No preview available
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDRB 2011-07-19 #2CITY OF n. 'dd7oalz Community Development Department— Planning Division Meeting Date: July 19, 2011 Case Numbers: ED11-033 Project Planner: Raffi Boloyan — (415) 485-3095 REPORT TO DESIGN REVIEW BOARD SUBJECT: 1425 Grand Ave (Phase IV of Dominican University Master Plan at Forest Meadows) — Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow the construction of the Phase IV improvements of the Dominican University Master Plan. This is the final phase of a four phase development approved in 1998 as part of the Dominican University Master Plan. This phase proposes the construction of a new multi -use sports field, new 101 -space parking lot, new 994 sq ft restroom building and relocation of the 6 tennis courts. The project would also include removal and replanting of trees around the Forest Meadows site; APN: 015-141-02; Planned Development (PD1884) District; Dominican University, owner; Derrick Dutton/TWM Architects, applicant; Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood. PROPERTY FACTS Site Characteristics Gradin General Plan Designation Zoning Designation Existing Land -Use Total: Project Site: Public/Quasi Public (P/QP) Planned Development PD 1884 Dominican University North: Low Density Residential (LDR) & Large Lot Residential (LLR) Single Family Residential (R5 and R10 Residences and Dominican Convent South: P/QP & LDR 135 Coleman School and residences East: LDR, LLR & P/QP R5, R10 and PD1884 Residences and Dominican convent and Dominican University West: LDR R5 and R20 Residences, Marin Tennis Club SUMMARY This project is being referred to the Board for review and recommendation of site planning and design of new improvements for a new athletic field, parking lot and reconfigured tennis courts on the Forest Meadows portion of the Dominican University Campus. The Dominican University Master Plan was approved by the City in 1998 and approved 4 phases of future development on the campus over a 12 year period. This particular phase, Phase IV, is the last phase of the Master Plan, and includes the addition of a new athletic field and parking lot, expansion of amphitheater and associated site improvements at Forest Meadows. The Master Plan approval in 1998 required that before construction of each phase, the University apply for a Design Review Permit to allow the City to review final design details. In general, the project is consistent with the intensity and scope of the 1998 approval for this phase of the Master Plan. Staff recommends that the siting and design of the improvements are appropriate for the site and its surroundings and given their layout, would be well screened from public view. The Gradin Tree Removal/Replanting Total: 438 cy fill Net Total (No./Species): 157 (Eucalyptus, Cypress, Acacia, Cut: 9,613 cy Requirement for Replanting: None Fill: 10,051 cy Proposed: 120 (Variety of Oaks and Coast Redwood) Off -Haul: None SUMMARY This project is being referred to the Board for review and recommendation of site planning and design of new improvements for a new athletic field, parking lot and reconfigured tennis courts on the Forest Meadows portion of the Dominican University Campus. The Dominican University Master Plan was approved by the City in 1998 and approved 4 phases of future development on the campus over a 12 year period. This particular phase, Phase IV, is the last phase of the Master Plan, and includes the addition of a new athletic field and parking lot, expansion of amphitheater and associated site improvements at Forest Meadows. The Master Plan approval in 1998 required that before construction of each phase, the University apply for a Design Review Permit to allow the City to review final design details. In general, the project is consistent with the intensity and scope of the 1998 approval for this phase of the Master Plan. Staff recommends that the siting and design of the improvements are appropriate for the site and its surroundings and given their layout, would be well screened from public view. The material palette utilizes high quality materials and continues design themes established on other parts of the campus. Staff requests that the Board review this report and the plans and provide a recommendation on compliance with all pertinent design criteria and conditions of approval from the Master Plan. Specifically, staff asks the Board to consider the following: • Layout of the site plan and improvements, including location of access point to the site; • Appropriateness of the materials for the new restroom building and other site improvements (retaining walls, fencing and light standards); • Adequacy of screening plan along the Belle Ave frontage; • Consistency of the tree removal plan with the approved 4 phase tree removal plan and appropriateness of the tree replanting plan and landscaping plan, including the use of the various tree species. BACKGROUND Site Description/Setting: The Dominican University campus consists of three distinctly developed areas: • Forest Meadows is approximately 21.5 acres in size and located along the western boundary of campus and is the location of this application, • Academic Core is 14 acres in size and located within the central portion of campus, and • Residential Area is approximately 21 acres in size and located along the eastern boundary of campus. Forest Meadows is physically bisected by the north -south trending Black Canyon Creek. The eastern portion of Forest Meadows is developed with the 29,000 -square -foot, Conlan Recreation Center, a 7,700 -square -foot outdoor swimming pool, a 215 -vehicle parking lot, a 38 -vehicle overflow gravel parking lot, and the campus maintenance yard. The western portion of Forest Meadows is largely undeveloped with a grass multi -use soccer/softball field, a 600 -seat amphitheater, and six tennis courts (divided into two areas of three courts). The site hosts with a variety of mature trees, including species of Eucalyptus, Oaks and Cypress. Prior Approvals: On August 17, 1998, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment and Planned Development Rezoning (PD 1730) to establish the Dominican University Master Plan for future development on the campus over the next 12 years (through August 2010). The approval included conditional approval, as part Resolution No. 10302, to established certain requirements of the Master Use Permit (UP97-045) and a Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-146) for the Dominican College (University) Campus Development Plan. Master Use Permit (UP97-045) The Master Use Permit (UP97-045) approved the existing campus development to remain as well as the development of the Dominican University Campus Development Plan to be completed in four (4) phases: Phase I approved the construction of a new, 29,000 -square -foot, recreation center facility and outdoor pool, with parking and landscape improvements, to be located in the Forest Meadows area. • Phase II -A approved the construction of a new two-story, 35,000 -square -foot, science building with parking and landscape improvements to be located in the Academic Core area, and a new, 60 -vehicle parking lot adjacent to the Calereuga dining hall in the Residential Area. 2 Phase II -B approved the construction of a new 9,000 -square -foot chapel building to be located in the Academic Core area. Phase III approved the construction of a new, 40,000 -square -foot, residence hall, a new, 100 - vehicle parking lot and landscape improvements to be located in the Residential Area. • Phase IV approved the construction of a new, regulation -sized (225' x 360') soccer field with infrastructure improvements, a new, 90 -vehicle parking lot, expansion of the amphitheater capacity from 600 to 1,000 seats with parking and landscape improvements, to be located in the Forest Meadows area. Condition No. 20 of the Master Use Permit (UP97-045) required the issuance of all necessary building permits within twelve (12) years of the date of approval, or by August 17, 2010, on any Phase IV development. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted a 3 -year extension to the deadline for completion of Phase IV (now to be completed by August 17, 2013). Master Environmental and Desiqn Review Permit (ED97-146) The Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-146) approved the conceptual design plan for the 4 phases of new development and established design standards for the placement of the four proposed new buildings, additional parking facilities and landscape standards. Individual Environmental and Design Review Permits are required for each phase. Condition No. 94 of the Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-146) similarly requires the issuance of a valid building permit within twelve (12) years of the date of approval, or by August 17, 2010, on any Phase IV development. In 2010, the Planning Commission granted a 3 -year extension to the deadline for completion of Phase IV (to now be completed by August 17, 2013) Subsequent Planning Entitlements After Adoption of Master Plan: On July 24, 2002, the Zoning Administrator conditionally, approved Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED01-059) to allow 4 phases of tree removal and replanting of trees. The approval granted the allowance to remove 50 trees every 5 years, starting in 2001 (and subsequent removals in 2006, 2011 and ending 2016). The area of the tree removal and replanting was focused in the Forest Meadows portion of the campus. The purpose of the tree removal was to slowly phase out the existing Eucalyptus trees and other trees that are damaged, a hazard or needed to be removed to accommodate the Phase IV development. The plan also identified new infill of native planting and the development of the new athletic facilities and parking lot approved as Phase IV of the Master Plan. In 2008, the City Council approved a General Plan Amendment, Rezoning, Amendment of the Master Use Permit and an Environmental and Design Review Permit to convert an existing historic single- family residence ("Magnolia House", located at 226 Magnolia Avenue) to administrative office use for Dominican University. The approved Planned Development District (PD 1868), and associated entitlements, incorporated the Magnolia house property and its use into the overall Dominican University Master Plan. In 2009, the City approved an Environmental and Design Review Permit to allow interior and exterior renovations to the Edgehill Mansion (75 Magnolia Avenue), which included relocating the campus Chapel. In 2010, the Planning Commission approved amendments to the Master Use Permit (UP97-045) and a Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-146) of the Dominican College (University) Campus Development Plan to grant a 3 year time extension to the deadline for completion of the Master Plan (now through August 17, 2013). Before this new deadline, the University is required to obtain the necessary Design Review and Building Permits for the one outstanding phase (Phase IV) of development. The consideration of a time extension to the Master Plan was allowed by the Master Plan subject to Planning Commission review and approval. On July 6, 2010, the City Council approved a Planned Development Rezoning (PD 1884) to incorporate an undeveloped, 18.73 -acre, forested hillside at the eastern terminus of Magnolia Ave at Deer Park Ave for a temporary (3 year) development of a simulated commercial outdoor nursery to research pathogens and pests on ornamental plan stock (NORDUC). Status of Master Plan To date, nearly all phases of the Campus Development Plan are completed with the exception of Phase II -B (new chapel in Academic Core area), which has been abandoned by the University, and Phase IV, which the University has submitted this application that is currently before the DRB. In regards to the 4 phases of tree removal and replanting, the first phase was completed, however the 2nd phase that was scheduled in 2006 was not. Therefore, as part of this project, the University has proposed to combine the 2nd and 3rd phases of tree removal as part of this project. Phase 1 was completed in 2002 (composed of areas A, B and C-1 on the tree removal plan shown on Sheet L-4 of the project plans). These three areas part of Phase 1 are located around the intersection of Belle and Grand Ave's. Phase 2 is proposed to include six different areas n Forest Meadows as part of the development of the recreational field and parking lot project (composed of areas E-1, E-2, F, H and G on the tree removal plan shown on Sheet L-4 of the project plans of tree removal plan). These areas are located at the southern and western portions of Forest Meadows and within the areas proposed Phase IV development. This phase combines the previous Phase 2 and 3 into one phase. Phase 3 is proposed to be completed by 2013 (composed of areas C-2 and D on the tree removal phase clarification plan shown on Sheet L-4 of the project plans). The first of these outstanding areas would be C-2 and is located along Grand Ave, closest to Conlon Gym. The second would be area D-17 which would be located in the middle of Forest Meadows. Although the NORDUC project on the 18 acre site was approved, the University has decided since to not pursue this temporary development and has conducted a more limited project on a portion of the Forest Meadows campus. