The URL can be used to link to this page

Item 02 - 485 Monterey Ave - Staff Report Exh.10-14August 26, 2015 Mr. Larry L. Cannon Cannon Design Group 700 Larkspur Landing Circle Larkspur, CA 94939 Re : 485 Monte rev Avenue Zoning Change Application: Z-15-001 Arch & Site Application : 5-15..018 Dear Mr. Cannon : RECEIVED AUG 2 ~20 15 TOVVN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION 2-10 -cc I ~-15 C l 8· Studio 3 Design has reviewed the above referenced planning comments (dated 8.18.2015). The following is an itemized response letter addressing the comments. Remaining Concerns and Recommendations: 1. First floor/Porch plate height-Most current two-story projects have a 9-foot first floor and 9-foot second floor plat height. The proposed design of a 10-foor first floor and 8-foot second floor plate height would still have the same overall building height. The finished floor level has been reduced by 6" as well, lowering the overall house on the site, and well within the allowable maximum height. Details such as the broader wrapped entry porch, heavy columns at the base, upper level bay window seat bump outs that are not stacked on first floor bays all help to reduce the overall bulk and mass and anchor the house to the site. The roof pitch as al so been reduced to provide a more consistent look with other "CraftsmanH styled homes in the neighborhood . 2 . Roofing Material -The current design proposes a metal roof detail at the porch areas only, drawing attention to this lower and more transparent element. This design detail is consistent historically with a "Shingle Style" inspired aesthetic, and is also consistent with current interpretation of a more updated "Craftsman" aesthetic as well. The change in materials lends further character to the home, separating it as custom rather than spec in nature by the use of more robust and unique materials. 3. Siding-The use of mitered shingles will be incorporated as part of the design . The exterior elevations have been revised, eliminating the corner boards. 4. Windows -The windows on the house incorporate a simple mullion pattern at the top of the windows only, again lending a more custom look and giving the building some detail. The windows will me aluminum clad exterior I painted wood interior, JeldWen type or similar. If you have questions or require additional information, please contact our office at your convenience . Sincerely, Bess Wiersema Principal + Owner - STU 0 1 D TH REE ~-~.~ IE?. .. ~ EXHIBIT 1 0 This Page Intentionally Left Blank BLACK RESIDENCE 485 MONTEREY AVENUE LOS GATOS, CA 95030 MATERIALS SOARD SIDING CEDAR SHINGLES (STAINED) ROOFING COMP. ASPHAI.. T + STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNI NG DIVISION :z-15 -Cl:::>( s \'5-01 WINDOWS ALUMINUM CLAD EXTERIOR + WHITE EXTERIOR WOOD TRIM (WOOD INTERIOR) WINDOW TRIM COLOR WHITE STUDIO THREE DESIGN STONE VENEER STACKED STONE EXHIBIT 1 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank ~ :=i .- 1\:) ARBORIST REPORT Project Address: 485 Monterey Avenue Los Gatos, Callfomla Property Owner: Michael Black Prepared for: Erin Walters Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arbor/sf & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist lfc305. American Society of Consulting Arborists Boord Certified Moster Arborist WE-0457B. International Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticult urist Service siuce 1984 RECEIVED MA R 3 1 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATO S MARCH 3 1,2015 PLANNING DI~ISIO N Report History: This is my first report for this project. . -z-\5-c:t?\ ~ -\::?-01~ I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4 08-725-13 57. de cah@pa cbell.net. ht tp://www.decah.com . I EXWBli 1 2 Deborah Ellis , MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 The Project ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2 The Trees ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 The Trees & the Project ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2 Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3 REC OMMENDAnONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4 APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 6 Table 2 Complete Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 6 Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns : ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9 Supporllng Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 12 Purpose & Use of Report .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12 Observations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13 Tree Protection Distances ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 14 3 to 5 x DBH ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14 Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions .............................................................................................................................................................. 15 Tree Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Assumptions & Umitations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 21 Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Cover photo : The project s1te from the intersection of Monterey Avenue (left) and Andrews Street (right). Most of the 12 trees on the s ite ore labeled . All photos 1n th1s report were token by D. Ellis on March 24, 2015 . The Iorge coast redwood at for left on neighbor ing property does not overhono the PO Box 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com . Deborah Ellis, MS Con sulting Arborlst & Horticulturist S ervia J i tiCt 1984 TREE MAP ~ ~ 1 =::=~" ~-·------------·--·--- " ~~~ ,.,.... ...... ;-~---_--:---: ~11 . > <: < : )-,':'· J ·~· . ' ... ~ ..................... :' 'X 12 _., :_ :3 .:<:~:::::.:>:>:._·:::::::~::::~~~ ·li ;,_.__ __ ----;>! • ~ ...••..•....•..••.••.•.•••.•.••.•......• ~ 'X 8 ·:j·:·.:••:•:······::······:· 7~~ 3 / !: ~~ : ~ ~ .:::::::::::::::::· ......... ' Overhangmg canopy of sout h netghbor's Australi an willow tree ... c YNmi(1'WUHIT1II'liC'nJIIU < ·- 5 '--=-· ~d ~i Legend * Debatable - (Read about tree) lt Remove Tree I rli f-+-~·H I • 1i , 1 t _ _J__L..J _ ... , lOIWI 17'·mll "--·-10 -Q SITE PLAN ..,..,.. I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@~;;t .. hff;//www.decah.com . . J Arbor is t Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Pag e 1 of 2 4 SUMMARY THE PROJECT De bo r ah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborts t & Ho rti culturist Service sina 1984 An existing office building will be demolished and replaced with a new two-story. single-family home and detached garage. THE TREES There are 12 orotected trees ' on the project site . Most of the trees a re not in good condition and no tree has better than "Fa ir/Good" preservation suitability. Several of the trees are causing significant pavement damage. The most notable tree on site is the very large evergreen ash, tree #9 . THE TREES & THE PROJECT Only four of the existing trees (#6, 7, 8 and 12 ) are shown to be removed on the site plan. but in reality all but three trees (# 1, 4 and s ) will need to be removed. Exi sting tree trunks are shown on the plans. but these trunks are often just a few feet away from a proposed building. From both a root and canopy preservation standpoint. this will not work. A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page 3 and a more detailed description of all trees is provided in the Complete Tree Table on page 6. This table also lists recommended root protection distances in case the site layout will be redesigned to save some of the trees . The best tree on site is large evergreen ash tree #9, and this is the only tree that I would consider redesigning the project to save . Mos t of the other trees are not worth redesign ing around. In the long term it will be better to remove these t rees and replace them with more sustainable new landscaping; most importantly drought tolerant landscaping. PLANS REVIEWED • Proposed Site Plan . Sheet A 1.3. Studio 3 Design. March 3. 