The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 02 - 15343 Santella Ct, Lot 7 - Staff Report Exh.5-8PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT Highlands Lo t 7 Los Gatos , California Prepared for : Suzanne Avila Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Debor ah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society o f C onsulting Arb ori sts Board Certified Master Arborist WE-04578 , International Society of Arboriculture Certifie d Professiona l Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science JANUARY 16, 2013 Deborah E llis, M S Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siuce 1984 RECE\VED JAN 1 6 Z014 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION ©Deborah Elli s, 2013. This report may be reproduced in whole or in part by only the client and the client's authori zed representative s and only for use with the su bject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the ex pressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Elli s prior t o reproduction. PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www .decah .com . Debora h Ellis, MS Consul tin g Arborist & Horticulturist Se rvice si11 ce 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 De sc ri p t ion of Project: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 Descrip t ion of Exist ing Trees: ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Ta ble 1 Su m mary Tr ee Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Table 2 Trees with "Fa ir /Good" Pre servation Suit ability ................................................................................................................................................... 5 Table 3 Trees w it h "F a ir" Pre servation Suitability ................................................................................................................................................................ 5 Table 4 Trees with "Fa ir/Poor", "Poor", "U n acceptable " or "Uncertai n" Preservat io n Sui t a bility ............................................................................ 6 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. & Table 5 Com plet e Tre e Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 8 Exp la na t ion o f Tre e Table Data C o lumns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 10 Supporting Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Purpose & Use o f Re p o rt .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Methodo logy ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13 Observatio ns ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 14 Tree Pr o t ect ion Dis t ances ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 15 3 to 5 X DBH ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 O TPZ (Optimum Tree Pro t ection Zon e ) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15 Tree Phot os .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16 Assumptions & Lim ita t ions ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20 Cover photo: Lot 7 vi ew ed f r om Santella Cou r t . Coas t live oaks #6 14, 6 1 5 a nd 6 1 9 are labeled. All photos i n this repor t we r e tak en b y D. Ell is on J anua ry 13 , 2013. PO Box 3714, Saratoga , CA 95070. 408 -72 5-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .com . TREE MAP Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siuce 1984 0 / r ·~~ ~ I ~ ~~ •ii ~~ Legend e Fair/Good or Good * Fair I •9 :: f ..... ------Q). I -~ ----------·----#626 ------\-------------................. -~-:. A Fa ir/Poor. Poor or • " .... ~ / Unoceptoble / #625 #607 ', • ·" 1 #624 I- I ~ I '--• /#618 #623 #608 ~ I I ") ~ #622 ~ )> I I * #609 I ~t10j I * #621 ~ i I I #620 • • • I #619 #610 #606 #605 ,( I * I ,... I #617 #6 16 #615 #604 I ~ ~ ~ • • I -~~ #611 #603 §:m ~ • -.~m 0 ~ I iii =< #614 1 ~I j s,.tv..,.I2LL &--#613 #612 i -----"" couf?..,. -- #602 eA#60 1 ' -!' I , I ',/ \ t:Jts / PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. ::0 0 "0 m ::0 ~ ·~ Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16, 2013 . Page 1 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Ser11 ice si11 ce 1984 SUMMARY DE SCRIP TION OF PROJECT: A single family home will be designed within the Least Restrictive Development Area (LDRA) shown on the Tee Exhibit Plan . After reviewing this Preliminary Arborist Report , the project architects and engineers can try to design the improvements in order to retain trees with "Fair/Good " or "Good" preservation suitability. DE SCR IPTIO N OF EXISTING TREES: There are 26 protected trees 1 within the or on the border of the LDRA on Lot 7. These trees are described briefly the Summary Tree Table (Table 1) on page 4 and in greater detail in the Complete Tree Table (Table 5) beginning on page 8 . No tree dispositi o n recommendations pro vided in this report , bec ause construction plans have not yet been develope d , and so this is a Preliminary Arborist Report. The tree Preservation Suitability ratings and Tree Roo t Protection Distances will be helpful to the project architects however, in deciding which trees to retain and how far improvements should be located from these trees , during the design proc e ss. Trees are c oded as to their preservation suitability on the Tree Map on the previous page, and also in the Summary Table. In addition. trees in the various preservation suitability ratings have been grouped into separate tables for quick reference, as listed below: • Eight trees are classified as having "Fair/Good" preservation suitability. Th es e are the better trees on the site , and those that are most worthy of retaining or transplanting . They are listed in Table 2 on page 5. No te that no trees were listed as havi ng "Good" preservation suitability on this site. • Five trees are classified as having "Fair" preservation suitability . These are "so-so" trees and I do not re c ommend g o ing through too much trouble to retain them. They are listed in Table 3 on page 5. • Thirteen trees are classified as having "Fair/Poor" or "Poor" preservation suitability. I would not put any effort into retaining any of these trees . which are listed in Table 4 on page 6. Tho se trees listed as Poor (#60 8, 6 11 , 6 14) should be removed unles s they will be 1 For the purpose of t his project, a protected tree in Los Gat os as defi ned in th e Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tre e Protection. Sec tion 29 .10.096 0. 12/3/20 10 the Scope of Prot ected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or grea ter diameter of any trun k, w hen removal re la t es t o any review f or which zo ni ng approva l or subdivision a rova l is re uired. T ow n Street trees of an size are ro t ected . Fruit t rees less th an 18 inch es in trun k diamete r ar e exem t. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga , CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /ww w.deca h.com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Page 2 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist Service s i11ce 1984 located far from improvements or people. Several of the "Fair/Poor" trees are recommended to be examined in greater detail by the arborist. • The deciduous trees (blue oaks) should be re-evaluated again after full leaf-out, around mid-June . Several of these trees had some dead branches but it is difficult to accurately assess the percentage of dead branches. thus the true condition of these trees while they are leafless during the winter. • As the construction plans for the project are developed I will review these plans and produce additional reports describing the expected impact of construction on those trees that will remain . I can work with the architects to reduce construction impacts to trees where possible. I will eventually prepare a Final Arborist Report listing trees to remain . trees to be removed and tree protection specifications for th ose trees that will remain. My general impression of the trees on this site is: They are not in good condition. Many trees have canopies that are abnormally sparse. and many of the trees have been pruned very poorly, resulting in less-than-desirable struc ture. It is poss ible that that the vigor of some of these trees may improve if they receive rainfall (or supplemental water) thi s winter. but the drought which is now beginning its fourth year is at least partially re sponsible for the condition of the trees. I should also note that there has been a lot of vehicle activity on this lot; with heavy equipment coming very close to and in some cases nicking the trunks and branches of trees. This vehicle traffic also causes soil compaction, which is very damaging to trees-especially already weakened trees. Materials and some debris from construction on o ther sites are also b e ing stored on t his site , which can be damaging to trees. The key trees for this site are: The e ight trees with "Fair/Good" preservation suitability ratings. Th ese are the best trees within the LRDA. They are coast live oaks #602, 606,610,615,619 and 623 and blue oaks #603, 604 and 606 . PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah.com . Arbor ist Report for Hig hlands Lot 7. January 16 , 2013 . Page 3 of 1 1 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticu lturist Service since 1984 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE ~ree Common Trunk Preservation ~ree Common Trunk Preservat ion # Name Dlam. Suitability # Name D lam. Su itability 601 coast live oak 22 Fair/Poo r 614 coast live oak 45 Poor 602 coast live oak 5 Fa ir/Good 615 coast live oak 14 ,16,19 Fa ir/Go od I 603 blue oak 16 Fa ir/Good j 616 lcoast live oakj13 jFa ir/Poor I 604 lb lue oak 18 Fa ir/Good 617 coast live oak 17 ,20 Fa ir/Poo r 605 blue oak 13 Fair I 618 lcoast live oak 12 ,18 Fa ir/Poor 606 bl ue oak 13 Fair/Good 619 coast live oak 19,20 Fair/Good 607 blue oak 13 Fair/Poor 608 coast live oak 25 Poor 620 coast live oak 13 Fair I I 621 lcoast live oak 115 IF air 609 coast live oak 20, 10 Fa ir/Poor I 610 I coast live oak 21 Fair/Good 622 coast live oak 5,4,3,2 Fair I I 623 !coast live oak j2o jFa ir/Good 1611 lcoast live oak j18 .19 jPoor 624 coast live oak 13 Fa ir/Poo r I 612 coast live oak 20 (2) Fair/Poor I 625 !coast live oak 124 !Fair/Poor I 613 lcoast live oak 17 Fa ir/Poor j 626 lblue oak 112 IF air 26 Trees PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. January 16 , 2013 . Page 4 of 11 Deborah Ellis, MS Co nsulting Arborlst & Horticulturis t Sen;ice si11ce 1984 TABLE 2 TREES WITH "FAIR /GOOD" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY ~ree Common Trunk # Name Dlam. 602 coast live oak 5 603 blue oak 16 604 blu e oa k 18 606 blue oa k 13 610 coa st live oak 21 615 coast live oak 14,16,19 619 coast l ive oak 19,20 8 Trees 623 coa st live oak 20 I TABLE 3 TREES WITH "FAIR" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY ~ree Common ~runk # Name piam. 605 b lue o ak 13 620 coa st live oa k 13 621 coast live oak 15 1622 !coast live oak 5,4 ,3,2 5 Trees ~26 jblue o ak 12 I PO Bo x 3714, Sara toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for Highlands Lo t 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Page 5 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consult ing Arborist & Horticulturist TABLE 4 TREES WITH "FAIR /POOR ", "POOR", "UNACCEPTABLE" OR "UNCERTAIN" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY Tree Common Trunk Preservation # Name Diam. Suitability 601 coast live oak 22 Fair/Poor 607 blue oak 13 Fair/Poor J 608 coast live oak 25 Poor J 609 coast live oak 20,10 Fair/Poor 611 coast live oak 18,19 Poor 612 coast live oak 20 (2) Fair/Poor 613 coast live oak 17 Fair/Poor 614 coast live oak 45 Poor 616 coast live oak 13 Fair/Poor 617 coast live oak 17 ,2 0 Fair/Poor 618 coast live oak 12,18 Fa ir/Poor 624 coast live oak 13 Fair/Poor 625 coast live oa k 24 Fair/Poor I 13 Trees PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arbo r ist Repo rt for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Seroice si11Ce 1984 Page 6 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturi st Seroice smce 1984 RE COMM ENDATIONS 1. Which t rees to retain? Try to d e sign around and retain as many of trees as p oss ible with "Fa ir/Good" preservation suitabili t y ra t ings . Tr ees w ith "Fair" pres erv a tio n suitability sh ould b e sa ved w hen p ossibl e , b ut I don 't recom mend making a signifi cant e ffort to save th em. No effort shou ld be mad e t o retain trees w ith "Fa ir/Po o r" or "Poor" p reserva ti o n sui t abili ty . Trees wi t h "P o or " preservatio n suitability a re best removed and replaced w it h new, young heal t hy t rees of species t hat are native to the immediate area. "Fa ir/Poor" trees recommended for fu rther evaluation by the arborist sho uld be evaluated in great er det a il if t hey may re main. If no fu rther evaluat ion w ill be perform e d o n the se t rees th e n it is proba bl y b es t to re m ove t hese the m for re aso ns of sa fety. 2. The deciduous trees (blue oaks) should be re -evaluated by the arborist again after full leaf-out, around mid -J une . Several of these trees had some dead branches but it is d ifficult to accurately a ssess t he p ercentage of dead branches. thus the true condition of these t rees w hil e th ey are leafl ess d uri ng the w inter. 3 . 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 as possible . 3xOB H2 sho uld be consi d e re d the absolute m inimum d ist ance fro m any distu rbanc e to the tree trunk o n one side o f the trunk. for root pro t ect ion. If th ere will b e d isturb ances o n mult iple sides of th e trunk, then SxDBH or great e r sho ul d be us e d . Tree c a nopies must a lso b e t a ke n into conside ration w he n desig nin g a round t rees . 4. Please submit the p roposed site plan and ot her construction plans to me for review of construction impacts to trees , when these plans are avail a b le. 5. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions w ill be included in th e Fin a l Arborist Re p ort for this project. 2 3xDBH: See a e 11 for an ex lanation of 3 and Sx DBH wh ic h are used t o ca lc ulate roo t rotectio n dist ances for t rees . PO Bo x 3714 , S aratoga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. htt p:/ /ww w.deca h.co m. Arb or is t Re port fo r Highla nds Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Page 7 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sc n ;ice siuce 1984 APPENDIX TABLE 5 COMPLETE TREE TABLE This Table is continued through page 10. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 10 to 13. TREE ROOT ~ON DITtON PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Notes # Common Dlam. e Suitability .. :I J: J: N Name 0 u CD CD a. Cl c c t- I I [• > s I >< >< 0 U) I") It') 601 Quercus 22 30*20 50 50 Fair/Poor Could remove this tree and keep better adjacent tree (#602) instead. See 5 9 16 agrifolia. #602 below. coast live oak 602 coast live 5 12*10 75 70 Fair/Good Ten inches from tree #601 -may be a sucker of 601 . Could remove 601 and 1 2 3 oak keep this tree (602) instead-602 is a better tree with a longer life ahead of it, and its growth is impeded by 601 . 602 could also be transplanted if necessary. r Quercus 16 40.301 70 1 70 IFa;,/Good 4 6 16 I douglasii. blue oak I 604 lblue oak 118 145*35 1 751 60 IF air/Good I I 4 I 7 I 18 605 blue oak 13 35*25 60 65 Fair 3 5 13 l 606 blue oak 13 38*25 70 60 Fair/Good 3 5 13 r blue oak 13 45*35 50 50 Fair/Poor Large mechanically-caused wounds to trunk. Some branches of this tree are 3 5 13 obviously dead , but can 't tell what percentage , so can't judge condition very well. This and all of the other deciduous trees (blue oaks on this lot) should be rechecked in early summer (e .g . June) to better assess their condition . 608 coast live 25 30*30 60 20 Poor Lower trunk hollow with cavity openin g to outside -can see wood decay conks 6 10 18 oak inside cavity , and cavity is filled with wood rat droppings which are pouring out. -- ---- PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah.com. Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. January 16, 2013. Page 8 of 20 Deborah Ellis, M S Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seruire si11 ce 1984 TREE ROOT CONDITION PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Size Preservation I # Common Dlam. f Suitability Notes ... ~ :t :t N Name 0 CD CD a. 01 0 0 ... I > ~ I II b I )( )( 0 Cl) C"') It) 609 coast live 20 , 10 35*30 60 50 Fair/Poor Small cavity opening at lower trunk may lead to a larger hollow interior -this 6 10 18 oak should be rechecked if tree may be reta ined . 