .decah .co m. Page 2 of 2 May 5, 2016 M s. Marni Moseley Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 15860-15894 Winchester Blvd. Dear Marni: ARCHITECTURE PLANN ING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follow s: Neighborhood Context The site is composed of three adjacent lots fronting on Winchester Blvd. Commercial u ses are to the ea st, and nearby Winchester Blvd. frontages are occupied by a mix of residential and commercial uses. Photos of the site and surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page. 700 LA RK SPUR LAND ING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 . LA RKS P UR . CA . 94939 lEXillBIT 1 0 TEL: 41 5.331.3795 CIJGI'LAN@ PACil~Ll.N~ I 15860-15 89 4 Winchester Blvd . Design Review Comments May 5, 2016 Poge 2 View to the site from corner Winchester Blvd . frontage Structure across Shelburne Way from site Structure across Shelburne Way from site Adjacent building to the east Nearby building to the east View across Winchester Blvd . View across Winchester Blvd. CA NNO N DES IGN GROUP 700 LA RKSPUR LA NDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 . LA RKS PU R . CA . 9 49 39 Concerns and Recommendations 15860-15894 Winchester Blvd. Design Review Commcnrs May 5, 2016 Page 3 The project is very well designed in a Contemporary Style. Parking is visually subordinated to the building. The Winchester Blvd . elevation is varied in height and facade treatment to break the building up into visually smaller elements. And the architectural materials and detail s are authentic to the architectural style -see front and rear elevation sketche s below. I have no recommendations for changes, but I would note that while the immediate neighborhood here is such that this Contemporary Style building should be a comfortable fit, that may n ot be the case for other sites along Win- chester Blvd . A fairl y recent building constructed just over a block to the north (see photo to the right) was de signed w.ith a much m ore traditional style because of its rela- tive close proximity to smaller single family h o mes which established a small scale streetscape character. The merits o f each individual project sh o uld be judged on its com- patibility with the immediate neighb orh ood. Marni, plea se let me know if you have any specific questions or need any other sp eci fic is sues addressed. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP Of~~ Larry L. Canno n President CANNON DESIGN C ROUP 700 LA RK SPUR LANDING C IRCL E . SU ITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 9 4 939