2015 • Building Elevation and Sections. Same above. Sheet A 3.1-3.3. 4.1 1 Fo r the pu rpose of this project, a prot ected tree in Los Gato s as defined in the Lo s Gatos Town Code. DiVi sion 2 T ree Protection. Section 29 .10.0960. 12/3/2010 t he Scope of Protected Trees is any tree w ith a 4-inch or greater d iameter of any trunk, when remova l relates to a ny review for which zoning approval or subdivision aooroval is reouired. Town Street t rees of anv size are orot ected. Fruit trees less tha n 18 inches in trunk d iameter are exemot. PO Box 3714 , Sarat oga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. de cah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com . Arbor ist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., Marc h 31 , 2015 . Page 2 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Ser'Via since 1984 TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE Tree Trunk Preservation I Expected Construction Common Name Diam. Action Reason # (ln. 03ft.) Suitability Impact I 1 glossy privet 3,4 Fair low/Moderate? Debatable !free not shown on plan I 2 Ired maple I 10 !Fair/Poor Jsevere jRemove jconstruction \ 3 lash I 13 jPoor --~evere ------ -lRe~~v~ l construction i 4 lash I 12 'Fair !Moderate IDebatableiSp.ecies, ~pportunity for better sc reening landscaping in I ~hrs locatron. I 5 jred maple I 6 !Fair !Moderate Joebatable jsame as above I 6 !sweet gum I 16 !Fair !Severe !Remove !Construction ~;e~tg~~ --~ 12 jFai~--Jsevere jRemove !construction I s !sweet gum I 15 jFair jsevere-------l Remove -!construction ] 9 !evergr een ash I 30 jFair/Good Jsevere jRemove Jconstruction 1 10 Colorado blue 8 Fair Severe Remove Construction . ! I spruce I i ll European white 8,8,9 Fair Severe Remove Construction I birch I ------------ j 12 Jcrape myrtle j 7 jFair/Good jsevere -u--------}Remove-Jconstruction PO Box 3 7 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408~ 725~ 1357. decah@pa cbell.net . http://www.decah.com . Ar bori s t Report f or 485 Montere y Ave., March 31 , 2015 . Page 3 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Seroice since 1984 RECOMMENDATIONS 1 . ExlsHng trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on all site-based plans to match the tree tag numben t hat are used In this arborlst report. 2. If any of the trees on the project site are saved, they must be aRotted the minimum root protecHon distances listed In the Complete Tree Table, plus any other considerations that are noted for that tree . Tree canopies must also be preserved in total or with only a minimum amount of pruning for construction clearance. Tree canopies are generally much larger than are shown on the plans -please accurately show all existing tree canopies on the plans. In addition if any trees may remain . story posts must be erected first . so see if it will really be possible and practical to retain the tree. 3. For those trees that wftl be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gqtos General Tree ProtecHon Directions, included in this report on pages 15 through 17. A separate copy of these Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans. Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. 4. Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site; for example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripfine o f this tree as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage. the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance pruning. Neighboring trees that require protection are: one Australian willow tree on the south perimeter of the site. The canopy of this tree overhangs the project site by about 10 feet. 5. The Arborlst should review an site -based p l ans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 1. Additional improvements on plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Examples of important plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site Plan. Demolition. Construction Staging, Erosion Control. Grading & Drainage. Underground Utilities. landscaping & Irrigation. Building Elevations & Sections. Roof Plan and Construction & Landscape Details showing improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree dispositions (Save. Remove or Debatable) listed in this report may change if and when additional plans for this project are reviewed. or if plans that I have reviewed are revised . Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full-size . to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1 :20 or 1:10. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 . decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com . Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 4 of 2 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervice since 1984 6. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the Improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH 2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only. for root protection. Farther is better. of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk. then 5xDBH or greater should be used. and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don 't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans! 7. New l andscaping and Irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at all-please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project. 8. The landscaping shown on the Site Plan (sheet A 1.3) Is too sketchy. Provide a complete landscape and irrigation plan developed by a licensed landscape architect. Otherwise the large unspecified area between the garage and the house is likely to be filled in with an irrigated lawn, which is not advisable from a current drought and water conservation standpoint . Incorporate new screening vegetation along the south perimeter as a replacement for bees #2 through #9 . It wm be difficult however. to plant screening material. while still allowing access between the property line/fence and the house and garage. Can these structures be moved farther from the property line? 9. Construction or l andscaping work done underneath the drlpllne of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when firs t encountered. when those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline o f trees . This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site . SxDBH : See oaae 14 fo r an exolan ation of these ca lcu lations wh ich are used to estima te root orotection dista nces for t ree s. PO Box 3714, Sa ratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah .com . Arborist Re port for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 5 of 2 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Co nsulting Arborist & Hortic ulturist Service since 1984 10. General Tree Maintenance: a) The root collar and lower trunk of evergreen ash #9 was obscured from view by ivv. This ivy should be removed including a minimum radius of 12 inches around the trunk. I should then re-evaluate this tree if it may remain. b) Do no unnecessqrv pruning. fertilization or other tree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A quafified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning . APPENDIX TABLE 2 COMPLETE TREE TABLE This Table is continued through page 8. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 9 to 12. TREE ROOT iCONDmON PROTECTION Spec 1M DISTANCES rrree Trunk Expected & Dlam. Size ! Preservation Construction Action Reason Notes fl Common C!3ft. .. :I Suitability Impact :a: :a: N Name 0 -ID ID 111. m u 0 0 1-> s )( )( 0 (/) I') ., 1 Ligustrum 3,4 14*10 90 60 Fair Low/Moderate? Debatable !Tree not shown Construction : this small tree could 3 4 5 i l lucidum , ion plan probably be saved but the proposed glossy leaf driveway location and treatment of the I privet area in which this tree is located are ! not shown on the plans. ' 2 Acer rubrum, 10 45*35 80 50 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction: trunk is less than 12 3 4 7 : I red maple inches from proposed garage wall. i Condition : tree leans about 10 I jj _ degrees toward east (and the l 1 proposed ga rage); also into adjacent I tree #2 . I PO Box 3714, S aratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.de cah .co m. ---~~=:J Arbor ist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015 . Page 6 of 24 Debora h Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Ho rtic ulturist S eruia since 1984 I TREE ROOT ~ONDITION I PROTECTION Species DISTANCES Tree Trunk Expected & Dlam. Size ! Preservation Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Q3ft. ... :I Suitability Impact :z: :z: N Name 0 u m m D. Cll Q Q 1-s: ~ )I( )I( 0 M It) I 3 Fraxinus 13 55*30 50 40 Poor Severe Remove Construction Construction : trunk is less than 12 3 5 6 I I !Species , inches from proposed garage wall. l I ash Condition : large mistletoe clumps in I canopy . I 4 ash 12 40*30 70 50 Fair Moderate Debatable Species, lronstruction: "Moderate" construction 3 5 6 I I Opportunity for impact is due to removal of existing I better screening ~sphalt pavement close to tree and i l landscaping in unspecified relandscaping of area. I I ~his location. ' ~---------- 1 5 Ired maple I 6 120*181 85 I 60 ]Fair !Moderate ]Debatablelsame as above !Construction: same as above . r3f4l 5 6 Uquidambar 16 80*40 80 70 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed house . 4 7 12 i sfyraciflua, Condition : roots are causing i American significant pavement damage. I I sweet gum I (sweet gum) I 7 sweet gum 12 50*3 5 70 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed house. 3 5 9 I 1 ~"'ondition: roots are causing pavement I damage. Lower trunk has car impact I mechanical wound and bleeding I j !canker. . . I s sweet gum 15 60*40 75 70 Fair Severe Remove Construction Constructton : within proposed house. 4 6 11 ~ I Condition : roots are causing pavement I ~am age . I I 9 evergreen ash 30 60*45 85 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : 2-story house is 2 to 3.5 7 12 22 i feet from trunk. This will not work for I I obvious reasons. I Condition : topped at 30 feet but some I I L ··--~ restoration pruning has been j I PO Bo x 37 14, S aratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.c om . I Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31 , 2015. Page 7 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticult urist Service since 1984 TREE ROOT iCONDmON PROTECTION Species DISTANCES ~ree Trunk Expected & Dlam . Size ! Prnervatlon Construction Action Reason Notes t Common @3ft. .. ~ Suitability Impact ::t: ::t: N Name 0 ID ID A. Q 0 0 ... > ~ )( )( 0 M It) I performed. Ivy covers lower trunk and i I hides from view and evaluation. I ' 110 Picea pungens 8 22.12 80 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction ConsJruction : house is 5 feet from 3 4 5 i 'Giauca·. trunk. This will not wort< from a l Colorado blue canopy or wort< and access ! I ; spruce standpoint I 11 Betula 8 ,8 ,9 45.30 80 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction: comer of house is 6 to 7 4 7 11 1 pendula, feet from trunks, and not all trunks are I European shown. The canopy of this tree is white birch much larger than is shown on the plan ! and construction of the house will I remove too much of it Better to I remove the tree and relandscape with ' ! more drought tolerant landscaping 1 l anyway. 1 Condition: 3 trunks planted about 18 ! inches apart function as a single tree . ! !The canopy of this tree is much larger ' i !than is shown on the plan. I 12 Lagerstroemia 7 25.20 80 70 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Condition: the adjacent large sweet 3 4 5 I indica, ~um tree is beginning to overgrow this 1 crape myrtle crape myrtle. l ' -------------·~ End of Table c--PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31, 2015. Page 8 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist S ervia Jince 1984 EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS : 1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round aluminum number tag that corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Directions and any other project plans where existing trees must be shown and referenced . 2) Tree Name and Type: Species : The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifo/ia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012} Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table , along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used . 3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). This is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH3 • For multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. Examples: an "18" in the Diameter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5 " means that this is a multi-trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet above the ground. 4) Size : tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes . 5) Condition Rati ngs : Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare- like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition-vigor and structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to remove a tree from a site --even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking f or 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. 6) Relative to the scope of work for this report. tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for t he management of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations for the general care of ind ividual trees relative to their condition. 