610 coast live 21 45*40 70 60 Fai r/Good 5 9 15 oak 611 coast live 18 ,19 22*35 40 40 Poor Canopy very sparse and a cavity in the lower trunk. 7 12 21 oak 612 coast live 20 (2) 35*25 60 50 Fair/Poor Eight inch diameter scaffold branch over cul-de-sac is hollow and has seve ral 5 8 14 oak bird nest holes in it. 613 coast live 17 35*25 50 50 Fa ir/Poor Bark falling off trunk at 4-6 feet above the ground -investig ate further. 4 7 8 oak 614 coast live 45 40*45 40 20 Poor Three trunks at 4 feet (22 & 18 inch diameters). The 22 inch trunk is hollow 11 19 45 oa k and I can see daylight through it. 615 coast live 14 ,16 ,19 50 *50 70 60 Fair/Good 8 14 25 oak 616 coast live 13 20*15 60 40 Fa ir/Poor Severe trunk crook because the tree very is grove-affected. 3 5 6 oak 617 coast live 17,20 45*45 45 60 Fa ir/Poor Canopy very sparse . Two trunks j oined at the back . Some basal decay in one 7 12 21 oak trunk . 618 coast live 12 ,18 35*30 50 40 Fair/Poor Lower trunk sweeps and has a significant crook -tree is very grove affected . 6 10 18 oak 619 coast live 19 ,20 45*50 70 60 Fair/Good 7 12 22 oak 620 coast live 13 22*20 60 60 Fair 3 5 6 I oa k 621 coast live 15 45*22 60 60 Fair 4 6 7 J oak -- I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. January 16 , 2013 . Page 9 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seroire siuce 1984 TREE ROOT jcONDITION PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree co:mon l Trunk Size ! Preservation Notes # Dlam. ... :I Suitability I :1: :1: Name 0 ti ID ID 1:11 0 0 I I l l > 2 I >C >C .. M II) en 622 coast live 5,4,3 ,2 20*18 60 50 Fair Stump sprout tree. 2 4 oak 623 coast live 20 50*25 65 60 Fair/Good 5 8 oak 1 625 lcoast live F 4 130*30 70 50 Fair/Poor Lower trunk hollow and with a cavity opening to the outside -should be 6 10 oak investigated further if tree may be retained . 1 626 l blue oak 112 150*30 70 60 Fair Small lower trunk wound has sapwood fungal wood decay conks -preferably 3 5 investigate further. 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 Specifi cations and any other project plans where existing t r ees must be shown and referenced . 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation . The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is u sed . PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pac bell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com . N 0.. 1-0 5 15 18 12 Arbori s t Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 ,201 3 . Page 10 of 20 Debor ah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seroice siuce 1984 3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). This is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH 3 • For multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number in parentheses (e .g. 2) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the d iameter 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 4.5 feet above the ground. An "18 {2)" means that trunk diameter was 18 inches at 2 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5 " means that this is a multi-trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet above the ground. 4) Size: tree size is listed as height x w idth in feet, estimated an d 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 cou ld 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 i nformation on tree cond ition 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 op inion on the tree's Preservation Suitabi lity 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 ba sed 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 "Fa ir/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 si gn ificantly improved with just a small amount of work-and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. 3 DBH is tree t ru nk diameter in inches "at breast height ", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. Th is is the forestry and arboricultural standard measu rement hei ht that is also used in man tree-related calcu lations. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com. Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Page 11 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Se r11ice siuce 1984 Ta b le 6 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanatio n (continued on the next page) 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. Equ ivalent 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 Go od condition and provide at least one significant fu nctional or aestheti c benefit to the environment and the users of the site . These are better than average trees equivalent to academic orade ·s·. These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to im prove with treatment. These are "average" trees -not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed . The majority of Fair trees on 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 of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes . Equivalent to academi c grade ·c·. These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved w ith treatment. These trees can be expected t o 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 re commend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Equivalent to academic grade 'D'. These trees are dead and are not suitable for retention in their location. In certain None settings however, (suc h as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants incl udi ng decomposers. Equivalent to academic_grade 'F'. 14. Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the sc ope of work for this report, such as a more detailed ex planation of tree condition or expected con struction impact. When reasonable, methods of reducin g con struction impact (including design changes) are presented here. 15. Tree Protection Distances (See page 15). a. Root Protection : • 3 and SxDBH: Both the 3 and SxDBH dis t an ce s are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of t he DBH of the large st trunk is added to 50% of the DBH for all other t runks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tre e Pr otection Di stance calculations . PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Arbor ist Report for High lands Lot 7. January 16 , 2013. Page 12 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11 ce 1984 • OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): Th is is calcu lated as per the text, Trees & Development. Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular t re e species tolerance of root disturbance. Becau se it may not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this requirement and list only the 3 and SxDBH distances. b. Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection . SUPPORTING INFORMATION 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 site --their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authori ties concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site . METHODOLOGY I performed a basic evaluation of the subject trees on January 13, 2013. 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: • Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition , 2000 , authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and publ ished by t he International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). • Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA}, 1992 . • Tree Hazard Evaluation Form taken from Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas, 2"d Ed ., Matheny & Clark, International Society of Arboriculture, 1994. The above three references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013. Page 13 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serv ice si11ce 1984 I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground. which is the required trunk diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter was extrapolated to DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above the ground) because DBH is also used calculate tree protection distances and other tree-related factors. The DBH figure is not included in the Tree Tables . but I have used it to estimate construction impacts to trees. 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. There were no construction plans available at the time that this report was prepared. My evaluation and recommendations therefore, are based upon the site "as is". but understanding that it will someday be developed . I could not therefore. provide an Expected Impact of Construction rating. OBSERVATIONS SITE CONDITIONS There are no improvements on this lot. Site topography is mostly sloping with a more level area up near the cul-de-sac of Santella Court. which will be used for the building pad. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded. depending upon proximity to existing buildings and to other trees . Vegetation is native to the immediate area and of natural growth (it was not planted). There are two tree species within the LORA; these are coast live oak (an evergreen oak species) with a lesser number of blue oaks, which are deciduous. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013. Page 14 of 20 TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES 3 TO 5 X DBH De borah Ell is, MS Consu lting A r borist & Ho rticu lt u r ist Service siuce 1984 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 affect tree stability or health at a low , moderate or severe degree--there are simply too many var iable in volved that we cannot see or antic ipate. 3xDBH however , is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any e xcavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies includ ing (Smiley , Fraedrich , & Hendrickson 2002, Bar t lett Tree Research Laboratories. DBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4 .5 feet above the ground). This d istance is often used dur ing the design and plann ing phases of a construction proj ect in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone o f raptd taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (ma in support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing d istance f rom the trunk. For example , using the 3X DBH guideline an e xcavation should be no closer than 4 .5 feet from t he trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances are guidelines only , and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans , decay, structural problems , etc . It is a lso impo r tant to un derstand that in actual fie ld conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guide li nes . 3x DBH may be mo r e of an a id in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum d istance wh ic h s hou ld be strived for , and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the t r unk . The roots beyon d the zone of rapid taper form an e xtensive network of long , rope-like roots one to two in c hes in diameter . These wood y perennial roots are referred to as t ransport r oots because they function primar ily to transport water and minerals . Mainta ining a 5x DBH tree protection zone or greater around a t ree will preserve more of t hese transport roots, wh ich will have less of an impact on tree health than if the e x cavation were closer to the tru nk. OTPZ (OPTIM UM TREE PROTECTION ZONE) OTPZ is the d istance in feet from the t runk of the t ree, a ll around the tree, that construction or other d isturbance should not encr oach within . If this zone is res pected, then c hances of the tree surviving const ruction d isturbance are very good . This method takes into account tree age , DBH and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientif ically based methods to determine the min imum distance fo r construction (for examp le , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arbor icultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text , Trees & De velopment , Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture , 1998 . The tree protect ion zone calcu lation method in th is t ext was used to obtain the OTPZ 's provided in this report . Due to the crowded , constr a ined nature of many building s ites it is often not be possible to ma intain the OPTZ d istance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also lis ted alternate d istances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragrap h abo ve). PO Box 3714 , Sar atoga, CA 95070. 408-7 25-1357 . decah@pac be ll.net . htt p:/ /www .de cah .com . Arborist Re po rt for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16,2013. Page 15 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scn,icc since 1984 TREE PHOTOS Coast live oaks #6 11, 6 1 3 and 6 14. 613 and 614 are close to Santella Court while 611 is farther back. Unfortunately, all of these trees have "Fair/Poor" or "Poor" preservation su itab ility. Oak #614 has a hollow lower trunk that you can see day light through . PO Box 3714, Saratoga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Highlands lot 7. January 16, 2013. Page 16 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sermce siucc 198-1 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS 1) Tree locations were provided b y HMH Engineers and are shown o n the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a reduced partial copy o f the Lot 7 Tree Exhibit Plan t hat I was given. Tree locati o ns are assumed t o be accurate but shou ld be verified in the fi eld. 2) Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. 3) The I nformation contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects t he condition of those items at the t ime of inspection. 4) Loss or removal of any part of this report in validates the entire report. 5) 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 t his report is addressed without my written consen t b eforehand. 6) This report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way cont ingent upon the reporting of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation report ed. 7) This report has been prepared in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended b y the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consultin g Arborists. 8) 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 guarant ee. expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants o r property in question may not arise in th e future. 9) 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 groun d . and as such , structural defects tha t could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise stat ed. Structural defects may also be hidden w ithin a tree, in a ny portion of a tree. Likewise , root collar excavations and evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise sta t ed. 1 0) 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, f a il. or die, for what ever reason . Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during con struction often decline, fail or die. Be c ause there may be hidden defects withi n 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 arb o ri cult ural science does not guarantee the acc urate detection and predic tion of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, part ic u larly large trees . It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll .net. http:/ /www .deca h.co m. Arbor is t Report for Hig hlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Pag e 18 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S en;ice siuce 1984 Blue oaks #60 3 -6 0 6 . All of these trees have "Fair/Good " preservation suitability except for #605 which is l isted as "Fair". These are some of the better trees on si te and it would be nice to save them. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. January 16 , 2013. Page 17 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice si11ce 1984 ******************************* I certify that the information contained in this 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. Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http:/ /www .decah.com . Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16 , 2013 . Page 19 of 20 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirr ce 1984 GLOSSARY 1) Basic Evaluation (of Trees): A 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. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional , more detailed examination(s) be performed. 2) Conk: the fruiting body (reproductive structure) of a wood decay fungus. from which spores are released. It usually assumes a "shelf-like" orientation when growing from the side of a trunk or branch. On top of roots, conks often assume a flat or "tabletop " shape. Conks are often a sign that extensive decay has already occurred w ithin the wood . 