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Dominican University has submitted an application for final Design Review for the final, outstanding phase (Phase IV) of the Dominican University Master Plan. Phase IV of the Master Plan has been approved as part of the Master Plan and Master Design Review Permit and the submittal of the individual Design Review Permit for this phase is required to allow the City to review the design details of this phase of development. Use: Phase IV of the Master Plan proposes the construction of new athletic field and parking lot and associated site improvements in the Forest Meadows area, as previously approved by the Mater Plan. This Phase would specifically include a new, regulation -sized (255' x 381') multi purpose athletic field with bleachers (for 160 persons) a scoreboard and associated infrastructure and site improvements. In addition, a new, 101 -vehicle parking lot and a 924 sq. ft restroom building are proposed. In addition, the project proposes to relocate the six existing tennis courts located in the center of the Forest Meadows area and to the south, closer to the parking lot. The relocated tennis courts would include temporary bleachers (for 200 persons). The existing practice soccer/softball field, located adjacent to Grand Ave, would remain. Although the Master Plan approved the renovation and expansion of the amphitheater (from 600-1000 seats), the University and Marin Shakespeare have indicated that they no longer plan to pursue an expansion to the amphitheater. However, both organizations have indicated that the plans to renovate the amphitheater are still under consideration, but are not part of this application. Any future renovation of the amphitheater would require review by the City and this plan, including the siting of the new parking lot and restroom, does not appear to impede on the plans for renovation Site Plan: This Phase IV would require the demolition of the existing 6 tennis courts and tree removal and grading to accommodate the new improvements. The main entry to the new parking lot would be located off Belle Avenue, just north of the intersection of Elm St/Belle Ave. A new driveway leading in to the parking lot would be constructed and parking would bisect the relocated tennis courts and new athletic field and then wrap around the rear of the athletic field. A turnaround is proposed at the end of the parking lot at the southeastern portion of the project area to provide both vehicular and fire department truck turnaround out of the parking lot. Pedestrian access to the site would be provided from Belle Ave, into the parking lot and would follow the north side of the parking lot along the tennis courts and then split into two branches. The first branch would wrap around the tennis courts and provide access to the amphitheater as well as connect to the existing pedestrian bridge across Black Canyon Creek that provides access to Conlan Gym and its parking lot. The second branch would cross the parking lot and provide access along the west side of the new athletic field. A secondary access if proposed to wrap around the front of the tennis courts, along Belle Avenue and along the north side rear of the tennis courts and would connect to the first branch at the rear of the tennis courts. The new restroom building would be situated at the eastern edge of the project site, along the east side of the rear parking lot. The proposed restroom facility would be used by not only the new athletic complex, but also users of the amphitheater. The entire belle Avenue frontage would maintain the 30 foot landscape buffer and the closest portion of the tennis courts would be setback approximately 50 feet from Belle Ave and the closest portion of the athletic field would be setback approximately 45 feet from Belle Ave. Site Improvements: The new athletic field would be a synthetic material and would be surrounded by an 8 -ft, tall black chain link fence at the southwestern corner of the field. An 8 -ft. tall by '18 -ft. wide scoreboard would be installed at the southwestern corer of the field and would be mounted so that the bottom of the scoreboard is 1 ft above the fencing. At the perimeter of the site, along Belle Avenue, a 6 ft. tall wooden shadow box fence is proposed to screen the site. The fence would be composed of 4'x4' posts, 2" x 4" stringers and 2" x 6" pressure treated planks on both sides. The wood is proposed to be fir. This fence is designed to match the exiting shadow box fencing found around the Forest Meadows site. A wire mesh auto gate is proposed at the driveway entry to limit access to the parking lot after hours. A 10 -ft. tall black chain link fence, with wind screens, is proposed to enclose the tennis courts. The grade at the southwestern corner of the site would need to be raised to accommodate the new athletic field and a new segmented CMU block retaining wall up to 9 feet at its highest point would be constructed in this corner. The retaining wall would be tan, split faced CMU blocks with vines planted on the wall. The proposed chain link fencing, planted with vines, would be located on top of the retaining wall. The pedestrian pathways are proposed to be multi use path that is ADA accessible and composed of a asphalt material. A small segment of the pedestrian path around the side of the tennis court would be decomposed granite. Architecture: The only building proposed as part of this phase is a one-story, 994 -sq. ft restroom building that would serve as a replacement to an existing small restroom built along the creek bank. The new restroom would be situated approximately 60 feet west of the existing restroom that will be removed. The walls of this structure would be concrete masonry units, tan smooth and brown split face alternating to match Conlon Gym in its color and pattern. The roof and fascia would be 2 1/:12 slope standing seam painted metal in a medium bronze color. The doors, windows and louvers would be metal or metal sash with translucent glass, metal painted a medium bronze color. Landscaping: The site of this proposed phase hosts a variety of mature trees, predominantly Eucalyptus with some limited Acacia, Cypress, Oak, Laurel, Gum and Pine trees. An arborist report prepared is provided as Exhibit 2 and the tree removal plan is identified on Sheets C-1 and L-4 of the project plans. One hundred fifty seven trees are proposed to be removed and these trees range in size from 8" to 84" in diameter. The tree removal is proposed to be done as part of the 4 phase tree removal plan, although the tree removal proposed as part of this project would combine a previous phase that was to occur in 2006 with the phase that was to occur this year. One hundred and twenty trees are proposed to be replanted and include 13 California Coast Live Oaks, 36 Valley Oaks, 16 Interior Live Oaks and 55 Coast redwoods. The new trees would be 15 gallon in size, with the exception of the Coast Redwoods which would be planted in a combination of 5 and 15 gallons in size. In addition to the trees, hrubs, vines and ground cover would be planted through the area. Shrubs species would include Freemont Silktassel, Toyon (California holly) and Coffeeberry in 5 gallon size. Vine species would include Creeping Fig, Boston Ivy and Grape planted in 1 gallon size. Ground cover species would include Manzanita, Creeping Mahonioa and Evergreen Currant all in 1 gallon size. Lighting: New lighting would be added around the parking lot and along the pedestrian walkways. Seventeen parking lot lights are proposed. These lights are proposed to be single pole, 150 -watt pressure sodium lights, with the fixtures mounted at 19 feet in height. Six walkway lights are proposed. These lights would be 100 -watt pressure sodium lights, with the fixtures mounted at 14 feet. A photometric study has been prepared for the new light and demonstrates average new light levels of 1.33 -1.82 foot candles, with a minimum of 0.5 foot candle to 5A foot candle. Details on the proposed fixtures as well as the photometric study are provided ion Sheet A-7 of the plans. No lighting is proposed on the tennis courts or the athletic fields. Grading/Drainage: Cut and fill are proposed as part of the project to accommodate the proposed improvements. The proposed grading consists of 9,613 cy of cut and 10,051 cy of fill, resulting in net of 438 cy of fill. The grading would primarily consist of cutting earth from the interior of field and parking lot and filling earth around the southwest corner of the field. As described above, the new fill around the southwest corner of the field would be supported by a Versa lock.retaining wall. The proposed drainage system would consist of primarily area drains leading to bio swales and bio retention basins around the site. The bio retention basins would then be hard piped by a 12" storm drain to the public storm drain system in Belle Ave. The Preliminary grading and drainage plan is provided on Sheet C-3 of the project plans. Signage: One new entry sign is proposed at the frontage of Belle Ave identifying the field and parking area. The design of the propose sign would match the other informative signs around the campus. A picture of the proposed sign is illustrated on Sheet L-2 of the project plans. ANALYSIS General Plan 2020 Consistency: This Phase of the Dominican Master Plan was approved under the General Plan 2000. Given that the Master Plan entitlement is still valid, no further General Plan analysis is necessary for this project. Zoning Ordinance Consistency: [.1 The Dominican University campus is designated as Planned Development District (PD 1884) and the PD standards apply in lieu of the regular Zoning Ordinance. As discussed previously, the proposed new sports field and parking lot are within the scope and standards established by PD 1884. Unlike the other phases of the Dominican Master Plan, this project does not include many new buildings, therefore, many of the review criteria contained in the Environmental and Design Review Permit chapter would not apply. A few of the applicable review criteria are included below for consideration by the Board in their review of the project. The following are pertinent design review criteria contained in the Environmental and Design Review Permit chapter. Site Design. There should be a harmonious relationship between structures within the development and between the structures and the site. Proposed structures and site development should be related accordant to existing development in the vicinity. There must be a consistent organization of materials and a balanced relationship of major elements. • Views. Major views of the San Pablo Bay, wetlands, bay frontage, the Canal, Mt. Tamalpais and the hills should be preserved and enhanced from public streets and public vantage points. In addition, respect views of St. Raphael's Church up "A" Street. • Site Features and Constraints. Respect site features and recognize site constraints by minimizing grading, erosion and removal of natural vegetation. Sensitive areas such as highly visible hillsides, steep, unstable or hazardous slopes, creeks and drainageways, and wildlife habitat should be preserved and respected. ' Access, Circulation and Parking. The development should provide good vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation and access, on-site and in relation to the surrounding area, including public streets, waterways, shorelines and open space areas. Safe and convenient parking areas should be designed to provide easy access to building entrances. Parking facilities should detract as little as possible from the design of proposed or neighboring structures. Entrances to parking structures should be well-defined and should include materials compatible with those of the parking garage. Traffic capacity of adjoining streets must be considered. • Drainage. Special attention shall be given to proper site surface drainage and an adequate drainage system. (Note: The details of drainage systems shall be subject to approval of the director of the department of public works.) 2. Materials and Colors. Materials and colors should be consistent with the context of the surrounding area. To minimize contrast of the structure with its background as viewed from the surrounding neighborhood, color selection shall coordinate with the predominant colors and values of the surrounding landscape and architecture. High- quality building materials are required. ■ Earthtone/woodtone colors are considered to be various natural shades of reddish -brown, brown, grey, tan, ocher, umber, gold, sand, blue and green. ■ Natural materials include adobe, slump block, brick, stone, stucco, wood shakes, shingles and siding, and the roofs. ■ Concrete surfaces shall be colored, textured, sculptured and/or patterned to serve a design as well as a structural function. ■ Metal buildings, roofs, or finishes that develop an attractive oxidized finish (such as copper or weathering steel) may be used. Unpainted metal, galvanized metal or metal subject to rusting is discouraged. ■ Glare -reducing and color -harmonizing finishes may be required on glass surfaces when they constitute fifty percent (50916) or more of a wall or building face, or when they permit a view of pipes, utilities and other service units. ■ Roof materials shall minimize reflectivity. 3. Walls, Fences, and Screening. Walls, fences and screening shall be used to screen parking and loading areas, refuse collection areas and mechanical equipment from view. Screening of mechanical equipment shall be designed as an integrated architectural component of the building and the landscape. Utility meters and transformers shall be incorporated into the overall project design. 