3 DBH is tree trunk diameter rn inches "at breast height'', measured at 4.5 f eet above ground lev el. Th is is the f orestry and arboricu ltural standard measuremen t he1aht that is also used m manv tree-related cal cu lations. PO Box 3714. S a ratoga, CA 950 7 0 . 408-725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Arbori s t Re port f or 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 9 o f 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 7) The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opi n ion o n the tree's Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as expla ined in Table 3 below. This is based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Rati ngs such as "Fair/Good" and "Fa ir/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitabi lity rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work-and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. ' --·--' • v--• .,.. -••-•• --·--••••.;r ',_,.,,'II _ _,..,_,,_,.,_,' Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and p rovide 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 bot h vigor and structure . Equivale nt to academic grade ·A '. These trees may have some minor to moderate structural o r condition flaws that can be improved with treatment They are not perfect but they are in relatively good Good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees eQuivalent to academic grade ·a·. These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average" trees -not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed . The majority of 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 academic grade • C '. These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline Poor regardless of management The tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for h igh use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present Equivalent to academic grade ·o·. These trees are dead and/or a re not suitable for retention in their location due to risk None or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including I decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade "F'. _j I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 40 8-725-1357 . decah@ pa cbell.net. http://www.decah .com. ---:J Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015 . Page 10 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborls t & Ho rticulturist Service since 1984 8) Action (Disposition): a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction , poor species for the site or any combination of these factors. c) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table . Examples are : • The tree is shown to be saved (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved. • Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or 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 decis ion 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) 9) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to: • Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile to try and save the tree) • Condition (e.g. poor tree condition-either vigor, structure or both) • Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping) • Owner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated) 10) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within t he scope of work for this report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact. c-----~--~------poBox 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-13 57. decah@pa cbe tt~~ http://www.decah.com . I Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave .. March 31 , 2015 . Page 11 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 11) Tr ee Protection Distances (See page 14}. 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 largest trunk is added to SO% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculations. For practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance listed is 3 feet and the minimum SxDBH distance is 4 feet. If disturbance cannot be kept at least 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree Should normally be removed . ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tr ee Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Develooment, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes Into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not be possible to maintain the 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: Add it ional space beyon d root zo ne protection d istances may be necessary for canopy protection. SUPPO RTING IN FORMATION 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 authorities concerned with tree preserva tion 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 t he area and wiU fit in well with the proposed new use of the site . METHODOLOGY I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on March 24,2015 . Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and i ndicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed . Ev aluation procedures were taken from: • Guide for Plant APDraisa/, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA). ~-----n PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 . decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com . I Arbori s t Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31 , 2015 . Page 12 of 2 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Hortic ult urist Service sirue 1984 • Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992. The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations. 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 breas t 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. OBSERVATIONS SITE CONDITIONS There is an exist ing, unoccupied one-story commercial building on the site; also a parking lot and some landscaping that is typical for the area. The site is fenced off for demolition and construction, although no work has begun yet. Site topography is mainly level. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon proximity to other trees . T .. ees #1 th .. ough #5 do not appe ar to be irrigated on the project site although they may receive some irrigation from adjacent neighboring property. T .. ees #6 th .. ough #lZ do appear to be irrigated via sprinklers , although the irrigation system is probably turned off now. [ PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga , CA 95070. -408-=725-1357~i,@pocbe ll.net. http://www .deca h.com . .J Arbori s t Report for 485 Monterey Ave., Marc h 31 , 2015 . Page 13 of 24 TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES 3 TO 5 X DB H Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticult urist Servia si11C11 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 side of the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002 , Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories. l>BHis trunk "diameter at breast height" (4 .5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, using the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of on 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances ore guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans, decoy, structural problems, etc. It is also important to understand that in actual field cond itions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xDBH 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 which 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 extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining 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 . This 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 guidelines that are often used in the arboriculturol industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & [)evelopment, Matheny et ol., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection 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 distance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragraph above}. f PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. deca h@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 14 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Hortic ult urist S ervice since 1984 LOS GATOS G ENERAL TREE PROTECTION 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 /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 11 l 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.!. 