3) Crooks are unnatural bends or sharp angles in branches or trunks caused by the removal of other attached branches or trunks; 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 pruning wound . 4) Deciduous: a plant that sheds all its leaves at a specific time of the year, usually during the winter when the weather is cold . As opposed to "evergreen " which are plants that retain their leaves in living condition all year long, never dropping all their leaves at once. 5) Dripline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 t imes the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 6) Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" 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 . 7) 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 examined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. 8) Sapwood : the young , outer rings of wood that conduct the water and food for the tree. Sapwood is lighter in color than the underlying heartwood (non-conducting wood). 9) Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches of the tree. 10) Suckers are secondary upright shoots arising from the roots or root collar Uunction between roots and trunk) of a tree, or below the graft union . On a grafted tree the suckers (originating from the stock which includes the roots), are often not the same plant species as the scion (the grafted, desirable aboveground part). Suckers can be a nuisance in landscape situations. In nature however, suckers can serve to keep a tree alive after fire or mechanical damage that kills or removes the aboveground part of the tree. 11) 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 sp rout 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. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.c om . Ar bori st Report for Highlands Lot 7 . January 16, 2013 . Page 20 of 20 FINAL ARBORIST REPORT Highland s Lot 7 Los Gatos , California Prepared for: Jessica Vaughn Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, Ameri can Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B , International Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science DECEMBER 10, 2014 Debo rah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sermce sirt ce 1984 RECEIVED DEC 1 0 ZOl4 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION ©Deborah Ellis, 2014 . This report may be reproduced in whole or in part by on ly the client and the client's authorized representatives and onl y for use with the subject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verba l consent of Debo rah Ellis prior to reproduction. PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .c om . Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sin ce 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 Table 1 Tree Summary ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 4 RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ? Table 2 Complete Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7 Tree Table Data Colu mn Explanation ............................................................................................................................................................................. 13 Tree Pr otection Distances ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 3 to 5 x DBH .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 17 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 17 Los Gatos General Tr ee Protection Directions .................................................................................................................................................................. 18 Tree Photos .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 1 Assump ti ons & Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23 Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 25 Cover photo: Lot 7 viewed from Santella Court with coast live oak# 619 labeled. All photos in this report were taken b y D. Ellis on December 8 , 2014. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com. TREE MAP • legend e Sa v e Tree * Debatable • (Read about tree) X Remove Tree ·-· .......... I .. , .. " -:.j I ' • l Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Seroice siu ce 1984 • ...... 601 .... :· .. :-·-- <)~{~'"·:--·' \~ -·;~ ~- ' ~ ' '\ ~ ./ l l . ' PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. December 10, 2014 . Page 2 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice siu ce 1984 SUMMARY I initially prepared a Preliminary Arborist Report for this project, dated January 16, 2013. No construction plans were available at t hat time, so that first report provided only descriptions of the subject tlrees #601-626. Please refer back to that 2013 report for background inf ormation and my involvement in this project. This is my Final Arborist Report for this site 1, after review of the following preliminary construction plans provided to me in late November of 2014: • Grading & Drainage, sheets C-1 and 2, HMH Engineers , November 2014. • Concept Planting Plan , sheet L-1 , no date, Davidon Homes , received in plan set with above plan. • Ele va tions , sheets A 1.1 , 1.4, 1.5 , Ba ssenia n/Lagoni Architects . November 3, 20 14. • Roof Plan; sheet A 1.6, same as above. • Sections, sheets A 1.7 , 1.8, same as above. I also visited the site again on December 8, 2014 to check the condition o f the existing trees, and to review the construction plans and potential impacts to the trees. A revised Tree Summary Table is on the next page, and a Complete Tree Table containing all tree informa tion is on pages 7 through 12. The Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions are included on pages 18 through 19 . Tree Pro tection could use improvement on this site (even though construction has not yet begun) as well as other Highlands lots . For example, there is a lot of equipment, and material storage close t o trees on many lots, including lot 7, where no tree protection fencing has been installed around the trees yet. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 3 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice siu ce 1984 TABLE 1 TREE SUMMARY Common Trun k P reservation Expected !Tree# Name Dlam. Suitability Construction Action Reason Impact 601 coast live oak 22 Fair/Poor Moderate Save I I 602 !coast live oak Is !Fair/Good !Moderate/Severe !Debatable !construction 603 blue oak 16 FairfGood Low/Moderate Save 604 blue oak 18 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 605 blue oak 13 Fair Moderate Save 606 blue oak 13 Fair/Good Moderate Save 607 blue oak 13 Fair/Poor Modera te Save 608 coast live oak 25 Poor Severe Remove Construction . Structure I 609 coast live oak 20, 10 Fair/Poor Sever e Remove Construction 610 coast live oak 21 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 611 coast live oak 18,19 Poor Severe Remove Construction. Overall Condition 612 coast live oak 20 (2) Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction 613 coast live oak 17 Fair/Poor Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction. Overall Condition 614 coast live oak 45 Poor ModeratefSevere Debatable Overall Condition . Construction 615 coast live oak 14 ,16,19 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Constru ction 616 coast live oak 13 Fair/Poor Low/Moderate Save 617 coast live oak 17 ,20 Fair/Poor Uncertain Debatable Construction. Overall Condition 618 coast live oak 12 ,18 FairfPoor Low/Moderate Save 619 coast live oak 19,20 Fair/Good Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction I I 620 !coast live oak !13 !Fair I Low I save I 621 coast live oak 15 Fair Low/Moderate Save 622 coast live oak 5.4,3 .2 Fair Severe Remove 623 coast live oak 20 Fair/Good Moderate Debatable Construction . I 624 lcoast live oak 13 Fairf Poor Low/Moderate Save I 625 !coast l ive oak 124 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Construction L 626 J blue oak 12 Fairf Poor Moderate Save PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 4 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serc;ice si11ce 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Which trees to retain? For those trees with a "Debatable" designation, I would not make any effort to save trees with a "Fair/Poor" or "Poor" Pre servation Sui tability rating . These are bees #613, 614, 617 and 625 . If any design change recommendations made for these trees cannot be implemented. consider removing the trees. See the "Notes" column of the Complete Tree Table for design change recommendations. Tree s with "Poor" preservation suitability (#614) should definitely be removed , regardless of expected construction impact. 2 . The following trees with "Fair" or "Fair/Good" preservation suitability ratings have design changes recommended, in order to reduce construction damage. These are b ees #602, 605, 606, 615, 619 and 623. See the "Notes " column of the Complete Tree Table for the specific design change recommendations. 3. The deciduous trees {blue oaks) are best evaluated by the arborist after full leaf-out, around mid-June. Several of these trees had some dead branches but it is difficult to accurately assess the percentage of dead branches. thus the true condition of these trees while they are leafless during the winter. · 4. 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 as possible. 3xD8H3 should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk , for root protection. If there will be disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk . then 5xDBH or greater should be used . Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. 5. Please submit any revised site plans and all forthcoming site-based construction plans to me for review of construction impacts to trees . when these plans become available. 6. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions are included on pages 17 through 19 . 7. Tree Protection needs improvement on this site (even though construction has not begun) a s well as other Highlands lots . For example. there is a lot of equipment. and material storage close to trees on many lots, including lot 7. where th ere is no tree protection fencing around the trees. There should be no equipment, vehicle or supply storage around unfenced trees. 3 3xDBH : See a e 16 for an ex lanation of 3 and SxDBH which are used to calculate root rotection distances for trees. PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 5 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serl/ice si 11 cc 1984 8. This site contains oaks that ore native to the Immediate area (coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia and blue oak, Q. douglasii). All of these oaks are of natural growth. This tree species fares 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 the general rule of 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 com monly landscaping that requires frequ e nt 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 causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes, c ars and people. It is important to landsc ape correctly around our native oaks ; e .g. summer dry. I have attached a publication entitled Keeping Native Californ ia Oaks Healthy, to a ssist in best managing the oaks on the property. 9. Remaining trees on site should be re-evaluated after surrounding trees are removed . 10. General Tree Maintenance: do no unnecessary 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 Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah .com . Fi na l Arboris t Report f or Highlands lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 6 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirrce 1984 APPENDIX TABLE 2 COMPLETE TREE TABLE Th is Table is continued through page 12. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 12 to 15. TREE ROOT CONDITION Expected J PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree If & Trunk Preservation II Dtam. Size e Constructlori Action Reason Notes # Common ... :I Suitability Impact J: J: N Name 0 .. CD CD a.. Cll u 0 0 1-I > :I ~ )( )( 0 (/) M It) 601 Quercus 22 30*20 50 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Save Construction : 7 feet from limit of grading . 5 9 16 agrifolia , This tree is on the adjacent lot to the North. coast live Condition : could remove this tree and keep oak better adjacent tree (#602) instead. See itffl02 below. 602 coast live 5 12*10 75 70 Fair/Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction Construction : this tree is on the adjacent lot 3 4 5 oak Severe to the North . Trunk is 5 feet from limit of grading. Although this may work from a root damage standpoint, it is still dangerously close to the tree from an fequipment trampling standpoint unless [work is done very carefully. May be best to transplant tree. Condition : 10 inches from tree #601 -may be a sucker of 601 . Could remove 601 and keep this tree (602) instead -602 is a better tree with a longer life ahead of it, and its growth is impeded by 601 . 603 Quercus 16 40*30 70 70 Fair/Good Low/ Save Construction : 9 to 10 feet from limit of 4 6 16 douglasii, Moderate grading. This tree is on the adjacent lot to blue oak he North . --- PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10, 2014. Page 7 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Se rvice since 1984 !cONDITION TREE ROOT PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Expected Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Constructlo1 Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. CD Suitability -~ ... J: J: ... .a Impact N Name 0 CD CD Q. 1:» u 0 0 1- I II I ll• > ~ )( )( 0 .::: C") ., "' Condition : canopy very sparse. Two trunks ·oined at the back. Some basal decay in one trunk. 618 coast live 12,18 35*30 50 40 Fair/Poor Low/ Save Construction: nearest improvement is drain 6 10 18 oak Moderate pipe around house perimeter, at 17 feet. Condition: lower trunk sweeps and has a significant crook-tree is very grove affected. 619 coast live 19,20 45*50 70 60 Fa ir/Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction Construction: reta ining wall is 5 feet from 7 12 22 oak Severe runk; excavation will bring actual soil disturbance closer. There must be no soil disturbance closer than 7 feet from the trunk of this large tree. This is a tree worth saving . 620 coast live T 3 122*20 1 601 60 Fair Low Save Construction : retaining wall is 16 feet from 3 5 6 oak runk . 621 coast live 15 ~5*22 60 60 Fa ir Low/ Save Construction : re taining wall is 11 .5 feet 4 6 7 oak Moderate from trunk; house is 13.5 feet 622 coast live 5,4,3 ,2 20*18 60 50 Fair Severe Remove Construction : limit of grading is probably 3 4 5 oak about 2 feet from trunk , drain pipe centerline estimated at 4 feet from trunk ; house at about 6 feet. This is too close in terms of construction practicality . Tree is also in wrong location on plan; see the approximate location I have drawn in . Condition : stump sprout tree. Could be ransplanted , but not a great specimen . '- PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 11 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serv ice sirtce I 984 TREE ROOT ~ON DITtON PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Preservation Expected # Common Dlam. Size ! Suitability ~onstructlon Action Reason Notes ... ::J Impact ::z:: ::z:: N Name 0 u lXI lXI ~ CJl 0 0 1- I I > ::J )( )( 0 ... a; I') ., 614 coast live 45 ~0*45 40 20 Poor Moderate/ Debatable Overall Construction: 9 feet from proposed sewer 11 19 45 oak Severe Condition, line center line, meaning excavation will be Construction 1-2 feet closer to the trunk (7 -8 feet). But it is not worth moving the line to save this ree -instead remove it. Condition : Three trunks at 4 feet (22 & 18 inch diameters). The 22 inch trunk is hollow and I can see daylight through it. 615 coast live 14,16,19 50*50 70 60 Fair/Good Severe Debatable Construction Construction: trun k is 4 feet from retaining 8 14 25 oak wall with 3 foot cut; corner of house at 10.5 feet. This is one of the best trees on the site (and there are not many of these) so please move improvements so that there is no single disturbance closer than 8 feet from the trunk; 14 feet for disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk. 616 coast live 13 20*15 60 40 Fair/Poor Low/ Save Construction: trunk is 104 feet from 3 5 6 oak Moderate retaining wall , 21 feet from house. Canopy orientation is OK relative to house. Condition : Severe trunk crook because the ree very is grove-affected. OK to keep if adjacent sheltering oak #615 remains. 