4. Exterior Lighting. Light sources should provide safety for the building occupants, but not create a glare or hazard on adjoining streets or be annoying to adjacent properties or residential areas. Staff Response: This phase does not include any significant new structures or buildings, therefore, the City's review of the design is limited to the site planning and design of site improvements, such as the fencing, retaining walls, light standards and landscaping. Site Design/Planning: In general, the site plan appears to be well organized and logical. The parking lot bisects the new tennis courts and the new sports field and then wraps behind the field. The parking would be placed in close proximity to the recreational facilities on the site as well as allow pedestrians to easily access other part so of the campus through the pedestrian walkways and bridges. The design of the parking lot is such that the parking lot would be minimally visible from the street, therefore it is well screened. All new improvements are setback from the street, and would be screened from view by fencing and landscaping. The new improvements are also setback from the creek and the project actually proposes to remove a restroom that has been built up to the creek bank and rebuild it further away. Lastly, the site includes a comprehensive drainage system to collect any runoff from the parking areas and other paved area and directing the drainage to on-site swales and storm detention basins before discharge into the City storm drain system. Architecture: The only structure proposed as part of this application is the replacement restroom building at the rear of the parking lot, behind the sports field. Given it's location, this structure would not be visible from the public right of way or any adjacent property. However, even though it is not visible from off site, this structure is well designed, using high quality materials and a variety of architectural forms. The structure is low scale and broken up in form, so it would fit in with the contextual setting in which it is located. Site Improvements: The various site improvements utilize high quality materials that also match the design of other existing site improvements found throughout the campus. The frontage of the site would continue the use of the wooden shadow box fence that exists around other parts of campus, including Forest Meadows. Fencing around the sports field and tennis court would be black vinyl clad chain link fencing. The fencing around the tennis courts would be also clad with a mesh screen. Retaining wall would be natural colored, split faced stone walls that would be planted with vines. Lighting: Proposed light fixtures are designed to match other existing fixtures around the campus. The light levels are. The average light level of 1.33 foot-candles are low and appropriate for the site, resulting in adequate light for safety and security, but not excessive light that would spillover onto adjacent properties. 0 Landscaping: See discussion below for related to the tree removal and replanting plan. In general, all new landscaping includes native species and is consistent with the palette of other recent projects around the campus. Overall, the site improvements and new bathroom building all appear to be well designed and integrate into the site and its surroundings. The Board is asked to review the site plan, site improvements and architecture and offer comments on the following: Site layout and access location to the site; Appropriateness of the materials for the new restroom building and other site improvements (retaining wall, fencing and light standards) Consistency with Dominican University Master Plan: The proposed Phase IV project is generally consistent with the approved Master Plan for this phase of development. The Master Plan approved the Forest Meadows outdoor facilities, including a new regulation soccer field, expansion of the existing amphitheater and a new 90 -vehicle parking lot at the corner northwest corner of Forest Meadows (corner of Belle and Grand Ave's). There are three minor differences that this specific submittal deviates from the general concept of the Phase IV shown in the Development Plan. • Amount of parking has increased from 90 to 101 spaces. Location of the parking lot has been shifted further east on Belle Ave, away from the intersection of Belle and Grand Ave's. Renovation and expansion of the amphitheater are not included in this phase, but may be pursued in the future by Marin Shakespeare Theater as a separate application. AT this time, staff's understanding is that neither Marin Shakespeare nor Dominican have plan to pursue the expansion of the amphitheater, however, Marin Shakespeare is still interested in pursuing the renovation. Staff has pledged to work with both parties to ensure that the entitlement to allow the renovation/expansion would remain valid even if it exceeds the 2013 deadline for the Master Plan. The Master Environmental and Design Review Permit (ED97-146) approved in 1998 approved this phase of the development and included certain conditions of approval. The conditions applicable to this phase are identified below in italics and are followed by a staff response. There are other conditions applicable to this project that relates to construction management, noise and other construction components of the project and would be implemented as part of the building permit /grading permit phase of the project. #9 A more detailed description of the 90 vehicle parking lot located at Belle Ave and Grand Avenues shall be included into the Phase IV Environmental and Design Review Permit applicant. The elements of the project (form, line, color and texture) shall be review at this time to ensure that the parking lot is compatible with the surrounding environment, the design of this lot shall include berms and/or landscaping along the Belle and Grand Avenue frontages to effectively screen views of the paring lot and parking vehicles to the greatest extent possible and consistent with Police Department safety requirements described in condition 10. Any parking lot lighting shall be design to direct light downwards onto the parking lot and not create off site glare. Staff Response: The submitted plans have modified the location of the parking lot and field in the Forest Meadows portion of the campus to move those improvements further south and west in Forest Meadows, away from the corner of Grand and Belle Ave's. The applicant has indicated that the relocation of the parking lot and entry/exit has been proposed due to the new homes that have been recently built along Grand Ave and the University's attempt to move the access away from that area.. The City's Traffic Engineer supports the shift of the parking lot away from the intersection of Grand/Belle Ave. parking lot are sited just east of Elm Ave and on adjacent residential properties given that residences on Belle Ave. As designed, the location of the driveway to the are located in a manner that minimizes impacts the new driveway does not line up with any The plans to maintain the existing shadow box fence as well as proposed a new shadow box fence to screen the entire Belle Ave frontage. Landscaping would be added both in front and behind the shadow box fence to further layer screening of the parking lot and field. Light standards are proposed to be installed within the parking lot and along the new pedestrian walkways around the parking lot. These light standards would be directed downward and the light levels would be low, ranging from 1.3 to 4.1 foot candles in the parking areas (Average of 2.53 foot candles) Furthermore, the lighting would start approximately 150 feet back from the street, thereby minimizing any light spillover on Belle Ave. #10 Screening vegetation shall be developed in the proposed 50 foot buffer between the parking lot and Belle and Grand Avenues during construction of Phase IV. This means that landscaping (trees/shrubs) shall be placed to block views of 50 percent of the parking lot from Grand and Belle Avenues. A hedge or vegetated berm up to 3.5 feet high shall be construction to block car headlights and partially screen the parking lot, but keeping the parking lot visible from Grand and Belle Avenues for security purposes. The remaining eucalyptus trees in this buffer area shall be retained in this vegetation plan. Threes/shrubs shall be selected to block the path of light from a parked car in the parking space facing Grand Avenue to the first floors of 1610 and 1618 Grand Avenue which have unobstructed view. This shall be the minimum standard. Additional landscaping may be added with the review and approval of the Police Department. Staff Response: The design of the parking lot in the currently proposed location is such that screening to minimize view of parked cars is no longer a necessity. However, the entire frontage would be screened by an existing and new six foot tall shadow box fence with landscaping on the front and behind the fencing. In addition, berms are proposed around the driveway entry area. The main parking is proposed to be setback at least 100 feet back from Belle Ave and the parking spaces are designed so they would be perpendicular to Belle Ave, minimizing the view of parked vehicles. The Board is asked to review the screening plan and provide its recommendation on the adequacy of the screening along the site. #11 The parking lot at the corner of Belle and Grand Avenues shall be designed so that inbound access is from Grand Avenue only and outbound access is via a right turn only onto Belle Avenue. The right turn restriction to Belle Avenue shall include signing as well as a physical carrier, such as a median island and driveway which turns east which would make turning left difficult, if not impossible. Circulation with the parking slot shall be designed to support these access/exit restrictions. Staff Response: As discussed above, the location of the new parking lot has been shifted since the approval of the Master Plan, 12 years ago. The Master Plan identified that the parking lot would be situated at the northwest corner of Forest Meadows (corner of Belle and Grand Ave's). However, with the recent development of the new residential subdivision along Grand Ave (Trinity Church Subdivision), including a new house at the corner of Belle and Grand Ave, the proposed parking lot is proposed to be shifted toward the southeast. The revised location of the new parking lot would be better screened and more setback than the original proposal. Furthermore, the location of the entry drive has been situated so as to not conflict with any nearby residences on Belle Ave. The revised parking lot location has been reviewed by the City's Public Works Department and found acceptable. The revised location is better suited given that it is separated from the intersection, thus reducing conflicts. Furthermore, given 10 traffic volumes on Grand Ave, moving the entrance off Grand Ave onto Belle Ave, would reduce any conflicts with addition of another driveway on Grand Ave. #29 Improvement plans/.grading plans shall minimize the visual impacts of the required retaining walls by construction them or facing them with natural materials. Retaining walls shall be planted with trailing and creeping plants to create a natural landscaped appearance. Staff Response: The only retaining walls proposed as part of the project are at the southwest corner of the new field. A new Versa lock segmented retaining wall would be installed at the southwest corner and would range upto 9 feet in height at its highest point. The new wall would be split face wall in a tan color. Vines are proposed to be planted along the entire length of the new wall. #30 Grading plans shall be designed to minimize the need for importing soils from off site by balancing the volume of cut and fills. Staff Response: The project proposed a minimal amount of fill (438 cy). Given the scope of this project, the amount of fill is recommended to be minor. #39 Mature trees near the limits of anticipated grading should be preserved and protected where feasible form an engineering and safety standpoint and warranted based on the good to excellent health and structure of the tree. An engineering survey of oaks with truck diameters of six inches or greater and all other tree species with truck diameters of 12 inches or greater should be performed as part of the Environmental and Design submittals for each phase of development and should map truck locations within 50 feet of the limits of grading. Individual specimen -sized trees shall be preserved by retaining wall, short over steepened slopes and pother methods. Protection of native oaks and California bay trees should take precedence over non native species and larger Eucalyptus with truck diameters exceeding 24 inches which do not pose a hazard from falling should take precedence overall smaller non native trees. Staff Response: Since the adoption of the Master Plan, there have been changes to tree removal in the Forest Meadows area. In 2002, the City approved a 4 phase tree removal and replanting plan for the Forest Meadows portion of the campus. The purpose of the tree removal/replanting plan was to phase out the existing Eucalyptus trees and other various non- native species in Forest Meadows and allow for new infill native plantings as well as accommodate the Phase IV development. Eucalyptus trees are non-native and many were in poor condition which resulted in concern for hazard from them falling and fire hazard. The purpose of the phased approach to tree removal was to: 1) allow the removal of non native trees (Eucalyptus) as well as damaged or diseased trees; 2) allow the tree removal and replanting to occur in an incremental approach, reducing the loss of mature trees which provide visual and noise screening; and 3) allow the University and City to evaluate the replanting plan after a few years of new growth and potentially make adjustments on future phases. Sheet L-4 illustrates the 4 phased tree removal/replanting plan approved in 2002. At this time, the plan called for the removal of 50 trees every 5 years (total removal of 200 trees) starting in 2001 and ending in 2016. The University completed Phase 1 (removal of 50 trees and subsequent replanting), but did not pursue any further tree removal in 2006/2007, skipping the 2nd phase of the tree removal. An updated tree removal phasing plan is also illustrated on Sheet L-4 and identifies the 50 trees that were removed in 2001, 143 trees that are proposed to be removed as part of this phase in 2011 and 42 more trees would be removed in 2013 (total removal of 235 trees). Staff notes that the difference in the total number of trees to be removed identified in the