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 i n section 29.10 .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 departr:nent 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 oroposed 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 trenching 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 dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist. SecHon 29.10 .1 005 Prot ection ofTrees 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 b e demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a conc rete base. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. de.cah@p a cbell .net. http://www.decah .com. Arbori s t Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015 . Page 15 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consult i ng Arborlst & Horticulturis t Service since 1984 2) Area type to be fenced. W,ej: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ). when specified by a certified or consulting arborist •. ~:Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such a s downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading o r 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 29.10.1025". A t emplate 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 construcHon, lnstan 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 leveHng wffhln the drlpllne of the tree unless approved by the director. 3) Prohibit disposal or deposiHng of oH, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials wHhln the drlpllne 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 utHity services and Irrigation lnes to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. 6) Retain the services of the certified or consuiHng arborlst for periodic monitoring of the project site 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 arborlst shal be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. • I f it is not possibl e t o p lace Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction , then place the fencing as f ar f rom the trun k as poss ible, incl ud ing as much of t he driplin e as possible, w hile still allowing f or enough room t o bu ild improvements. If this happe ns to be within all or some of the dripline, then so be it. But the contractor must trv t o fen ce off as much area under the canoov as oossible. do not be irresoonsible about t h is.- PO Box 3714 , S aratoga , CA 95070 . 408-725-13 57. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah .co m. Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave., March 31 , 2015 . Page 16 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arboris t & Horticu lturist Set'llice since 1984 Section 29 .1 0.1010 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 Insta lling 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) Prun ing for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1) -Pruning. Section 5.9 Utility Pruning . Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is prohibited. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbe ll .net. http://www.decah.com . Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 17 of 24 TREE PHOTOS Glossy pl'ivet #1 at the northwest corner of the site. This small tree ma y be able to rematn. .~ .:~~ .~;·\! ~ ... ~ '·' ~ I' ' ~.. ·t-;;..., (• "' ::I! ,. ,.~~~· .' .J .... . / #2 l'ed znaple , leantng toward the proposed garage and also into adjacent ashbree #3 . Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 #4 ash. In the background : (right) south neighbol''s Ausbralian willow overhangs the stte by 10 feet . The pa r ttal canopy of large evel'gl'een ash #9 IS at left. r---PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com . I Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 18 of 24 6 '· 8 ( '\ -.:\ l -j-~·· .. '\.t . ~·· ... 1 -··~. "~--,~---,_ ~. --~,·- Sweet guans #6, 7 and 8 wrth crape anyrtle #12 rn the background at left . outsrde the perrmeter constructron fence. Close-up of pavement damage caused by the roots of sweet guans #6, 7 and 8 . Deborah Ellis, MS Cons ulti ng Arb orist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 Colorado blue spruce #10 with evergreen ash #9 in the background. PO Bo x 3 7 14 , Sa ratog a , CA 9 5070. 408-725-13 5 7 . deca h@pac bell .net . http://www .decah.com . Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015. Page 19 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Se1'rlice since 1984 11 . ~-:-:-.. Left: large evergl'een ash #9 , along the south perimeter near Monterey Avenue. Right : Eul'opean white birch# 11 , northeast corner of the site at the corner of Monterey Aven ue (nght) and Andrews Street. ( PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408·725·1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah .com. j Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31, 2015 . Page 20 of 24 D e b o rah Ellis , MS Consulti n g Arbo rist & Ho rtic u lturist Servia sina 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS 1 . Tree locations were provided by an unknown party and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report . The tree map is a reduced partial copy of the Proposed Site Plan that I was given. Tree trunk locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. Most tree driplines shown on the plan do not appear to be accurate. 2. The Condition Ratings for deciduous trees that are out of leaf (because they have shed their leaves for winter dormancy) are estimated. More accurate condition ratings for these trees can be obtained after they have fully leafed out (usually m id-May through September). Deciduous trees on this site that were completely leafless or close to this point are the red maples. ash trees (with the exception of evergreen ash #9) and crape myrtle #12 . 3. A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described In this report was performed on March 24,20 15 for the purpose of this report. A basic evaluation is 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 recomme nd that additional. more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. 