617 coast live 17,20 ~5*45 45 60 Fair/Poor Uncertain Debatable Construction, Construction: 4 feet from centerline of 7 12 21 oak Overall sewer line. But line is shown in street, so I Condition rwonder if this is already in place. In any case there should be no soil disturbance closer than 7 feet from the trunk. The condition of this tree is not good, so removal is an option i n my opinion . I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com. I Final Arbo ri st Report for Highlands Lot 7. December 10 , 2014. Page 10 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siuce 1984 TREE ROOT CONDITION Expected I PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Action Reason # Common Dlam. ! Suitability ~onstructlo l Notes ... :I Impact ::1: ::1: N Name • 0 u ID ID Q. m 0 0 1-II I > s )( )( 0 VJ M It') 623 coast live 20 50*25 65 60 Fair/Good Moderate Debatable Construction Construction: limit of grad ing at 5.5 feet 5 8 15 oak from trunk; drain pipe cent erline at 7.5 feet, house at 9 feet. Over-excavation will bring these improvements closer. I advise moving both improvements at least 2 feet farther from the tree if possible. Also use story posts to see if this will work from a canopy disturbance perspective. 624 coast live 13 28*25 50 40 Fair/Poor Low/ Save Construction : limit of grading at 8.5 feet 3 5 6 oak Moderate from trunk; drain pipe centerline at 16 feet, house at 18 feet. 625 coast live 24 30*30 70 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Construction, Construction : limit of grading 2 feet from 6 10 18 oak trunk, drain pipe centerline at 8.5 feet , house 9.5 feet. All of this is closer than advisable from a root damage perspective , and it will be difficult to construct it so close to the tree . Preservation suitability is not good , so consider removing the tree if ~am age does indeed turn out to be too severe . Condition : lower trunk hollow and with a cavity opening to the outside-should be investigated further if tree may be retained . 626 blue oak 12 50*30 70 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Save Construction : limit of grading at 6.5 feet 3 5 12 from trunk ; retaining wall at 8.5 feet, house at 22 feet. Co ndition : small lower trunk wound has sapwood fungal wood decay conks - preferably investigate further. (December l PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga , CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah .com . I Final Arbor ist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 12 of 26 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Sen1ice siu ce 1984 TREE ROOT jcONDITION PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Expected Tree & Trunk Size Preservation !construction Action Reason Notes ! # Common Diam . Suitability ... ~ Impact l: l: Name 0 -a:l a:l Cl u 0 0 1: > ~ I I ... )( )( Ci) C") It) 8, 2014 : wound is larger with bark above slough ing off. Structure rating reduced from 60 to 50 and Preservation Su itab ility from Fa ir to Fair/Poor). - TREE TABLE DATA COLUMN EXPLANATION 1) Tree Number (the fie ld tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged w ith 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 existi ng trees must be shown and referenced . 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifo/ia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in thi s report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sun se t Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Tabl e, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used. 3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). Th is is the trunk diameter measurement he ight requi r ed by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH4 • For multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number in parentheses (e.g. 2) after the trunk d i ameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter was measured at t his alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more rea listic trunk diameter for the tree. • DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 fe et above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measu rement hei ht that is al so used in man tree-rel ated calculations. PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah.co m. N a. 1- 0 Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. December 10 , 2014 . Page 13 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sin ce 1984 Examples : an "18" in the Diameter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground . An "18 (2)" means that trunk diameter was 18 inche s measured at 2 feet above the ground . "1 8, 7, 5 " means that th is is a multi-trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet above the ground. 4) Size : t ree si ze is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for compari son purposes. 5) Condition Ratings: Tree s are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 w ith zero being a dead tree and 100 be ing a perfect tree (which is rare - like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not gr eat but not terrible either). Th ere are two components to tree condit ion -vigor and structure , and each component is rated separate ly. Averaging the two components is not useful bec ause a very low rating f or either o ne could be a valid reason to re move a tree from a site --even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speak ing for each separate component: 100 i s equivale nt to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair {C), 40 is Poor (D ), 20 i s Una cceptable (F) and 0 is Dead . 6) Relative to the scope of work for this r eport. tree Condition has been rated but not ex plained in detai l and re commendat i on s for the man age ment of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Debo rah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendation s for the general care of i ndividual trees relative to thei r condition . 7) The Condition of the tree is con si dered relative to the tree species and pre se nt or future intended use of the site to p rovid e an opinion on t he t ree 's Pre servati on Su itability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth kee ping on this site, in this location, as explained in Tab le 3 below and on the next page. Thi s 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 i ntermediate in nature . The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the sa me as the Condition Rat ing becau se (for example) so me trees with poor condition o r structure can be sign ificantly improved with just a small amount of work-and it would be worthwhile t o keep the t ree if this wer e done . Table 3 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation (continued on the next page) Such trees are rare but they have unusuall y good health and structure and provide multiple Excellent functi onal and aesthetic benefits to the e nviro nment and the users of the site . These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure . Equivalent to academic qrade 'A'. These trees may have some minor to moderate structura l or conditio n flaws that can be improved Good with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site . These are better than average trees equivalent to academic grade · B'. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .co m. Final Arbor ist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . Dece mber 10 , 2014 . Page 14 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Table 3 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation (continued from the previous page) Service siuce 1984 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 Fair they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on 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 of trees 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 regard less of management. The tree Poo r species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas . I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Equivalent to academic grade 'D'. These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other issues . None In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas , dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade 'F'. 8) Action (Disposition): a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. b) Remo ve: this recommendation is ba se d 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 requ ires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of th is tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis . • Condition : the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the owner's own preferences. • 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) PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www.decah.co m. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10, 2014 . Page 15 of 26 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Ser iJice s iure 1984 9) Reason (for tree removal or to expla i n why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provid ed, with the most signi fi ca nt reason liste d first. Reasons can inclu de 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 land scaping) • Owners Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (the tree is a poor specie s for the use of t he site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to ex cess ive risk to peop le or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated) 10) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpfu l to the cl ient and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for t his report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact. 11) Tree Protection Distances (See page 16). a) Root Protection: i) 3 and SxDBH : Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the la rgest trunk is added to 50% of the DBH fo r all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculation s. For practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance is 3 feet and the minimum SxDBH d istance is 4 feet. If disturbance cannot be ke pt at lea st 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree sh o uld no rmally be removed . ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Th is method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root di sturbance. Beca use it may not be pos sible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this requ irement and list only the 3 and SxDBH di stances . b) Canopy Protecti on : Additional space beyond root zone protection di stances may be nece ss ary for canopy protection. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbell.net. http://www.decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10, 2014 . Page 16 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES 3 TO 5 X DBH Service siu ce 1984 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 affect tree stability or health at a low , moderate or severe degree--there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however , is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one s1de of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich , & Hendrickson 2002 , Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. DBHis trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). Th is 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 excavation should be no closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans , decay , structural problems , etc. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3x DBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long -term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance wh ich should be strived for , and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of rapid taper form an e xtensive network of long , rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter . These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they funct ion primarily to transport water and minerals . Mainta ining a 5xDBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will preserve more of these transport roots , which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk. OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE) OTPZ is the distance in 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. Th is method takes into account tree age , DBH and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for example , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidel ines that are often used in the arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 . The tree pr otection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ's provided in this report. Due to the crowded , constrained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ d istance recommended for many of the trees--therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragraph above). PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pac bell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com . Fin al Arborist Rep ort for Highlands Lot 7. December 10 , 2014. Page 17 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sirrce 1984 LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECT ION DIRECTIONS Note that the following is excerpted from Division 2 (Tree Protection) of the Los Gatos Town Code and does not constitute the complete Division 2 text. The owner I applicant is responsible for implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection. August 7. 2014 Sec. 29.10.1000 New Property Development ( 1) The final approved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building permit set of development plans and printed on a sheets titled: Tree Preservation Instruction (Sheet T-1, T-2, etc.l. These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil. demolition. utility. landscape. irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur. (3.b.l The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However, the plans do not constitute approval to remove a tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit. as outlined in section 29 .1 0.0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition. (3 .e.l Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition. grading or building permit. the applicant or contractor shall submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report. (3.g.l An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable. all t renching shall be done using directional boring. air-spade excavation or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripli ne o f existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist. Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees during Construction a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: 1) Size and materials : A five (5) or 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 . PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah .com. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10, 2014 . Page 18 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siu ce 1984 2) Area type to be fenced. IYruU: 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 arborist6 . ~:Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Tvpe Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk fr om the ground to the first branch w ith 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution sha ll 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 begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. 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 .1 025". A template sign has been provided to be used on the project site. 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 or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2) Prohibit 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 within 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 the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project si te and the health of those trees to be preserved . The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved. 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 admi nistered. 6 If it is not possib le to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible, including as much of the dripline as poss ible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then so be it. But the contractor must t to fence off as much area under the cano as ossible do not be irres onsible about this .- PO Box 3714, Saratoga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 19 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siuce 1984 Section 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices -Tree Pruning, established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) 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 cabling, and fertilizing if specified. 