original tree removal plan (200 trees) and the updated tree removal plan (235 trees) is primarily due to the fact that additional saplings that were present at the inventory in 2001 have now grown to a larger size and been added to the inventory of existing trees. The arborist has documented of all size, including some that would not meet the minimum standards 11 listed above. Therefore, the arborist report and tree inventory includes evaluation and tagging of all trees in the area (Exhibit 2), even those smaller than 12" in diameter for non -Oak species. In addition, the updated tree removal plan would accelerate the amount of tree removal that would occur at one time through the combination of the Phase 2 and 3. Sheet L-3 provides photographs to illustrate the growth of the new trees that were replanted after the Phase I tree removal/replanting plan. Two of the pictures on Sheet L-3 illustrate the Oak trees planted in 2002 as they were in 2007. The other two pictures illustrate the Oak trees planted in 2001 as they exist today in 2011. The proposed replanting plan includes 120 trees, including 13 California Coast Live Oaks, 36 Valley Oaks, 16 Interior Live Oaks and 55 Coast redwoods. The new trees would all be 15 gallon in size, with the exception of the Coast Redwoods which would be planted in a combination of 5 and 15 gallon species. The Board is asked to review the tree removal plan and replanting plan and offer comments on the following: Consistency of the updated tree removal plan with the approved tree removal phasing plan; and Appropriateness of the replanting plan, including the use of the various species. NEIGHBORHOOD CORRESPONDENCE Dominican University has indicated that they have been meeting with surrounding neighbors in advance of their submittal of this application. Once the application was submitted, the application materials were referred to the appropriate City Departments and outside governmental and quasi - governmental agencies. In addition, the plans were referred to the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Association. Notice of this hearing was posted on site (2 locations) and mailed to the surrounding residents and property owners within 300 feet, as well as the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood, 15 days prior to this Design Review Board meeting. As of the reproduction of this staff report, staff has received one letter from resident of Dominican/Black Canyon neighborhood. This letter (Exhibit 3) cites three concerns: 1) the removal of large trees and that any replacements be the same size and a desire that new landscaping along frontage is layered and full; 2) disappointment that the amphitheater component is not part of this project and that the University make some improvements to the amphitheater; and 3) concern with lighting, noise and traffic. During the referral process, staff did receive inquiries from the Dominican/Black Canyon Neighborhood Group asking about; a) the status of the improvements to the amphitheater and whether they will be allowed to be done at a later date if Dominican proceeds with this project; 2) tree removal plan and arborist report; and 3) other general inquiries on the scope of this project. CONCLUSION This project, as designed, is consistent with the Phase IV of the previously approved Dominican University Master Plan. The new sports field and parking lot were identified to be approved new additions to the Forest Meadows area. The six new tennis courts were not identified in the Master Plan, but are solely a relocation of six existing tennis courts to a more central area in Forest Meadows. The shifting of the parking lot location and slight increase to its size seem appropriate given the changes in conditions in the surrounding area. The site improvements and site plan are well designed, and 12 appropriate for the site. The amount of tree removal is within the previously approved 4 phase tree removal plan, although two phases are now combined into one. The Board's recommendation will be forwarded to the Zoning Administrator for final action. EXHIBITS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Arborist Report 3. Public Correspondence Full-sized and 11 "x 17" plans have been provided to the DRB members only. cc: Derek Dutton Dominican/Black Canyon NA TWM Architects PO Box 151702 181 Carlos San Rafael, CA 94915-1702 San Rafael, CA 94903 Dan Sonnet (via email) Christian Oakes TWM Architects Cheryl Douglas (via email) 181 Carlos San Rafael, CA 94903 Jacques Charton Dominican University 50 Acacia Ave San Rafael, CA 94901 13 Exhbt I - Vicinity Map - Dominican UNversity SCALE 1 :3,281 200 0 200 400 600 FEET Friday, July 15, 2011 10:37 AM Marin County Arborists Inc PO Box 2538, San Rafael CA 94912 Tel: 415-457-8733 Fax: 415-455-8110 May 3, 2011 Dominican University of California 50 Acacia Avenue San Rafael, CA 94901 Arborist Report I have just completed my evaluation of the trees that were of concern to you with regards to health and safety. I have numbered the trees from #1 - #184 and these tags with numbers are in the most visible place from the roads or the path. Many or most of the trees I have reviewed are old and even overly mature. Many of the large Blue Gum Eucalyptus trees (Mostly the larger trees) were severely topped 40-50 years ago. This topping has created these trees to split into multiple leaders/stems. This type of heavy cutting has caused most of these trees to begin to decay due to opening a sealed system using large cuts that require decades to Callus over, therefore exposing the trees to standing water on the topping cuts, as well as the presence of wood decay spores to begin to eat away at the exposed area for decades. Ultimately until wound closure, if it ever happens. This creates a column of wood rot and decay that starts at the topping cuts and continues down the trunk and becomes as visible as when the other large previous topped Eucalyptus trees were removed, approximately 12-15 years ago. You can still see the areas of rot and decay present in those stumps that are around. With regards to insects I have found that there is a significant amount of damage caused by the Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle. These infestations generally become worse in time as the populations multiply. I have included some information regarding the life cycle, damage caused, its origin and the reason it was released as well as extra reading. The Monterey Cypress trees are in very poor condition and exhibiting signs of decay, termite damage, cracked trunks, structural failures, missing tops, etc. These trees are overly mature and should be removed prior to any building or construction around them. They won't survive and are a hazard. I have made mention in my per tree description that branch failure on the Monterey Cypress tree has been a big problem, due to the number of limbs they are shedding. Currently and in the past this has been a low use area, so if a limb fails it can be cleaned up. With the proposed construction, the structures, cars, people will be at risk due to the use change. Tree removal is strongly recommended if a field is installed or not. Recommendations: Remove the Cypress trees as they are a hazard and will continue to decline. Exhibit 2 The Eucalyptus trees, as I am aware and the facilities department of Dominican University is aware, have been failing and losing limbs for years. Many of the trees in question (the larger trees) were topped at 25', 40-50 years ago. This has created embedded bark, co -dominant stems (A structurally weak point in the tree), and overextended lateral structures. A number of these trees are taller than 125-150 feet in height. This size of tree with such structural defects do not belong near a grade school, a college, vehicular traffic, pedestrian traffic, residential structures and utility wires carrying high voltage electricity to supply the surrounding community. The combination is a huge liability to the college as well as anyone within striking distance of trees associated with entire tree failure or sections of tree failure. Recommendations: Remove the Eucalyptus trees before a catastrophic event occurs. Replanting: I urge you to replant with native trees such as Oaks, Coast Redwoods, Buckeye, Ceanothis and even the occasional Fremontodendron. The plantings you have chosen to replace the large Eucalyptus trees from 12-15 years ago have performed extremely well allowing for privacy, noise barrier, visual barrier and shade. These native plantings will last hundreds and hundreds of years if taken care of properly. I have only tagged the non native trees (except for one Coast Live Oak to stay) There are many Live Oaks that should be protected if tree removal occurs. Due to the field currently being open and accessible it would make sense to perform tree removals prior to the commencement of any activities for economic reasons as well as all the safety issues discussed. If tree removal was performed after construction activities the price would cost 3-4 times the amount due to lack of accessibility and the difficulties, if not impossibilities of using large cranes, excavators and logging trucks as needed. With regards to safety, many of the trees sections could be felled or removed in very large sections keeping them out of other trees and using only approximately 1/6`h of the amount of the time required to remove trees manually with ropes, pullies and taking small pieces. This is the difference of doing small 2,000 to 6,OOO1b cuts and having one 200,OOO1b piece on the ground in one cut. Inventory Tree # 1– Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 26"dbh – Height Approx 70ft: Significant lean angle to North. Tree # 2 –Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 21 "dbh –Height Approx 50ft: Growing 18" West of T-1. This tree is compromising both T-1 and T-2, ability to root properly. Tree # 3 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 41"dbh – Height Approx 80ft: Slight lean to North East. Tree # 4 –Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) –16.5"dbh –Height Approx 40ft: Growing 18" South of T-3, with a slightly compromised root structure. Tree # 5 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 21"dbh – Height Approx 50ft: Suppressed by surrounding trees. Main top non-existent. Thorough misshapen structure. Tree # 6 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 25"dbh – Height Approx 70ft: Previously topped at 45ft, approximately 25 five years ago. This has caused the tree to create an unstable top above 45ft. Upper crown is leaning to the North. Tree # 7 – Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) – 31"dbh – Height Approx 60ft: No lower foliage until 25'-30' above grade creates a lack of ballast that low limbs create further increasing the lack of tree failure: Evidence of many lower failed limbs from 20'-30' from ground. Tree # 8 — Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) - 12"dbh – Height Approx 35ft: Slight lean to East. Growing 2' from T-9. Tree # 9 — Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) - 16"dbh – Height Approx 35ft: Slight lean to West. Growing 2' from T-8. Tree # 10 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 22"dbh –Height Approx 75ft: Old wound present at 16'-I S' above grade on South Side of trunk, possible decay present due to injury, slight lean to North. Tree # 11– Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) – 9"dbh – Height Approx 25ft: Significant lean to East. Suppressed by T-12, growing 3'-4' to the south. Poor structure. Tree # 12 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 37"dbh – Height Approx 75ft: Significant lean to the North. Previous upper crown damage at approximately 50' above grade, has forced upper crown to spread out creating the potential for wind failure. Tree # 13 – Green Wattle Acacia (Acacia decurrens –13"dbh – Height Approx 20ft: Slight lean to the South West. Fractures on main stem starting at grade and continuing up trunk to approximately 15' above grade. This was most likely caused by frost damage in 1990-1991. Decay is present. Tree # 14 – Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 48"dbh – Height Approx 90ft: Slight lean to the East. Tree # 15–Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) – 30"dbh – Height Approx 50ft: Significant lean to the South West growing approximately 12' from T-14, compromising root development to the East opposing the lean. Tree # 16–Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) – 20"dbh –Height Approx 65ft: Weighted heavily to East side due to branch structure. Utility wire attached. Tree # 17- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 50"dbh - Height Approx 90ft: Originating at lower 3' of trunk there are co -dominant stems. There is a high failure rate for these co -dominant stems. Tree # 18- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 54"dbh - Height Approx 70ft: Three (3) stems originate within the lower 5' of the tree. There is a high failure rate for these stems. Tree # 19- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -11 "dbh - Height Approx 45ft: Embedded bark at crotch of tree at 14 ". - Height Approx 65ft: Double trunk. Forks at 5'. Co -dominant and imbedded bark. Tree # 20- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 35"dbh - Height Approx 60ft: Three (3) stems starting at 4' above grade. Two (2) stems co -dominant at approximately 4' above grade threatening tennis courts. - Height Approx 80ft: Two (2) stems split at 4.5' above grade. Slight co -dominance, heavy decay from old injury on North side of tree at 4' above grade. Tree # 21- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 32"dbh - Height Approx 70ft: Three (3) stems, two (2) co -dominant. Leans West. Tree # 22- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 20"dbh - Height Approx 85ft: Fairly straight. Tree # 23- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 22"dbh - Height Approx 70ft: Slight lean to the East Tree # 24- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 31 "dbh - Height Approx 80ft: Tall double trunk making contact with T-25 at 4' above grade. 