4. Trees on neighborin g properties were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site . I did not enter the neighboring property to inspect these trees up close. 5. Any Information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my Investigation In this case and the preparation of this report are assumed t o be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title. 6. 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. 7. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 8. 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 . 9. Thi s rep ort and the val ues represented herein represent my opinion . My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporti ng of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported. 10. This report has been prepared In conformHy with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnost ic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborist s. 11. 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 p roblems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future . 12. I take no res ponsibility for any defects In any tree's structure . No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from above the ground, and as such , structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise PO Box 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357 . decah@pacbel l.ne t . http://www .decah .com . Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave ., March 31 , 2015 . Page 21 of 24 Debora h Ellis, MS Co n s ulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 19 84 stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree. in any portion of a tree . Likewise. root collar excavations and evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated. 13 . The measures noted wHhln this report are designed to assist In the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein. shou ld some or all of those trees remain. and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline. fail. o r die. for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline. even trees that are well protected during construction often decline. fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees. it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees. particularly large trees . It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. ****************************** 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. ZkL ~ Deborah Ellis . MS . Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A . Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578 I.S .A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified En closures: • 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) PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 950 7 0 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.c om. Arborist Report for 485 Monterey Ave .. March 31, 2015 . Page 22 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Ho rtic ulturist Service since 1984 GLOSSARY 1. Arbor ist. Protect. The arborlst who is appointed to be in charge of arborlst services for the p roject. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work requ ired. For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures , and being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project. 2. Arborlst. qualified Consulting: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required . 3. Can ker: an area of dead bark. A localized lesion on a stem or branch , often sunken in appearance , commonly associated with a wound , decay or death of internal tissues. Cankers often extend beyond the extent of an original infection or wound , killing surrounding previously healthy tissue. If decay is present and spreads into the wood, a very weak area is created because both the inner and outer growth rings are affected. Internal decay can sometimes spread outward killing bark and new wood tissue-this is called a canker rot. 4. Crown Restoration pruning: selective pruning to redevelop structure, form and appearance of severely pruned , vandal ized or damaged trees. This includes improving the structure of trees that have been topped. In many cases this reparative pruning should be gradual and repeated over several years (e .g. 3 years). The natural structure of the tree may never be completely restored depending on the severity of the damage. It may be beneficial to retain some or all epicormic sprouts that develop during this period; especially initially, to restore some of the lost food- manu facturing capacity of the tree while it is undergoing the restoration process . 5. Drlpline : 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 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". 6. M istletoe is a parasitic plant that reproduces by seeds covered with a sticky material and usually spread by birds. There are several species of mistletoe that attack different species of host plants, mainly trees. An otherwise healthy tree can tolerate a few mistletoes , but individual branches on the tree may be killed . Plants infected with mistletoe can suffer from reduced vigor or become stunted. 7. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination : The root col/arOunction 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 a ir). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the large roots close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract i'nterior wood with a regular drill , or the use of a resistance- recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavat ion unless the entire circumference of the root is excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath t he trunk) can be degraded to the extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be so und. PO Box 3714, Sa ratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Ar bori s t Repo rt f or 485 Mo nterey Ave .. March 31 , 201 5. Page 23 of 24 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 8. Topped (Topping) is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height; to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large e nough to assume the terminal role. Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful to mature trees and may result in reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition, branches that regrow from topping cuts are weakly attached to the tree and are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them, which weakens the branch as well as the attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the r isk of a high risk t ree that will soon be removed . 9. Tree Service. Qualified : A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business. A Qualified Tree Setvice 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 Edition. Ibid. (Covers safety). PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 4 08-725-1357. decah@pacbelt.net . http://www.decah .com. Ar bori s t Report for 485 Mont e re y Ave ., Mar ch 31 , 2015. Pag e 24 of 24 Debo r ah Ellis, MS Consulting Arbor ist & Horticulturist Erin Walters Community Development Department, Town of Los Gatos 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 May 19 , 2015 Seroice since 1984 RECEIVED MAY 1 9 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING D IV ISION ?.-\h ~ C'~?