1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies 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 TV /fiber 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 Institut e (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)-Pruning , Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is prohibited. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 20 of 26 Upper left: coast live oaks #6 1 3, 6 1 4 a n d 615 are labeled . Oak #614 has e x tensive trunk decay, as can be partially seen in the lower right photo where you can see through the trunk (arrow). Oak #614 should be removed regardless of ex pected construction damage. This tree also has very poor vigor and an overall "Poor" preservation suitability rating. Note the equipment including outhouse that is stored near the trees on this lot . wi t h no tree protection for the trees. Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scn•ice since 1984 PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 21 of 26 ' . '-:r ,,t ' -~-' Upper left: coast live oak #625 , where limit of grading is shown at 2 feet from trunk , drain pipe centerline at 8.5 feet , house 9 .5 feet. All of this is closer than advisable from a root damage perspective , and it will be difficult to construct it so close to the tree. Preservation suitability is not good, so consider removing the tree if damage does indeed turn out to be too severe. Lower right: Large coast live oak #615 has an estimated construction impact as "severe", yet this tree shown to be retained on the plans . Therefore it is listed as "Debatable" in the Action column of the Tree Tables. Coast live oak #6 11 is within the proposed house, and therefore is listed on both the plans and in the Tree Tables to be removed . Note the road that has been dri ven repeatedly through the site, with no tree Protection for the trees. Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service siuce 1984 PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com. Fin al Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7. December 10, 2014 . Page 22 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S eruice siuce 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITAT IO NS 1) Tree locations were provided by HMH Engineers and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a reduced partial copy of the Lot 7 Tree Grading & Drainage Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 2) The information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 3) Loss or removal of any part of this report in validates the entire report. 4) 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. 5) This report and the 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 . 6) 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. 7) 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 . 8) I take no responsibility for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined fr om above the ground. and as such. structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported. unless otherwise stated. Stru c tural 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. 9) 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 guaran tee 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 t hat trees with no obvious defects can be subject to fai lure 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 safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net . http:/ /www .decah.com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014 . Page 23 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serc1ice siuce 1984 ******************************* I certify that the information contained in this 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. ?JJw_~ Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist C ertified Professional Horti c ulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A . Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B Enclosures: • Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set) • Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing) • Living amo ng the Oaks -a Management Guide for Landowners. Johnson . University of California Cooperative Extensio n, Na t ural Resources Program . No date. For th e future owners of Lot 7. PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www .decah .com . Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10, 2014 . Page 24 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S erm'ce si nce 1984 GLOSSARY 1. Conk : the fruiting body (reproductive structure) of a wood decay fungus , from which spores are released. It usually assumes a "shelf-like" orientation when growing from the side of a trunk or branch. On top of roots, conks often assume a flat or "tabletop " shape . Conks are often a sign that extensive decay has already occurred within the wood . 2 . Crooks are unnatural bends or sharp angles in branches or trunks caused by the removal of other attached branches or trunks; 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 pruning wound . 3 . Deciduous: a plant that sheds all its leaves at a specific time of the year, usually during the winter when the weather is cold. As opposed to "evergreen" which are plants that retain their leaves in living condition all year long , never dropping all their leaves at once. 4 . Dripline : 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 rad ius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 5. Grove : is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" 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. 6. Qualified Tree Service : A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business . A Qualified Tree Service is a tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist and acts 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 adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards : • Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129 , Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217- 355-9411 • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid . (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. 2006 Edit ion . Ibid. (Covers safety). 7. Root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction 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 a rea is then exam ined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. 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 p lant 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. PO Box 3714 , Sa r atoga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com. Final Arbor ist Report for H igh land s Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 25 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arboris t & Horticulturist Se roice siuce 1984 9. Sapwood : the young , outer rings of wood that conduct the water and food for the tree. Sapwood is lighter in color than the underlying heartwood (non-conducting wood). 10. Scaffold branch : a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches of the tree. 11. 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 o ld. There is often a great deal of decay associated with the mother stump, which can also reduce mechanical stab ility. 12. Suckers are secondary upright shoots arising from the roots or root collar Ounction between roots and trunk) of a t ree , or below the graft union . On a grafted tree the suckers (originating from the stock which includes the roots), are often not the same plant species as the scion (the grafted, desirable aboveground part). Suckers can be a nuisance in landscape situations. In nature however, suckers can serve to keep a tree alive after fire or mechanical damage that kills or removes the aboveground part of the tree. 13. Summer Drv: Our native oak species are adapted to ou r "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 Ounction 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 . PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.dec ah .com. Final Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 7 . December 10 , 2014. Page 26 of 26 RESOLUTION 2015-033 RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS GRANTING AN APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPEAL OF A DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE DECISION APPROVING A REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2 Yl:PD AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION APN: 527-09-016 ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION: S-14-072 PROPERTY LOCATION: 15343 SANTELLA COURT (Lot 7) APPLICANT/PROPERTY OWNER: DAVIDON HOMES APPELLANT: DAVID WEISSMAN WHEREAS, on March 11 , 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and considered an appeal of a Development Review Committee (DRC) decision approving a request to construct a new single-family residence property zoned HR-2 Yl :PD. The Planning Commission denied the appeal and approved the application . WHEREAS, the appellant has filed an appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying the appeal of a DRC decision approving a request to construct a new single-family residence. WHEREAS, this matter came before the Town Council for public hearing on May 5 , 20 I 5, and was regularly noticed in conformance with State and Town law. WHEREAS, Town Council received testimony and documentary evidence from the applicant, appellant and all interested persons who wished to testify or submit documents. Town Council considered all testimony and material s submitted, including the record of the Planning Commission proceedings and the packet of material contained in the Council Agenda Repon for their meeting on May 5 , 2015, along with any and all subsequent reports and materials prepared concerning this application. EXHlBIT 7 WHEREAS, Council finds as follows: A. One or more of the following, in accordance with Town Code section 29 .20.300: I . Where there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of the Planning Commission; or 2. New information was submitted to the Council during the appeal process that was not readily and reasonably available for submission to the Commission; or 3. An issue or policy over which the Commission did not have discretion to modify or address, but which is vested in the Council for modification or decision. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. The appeal of the decision of the Planning Commission denying an appeal of a DRC decision approving a request to construct a new single-family residence on p ro perty zoned HR-2 Y2:PD is granted and the application is remanded to Planning Commission for further consideration. 2 . The decision does not constitute a final administrative decision and the application will be returned to Planning Commission for further consideration. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the s•h day of May, 2015 , by the following vote: COUNCIL MEMBERS: A YES: Steve Leo nardi s, Rob Rennie, Marico Sayoc, Barbara Spector, Mayor Marcia Jensen NAYS : ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: ~~ SIGNE~v~ !CA~ Gj a(·~ MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS , CALIFO RNIA CLERK ADMINISTRATOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA This Page Intentionally Left Blank 5 7 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 i ::i a> A P P E A R A N C E S: Los Gatos Town Council : Community Developmen t Direc tor: T o wn Attorney: Transcribed by: Marcia Jensen, Mayor Barbara Spector, Vice Mayo r Steven Leonardis, Council Mem. Rob Rennie, Council Member Marico Sayee, Counci l Member Laurel Prevetti Robert Schu ltz Vicki L. Blandin (510) 337-1 5 58 LOS GATOS TOWN CO UN CIL 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 153 4 3 San tel la Court (Lot 7) 1 2 5 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 P R 0 C E E D I N G S : MAYOR JENSEN: Which brin g s us to Item 7, Architecture and Site Appl ication S-14 -072, p roject locat ion 15343 Santella Cour;:, also known as "Highlands ." This is an appeal , so we'll start with the S t a ff presentation. I'm just go i ng to say that bec ause it 's within my prerogative as Mayo r to s et timing o n things, and that it 's 10:00 o 'clock , that we usually take more time f or an appeal, but we're not going to; we 're going t o take three minutes for everyone, as we normally do. Ms . Moseley. MARNI MOSELEY: Yes, thank you. I 'm going to keep it bri ef a s well. A s you know, this project is for a single -fam ily resident with an attached garage on Lot 7, which is a vacant lot within the Highlands PD. The application was approved by the DRC, a nd t h e n the Planni ng Commission con sidered it. The Planning Commission uph eld the DRC 's decision. The Appellant chose to appeal the application and t he Planning Commission 's decis ion based on h is belief that LOS GATOS TOWN COu~C IL 5 /19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 2 the Planning Commission misinterpreted the language of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines regarding views and visibility analysis. Both the Applicant and the Appell a nt have 5 submitted numerous letters and exhibits; they are all included in your Staff Reports for your review, and Staff 7 is here if you have any questions. MAYOR JENSEN: Thank you. Before I call for 10 questions I 'm going t o ask Councilpeople to do disc losures, 11 because this is a land use item. So Councilwoman Sayee. 12 COUNC IL MEMBER SAYOC: Yes, I was onsite twice: 13 once on my own, as well as with the Applicant. I also met 14 with the Appel lant, Mr. Weissman. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 MAYOR JENSEN: Councilman Leonardis. COUNC ILMEMBER LEONARDIS : Thank you, Mayor . I went to the site. I also went to the southwest corner of Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Boulevard, the viewing platform. I also met with Mr. Weissman. MAYOR JENSEN: I visited the site on numerous occasions, and this last week went to the site with the Applicant. Vice Mayor S pector. LOS GATOS TO WN COUNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 3 VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. I went to the 2 viewing platform, so to speak, on Blossom Hill before this meeting and also before the last meeting. MAY OR JENSEN: Councilman Rennie. 5 COUNCILMEMBER RENNIE: I also went onsite by myself, and then later came back with the Applicant to ask 7 some questions. I also visited the viewing site on Blossom Hill, and I drove around some other parts of Town also to 10 try to see if it was visible from other places in town. 11 MAYOR JENSEN: Thank you. No w are there any 12 questions for Ms. Moseley? Vice Mayor Spector. 13 VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you , Madam Mayor, a 14 couple of questions. 1 5 With regard to the Hillside Standards, I found 16 the 2 5 % visibility limita t i on in the glossary, and tha t 's 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 the only place I found it . Is that correct? MARNI MOSELEY: Yes, that is. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: And then within the text of the Hillside Standards , but I don't remember which paragraph it was , but within the text o n page 13, I found a discussion of how one determines if a hillside site is visible, but that discussion did not explain the LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 4 methodo logy for assessing a 25\ visibil ity; it was more of 2 a general discus sion. Is that accurate, also? 2 MARNI MOSELEY: That is, as well. VICE MAYO R S P EC TOR : So h e re 's my question f o r 5 5 you . F r o m Sta ff's p oint of view , how d o you go about determining if it has a 25\ or greater visibility? 7 MA RNI MOSELEY: Usuall y we do fo llow what 's discussed in this section of the Hillside Standards and 1 0 Guidelines. Sometimes it looks a little different, 1 0 ll depending on t he pro p erty . We'll s tart b y havi n g them put 11 1 2 up the story pol es and provide us with pic tures. Staff then 1 2 13 goes out to those viewing platforms and determines whether 13 l4 or not they are visible or whether we see anything. If 14 15 there is potential, if we see those nettings, then we ask 15 16 for more information from the Applicant, specifically the 16 1 7 viewing analysis, and we go from there depending o n what is 1 7 18 submitted by the Appli c ant and whether the information that 18 19 t hey provide u s is suffic ient to help us determine whether 1 9 20 20 that 25% has been met o r not. 21 2 1 VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: So if I understand you, if 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 4 25 Staff sees that there i s a visibility issue, then you g o to the Applicant a n d the Applicant gives you information with reg a rd to wh eth er o r not i t's 25% o r n o t? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 23 24 25 5 MARNI MOS ELEY: They provide us with the analysis, yes . VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: All r i ght, thank you. MAYOR JENSEN: Other questi o ns? Co uncilman Leonardis. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank y o u , Mayor Jensen. On t he s ub j e c t of tre e s t h is even i ng, we 've talked a lot about trees so far. Looking at four trees that were essentially in the footprint of the house, 608,609, 610 , and 611, 609 and 610 said they were in fair -to -g ood or fair-to-poor condition. The o ther t wo I think were in poor condition, but they were kind o f on the edge of the footprint of the house. I wa s wondering if we have any history of this, remove trees 610 and 609 a n d plan t them somewhere else, if that would be p oss ible? And I know the buil der is probably going to do a backflip if he hears me a sk t h is q uestion, but I 've seen in the past in my neighbo rhood a project going on where they actually t o ok the oak trees o ut , put them in p o ts, a nd were apparently trying to replant them or relocate them. MARN I MOS ELEY : That 's something tha t we can discuss with the cons ulting arborist. Generally trees that LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Co urt (Lot 7) 6 2 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 have that l o w o f a suitability rating, o r that low of a condition currently are going to be poor candidates for relocation , because they usua l ly a re n't going to survive that change o f climate or a condition . CO UNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. MAYOR JENSEN: Other questions? Thank you, Ms . Moseley. Because it is an appeal, we do call the Appellant first, so Dr. Weissman. DAVE WEI SSMAN: Before my clock starts , am I speaking for three minutes, or ten? MA YOR JE NSEN: Yes, you 're s peaking for three minutes. You might have questions, so it could end up being ten, but your ini tial is going to be three minutes. DAVE WEISSMAN: Okay. This process has been really abused and botched by the Town. This applicatio n was brought before the DRC without a visibility analysis, and approved. It was o nly after I appealed it that the visibility analysis was d one. There were no viewing platforms considered, and in fact when I suggested moving a foot -and-a-half over from the exac t whatever the corner is of Los Gatos and Blossom Hi ll , because it's curved , the LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item ~7. 15343 Santel la Court (Lot 7) 7 Applicant s c reamed and kicked. But now they 've in fact pro v i ded viewing analysis from five different locations. 3 The Sta ff completely missed polic y set by the Town Council on the meeting on June 15, 2009 s peci f i cally 5 what kinds of trees could provide screening, that is, healthy, native onsite trees or in neighboring areas, and these things h aven 't been included unti l I brough t them f o rward by go ing back and looking at that Town Council 10 meeting. Policy was set. Staff either ignored it or was not 11 aware o f it; I know Staff has had a lot of turnover. 12 But I 'd just quickly like to go through some of 13 the thi ngs that I hav e. 14 When standi ng on Los Gatos Boulevar d there is no 15 way you can l ook at the site, even with a high -powered 16 telesco pe, and tell which trees are wh ich. I flew a drone 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 in front of the s ite a nd we c an now ... You have a handout that has the tree map. These are the three trees that are claimed by the Applicant to provide screening. Let 's look specifica lly at tree 606 o n your maps . This is a deciduous oak that loses its leaves in the winter. You can see how very open this tree i s. In fact, yo u can al so see how t he netting is through the tree . Three of these branches are going to be taken out and the tree LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 I t em ~7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 8 2 5 7 8 10 1 1 1 2 13 1 5 16 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 23 24 25 behind it is going to be removed . According to Town policy in 2009, trees t hat are harmed canno t be counted as screening. Trees that are removed cannot be counted as screening. Yet Da vidon, in their visibility calculations, right here, this is the area that is now going to be exposed, that area is not counted as vis ible, nor is this area. MAYOR J EN SEN: We're going to be nice and l e t you go through your pictures , but do it with alacrity. DAVE WEISSMAN : I will try. It will not be ten minutes . This is tree 626. That tree provides no screening. This is in full leaf-out. Look at that. You c an see tota lly t h rough that tree. The reason that you can 't see a l ot of the netting behind this tree is because o f these three o ak trees that Councilman Leonardis asked about, 608, 609 , and 610, wh i ch are behi nd 627 and provide screening . Guess what? Those three t rees are going to come o ut. And to answer y our question, Cou ncilman , they cannot be transplanted . They 're too o l d; thei r condition is too ragged. You just wouldn't even attempt it; t hey 're too big. LOS GATOS TOWN CO UNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item #7, 1 53 43 Santella Co urt (Lot 7) 5 6 7 10 11 12 1 3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 9 But i f you l ook at t his; this was taken fro m the viewpoint. Even with these trees here you can see this whole area of the house, and a little bit over in her e, and then this is t ree 607. Oh, and the l ight line back here that's goin g all the length of t h is is the roofline o f the house across the street. So you can s ee all of this visibility. What Davidon h as done is if a piece o f a tree , a branch, a leaf, gets into this area, then they have counted that v isibility has being z ero . A little p iece o f tree that gets into this area is counted as 100% screening of the tree, which makes abso lut ely no sense when you consider wha t the Hillside Standards were all about, and that is to protect the valley from cons truc t ion i n the hillsides. Yo u have the abil ity now to make some milestone determinat i o ns to suppor t al l the reasons that the Hillside Standards were pa ssed . The Cou ncil d id it in 2009 on issues that weren't even related to the McCarthy project, b ut thes e s orts o f iss ues were not brought up then because the McCa rthy project is o ver thr ee times farther from t he viewing pl atform pictures? as Lot 7 is . MAYOR JENSEN: Thank you . Are you done wi th yo ur LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/1 9/2015 Item #7, 153 43 Santella Court (Lot 7) 10 5 9 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 DAVE WEISSMAN: One more, please. MAYOR JENSEN: Okay. DAVE WEISSMAN : This is the house on Lot 6 , which is right next to the house that we're considering tonight on Lot 7. This house went through the DRC, Lot 6, in 2012. There was no hearing , the DRC approved it, and no visibility analysis required by Staff. You think that h o u s e has 25 % visibility or less? I suspect not. I think David on got away with it i n 2012. They 're now constructing a house on Lot 3 in the Highlands project, which also did not have a v isibility study required, which it's going to have a visibility to the downtown area , and I think i t's time that we just start enforc ing our codes. MAYOR JENSEN: Okay , let 's see if there are que s tions f or you . Councilman Rennie. COUNCILME MBER RENNIE: Thank you, Madam Mayor . So Mr . We i smann , what is your recommendation? That's what I'm not sure of. You're implying that maybe some trees aren 't going to be the re in the winter, so do we plant more trees to cover it up? Wha t 's your recommendation? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL S /19/2 01 5 Item #7, 15343 Santel la Court (Lot 7) 11 DAVE WEISSMAN: My recommendat ion i s t hat we 2 start o ut with the policy tha t wa s set in 2009 b y the Town Counci l, and that is healthy , native , no n -landsc aped trees that are onsite or right in the neighboring ne ighborhood, 5 can provide screening. And those are the only trees. Second o f all, screening is n ot an abso lut e thing. There is partial screening, o bviously , and I think what we're looking for is what is the threshold whereby 10 enough screening is provided that peo ple walking a long Los ll Ga tos Boulevard are no t go ing to see the house. You can 12 wal k along Los Gatos Boulevard and the Lot 6 house ; it's 13 there. You can 't see the netting on Lot 7 , but when there 's 14 a house there I suspec t i t will be j ust as visible, because 1 5 we 're going to b e taking out a bunch o f trees, and trees 16 that are harmed and are going to be removed by the project, 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 according to policy, are not allowable to be counted as providing visibility. But I t hink I would like you f o lks to look at, to take into consideration wha t I showed with this tree. To say that that tree provides s c reening for a ho use that 's going to be behind it, that's a joke. I t 's not going to. In the lighter photograph you can see the Santa Cru z Mountains LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL S /19/2 015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 12 2 5 9 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 behind it. This is washed out, because this illuminates too much. So wh at is the number? I'm n ot s ure, but I suspect if more than 10% or 15% of the netting is visible, then that house wo uld be visible o n ce it 's built. And these things could be analy zed . You c an put up a screen o f ... The netting is not a robust mockup, if you would. I think a more robust mockup would help you provide an assessment of this. But I think visibility needs to cover up 80-85 -90% of the potential house to be in context wi th the goals of the Hillside Standards. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you . MAY OR JENSEN: Vice Mayor. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you, Madam Mayor. As I indicated in my initial questions of Staff, I am having a bit of a chal l enge with making the decisions that have to b e made in your appeal. But having said that, in the two times that I went to the viewing platform, I was not able to see the orange netting. I was able to see the house in the photograph to the right; that is very clear. But tonight we're not, at least I'm not, rewr iting o ur standards . They're there, and they talk about 25 % visibility, and Staff said how they made that LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 13 determination. So I don 't see , based upon wh at we have in front of us, how we can grant the appeal with the facts that we have and with the ordinance that we have. Help me out. 5 DAVE WEISSMAN: Yes. You have lots of new information. The Planning Commission, and apparently Staff, was unaware of all the policy that was s et at the Town 8 Council meeting in 2009. The Planning Comm ission also did 9 10 not have the discretion to choose an alternative viewing 11 platfo rm, which basically the Appli cant has said, "I 12 acquiesce on that because they provided viewing platforms 13 fro m five differe nt locations.• 14 So I think Staff i s a little disin genuous by 1 5 saying this is how they determine whether or not they 16 17 18 19 20 21 2 2 23 24 25 needed a visibility analysis. The fact that it got to DRC with no visibility analysis, t hey didn 't consider it at all, and Lot 6 is a prime example of that also. But in the Hillside Standards , on page 13, it says , "Visu al aids such as photo simulations o r three dimens ional illustrations, and/or scale model may be required when it is deemed necessary to understand the impacts o f a proposed project. Yes, when I stand on Los Gatos Boulevard without binoculars I c an't see the orange netting either. But in LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 14 5 6 9 1 0 11 12 13 14 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 2004 when the Hillside Standards came before the Town Council, Bud Lortz said that it was expected someone woul d use binoculars to assess visibility. So it is there. And espec ial l y on hazy day you're not going to see the orange netting. You put a house up there wi th no screening, or screening from a tree like this, the house is going to be perfectly visible. You don 't have to invoke any other, I don't think, qualific ations to send this back. The Hillside Standards are t here. The new i nformat i on is there . Staff I think blew it by not requiring these analyses . MAYOR JENSEN: I 'm going to g o to Co uncilman Leonardis; he had his hand u p. COUN CILMEMBER LE ONARDIS : Thank you, Mayo r Jensen. So Dr. We issman, understanding what you're saying and knowing the limi tat ions with the site, and obviously the builders desire to build a home and his design is already in place, in the interest of fai r ness, what do you h o pe t o achieve here? I mean him repositio n the ho me on the l ot , mo ve the home further d own the lot , use mo re screening? I 'm not sure what a viable solution may be. DAVE WE ISSMAN : What it says in here . If the house is more than 25% visible, it is limited to 18 ' in height. LOS GATOS TOWN CO UNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 1534 3 Santella Court (Lot 7 ) 15 1 COONCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: So you 're recommending 2 lowing the height of the h ouse? DAVE WEI SS MAN: Yeah. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Okay. 5 DAVE WEISSMAN : We can 't build invisible houses , generally, and we have to balance property owners ' rights 7 bet we en what the people in Los Gatos have indicated is 8 their interest, and that i s pro tecting the visibilities in 1 0 hillsides. So they get to build a house, but if it 's more 1 1 than 25% visible, it has to be 18', and that 's what the 1 2 Hillside Standar ds say. So they still get to build t heir 13 house. The Applicant has done analys is. If he moves the 14 house on the lot, and I appreciate that, apparently it 15 16 17 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 impacts other trees. It wo u ld be more v is ible potentially, because it becomes a different dimensio n. But 18 ' also is already here. We don 't have to rewrite the law; we just have to enforce what we've already got . COUNCIL MEMBER LE ONARDIS: so based on the proposal that is here, with the amount of trees that are being removed, in your o pinio n if the home is just r educed to 18 ' then e verythi ng wo uld be fine, includi ng t h e t ree removals? I mean t hat would be a fair solution; it might not be fine. LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 16 DAVE WEISSMAN: Yeah, there are still going to be 2 tree removals, but what the law provides for is that if it 's over 25%, it goes to 18'. And for clarification sake, if you were to send 5 it back to the Planning Commission, on the second page in the handout that you got tonight, there are five items that I think would be valuable for you to clarify for the 8 Planning Commission, for Staff, and for future projects. I 10 mean lets do it now , like they did in 2009 . Let's carry it 11 one step further so that we don't wind up here again taking 12 everybody 's time wit h a ppeals, appeals. 1 3 COUNCI LMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. 14 MAYOR JENSEN: Councilman Rennie . 15 CO UNCILMEMB ER RENNIE: Thank you again, Madam 16 Mayor . I guess I now have t wo questions. I apologize for 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 not knowing the standards as well as y ou do. My understanding i s there are two limits: There is house can 't be more t han 25' from the ground at any p oint, and it c an't be more than 35 ' from one p oint to the other p oint when you 're going across a hill. DAVE WEISSMAN : Right, y ou step it down . COUNCILM EM BE R RENNIE: So the 18 ' feet you're talking about , is it the 25 ' number or the 35 ' number? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 17 DAVE WEISSMAN : No , the 18 ' is a separate n umber. COUNCILMEMBER RENNIE : So how does it apply to ... DAVE WEISSMAN: Oh. I assume the 18 feet would be comparable to the 35 '. 