8" stem growing to South Westover tennis courts and shed. Tree # 25- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 12"dbh - Height Approx 50ft: Tall tree and leans West making contact with T-25 and T-27. Tree # 26- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -15"dbh - Height Approx 50ft: Forks at 20' and has one lateral. Tree # 27- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 27"dbh - Height Approx 85ft: Threatening tennis courts. Tree # 28- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 28"dbh - Height Approx 80ft: Large section of tree previously removed on North side. Straight trunk. Tree # 29- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -16"dbh - Height Approx 55ft: Old injury at approximately 2' above grade on South Side of trunk, decay at present. Tree # 30- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -12"dbh - Height Approx 85ft: Slight lean to North East Tree # 31- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -12"dbh - Height Approx 65ft: Double trunk. Forks at 5'. Co -dominant and imbedded bark. Tree # 32- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 12"dbh - Height Approx 50ft: Slight lean South West. Tree # 33- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 37"dbh - Height Approx 80ft: Two (2) stems split at 4.5' above grade. Slight co -dominance, heavy decay from old injury on North side of tree at 4' above grade. Hazard tree, leans and is weighted to west over tennis courts. Tree # 34- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 17"dbh - Height Approx 40ft: Bifurcates at 6'. Leans West. Tree # 35- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -16"dbh - Height Approx 80ft: Single stem, slight lean to North. Tree # 36- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 8"dbh - Height Approx 35ft: Suppressed canopy trunk leans West. Upper canopy hooking back to East. Decay at root and flare on East side. Tree # 37— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 31"dbh —Height Approx 70ft: Bifurcates at approximately 20', co -dominant stems. Lean to South. Previous damage to upper canopy causing multiple tops. Tree # 38— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 23"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: Tall tree with a lean to the South. Tree # 39— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 21 "dbh —Height Approx 55ft: Suppressed structure. Hooks to South at 14' above grade. Overly extended canopy. Tree # 40 --Green Wattle Acacia (Acacia decurrens) `GROUP' — 2" - 10"dbh range. — Approx 25-30 trees: These trees are all leaning or fractured and unstable. High failure rate. Tree # 41—Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 10"dbh —Height Approx 25ft: Severe lean to North. Hazard tree to pedestrians and traffic. Tree # 42—Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Co -dominant at 6.5ft tall. Imbedded bark. Slight lean to south and co -dominant trunk, leans North. Section decay South West side of trunk at 3'-8' above grade. Tree # 43—Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 11"dbh —Height Approx 40ft: Tall straight trunk. Tree # 44— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 9"dbh —Height Approx 40ft: Tall. Bifurcates at 12' and is co -dominant with imbedded bark. Tree # 45— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 11"dbh — Height Approx 20ft: This Monterey Cypress is in decline. Dead top and decay at base. Tree # 46- Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 15"dbh — Height Approx 25ft: Trunk decay and previous branch failure. In decline. Tree # 47— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 55"dbh — Height Approx 130ft: Previously topped Eucalyptus 40-50 years previous. Topped at 25, prior splits into three (3) major stems. One (1) 24" stem over road. Tree # 48— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 34"dbh — Height Approx 100ft: Previously topped at 25', 40 to 50 years previous. Four stems at 25, near old topping cuts. There are large sections of dead wood. Tree # 49— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 27"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Leans to East in direction of tennis courts. Tree # 50— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 27"dbh — Height Approx 100ft: Previously topped at 25'. Leans East toward tennis courts. Tree # 51— Oak — 28"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: Poison Oak covered trunk leans over road to North West. Tree # 52— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 42"dbh — Height Approx 140ft: Previously topped at 25'. Splits into four (4) stems at topping cut from 40-50 years ago. Significant lean to west over road. Tree # 53— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 52"dbh — Height Approx 125ft: (Diameter estimated due to Poison Oak on Trunk). Previously topped at 25, 40-50 years prior. Splits into to two (2) large 28" and 30"stems. Significant lean to the South. Tree # 54— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) —I I"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Weighted over road and side work. Tree # 55— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 32"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: Topped 40-50 years prior at approximately 25'. Slight lean to North West. Tree # 56- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -18"dbh - Height Approx 70ft: Leans to the South Tree # 57- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -13"dbh - Height Approx 55ft: Splits into five (5) stems at approximately 12'-14' above grade weighted to the south canopy. Suppressed by surrounding trees. Tree # 58- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 23"dbh - Height Approx 35ft: Previously topped at 23', 40-50 years prior crown is 80% dead, decayed trunk. Tree # 59- Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) - 10"dbh - Height Approx 30ft: Straight trunk. Tree # 60- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -12"dbh - Height Approx 50ft: Weighted to South East. Tree # 61- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 39"dbh - Height Approx 130ft: Previously topped 40-50 years prior at approximately 25' above grade. Splits into four (4) stems. Large deadwood evident in canopy greater than 4" in diameter. Heavily weighted over road and side walk. Tree # 62- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 50"dbh - Height Approx 140ft: Leans to South. Massive tree topped at 25ft. Three (3) Stems. Tree is weighted to South. Tree # 63- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 62"dbh - Height Approx 150ft: Massive tree. Heavily weighted to North West. Large sections of dead wood present. Tree # 64- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 45"dbh - Height Approx 140ft: Heavily weighted to North. Threat to road, utility wires, pedestrians and vehicles. Tree # 65- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 53"dbh - Height Approx 140ft: Previously topped at 25'. Splits into three (3) major stems all opposing each other. Tree # 66- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 45"dbh - Height Approx 120ft: Previously topped at 25ft, 40-50 years prior. Over extended lateral branches. Two (2) large limbs over road and sidewalk. Large pieces of dead wood. Tree # 67- Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) - 18"dbh - Height Approx 45ft: Three (3) stems originating at 8 "-12 " above ground, growing in and around fence. Heavy lean to West. Damaging fence. Tree # 68- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 31 "dbh -Height Approx 120ft: Overextended growth to West over road and side walk. Tree # 69- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 25"dbh - Height Approx 120ft: Suppressed canopy due to large surrounding trees growing within inches of T-70. Trunk rubbing on T-70 at 20' above grade. Tree # 70- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 58"dbh - Height Approx 155ft: Previously topped at 25' above grade 40-50 years prior. Splits into two (2) stems. Tree # 71- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 35"dbh -Height Approx 100ft: Over extended to South and West side of canopy creating and imbalance. Large sections of dead wood present. Tree # 72- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) -13"dbh - Height Approx 70ft: Over extended branches to the south. Tree # 73- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 55"dbh - Height Approx 130ft: Previously topped Eucalyptus 40-50 years previous. Topped at 25, prior splits into three (3) major stems. One(]) 24" stem over road. Tree # 74- Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) - 15"dbh - Height Approx 30ft: Over extended to West over road and side walk. Tree 175— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 13"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Suppressed and heavily foliated to the South. Tree # 76— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 60ft: Over extended canopy to the East. Tree # 77— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 32"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Forks into two (2) stems at approximately 5'-6' above grade south stem suppressed by large surrounding trees. Tree # 78— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 17"dbh —Height Approx 75ft: Overextended canopy to the South East and leans South East. Tree # 79— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 11"dbh —Height Approx 35ft: Tree # 80— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 22"dbh — Height Approx 140ft: Spindly tree. Tree # 81— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —12"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Tall and spindly suppressed tree due to surrounding large trees. Tree # 92— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Splits into two(2) stems at 2' above grade. Co -dominant with imbedded bark. Tree # 82— Oak (Quercus) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Leaning tree. Tree # 83— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 19"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Spindly tree, slightly suppressed due to larger trees. Tree # 95— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —11 "dbh —Height Approx 50ft: Young tree weighted Tree # 84— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 10"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Suppressed due to the surrounding trees. Leans to the East. Tree # 85— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 11 "dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Spindly and suppressed. Tree # 86— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 8"dbh — Height Approx 14ft: Spindly and slightly suppressed. Tree # 87— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 24"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Two (2) stems split above grade. One stem 30' tall and other stem is 45' tall. Suppressed tree. Tree # 88— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: Significant lean to the South. Canopy somewhat suppressed by larger surrounding trees. Tree # 89— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 31 "dbh — Height Approx 140ft: Slight lean to North East. Tree # 9V Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 35"dbh — Height Approx 1508: Weighted to the Eucalyptus to the left. Tree # 91— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 22"dbh — Height Approx 130ft: Slightly weighted to the South. Tree # 92— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Splits into two(2) stems at 2' above grade. Co -dominant with imbedded bark. Tree # 93— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 13"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Weighted to the West. Tree # 94— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 9"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Young tree. Tree # 95— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —11 "dbh —Height Approx 50ft: Young tree weighted to the South. Tree # 96— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 46"dbh — Height Approx 140ft: Two (2) stems originating2' above grade. Co-dominant and imbedded bark. Both stems are weighted to the South to South East. Tree # 97— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 13"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Young tree, leans to the South. Tree # 98— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 9"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Young tree. Tree # 99— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia melanoxylon) — 10"dbh —Height Approx 45ft: Young tree. Tree # 100— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiate) — 13"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Heavy lean to North West. Tree # 101— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 59"dbh — Height Approx 150ft: Topped at 25' above grade. Massive tree with 3 large stems. Large dead wood and over extended limbs East and West. Tree # 102— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 28"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Three (3) stems originating at approximately 8"-1 ' above grade. Tree # 103— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 63"dbh — Height Approx 1308: Massive tree. Splits into four (4) major stems from previous topping cut created 40-50 years ago. Stems are co-dominant and slightly imbedded bark. Tree leans and is weighted to the South East. Tree # 104— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —10"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Two (2) stems forks at grade. No tag, due to too much Poison Oak. Tree # 105— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 17"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Lean to North. Healthy