\ 485 Monterey A venue -Arborist Report #2 £-,s;·c'16 Arborist Report History for this project: my first report is dated March 31, 2015. Dear Erin: I have reviewed the revised plans for this project, dated April29, 2015 except for the Grading & Drainage Plan whic h is dated May, 2015 . I a lso reviewed the letter from Michael Black of PDB (Peninsula Bu ilders & Developers) 485 Monterey Ave-Arborist Compliance (no date, marked as received by Los Gatos Planning Division , May 1, 2015). In the current plans, trees #2, 3, 6, 7, s, 9, 10 and 12 are shown to be removed on the p roposed site plan, but bee # 12 (7" crape myrtle, incorrectly labeled as a duplicate #9 on the Site Plan) is shown to remain on the Grading & Drainage Plan. Based upon the plans, it appears that tree # 12 can remain unless I am missing some information . Trees #4, 5 and 11 are shown to be saved on all p lans. Tree #1 (3 & 4" glossy privet) is not shown on the grading plan but is shown to be sa ved on the site plan. Trees #4 and 5 (12" ash and 6" red maple) are one foot from the centerline of proposed storm drain pipe. This p ipe must be mov ed farther from the trees so that trenching will not come closer than 5 feet from the edge of the trunks of these trees. For tree # 11 (8, 8 and 9" European white birch) distances to improvements seem reasonable. Below and continuing on the next page is an updated Summarv Tree Table· . Trunk Expected Tree Common Diam. Preservation Construction Action Reason # Name (in. Suitability Impact @3ft.) 1 glossy privet 3,4 Fair Low /Moderate? Save Tree not shown on grad ing pla n . Ired maple 10 !Fai r/Poor !severe !Remove !construction Poor Severe Remove Constru ction 4 12 !Severe 'Remove or 'Construction Redesign red maple Fair Severe Remove or Construction Redesign PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. Page 1 of 4 i Deborah Ellis, M S Consulting Arborfst & Horticulturist Summarv Tree Table (continued from the previous page) Service since 1984 Trunk Expected Tree Common Diam. Preservation Construction Action Reason # Name (ln. Suitability Impact @)3ft .) 6 sweet gum 16 Fair Severe Remove Construction I 7 12 ~evere I Remove !construction Severe Remove Construction 9 !Severe I Remove ~Construction J f IF air revere I Remove ~Construction Colorado 8 I blue spruce 11 European 8,8,9 Fair Severe Remove Construction white birch 12 crape myrtle 7 Fair/Good low/Moderate Uncertain Tree shown to remain on grading plan, but show to be removed on Site Plan . ·------------------~ ---·------___ .. ____ ---- Recommendations: 1) Tree #1, 3 & 4" glossy privet : if this tree is to remain, include it on the grading plan or show it to be removed. It is a protected tree. 2) Tree #4, 12" ash and tree #5, 6" red anaple : move storm drain pipe so that there will be no excavation closer than 5 feet from the edge of the base of the trunks of these trees. 3) Tree #12, 7" crape ~nyrtle : determine whether or not this tree will be saved or removed. Re-number this tree on the Site plan; it is tree # 12, not duplicate tree #9. 4) Item #3 in PDB letter: "Trees to remain shall have protective tree fencing during construction." Comment from D. Ellis: the trees shall also have tree protection before demo begins at the site. In addition, as is stated in the Recommendations section of my first arborist report for this project dated March 31, 2015 , the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions must be incorporated into the final plans for this project. Tree protection fencing and other tree protection measures must be as per those Directions. 5) The following applicable Items fr om the Recommendations of my previous report are repeated below so that they are not forgotten: a) Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site ; for example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of this tree as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . Page 2 of 4 D eborah Ellis, M S Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Service since 1984 canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, the general contra c tor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction c learance pruning. Neighboring tre es tha t require protection are: one llustlralian willow tlree on the south perimeter of the site . Th e canopy of this tree overhangs th e project si t e by about 10 feet. b) The Arborist should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets li ste d in my previous report and on page 1 of this current report . Additional · improvements on plans that were no t reviewed may cause additional tre es to be impacted and/or removed. Examples of important plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site Plan, Demolition, Construction Staging, Erosion Control, Grading & Drainage , Underground Utilities, Landscaping & Irrigation, Building Elevations & Sections, Roof Plan and Construction & Landsc ape Details showing improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree dispositions (Save, Remove or Debatable) listed in this report may change if and when additional plans for this project are reviewed, or if plans that I have reviewed are revised . Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full-size , to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1 :20 or 1:10. c ) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over- excavation or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 5xDBH 1 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. Fo r disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here . Tree canopies must als o be take n into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Dis turbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans! d) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction . The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landsc aping. Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such a s wood or bark c hips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environme nt around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at all -please consult with me regarding changes in the landsc ape around existing trees and/or have me review the landsc ape and irrigation plans for this project. e) The landscaping shown on the SHe Plan (sheet A 1.3) is too sketchy . Provide a complete landscape and irrigation plan developed by a licensed landsc ape architect. Otherwise the la rg e unspecifi ed area between the garage and the house is likely to be f illed in with an 1 For an explanation of the 3 & 5xDBH root protection d istances see page 14 of my previous arborist report for this ro'ect dated March 31, 2015. PO Box 3714 , Sarat oga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. Page 3 of 4 Deborah Ellis, M S Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 irrigated lawn, which is not advisable from a current drought and water conservation standpoint. f) Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripllne of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when those roots must be removed. A qualified c onsulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees . This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site . •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• I c ertify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my kn owledge, 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 c an be of further assistance. 