5 DAVE WEISSMAN: Probably I should ask Staff for sure. But let me ask you the second question. 7 DAVE WEISSMAN: So in other words, the house 8 would be one story. 10 COUNCILMEMBER RENNIE: Wel l yeah, so one story, 11 but spread over a long hill you still might get a big 12 difference . So then that app lies to the 25 ' and not the 13 35 '? 14 DAV E WEISSMAN: I think it applies to t h e 35 ', 15 which is a two -story h ouse stepped down. 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 COUNCILMEMBER RENNIE: Okay, so my second question is we need to find findings that there 1•as new information that the Planning Commis sion didn't have, and you were saying there is lots of new information. I read the Planning Commission minutes very thoroughly a nd everything and I can 't see where they made an error . I'm trying figure out which of this is really new informa tion. Some of it just seems to be regurgitated, f or lac k o f a better word. Which parts are actually new? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /1 9/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 18 2 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 1 5 1 6 17 18 1 9 20 21 22 2 3 2 4 25 DAVE WEISS MA N : The Planning Commission d id n 't mak e an e rro r in the sen se that they didn't k now about t h a t meeting in 2009, the Town Council policy, and neither did I. I came across that hearing between the Planning Commission and my appeal to the Town Council. So all of that information as far as what constitutes screening, what consti tutes viewin g platforms, and what alternative viewing p l atforms can be used, how a tree has to be healthy, how trees that were only onsite and in surrounding properties could count as s c reening. In fact, before that meeting in 2009 Staff was eliminating all native trees on the property that the Applicant was coming f o r wa rd f o r. That 's why McCarthy appealed his proj ect to the To wn Co uncil. The proj ect was n ot even complete , but St aff wa s saying you can 't count neighboring trees as providing screening, and McCart hy said that made no sense. It was taken to t he Council, the Council said even though ther e aren't neighbo ring tree s o n the property-they 'r e below the propert y-we're g o ing t o still clarify this issue. None of that was brought forth to t he DRC , to the P lan n i ng Commission, and t hat 's all n ew information . LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7 ) 19 1 0 1 1 1 2 13 l4 1 5 16 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 2 2 23 24 25 MAYOR J ENSEN: Does that answer your question, Mr. Rennie? Other questions for Dr. Weissman? Thank you. Yo u got a lot more than ten minutes. DAVE WEISSMAN: I know. Thank you . MAYOR JENSEN: Steve Abbs. STEVE ABBS: Good evening, Mayor, Vice Mayor, Coun cil Membe rs . I'm Steve Abbs with Davidon Homes and the vice president of site development. Sinc e we 're limited on time h ere most of my presentation is probably going to be diverted directly to r espond i n g to Mr. Weiss ma n 's comments. We have done visual analysis from the viewing platform in two locations. The first was a calculation at 21.9%. Mr. Weissman came back with a slightly different angle from the viewing platform that had a little broader view of the sto ry poles. We went ahead and did that visual analysis. It came back 24.4%. So based on the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines we were required to do a visual analysis from the viewing p l atform. We got two visual analyses from that viewing platfo rm that concludes the same t hing: that the house is n o t deemed visible as defined by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidel ines. LOS GAT OS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7 ) 20 2 5 7 8 9 1 0 ll 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 1 9 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 We did additi onal analyses at another l ocatio n that Mr. Weissman requested that Town Council required us t o do , which was 1 5 0 ' sout h of t hat viewing p latform . The visible analysis came at slightly a bove the 25 %; it 's 14 .3 square feet abo ve the threshold, easily mitigatable if required. The o ther locations that we did visual analysis from were Blossom Hill and Cherry Blossom Road; and Cherry Bl o s som Lane, southwest corner; visual analysis c ame in at 22.15\. We also did one on Shannon Road; that came in at 22 .15\. Bu t we 've do n e a s much visu al a n alys i s on t his site ... We 've picked locations that we felt we r e the most vi s ible from the entire valley floor. If yo u drive around the rest o f the valley floor there are very few spots that you c an even see the story poles, and most likely you're at zero vis ibility from the remainder of the valley floor. So we f eel like we've done a valid visua l a n a l ysis f o r this project . We've compl i e d f u l ly wi th t h e Hills i de Devel o pment Standards and Guidelines with respect t o the v isibility. As far as the entire applicat i on, we have zero exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lo t 7) 21 5 9 10 ll 12 1 3 15 16 1 7 1 8 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 Gu i del ines regardi ng a l l aspect s o f the guidel i nes and standards. In response to Mr . We i s s man , the pic tures that he h as s ho wn, they 're f r om a drone f r om wh o knows how c l ose, versus from a naked eye basic ally 1.4 miles away fro m the vi ew i ng p latform. I d on't h ave photos u p, but if you s t a nd back from the viewing platform, tho se exi sting trees do provide screening . I t 's always b e e n Town Staff, and Town po licy, and by past practice that existing trees provide scr e eni n g for the houses. That 's how the vis ual analyses were performed. I think, again, valid analysis wa s performed. It 's also been past practice from Staff and t he Town that exi s ting trees can provide s c reening, and o ther than that , I 'm going to l eave i t u p question s. MAYOR JENSEN: Thank you. There a r e pro bably questions for you. Councilman Rennie. CO ONCILMEMBER RENN I E: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Abbs, I want t o start off by a s king about color. The house next door in Lot 6 looks l~ke 1t's pretty visible and it looks like it's a very l i gh t colored hous e; maybe t h ere 's even stone on ~to r someth1ng that 's making it lighter. This house , Lot ~. you're planni ng , how is t he LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Co urt (Lot 7) 22 5 9 10 11 12 13 l4 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 col or going to compare to that? Because to me that 's sort of part o f the visibility: if you've got someth ing that's lighter, then it's going so hide behind the trees better. The color of this house has an LRV averaging of 30. The base col or of the h o use, the siding portion o f it, it 's a greenish beige color and it has an LRV of 27. And the roof itself is a brownish color that has an LRV of 17 . So we purposely have chosen colors that have kind of an earth tone color, darker colors that blend in with the hillside. I think t he Lot 6 side of it; you see a lot of the lighter stone; that really sticks out. And I think even the roof color is possibly a little lighter . MAYOR JENSEN: Vice Mayor. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Just for a basis of comparison, do you know what the visibility is of the light colored home on Lot 6? STEVE ABBS: We do not , but if you could bring u p ... I don 't know if you have those pictures that Mr. Wei ssman ... The pictures that you had just seen, the visibility from the viewing platform was basical ly zero; you could not see it. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: This is Lot 6 you 're talking about you could not see it? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 23 STEVE ABBS: When we had that project approved the Town policy was to stand o n the handicap ramp o f the viewing platform. At that time it wa s not required for us to do the visual analysis, by Staff. 5 So in going back to this slightly different angle that Mr. Weissman is if you move as far left on that 7 southwest corner as possible, you see that house. We don't know the percentage. It's questionable if it is 25%. I have 10 my doubts t hat it was over 25%. 11 Also, when we did get that house approved there 12 was a large oak tree in the rear that since that house has 13 been approved and been occupied the owner has taken a 14 larger tree in the rear of the house. 15 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 22 2 3 24 25 VICE MAYOR SPECTOR : All right, thank you. MAYOR JENSEN: Other questions? Councilman Leonardis and then Councilwoman Sayoc. COUNCILMEMBER LEO NARDI S: Thank you, Mayor Jensen. Mr. Abbs, I don't know how tall your house is now. STEVE ABB S : You're asking the height ? COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Yes. STEVE ABBS: It 's 33'1". It's 2" belo w the ma ximum allowable height. LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 24 2 5 7 8 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 ll 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: And that includes all the underpinning, both the part that goes down the hill and up? STEVE ABBS: There is n o underpinning . It 's a slab foundation , and at any o ne point o n the house it's n o greater than 25 ' from existing grade or proposed grade. And the other all height fro m lowest point to the highest point is 33'1•. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: And that includes the slope down the hill? In other words, the home, because of the topography of the land, the highest point of t he house is 25' from grade? STEVE ABBS: Right. If you look right behind you there, you have the profile on the top right there, so y o u can see the heights that are shown there. But the overall height from that bottom left corner there to the very tip of the ridge of the house is 33 '1•. Again, I wish I had my presentation: I can go through a lot of stuff. COlfflCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: All right, thank you. MAYOR JENSEN: Councilwoman Sayee. COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC: Mr. Abbs, thank you. A couple of things . The viewing platform is one discussion I think Council has to take into consideration, but what I'd LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 25 5 7 10 ll 12 13 15 16 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 24 25 like to do is talk about the tree screening. Can you walk through the methodology that consultants use to determine the percentage visible, and how did your consultant choose which trees to include for screening and which not? STEVE ABBS: Sure. I've provided a letter from our architect on the technical aspects of how the methodology is calculated. Basically in summary a picture is taken from the viewing platform with a 300mm lens. Immediately the photographer g o es up onsite, identifies exactly which trees are to remain, what trees are to be preserved. Notes are taken as far as how much of the canopy of those trees that are to be preserved, that are potentially for screening, how far t he rise above the story poles, how wide the canopy is, and very desc riptive notes are taken as far as what's going to be screened relative to the l o cation of the story p oles. That is then taken back to the office on the computer. A 3-D model is set into the picture, calibrating the certified story poles with a three d imensional model. From the photos the pictures of existing trees that are being preserved are then outlined as closely as possible as far as where that canopy extent is. LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 26 COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC: So trees that will be removed, y ou are no t including them in your calculate for screening? STEVE ABB S: Correct. COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC : So having seen what we have just seen with Dr . We issman's own presentation of hi s 7 own tree pictures and screening, it seems like we have a 8 disparity between what your consultants have in utilizing 1 0 screening versus what he shared with us. 11 STEVE ABBS: Yeah, he did make a comment that the 1 2 netting was running right through tree 606. If y ou can 13 please pull up file 201503, it says GP Lot 7. 14 This is the civil engineering plan. You can s ee 15 trees 606 and 626 here; those trees are nowhere near the 16 story poles for the house . In fact, it 's quite a bit o f 17 distance from the improvements. Debbie Ellis had no issue 18 as far as our setback for improvements, or of the retaining 19 20 2 1 22 23 25 wall or grading limits relative to these trees . So there is n o way that those nets were runnin g through t h ose . It 's these trees , 606, 626, and I forgot the number of this one, but thi s t ree here, are the o n ly trees on that visual analysis that are providing screening in addition t o t he LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /19/2 015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 27 l ower o nes down belo w the LRDA and within the scenic 2 easement. So if we can bring up lot visibility cal culation (inaudible) 16 . Here's tree 626 , here 's tree 606 , and 5 here 's the other t re e for presentation over on t he si d e , whi ch I wil l find that number . It is tree 605. So again, 7 you can see t h e tree is significantly down below the site. 8 Th i s is the tree lin e here, so basically it 's here . Tree 10 626 here. Or , I 'm sorry, 606 and 626 , and this is kind of 11 the tree-.605 that I had just described . 12 COUNCIL MEMBER SA YOC : I 'm going to go to my 1 3 third questions, if I may, Madam May or. In the various 14 visual assessments you have provided, we do have one that 15 goe s over 25%. 16 STEVE ABBS: Correct. 17 COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC: And if you follow the 18 Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines, then once 19 you trigger that 25%, setting aside the whole discussion of 20 21 22 23 2 5 viewing platforms and t ree screenings, you are now limite d t o an 18 ' height . So trying to see how we can move this f orward, you mentioned that there's a way t o mitigate t h is . Because we're now limited wi t h t his 1 8 ' height, are there ways that you can address this that will help y ou move LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 28 5 10 11 12 13 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 forward with your project, but also in keep i ng with the deve lopment guide lines that we h ave? S TEVE ABBS: The 25 .08% is 14.3 squ a re feet over the t hres h old. Because it is n o t a viewing platform we obviously didn't pro p ose initially that , because we felt we were compli ant with the Hill side Development Standards and Guidelines. But to answer your quest ion, we can lower the house by 6". The only caveat is t ha t the garages are already as l o w on the site as p ossibl e, so the garages would need to be ma intained in their p osit i on . But i f you can bring up PowerPoint, it says, "Los Gatos Lot 7 PC meeting 3/l l/15 ," and go to the f ifth page t~ere. So these two gables bas ically would need to rema in at the s ame location. The r e st of this ridgeline can drop 6". By dropping that entire I guess remainder of t he house 6" would require us to add additional s teps in the house, which we can do, what that would do would reduce the visibility from the viewing pla tform from 24 .4% t o 23.2%, and it would reduce the other location then from 25.08% down t o 23.84%. So that is something that we could do. If Town Counc il deems that as a v iewing platfo rm t o night we LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2 015 Item #7, 15 343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 29 2 5 7 1 0 11 1 2 13 1 5 16 17 18 19 20 2 1 23 2 4 25 would ask that that be a condition of approval if that's something that you guys d o . CO UNCIL MEMBER SAY OC : Thank you. Those are a l l my questions. MAY OR JENSEN: Any o ther question s? Thank y ou, Mr. Abbs. Technically Dr . We issman , you can rebut something that you've heard. I t h ink we have a lot of information. You really do get three mi nutes this time. DAV E WEISSMAN: Yes, than k you. I'd like t o start out by hel pin g t he Applicant. The tree that he was calling 606 is in fa ct 607; the tree o n the nort h side of the h ouse is 606. Davidon did a v isibility analysis, t hes e