tree Tree # 106— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 37"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Slight decline. Over mature. Many previous limb failures. Decay present on South side, starting at 8' above grade and continuing up to approximately 35' up tree. Previously exposed, damaged top and has forced growth laterally creating over extended limbs. Tree # 107— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 34"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Significant lean to the South creating a hazard. Exhibiting signs of fire scarring and decay on North Side. Tree # 108— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 21"dbh —Height Approx 65ft: Some root rot present. Decay on South side of trunk at 4'-6' above grade. Significant lean to West. Tree # 109— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 21 "dbh —Height Approx 65ft: Significant lean to South end. Tree # 110— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 20"dbh — Height Approx ft: Growing against root flare of T-109. Overextended canopy to East. Tree # 111— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 81 "dbh —Height Approx 150ft: Massive tree. Over extended foliage and slight lean to South. Large pieces of deadwood in canopy. Fire scarring on trunk. Tree # 112— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Decay at base on West side and South East side. Slight lean North. Tree # 113— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 35"dbh —Height Approx 65ft: Overly mature. Some decay present at root flare and along main stem. Leans North. Top previously damaged many years prior causing over extended laterals and branch failures. Tree # 114— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 32"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Some decay along main trunk evident by sunken lesions and evidence of decay and decline in canopy. Tree # 115— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 46"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Decay present at root flare and along main stem. Co -dominant and separating stems on main stem from 1 ' above grade and extending up trunk to 8' on West side of the tree. The tree splits into two (2) stems at 8' and has evidence of decay. Hazard tree. Tree # 116— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 27"dbh — Height Approx 1208: Lean to North East. Tree # 117— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Tree # 118— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 24"dbh — Height Approx 100ft: Decay present at the base of the trunk starting at grade and moving up trunk to approximately 30" above grade. Spindly tree. Tree # 119— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 27"dbh — Height Approx 100ft: Old injury on trunk from ground and running up main stem to approximately 40" above grade. This tree is in decline and dying. Tree # 120— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 30"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Leans North East. Top has been damaged. Decay present along main stem. Overly mature. Portions of limb failure. In slight decline. Tree # 121— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 14"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Decay present at South East side of lower trunk. Slight lean to South East. Tree # 122— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 12"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Bushy young tree and healthy. Lean North. No decay. Tree # 123— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) —17"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Healthy green no decay present. Leans to the North East. Limbs over extended over towards ball courts. Previously topped at 15'-18'. Tree # 124— Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) — 84"dbh — Height Approx 140ft: Massive tree. Large basel canker at 4' above grade on East side of trunk. Splits into two very large stems at 25'-30' above grade. Many over extended laterals. Evidence of dead wood throughout canopy. Tree # 125— Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) — 50"dbh — Height Approx 130ft: Leans to South. Prior pruning has greatly reduced failure potential of this tree. Very large tree. Tree # 126— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) — 24"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Co -dominant at 2' above grade embedded bark. Tree # 127— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) —12"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Mechanical injury on main trunk within 4' of grade. Tree # 128— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: Severe lean to East. Top removed/ damaged years prior. Branch failure evident, throughout canopy decay present all along main stem and root flare. Main trunk split open on West side from ground level moving up the trunk approximately 6'. Hazard tree. Tree # 129— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) — 11'dbh — Height Approx 25-28ft: Trunk damage 3 ' high on North side forked top at 16'-18' Tree # 130— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 30"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Previous top damage at approximately 25' above grade. Tree splits in two (2) twisted opposing 12 "-14" diameter stems that are making contact. Overextended limbs over road, threatening road and wires. (NO TAG, DUE TO POISON OAK) Tree # 131— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 32"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Topped at approximately 12' above grade. Splits into multiple stems, weighted to the South threatening road, side walk etc. Limbs threatening high voltage. (NO TAG, DUE TO POISON OAK) Tree # 132— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 31"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: Top has died or incurred damage many years prior. Slight lean to South East. Slight decline visisble throughout canopy. Evidence of decay visable in many areas along main stem. Tree # 133— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 83"dbh — Height Approx 150ft: Massive tree. Previously topped at approximately 25'-30' above grade. Old topping cuts has caused tree to split into four (4) major stems that are 24"-30" in diameter. Crown decline is present throughout the canopy and tree has large pieces of deadwood. Tree leans Westin the location of the street, sidewalk, utility wires and homes. Many areas in canopy are exhibiting signs of post limb failures. Tree # 134— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Previously topped at 15'-I8'. Due to topping tree splits in to four (4) stems. Canopy is suppressed by large surrounding trees. (NO TAG, DUE TO POISON OAK) Tree # 135— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) — 11"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Slight lean to South West. Mechanical injury with decay present on South Side of trunk at grade to 4' above. (Note the Sunken Bark.) Tree # 136— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —18"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Tree is in decline. Previously topped at 25' and leans over sidewalk, road and threatens utility wires. Tree # 137— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 29"dbh — Height Approx 80ft: Slight lean to the West. Old Mechanical injury that caused decay at base on North side from grade and 4' up trunk. Tree # 138— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 28"dbh — Height Approx 100ft: Slight lean to West. Some over extended laterals to South East. Tree # 139— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Significant lean to South West, over road, utility wires and houses. Over extended lateral limbs to the South West. Tree # 140— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 12"dbh — Height Approx 35ft: Leaning over side walk, road and utility wires. Tree # 141— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 24"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Located to the corner of South West corner of Meadow up against fence. Bowed trunk significant lean North, causing damage to fence, threatening sidewalks, road and homes across street. The South West corner has many fallen and dead standing snags that should be removed. All the large Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) 24" diameter and greater have varying degrees of decay and decline. Tree # 142— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 41 "dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Many fractured limbs, over extended laterels to the South (direction of the School). Tree heavily weighted to the South. Evidence of many past limb failures. Top failed in prior storm causing tree to grow overextended lateral limbs. Hazard tree. Tree # 143— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 39"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: Suppressed by large Eucalyptus towering above. Leans slightly West and weighted to the West. Dead limbs in canopy. Trunk and root flare. Tree # 144— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 34"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Dead snag leaning to the South East. Wood has been degraded by fungus and prune to failure. If it fails it is not a hazard to the public. Tree # 145— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 28"dbh — Height Approx 85ft: Leans to North slight canopy decline evident by deadwood. Tree # 146— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 25"dbh — Height Approx 85ft: Significant lean to the East. Overextended limbs to the East. Tree # 147— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 34"dbh — Height Approx 120ft: One large over extended lateral at 75' growing to the South. Tree # 148— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Extreme can to South West. Very over extended large sections of dead wood. Low target value iffailure occurred due to the fact that it would not hit school yard or street. Tree # 149— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 22"dbh — Height Approx 901 Tall spindly tree. Canopy over extended to the South West. Tree # 150— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 75ft: This tree is 90% dead with rot and decay. Tree # 151— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Heavily over extended to the South West. Tree # 152— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 25ft: Lean angle to the South West. Tree # 153— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 20"dbh — Height Approx ft: Dead standing with decay and termites. Tree # 154— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 95ft: Slight imbalance to the South West towards School. Tree # 155— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 56"dbh — Height Approx 11 Oft: Over extended canopy to the South West in the direction of the School. Large dead hanging limb in canopy. Evidence of previous limb failures. Tree # 156— Monterey Cypress (Cupressus macrocarpa) — 44"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Thick dense canopy creating heavy sail effect. Evidence of many past branch failures. Trunkfissure around main stem indicates some decay present internally. Leans slightly North West. Tree # 157— Blackwood Acacia (Acacia decurrens) GROUP — 8.5" - 13"dbh range. — Approx 9 trees Height Approx 30ft: Some injury and decay present. Tree # 158— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 14"dbh — Height Approx 30ft: Straight balanced canopy structure by native Oaks. Tree # 159— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 70"dbh — Height Approx 120ft: Splits into three (3) stems at 12' above grade on the North side. One stem is approximately 18 "dbh and the other is 12 " dbh. The two (2) smaller stems are twisted and making contact. Tree is heavily weighted to the South. Tree # 160— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 66"dbh — Height Approx 150ft: Previously topped at approximately 25'40-50 years prior. Splits into two (2) stems. One measuring28 "-32 "diameter and one 16" stem. Tree # 161— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 30"dbh — Height Approx 60ft: Tall suppressed by surrounding trees. Significant lean to South East. Tree # 162— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 71 "dbh — Height Approx 25ft: Previously topped at 25', 40-50 years prior. Splits into three (3) stems. Slight lean to the South West. Recent work for utility line clearance. Co -dominant at 25'. Old topping cut at attachement of 20 "-22 "diameter stem. Tree # 163— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 58"dbh — Height Approx 150ft: Previously topped at 25', splits into 3 stems. One of the stems measuring approximately 12 "-14" diameter is dead and a hazard. The other two stems are potentially co -dominant and becoming embedded. The tree is overextended and weighted to the East. Tree # 164— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 51 "dbh — Height Approx 90ft: Heavily weighted to South. There is evidence of deadwood throughout canopy. Poor limb attachment at 80' up trunk at fork in branch. Tree # 165— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 31 "dbh — Height Approx 80ft: Leans to North. Recent pruning for line clearance. Tree # 166— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 66"dbh — Height Approx 150ft: Recent utility line clearance work. Leans to North West and is over extended to North West as well. Tree # 167— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) —18"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: Tall suppressed canopy by surrounding trees. There is evidence of deadwood throughout the canopy. Overextended to the North. Tree # 168— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 29"dbh —Height Approx 55ft: Top incurred some damage years ago or has not developed due to suppression of surrounding trees leans North. Tree # 169— Blue Gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) — 