7JkJ_ UL Deborah Ellis , MS . Consulting Arborist & Hortic ulturist C ertifi e d Pro f e ssional Ho rtic u lturist #30022 ASCA Registered Con su lting Arbo rist #305 I.S.A . Bo ard Certified Master Arborist WE-45 7B I PO Bo x 3714, Sar atoga , CA 95070 . 408-725-13 57 . de cah@pacbell.net. ht tp://www .decah.com . Page 4 of 4 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Erin Walters Town of Lo s Gatos Community Development Department 11 0 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 August 23, 2015 Se rvice si11ce 1984 RECEIVED 2-L~--col AUG 2 4 2015 -z -1'-? c ..., i0 TOWN OF LOS GAiOS PLANNING DIVISION 485 Monterey Avenue; Tree Issues relative to the third Town review of this project Dear Erin : This is my third report for this project. In your letter to me dated August 12, 2015, I was asked to review the July 24, 2015 Plan set submittal and comment on the protection of neighboring trees . I understand that all existing trees on the project site will be removed. The project site is small and the proposed house and hardscape will take up much of the lot. I recommend that all of the replacement trees not be planted on the project site and instead an in-lieu payment be provided to the Town for the remainder of the trees not planted on the site. This is important to a ssure that the site does not become overcrowded with trees. I recommend that a license d landscape architect be hired to select appropriate tree species and placement for the intended use of the site. Sheet L-1.0 proposes retaining trees #4 and 5 on the planting plan, but this is not consistent with the proposed removal plan. My recommendation therefore, is to remove trees #4 and 5 from the planting plan. The protection of neighboring trees: Neighboring tree canopies are not accurately shown on the project plans. It is easier to see these trees on an aerial map of the site, which I have included on page 3. Tree protection fencing and signage, as per the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protec tion Ordinance, should be placed at the edge of the dripline of any neighboring tree canopies overhanging the site. If the contractor feel s that it is not possible t o place the tr ee pro tection fencing at this location, then the Town should be contacted so that they may send their consulting arborist to meet with the arc hitect and/or contractor at the site to agree upon an alternative solution. I have drawn in tentative tree protection fencing loc ations for these neig hboring trees o n the aerial map on page 2. Likewise there sho uld be no soil disturbance on the project site within the dripline o f the tre e or a minimum of 6 feet from the edge of the trunk of the neighbo rin g tree . This means that some of the drainage running along the perim e ter of the property must be moved farther from the fenceline. If the contrac tor feels that this is not possible, then the Town should be contacted so that they may se nd their consulting arborist to meet with the architect and/or c o ntractor a t the site to agree upon an alternate solu tion. PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@ pacbel l.ne t. http://www.decah.com . Page 1 of 3 Deborah Ellis , MS Consult ing Arborist & Horticulturist Servia sin ct 1984 Aerial Map of SHe , and Tentative Neighbor Tree Protection Fenc ing PO Box 3714, Sar atoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357. decah@ pac bell.net. http://www.de cah.co m. Page 2 of 3 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service si11ce 1984 ········*····················· I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good faith . Thank you for the opportunity to p rovide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance. Deborah Ellis, MS. Cons ulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certifi ed Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consult ing Arborist #305 I.S.A . Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com . Page 3 of 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Ms. Erin Walters Town ofLos Gatos 11 0 E . Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ( ( PBD PEN I NSULA BUILDERS 6 DEVELOP M ENT 388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128 (408) 219-4421 • Fax (408) ?54-7415 Re: 4 85 Monterey Ave -Arborist Response Dear E rin, Below i s the Arborist Compliance based on Deborah's recommendation's. ARBORIST RESPONSE RECEIVED JUL 2 8 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION -z.-l?-~\ s-t?-0\9 After further discussio n regarding the existing trees onsite, we have come to the conclusio n that we would like to remove all trees o n thi s site. Grading and site plan are consi stent with the removal of all existing trees. : Please let me know if you have any questions. I can be reached at 408-2 19-4421. Regards, Michael Black EXHIBIT 1 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Ms. Erin Walters Town of Los Gatos 110 E . Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 r PBD PENI N SULA B U ILDE R S 6 D E V E LOPME N T 388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128 (408) 219-4421 • Fax (408) 354-7415 Re: 485 Monterey Ave -Arborist Resp on se Dear Erin, Below is the Arborist Complian ce: ARBORIST RESPONSE RECEIVED AUG 2 8 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PlANNING DI VISI ON R eplacement Trees: We agree wi th Deborah and plan to pay an in-lieu payment for trees that are n ot planted on site. W e d o n o t want to crowd the site with replacement trees. Sheet L -1.0: Tree #4 and #5 are removed from plans. Neighbor Tree Protection : Tree protectio n fencing and signage, as per the Town o f Los Gatos Tree Protection O rdinance, will be placed at th e dripline of an y neighboring tree canopies overh anging the site . If tree protectio n is unavailable, we will contact the town for arborist monitoring and a new solution. Also, there shall not be soil disturbance within 6 fe et o f any trunks of n eighboring trees. Please let me know if yo u have any questio ns. I can be reached at 408-219-4421. Regards , Michael Blac k This Page Intentionally Left Blank PBD PENINSULA BUILDE RS 6 DEVELOPMENT 388 Santana Row, #1123, San Jose, CA 95128 (408) 219-4421 • Fax (408) 354-7415 RECEIVED SEP 0 3 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION z-17-bo\ 485 MONTEREY A VENUE, LOS GATOS ~ -15-0 16 Neighbor Awareness Form To: Homeowners adjacent to 485 Monterey Avenue: I/We the neighbors of the proposed project at 485 MONTEREY A VENUE. LOS GATOS have reviewed the proposed residential single family house as shown on the design plan sheets that are dated AUGUST 26TH 2015. \Ywe state herewith that we understand the plans described above and: )><) Support This Project ( ) Have the following concerns with the project Date Thank you for taking the time to review o ur proposed project. Please feel free to contact us at (408) 219- 4421 or michael@peninsulabuildersinc.com. Sincerely, Michael and Jennifer Black EXHIBIT 1 4 This Page Intentionally Left Blank