alternative ones, only after they felt t hey had to . They weren't going t o d o this . Staff didn 't r equire t hem to , why wo uld they? As far as the house on Lot 6, Davidon said the house had no vi sibi lity. Yes, because if y ou 're standing exactly right at that i ntersection, viewing plat fo rm 1, the house is completely shiel ded by the Chevron gas stati o n . Sure it has no visibility. Does that make any sense? No. If you move 150 ' down Los Gatos Boulevard, which is the mai n LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 I t em #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 30 5 6 7 10 1 1 1 2 13 1 4 15 1 6 1 7 18 1 9 20 21 2 2 23 2 4 25 arterial in t o wn , the house is t otally visual , a n d t h at's where those other photographs were taken. You can elect to change To wn policy, but you can 't ig n ore it , I think . I n 2009 the Town Council said native, healthy , unharmed vegetation is all that c an pro v i de screening, and it has to be e i ther onsite or right around in the neighboring neighborhood . The consul t ant didn't include a n y tre e t h a t was harmed, r e moved, or unheal thy i n thei r vis ibi lity a n alysis . They just didn't . And the consulting Town Arborist said that al l three of these trees are going to be moderately impact ed by constructi on . They 're not go i n g to be r e mo v ed , but t h eir grading and the compaction . And for tree 606 t he r e 's going t o be three branches removed, because the netting i s entwined in them . What e lse could tha t be? I 'm not ma k ing this stuff up. I d o n't t hin k you have e n ough info rmation t o night to rule o n this . I think this nee ds to be sent back to the Planning Commission where these issues of visibility can b e l ooked a t a gain . I 've now b r ought up new issues from my appeal at the Planning Comm i ssion, because I have discove red the policy that was set in 2009, and I think that the main issue here is what constitutes screening? LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 31 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 1 4 15 16 1 7 18 19 2 0 2 1 2 2 23 24 2 5 When y ou get tree s , t hat we've s een in the other p ictur e where tree 606, and espe cially 626 and 607 , don 't have eno ugh l eaves on them at full leaf out to provide screening. The h o use i s going t o be visible between those leaves, and I think that wo uld be a very important issue f o r the Council t o address tonight, and then send it back to the Planning Commissio n with d i rec tion . MAYOR JENSEN: Thank you , Dr. Weissman. Counci l man Leonardis. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS : Thank you, Mayor Jensen. So Dr. Weissman, when you refer to the tree that d oesn 't have enough leave s on i t right now , but is it a seasonal thing? Are the leaves going to come back certain times of the year, and is y o ur understanding of the Town Code that that matt ers ? DAVE WEISSMAN: The Town Code does not address visibility, and that was not addressed in 2009. I thi nk on my list on the second page that I gave you, that was I belie ve the second item t hat I think it would be good for you to addre ss. De ciduous oak trees lose their leaves anywhere, depe nding on the weather, from four to six months out of the year. They are n o w in basically full leaf out, and the LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7 ) 32 picture that I showed you was taken a week ago. That tree 2 has got as ma~y leaves as it's gc ing to have, and the fact that it doesn't have a lot of leaves in its canopy is one of the reasons that the consulting arborist classifies that 5 tree as fair-to-poor. That tree may not be around in five years, especially given the moderate impacts that the 7 consulting arborist says are going to happen to that tree 8 by construction. And again , the Town Council in 2009 said 10 if a tree is harmed by construction it can't be counted as 11 providing screening, and those three trees will all be 12 harme d according to the consulting arborist. 13 COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you. 14 MAYOR JENSEN: Does that answer your questions, 15 Councilman Leonardis? 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Yes. MA YOR JENSEN: Councilwoman Sayee. COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC: A quick question for you. I think I definitely agree with you that moving forward we need to have a clear methodology of how we're going to calculate this, so that we don't have to do an appeal every single time. Based on what y ou heard, the methodology the Applicant used: basically looking at it and then LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 33 1 identifying which trees and counting the foliage , is that something that you basically would agree to? In your professional opinion, based on all the hillside and Tree Ord inance work that you have done, is that a reasonable way 5 to determine which trees can be used for screening? 6 DAVE WEISSMAN: No. 7 COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC : And so what would you propose as an answer? DAVE WE ISSMAN : Well, I think that's where we 10 11 need to have a discussion about what the threshold is. In 1 2 other words, on the original, this whole a r ea, you can see 13 the whole outline of the netting , yet most of that area is 14 not considered visible by the architecture firm that did 15 the c alcul ations. 16 Over on this side we're goi ng to loose three 17 b r anches from tree 606, and tree 604, which is behind it, 18 which also has some netting in it, that was not considered. 19 20 21 22 23 25 And for tree 607, which is not that apparent, we saw it's also a very thin leaved deciduous oak tree , which is rated fair-toOpoor by the arborist. But t he reason that the netting is not that visible here is because the three live oaks that are behind it, in which the netting is LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 34 5 6 7 10 11 12 13 l4 1 5 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 25 totally entwined, are shielding the orange netting, and those three trees are coming out also. MAYOR J EN S EN: Tha nk you . I think you 've answe red the question. Anything e l se? Thank you, Dr. Weissman. DAVE WEISSMAN: Thank you . MAYOR JENSEN: Does anyone on the Council have questions f or Staff? Okay , I 'll look t o the Council then for comments and/or a motion. Councilman Leonardis. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: Thank you, Mayo r Jensen. Having a huge amount of difficulty with this, because I find both the Appellant and the Applicant to be credible with their testimony. I can say that I agree with the Appellant as well as the Applicant that when I stood on that corner and I walked around in the viewing platform, I couldn't see any of the o rang e _. I couldn 't see anything. With tha t said, I don 't know what wi ll happen if you build a house there , i f you 'll be a ble to see it . I t hink you'll have to look very hard to see it. I'm just trying to understand the intention of what was originally put in place; it was to try not to l itter our hillsides like Malibu with monster homes that are extremely visible, and I 'm not sure tha t this one meets that criteria , but I 'm LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 35 9 10 11 12 l3 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 0 21 22 23 25 looking to the wisdom of the more experienced land use people on this Council to enlighten me. MAYOR JENSEN: I think one of those people had her hand up. Councilman Sayoc. COUNCIL MEMBER SAYOC: Okay, l et's see if I can get anywhere with this. There has been an enormous amount of information presented, and I think it certainly qualifies as new information. Some of it, policy decisions I think that the Council may have to look at moving forward, what constitutes a viewing platform. And I think this wh ole definition of screening of trees, I think we need to have a clear methodology moving forward on how we wil l decide which trees will be allowed. I ca n't see us at a Coun cil level spending this amount of time looking at each single tree and basing it on each application with further appeals, and so I think somehow we need to create a methodology that we can all agree on so that as new homes come fo rward it's quite clear how we wi ll evaluate these. That being said, I do think the intent of the Hillside Design Guidelines is to prevent what Councilman Leonardis said, just homes on our hillside that you can see LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 36 5 6 7 10 11 1 2 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 some anywhere. It 's quite clear about the valley and looking at alternative sites. I d o think that there's a way to move this forward. It sounds that with some design changes we may be able to have it to fall under the 25%. It allows the Applicant to move forward , and then it allows Staff and us to I guess c larify what exactly we wil l use as a viewing platform as well as screening . So I would like to send this back to the Planning Commission, with the revised design that the Applicant me ntioned they may be able to redo to mo ve this forward, and see if that is something that falls under the 25% visibility analysis and meets the intent of the design guidelines. MAY OR JENSEN: We have a motio n to retur n this to Planning Commission . Is there a second? Councilman Leonardis. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS: I will seco nd that. Again , it was s uggested by the Applicant to drop t he ridgeline by 6" i n order to attai::~ that belo w the 25% threshold, so with that information I will go ahead and second the motion. LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 I tem #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 37 MAYOR JENSEN: Discussion of questions abo ut the motion? Vice Mayor. VICE MAY OR SPECTOR: I don 't think I 'm goin g to support the mot i on , but I'm s t ill not s ure. 5 This application o f this appeal has raised a lot of issues f or me, and a l ot of c oncerns. It does c o ncern me 7 that we, the Town , do not have a methodology to assess the 25% visibility; all we have is some very gen eral language. 9 It is of concern t o me that even t hough I was n ot able to 10 11 see the proposed site I was c ertainly able t o see the 12 adjoining site, and that neit her o f these developments was 1 3 required to have a visibility study at the DRC level and it 14 only came about becaus e of the appeal of the DRC . 1 5 So all of those things are of concern t o me. The 16 reason that I am not sure that I 'm g o ing to be supporting 1 7 18 19 20 2 1 22 23 2 4 25 the motion is becaus e if o ne were t o say we 'r e sending it back to the Planning Commissi on to basically tweak it and send it back to us, we might be able to just do that at the Council level. MAY OR J EN SEN: I'm going to weigh in. I think I wil l support the motion, although I understand the Vice Mayo r's position that we might we ll be able to take care of it tonight, because the Appl icant did give us the LOS GATOS TOWN CO UNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 3 8 1 percentages for reduction in the viewing platform, or 2 percentag es if the house was lowered by 6". The reason why I think it might be beneficial to send to Planning Commission i s that I would hope that the Staff could be 5 paying attention care fully to the conversation that we're having tonight and think through what type of analysis there should be, or what type of methodology that there should be , such that when and if it goes to the Planning 1 0 Commission that there could be s ome thinking about h ow thi s 11 actually works. So that's why I would be wi lli ng to send it 1 2 back to the Planning Commission , although I do agree with 1 3 the sentiments r ai s ed by the Vice Mayor. 14 VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. If I could have a 15 question of S ta f f? If this go es back to the Planning 16 Commission will Staff raise issues with the Planning 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 25 Commission relative to the methodology for determining the 25% and what trees may or may not be acceptable screening? LAUREL PREVETTI: Yes, we would provide t o the Planning Commission a verbatim transcript of tonight 's hearing so they c an hear all of your deliberations and evidence presented by bo th the Applicant and the Appel lant. We use the g uidelines now as the direction for t he analysis. We would take into consideration the factors LOS GATOS TOWN COUNC IL 5/19/2015 I t em #7, 15343 Santel la Court (Lo t 7) 3 9 i n the s pecif i c trees. The 2009 d i rectio n wa s not embedded 2 in the guidelines, so that's why it wa sn 't apparent readily to Staf f that there was that additional d irection provided the Town Council. We d o have the opportunity to further clarify and memorialize it in an update to the guidelines, since Coun ci l has already asked us to look at the LRV averaging and bring that back so we can add t hat to the wo rk plan and consideration . 1 0 11 I l ook to Mr . Paulson for additio nal guidance 1 2 that we might provide to the Applicant and the Planning 1 3 Commission a s they consider this, and I believe the 1 4 Planning Co mmi ss ion wo uld be the deci ding b o dy, so this 15 would not be returning to Council. 16 17 18 1 9 2 0 21 22 23 25 JOEL PAULSON: So the Planning Commi ssion could be the deciding body. That methodology I think probably i s a conversation we want t o take through the Planning Commi ssion and Council and would end up being a modification to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. That way we have it set in a p olicy d ocument so everyone understands the methodolo gy as we mo ve forward. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Bu t does that mean when i t goes back to the Planning Commission the methodology for LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5 /1 9/2015 I tem #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 40 5 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 2 4 25 determi n i ng the 25\ will remain as loose and undefined as it is now? J OEL PAULSON: Unless the Council wants to a dopt some policy this evening. I think o bviously we've received some direction from you, especially regarding trees, and what trees are taken into account and what trees are not taken into account, so that is o ne piec e that ma y modify the methodology. We're comfortable with t h e methodology that the Applicant used, but there may be s ome tweaks that we woul d offer to them prior t o going back to the Planni ng Commission. MAYOR JENSEN: Ms. Prevetti. LAUREL PREVETTI: Thank you. I neglected to s ay that actually the guidelines already acknowledge visual simulation as a methodology to understand this . So if we we re to d o the appropriate tree analysis in terms of which trees are pro p osed to s tay, wh ich branches are pro posed to g o, et c etera, we could ask the Applicant to do a visual simulation of that and then meas ure the 25\, and I think pro vidi ng that information t o the Planning Commission would give them then t he ability to see if a design change s uch as a ridgelin e reduction would make that d i fferenc e. LOS GATOS TO WN COUNCI L 5/19/2015 Item #7 , 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 41 So I think we've got grea t guidance from the 2 Counc il tonight to be able to proceed. VICE MAYOR SPECTOR: Thank you. With that, since the Planning Commi ssion will be given mo re i nfo rma tion, I 5 will be supporting the motion . MAY OR JENSEN: Any other comments or quest i ons on 7 the motion? Councilman Leonardis . COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDIS : Question for Staff. How 9 10 much time d o es it take, and does it cost money for it to go 11 bac k to Planning. 12 LAOREL PREVETTI: Yes . it does. I don't know t he 13 fees o ffhand, but i t is ano ther p ublic hearing that 14 requires noticing and Staff analysis . The Ap plicant will 15 16 1 7 18 19 20 21 22 2) 2 4 25 also have t o prepare a visual simul ation t o be able to ans wer these questio ns , as wel l as new d raw i ngs showing reduced ridgelines, et cetera , so there are costs a ssociated. COUNCILMEMBER LEONARDI S: All right , thank y ou. MAYOR JENSEN: Any o t her questions or comments on the motion? Ok ay, I 'm going to c all the question . All 1n favor? Opposed? None. I t passes unani mo usly . Thank you. LOS GATOS TOWN COUNCIL 5/19/2015 Item #7, 15343 Santella Court (Lot 7) 42 This Page Intentionally Left Blank