66"dbh — Height Approx 155ft: Forks at 16'-18' above grade. Attachment appears to be fairly sound. One stem measures 36"-40" diameter and the South stem measures 30"-36". South stem splits again at 30'. There is evidence of dead wood throughout canopy. Prior branch failures evident throughout canopy. Tree is heavily weighted to the South West. Tree # 170— Lemon Scented Gum (Corymbia citriodora) — 38"dbh — Height Approx 65ft: Short & stout leans slightly Tree # 171— California Bay Laurel (Umbelleria californica) — 60"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Advanced decay throughout stems and trunk. Monitor and prune regularly. Tree # 172— Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) — 22"dbh — Height Approx 45ft: Heavy lean to the South Tree # 173— California Bay Laurel (Umbelleria californica) — 75"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Decay present as usual with old Bay Laurels. Multiple stems off main trunk from 12' above grade to 30' above grade. Monitor annually and prune back large lateral over path to bridge on South side of canopy. Tree # 174— Deodar Cedar (Cedrus Deodara) — 24"dbh — Height Approx ft: Short and low canopy. Fairly well balanced crown. Tree # 175— California Bay Laurel (Umbelleria californica) — 16"dbh — Height Approx ft: Trunk decay originating at base near grade and up trunk all the way to the top along the West side of the trunk. Honey bee hive at 25' along the West side of the trunk. Tree # 176— California Bay Laurel (Umbelleria californica) — 16"dbh — Height Approx 46ft: Stump sprout. Decayed along West side starting out at soil line and moving up from stem to upper canopy. Hazard. Tree # 177— Liquidambar —16"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Tree # 178— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 28"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: No sign of disease Tree # 179— Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Slight decline. No disease present. Slight lean to South East. Tree # 180— Deodar Cedar (Cedrus Deodara) — 13"dbh — Height Approx 40ft: Tree # 181— Deodar Cedar (Cedrus Deodara) — 14"dbh — Height Approx ft: Leans to South slightly suppressed. Should be removed to allow room for surrounding trees. Tree # 182— Alleppo Pine (Pinus halepensis) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: Bifurcates at 25' Tree # 183— Deodar Cedar (Cedrus Deodara) — 20"dbh — Height Approx 50ft: Leans South East due to stand density and overcrowding. Tree # 184— 80"dbh — Height Approx 55ft: Multiple stems. Decay present throughout monitor by certified Arborist and prune as recommended. Report completed by: Kenneth A Bovero Marin County Arborists, Inc. Certified Arborist # 877 Eucl,lu PTtis TORTOISE BEETLES Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals Two species of eucalyptus leaf beetles from Australia, also called tortoise beetles (family Chrysomelidae), have been introduced into Califor- nia. Traehyinela sloanei was found in 1998 in Riverside County and now occurs throughout most areas of California where eucalyptus trees grow. Chrysophtharta m fusawt was discovered in Orange County in 2003 and has spread to at least four nearby counties. Notched eucalyptus leaves are usually the only obvious indication that trees are infested by tortoise beetles. Well- established and properly maintained eucalyptus appear to tolerate exten- sive leaf feeding. Thus, no tortoise beetle control is needed in many land- scape situations, despite the tattered appearance of leaves. Providing trees with a good growing environment and appropriate cultural care are usually the most important actions for keeping eucalyptus healthy. DAMAGE Adult beetles and larvae chew semicir- cular holes or irregular notches along edges of eucalyptus leaves (Fig. 1). The beetles can remove most of a leaf's surface, leaving only the midvein, and they occasionally feed on new termi- nal growth. Unsightly, tattered leaves are usually just an annoyance that does not appear to threaten eucalyp- tus survival or health. During heavy infestations, trees can lose most of their leaves, which increases tree stress. Although these beetles alone are not known to kill trees, their feeding adds to that of more than a dozen other new eucalyp- tus pests introduced into California during the last three decades. Com - BEST bined stress from multiple pests, espe- cially if growing conditions or tree care practices are not optimal, could eventually lead to tree death. Chrysophtharta ni friscum is a serious pest of commercially grown baby blue eucalyptus (Eucalyptus pulveruleiita). Baby blue, also called silverleaved mountain gum, is used as fresh cut foliage in flower arrangements, or it is dried, dyed, and sold in preserved arrangements. The eucalyptus species preferences of these tortoise beetles have not been well documented. However, certain tree species are apparently preferred or avoided by these beetles and other major eucalyptus pests, as summa- rized and compared in Table 1. IDENTIFICATION AND LIFE CYCLE The two species of tortoise beetles have similar biology and appearance. By comparison, Traclniiiiela sloanei adults are dark brown with blackish mottling, whereas Chrysophtharta ni- fuscum adults are lighter colored and gray to reddish brown. Adults of both species are hemispherical (like half a sphere) or rounded, about 1/4 to 3/8 inch long, and superficially resemble a large lady beetle. Female Trachyniela sloanei lay 5 to 40 or more eggs side by side on leaves or under loose bark. The eggs are pink- ish inkish or light brown at first and become orange or dark brown to purplish as they age. Female Chrysophtharta iii fus- cuni lay 1 to 40 or more eggs side by side or in an irregular group on leaves. Eggs are bright orange when laid and become dark brown before hatching. Figure 1. Eucalyptus tortoise beetle adults and larvae chew irregular notches along leaf edges. The larvae of both tortoise beetle spe- cies superficially resemble caterpillars (larvae of butterflies and moths) or larvae of sawflies but can be distin- guished by their appendages. Cater- pillars, larvae of leaf beetles (tortoise beetles) and sawflies all have three pairs of true jointed legs on their tho- rax. Caterpillars and sawfly larvae also have several pairs of prolegs (fleshy, round, leg -like protuberances) on their abdomen. By contrast, tortoise beetle A actual , size)Sf Figure 2. Trachyinela sloanei adult (left) and larva (right). OTES Publication 74104 University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources January 2009 January 2009 Table 1. Approximate Susceptibility of Eucalyptus (Gum) Species to Several Introduced Pests in California. Common name Eucalyptus Longhorned Redgum Tortoise (gum) species borers' lerp psyllidz beetles' Australian beech, polyanthemos — L L silver dollar baby blue, silverleaved pulverulenta — L° M5 mountain blue' globulus M I-1_4 M5 desert rudis — M I dollar leaf, silver dollar cinerea — L — flooded grandis I I M forest red tereticomis — M — gray ironbark paniculata — L — hybrid trabutii L — — Karri diversicolor M I — lemon citriodora L 1' L long flowered macandra — I — manna viminalis M 1 M5 mountain dalrympleana L — — narrow leaved spathulata — L — Nichol's willow leaved nicholii — I — red flowering ficifolia — L L red ironbark sideroxylon L I—L L river red camaldulensis L M M round leaved/red flowered platypus/nutans M I—L — shining niters M M-1 — silver crenulata — — L spotted maculata — —r L sugar cladocalyx L I—L — swamp mahogany robusta L L — Sydney blue saligna M L — white ironbark leucoxylon — I — — = information not available M = more or most susceptible I = intermediate susceptibility L = less or least susceptible or reportedly not attacked Longhorned borers = reported susceptibility to Phoracantha semipunctata, which is believed to be similar to the susceptibility to Phoracantha recurva. 2 Redgum lerp psyllid = Glycaspis brimblecombei. s Tortoise Beetles = based mostly on observations of Trachymela sloanei, except where footnoted #5. ^ Susceptible to bluegum psyllid (Ctenarytaina eucalypti), but this psyllid is generally under good biological control. s More or most susceptible to the Chrysophtharta m-fuscurn tortoise beetle. s Has become an invasive weed, others species may be better choices for planting. Susceptible to lemongum psyllid (Cryptoneossa triangula) and spottedgum lerp psyllid (Eucalyptolyma maiden). Adapted partly from: Brennan et al. 2001, Hanks et al. 1995. ♦ 2of5 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles larvae do not have any prologs on their abdomen (Fig. 2). Trachyntela sloanei larvae are dark green to reddish brown with a black head and prothoracic shield (black area on the top and sides of the first segment behind the head). Clirysophtttarta ni- f tscuin larvae are lighter greenish gray with a black head. Larval color in both species resembles that of host foli- age, camouflaging the larvae. Larvae develop through four immature stages before pupating beneath loose bark, or they drop from the canopy to pupate in the soil or litter around the base of host trees. During warm weather, development time from egg to adult may be as short as 5 weeks. There are several generations per year from late winter through fall. Tracltyinela sloanei larvae and adults hide under loose bark during the day and feed primarily at night. Also, they may be concentrated high in the tree, so determining the cause of damage may be difficult. If no leaf -feeding adults or larvae are observed on foli- age, search beneath loose bark where adults, egg masses, larvae, and pos- sibly pupae can be observed and col- lected for identification by your local county department of agriculture or University of California Cooperative Extension office. Adults and larvae of Cltrysophtltarta in fuscurn rest during the day on leaves, where they are easily overlooked because of their color and inactivity. The young larvae often occur in groups on leaves, but as they mature and feed more they disperse. Adults of both species are commonly snared in spider webbing under bark and in orb weaver spider webs. Another Leaf Cliewer—the Eucalyp- tus Snout Beetle. The tortoise beetles described above can readily be distin- guished from the only other eucalyp- tus leaf -chewing beetle in California, the eucalyptus snout beetle or gumtree weevil (Gonipterus scutellatus). Euca- lyptus snout beetle adults are reddish brown weevils. Their elongated head and mouthparts (their "snout"), are January 2009 apparent when they are viewed from the front or side. The legless snout beetle larvae are yellowish green with a slimy coating. Young snout beetle larvae feed by scraping leaf surfaces, leaving discolored trails of tissue and causing elongated holes in the center of leaves. This feeding pattern (surface scraping and holes) by young snout beetle larvae is distinctly different from the leaf -edge notching caused by tortoise and leaf beetles or by older snout beetle larvae, which chew the margins of leaves and consume large, irregular patches of leaf tissue. Eucalyptus snout beetles are uncom- mon in California, because it is under good biological control from an egg parasite (Anaphes niters) introduced by University of California scientists. Where this weevil is newly intro- duced, a temporary outbreak may occur. Avoid applying pesticides and tolerate snout beetle leaf damage until the population of natural enemies increases enough to provide biological control. From then on, the snout beetle should not be a problem. MANAGEMENT Eucalyptus trees are attacked by sev- eral other types of insects, including eucalyptus longhorned borers, several psyllids, and more innocuous species such as the lemongum gall wasp (Epi- chrysocharis burwellii). For more infor- mation on these pests, see the Pest Notes listed in References. Some euca- lyptus insects are now under good biological control, including eucalyp- tus snout beetle, bluegum psyllid (Cte- narytaina eucalypti), and (increasingly at least in Southern California) the redgum lerp psyllid. Learn how man- agement efforts may affect these intro- duced pests before taking any actions against these leaf -feeding beetles (See sidebar.). Provide trees with good cul- tural care and avoid actions that are harmful to the natural enemies of any of these eucalyptus pests. Cultural Control Minimize tree stress by providing eucalyptus trees with proper cultural care and protecting them from injury. Depending on the situation, consider providing trees with supplemental water during periods of prolonged drought, such as during summer and fall in much of California. Some eucalyptus species are drought toler- ant, but others require supplemental moisture. If irrigating, avoid the frequent, shallow watering that is often used for lawns. A general recom- mendation is to irrigate eucalyptus trees infrequently (possibly once a month during drought periods) but with sufficient amounts so the water penetrates deeply into the soil (1 foot or more below the surface). This can be achieved by applying water slowly through drip emitters that run con- tinuously for several days. In areas without an established irrigation sys- tem, a water tank truck can be used to temporarily flood soil. However, avoid prolonged waterlogging, espe- cially around the root crown, because eucalyptus trees are susceptible to pathogens that cause Armillaria root rot and Phytophthora root rot, which are favored by wet soils. The spe- cific amount and frequency of water needed vary greatly depending on the site and tree species. In addition, if a tree has been irrigated regularly, avoid prolonged interruptions to watering, particularly during the summer when insect pests are most active. Avoid fertilizing eucalyptus. Succu- lent new shoot growth stimulated by excess nitrogen can increase the popu- lation and damage of eucalyptus -feed- ing psyllids. Eucalyptus in landscapes rarely require nitrogen fertilization for good growth. A six-year study of river red gum found no significant effect on tree size or survival due to annual nitrogen application. If other plants within the drip line of the tree require fertilization, use slow-release nutrient formulations. Pest -Resistant Eucalyptus. If planting eucalyptus, choose species that are well adapted to the location, including tolerance to the prevailing moisture conditions. Although certain eucalyp- tus trees are drought tolerant, other species are adapted to more moist conditions. It may not be apparent that eucalyptus trees are stressed due ♦ 3of5 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles to drought or other factors until trees become affected by additional dam- aging influences, such as abundant insects. Be aware that a few species such as blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus) have become invasive and other spe- cies may be better choices for planting. Consult Table 1 for a list of the approx- imate susceptibility of eucalyptus species to tortoise beetles, longhorned borers, and psyllids. Biological Control Eucalyptus tortoise beetles are not normally pests in their native home of Australia except in cultivated stands; presumably natural enemies there keep beetle populations low. During a period of several years, University of California scientists introduced an egg parasite (Enoggera reticulata), originally from Australia, into Califor- nia in an effort to control Tracltyntela sloanei. This tiny wasp searches under eucalyptus bark and in cracks and fis- sures, laying its eggs in tortoise beetle eggs. The parasite larva feeds inside and kills the egg and, after pupating, emerges as an adult to seek and attack more beetle eggs. However, the parasite has not been recovered during field surveys in California, indicating the species probably has not become established. To date, no biological control research has been conducted for the newer pest, Chrysoplttharta m fuscum. The parasite Enoggera reticulata did establish and control another eucalyptus tortoise beetle species in South Africa, and several other eucalyptus pests have been controlled in California using introduced parasites. Chemical Control There is no published research con- ducted in landscapes on pesticide effectiveness for controlling eucalyp- tus tortoise beetles. Based on studies of these pests in field nurseries and eucalyptus stands, long–term con- trol can be achieved by a soil drench application of the systemic neonicoti- noid insecticides imidacloprid (Merit or Bayer Advanced 12 -month Tree & Shrub Insect Control) or clothianidin (Arena—for commercial applicators January 2009 only). Foliar sprays of broad-spec- trum insecticides such as the carba- mate carbaryl (Sevin) or pyrethroids, including cyfluthrin (Tempo) and permethrin (Astro, Dragnet), are not recommended for eucalyptus in landscapes because of concerns about drift, runoff into water, and toxicity to natural enemies. In comparison with these contact sprays, systemic neonic- otinoid insecticides can be more effec- tive and provide longer -lasting control, although they can take several weeks after application before they become effective. Eucalyptus trees are often very large and difficult to treat in landscapes. Many eucalyptus trees are stressed from other problems, and tree stress can reduce pesticide effectiveness as well as increase a tree's sensitivity to damage by the pesticide (called phy- totoxicity). If insect damage cannot be tolerated and pesticides must be applied, make sure trees are receiving good cultural care before making a pesticide application. Systemic Insecticides. These insecti- cides are absorbed by plants (such as through roots) and move to the plant parts where pests feed. The systemic insecticide imidacloprid is avail- able to both professional applicators (Imicide, Merit) and home gardeners (Bayer Advanced 12 -month Tree & Shrub Insect Control). Soil applica- tions and tree injections (if labeled for these methods of application) mini- mize environmental contamination. The home -use product is relatively easy to apply to soil; it is measured into a bucket, diluted with water, and poured onto soil near trunks, as directed on the label. Limit any treatments to situations where damage is intolerable or pests threaten tree survival. Most pesticides are at least somewhat harmful to beneficial predators or parasites. Imi- dacloprid applied to flowering plants or the soil beneath thein may move to nectar and poison the nectar -feeding adult parasites, which during their larval stage partially or completely control other pests. Be aware that imi- Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles IPM for Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles Combine several practices in an Integrated Pest Management program to prevent damage from tortoise beetles and other pest insects on eucalyptus: ✓ Choose well -adapted eucalyptus species. ✓ Deep -water drought -stressed trees with drip hoses. Avoid sprinkler irrigation. ✓ If pruning is necessary, prune in December or January to avoid borer attacks to freshly cut limbs. ✓ Don't fertilize trees. Fertilizing increases damage from psyllids, weakening trees. ✓ Use pesticides rarely and always as a last resort. Most tortoise beetle infestations do not require pesticide treatments, and pesticides disrupt biological control of other pests. dacloprid application may contribute to outbreaks of spider mites and other pests. When using systemic insecticides, whenever possible consider making a soil application instead of spray- ing foliage or injecting or implanting trees. Injecting or implanting trunks or roots injures trees, and it is difficult to repeatedly place insecticide at the proper depth. Especially avoid meth- ods that cause large wounds, such as implants placed in holes drilled in trunks. Do not implant or inject roots or trunks more than once a year. Based on use against other pests, the most effective time to apply imida- cloprid on or into soil beneath trees is late winter to early spring, just before or soon after new leaves emerge and before the end of California's rainy season. Make an application before ♦ 4 of 5 • J rainfall, or follow the application with irrigation. Efficacy is delayed until sometime after application. Because pesticide recommendations, registrations, labels, and products change regularly, check current prod- uct labels or contact the University of California Cooperative Extension in your county for the most current recommendations on the use of insec- ticides. January 2009 REFERENCES Bethke, J. A. 2007 Cltrysophtltarta con- trol. CAPCA Advisor. June 2007 Vol. X (3): 20, 53. Bethke, J. A. 2007. Minimizing damage to fresh cut eucalyptus. CORF News. Summer 2007. Vol. 11(1): 7. Brennan, E. B., G. F. Hrusa, S. A. Wein- baum, and W. Levison. 2001. Resis- tance of Eucalyptus species to Glycaspis brimblecombei (Homoptera: Psyllidae) in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pan - Pacific Entomologist 77.249-253. Garrison, R. W. 1998. New Agricul- tural Pest for Southern California: Australian Tortoise Beetle, Tracltyntela sloanei. El Monte, CA: Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture. For more information contact the University of California Cooperative Extension in your county. See your telephone directory for addresses and phone numbers. AUTHORS: J. G. Millar, Entomology, UC Riverside; T. D. Paine, Entomology, UC Riv- erside; J. A. Bethke, UC Cooperative Exten- sion, San Diego Co.; R. W. Garrison, Calif. Dept. of Food & Agric.; K. A. Campbell, En- tomology, UC Riverside; and S. H. Dreistadt, UC Statewide IPM Program, Davis TECHNICAL EDITOR: M. L. Flint COORDINATIONAND PRODUCTION: P. N. Galin and M. L. Fayard ILLUSTRATIONS: Fig. 1: S. H. Dreistadt; Fig. 2: R. W. Garrison 1998; Table 1: Adapted partly from Brennan et al. 2001 and Hanks eta[. 1995. Produced by UC Statewide IPM Program, University of California, Davis, CA 95616 This Pest Note is available on the World Wide Web (www.ipm.ucdavis.edu) UC+IPIM PEER This publication has been anonymously peer reviewed for technical accuracy by University of California scientists and other qualified profession- als. This review process was managed by the ANR Associate Editor for Urban Pest Management. To simplify information, trade names of products have been used. No endorsement of named products is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products that are not mentioned. This material is partially based upon work supported by the Extension Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, under special project Section 3(d), Available online, http://acwm.co.1a. ca.us/pdf/AustralianTortoiseBeetle eng_pdf.pdf Hanks, L. M., T. D. Paine, J. G. Millar, and J. L. Hom. 1995. Variation among Eucalyptus species in resistance to Eucalyptus longhorned borer in south- ern California. Entomologia Experimen- talis et Applicata 74:185-194. Paine, T. D,, D. L. Dal-dsten, J. G. Millar, M. S. Hoddle, and L. M. Hanks. 2000. UC scientists apply IPM techniques to new eucalyptus pests. Calif. Agric. 54 (6): 8-13. Paine, T. D., S. H. Dreistadt, R. W. Gar- rison, and R. Gill. 2006. Pest Notes: Eucalyptus Redgunt Lerp Psyllid. Oak- land: akland: Univ. Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7460. Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles Paine, T. D., and S. H. Dreistadt. 2007 Pest Notes: Psyllids. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7423. Paine, T. D., J. G. Millar, and S. H. Dreistadt. 2000. Pest Notes: Eucalyp- tus Longhorned Borers. Oakland: Univ. Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7425. von Ellenrieder, N. 2003. Eucalyptus leaf beetle (Chrysoplttharta m fuscum). Arcadia, Calif.: Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture. Avail- able online, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/ phpps/ppd/PDF/Chrysophtharta_m- fuscum.pdf -.*- WARNING WARNING ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS Pesticides are poisonous. Always read and carefully follow all precautions and safety recommendations given on the container label. Store all chemicals in the original labeled containers in a locked cabinet or shed, away from food or feeds, and out of the reach of children, unauthorized persons, pets, and livestock. Pesticides applied in your home and landscape can move and contaminate creeks, rivers, and oceans. Confine chemicals to the property being treated. Avoid drift onto neighboring properties, especially gardens containing fruits or vegetables ready to be picked. Do not place containers containing pesticide in the trash or pour pesticides down sink or toilet. Either use the pesticide according to the label or take unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection site. Contact your county agricultural commissioner for additional information on safe container disposal and for the location of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection site nearest you. Dispose of empty containers by following label directions. Never reuse or burn the containers or dispose of them in such a manner that they may contaminate water supplies or natural waterways. The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition (cancer -related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizen- ship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, applica- tion for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimi- nation or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University's nondiscrimination policies may be directed to the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Director, University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096. ♦ 5of5 CHERYL DOUGLAS P.O. Box 150336 SAN RAFAEL, CA 94915 July 14, 2011 Design Review Board City of San Rafael San Rafael, CA 94901 Dear Members of the Board, As a long time resident of the Dominican Black Canyon Neighborhood, I'm writing to ask that you look at some of our concerns about the proposals for the new Athletic Field project at Dominican University. In talking about the project in the last few weeks, neighbors brought up two issues more than any others. Trees and Landscaping The first is the future of the large trees and green screening that constitutes our daily experience of this neighborhood and of Forest Meadows. People are upset that the existing big trees will all be removed. While we understand why these particular trees are being removed, people want to see that truly tall trees constitute their replacements, and that the landscaping outside the fence, along the heavily used sidewalks, is layered and full. Amphitheater The second was their concern that improving the amphitheater does not seem to be a part of this project. Marin Shakespeare performances have been an important annual experience for the neighbors and the Marin community at large for decades. Our parents took us as children, and now we take our own children and their grandparents. Above all other events at the university, it is the Marin Shakespeare plays and classes that bring us onto the DU campus. We urge the University to use this project as the stimulus to make at least some minimal improvements to that part of the site, e.g. restore a sound and wind barrier at the back of the theater, and make improvements to the dusty seating. The proposed tree removal will make the sound and wind issues even greater than they are already. Lighting, Noise and Traffic Other questions included those about off-site light spillage and requests for the lowest light levels possible as needed for safety (we like our dark night skies), and concerns about traffic and noise issues arising from use by non -university groups. Will use by groups other than those directly connected to Dominican University trigger revisiting existing DU agreements with the neighborhood and the City? We look forward to seeing the revised plans at the DRB meeting on July 19. Sincerely, Cheryl Douglas Exhibit 3