The URL can be used to link to this page

09-02-20 574 S. Glassell Street - Park Plaza Memory Care (DRC 4973-19)AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE September 2, 2020 TO: THRU: FROM: CHAIR SKORPANICH AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Directo� Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner� 1. SUBJECT 2. SUMMARY 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION G i () Zg las L B (-) E Dv q i d l U N 8-19 Mj Rv 02-1,E R N 866-9 Dsg i (D)j v My 20 2020 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION T i str -0 1 q ry iy D f h rj : •C h h r •C x e g •y w •c d ry p DRC ITEM 3.\ 1 09/02/2020 5. EXISTING SITE 6. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT 7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES 0,D i i 5 : rt p j w qly DRCITEM.3.J_ 2 09/02/2020 8. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION 9. PUBLIC NOTICE -h 10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Ne E Q 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS Th c "" k k k y "k y (,y DRCITEM_M_ 3 09/02/2020 • The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.F.3). acade he f b t bk,l! t 12. CONDITIONS e 1.T proje a A be mainie o t DRC ITEM 3.\ 4 09/02/2020 13. ATTACHMENTS A P 8 R L 8 4 Ac O H DRC ITEM _aJ_ 5 09/02/2020 c. Site Comparison Diagram d. Lobby Interior Design e. Concrete Paver Detail f. Stone technical specifications g. Paver Loading White Paper 5. Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Protected Tree Report dated 7 /7 /2020 6. Carlberg Associates Supplemental Tree Assessment dated 8/6/2020 7. Staff Report and Minutes from the 5/20/2020 Design Review Committee Meeting 8. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1866-19 (Available on City website or by request by calling 714-744-7220) N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Conditional Use Permits\CUP 3085-19 Park Plaza Memory Care DRC ITEM ;.1 6 09/02/2020 Vicinity Map DRC No. 4973-19 Park Plaza Memory Care 57 4 S. Glassell Street 574 620 ORANGE = CONTRIBUTING HISTORIC RESOURCE YELLOW= NON-CONTRIBUTING RESOURCE CITY OF ORANGE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ATIACHMENT NO. 1 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE VICINITY MAP Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting ATTACHMENT NO. 2 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE UPDATED ARCHITECTURAL PLANS (DATE STAMPED 08/11/20) Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 2020 ATTACHMENT NO. 3 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE REVISED LANDSCAPE PLANS (DATE STAMPED 08/11/20) Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting August 10, 2020 Kelly Ribuffo City of Orange Community Development 300 E. Chapman Avenue Orange, CA 92866 Re: Design Review No. 4973-19; 574 S. Glassell Street (Park Plaza Memory Care) Dear Kelly, Since the DRC meeting (held via Zoom) on May 20, 2020, we have had ample time to review and respond to the concerns addressed by the Committee members. During this time, Kisco Senior Living hired an independent arborist, Christy Cuba of Carlberg Associates, to visit the site, review and assess the original report by Evergreen Consultants, Inc., and develop their own recommendations. The Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 has been provided for your review. The most current arborist report by Evergreen Consultants, Inc. dated July 7, 2020 has been provided as the original submittal was an older outdated version of the report. Please find below our response to DRC’s final minutes dated June 24, 2020. 1. Where are the boundaries of the Historic District in relation to the property? Response: As shown on the Map of Old Towne Historic Districts from the City’s Historic Preservation Design Standards document (page 12) that can be found on the City’s website, the Project Site is located to the west of the Historic District. Additionally, the DRC is referred to page 20 of the MND that also notes the context of the Project Site in relation to the Historic District and other historic resources nearby (Exhibit A). The Project Site, while not located within the boundaries of the Old Towne Historic District, is directly across the street from structures within the Old Towne Historic District. Also, Hart Park, across the street and just to the south, is located within the boundaries of the Old Towne Historic District. 2. Clarification on the building colors. Response: The elevations have been revised to include all paint colors and the material board has been updated to match the elevations. Updated elevations and color/material board have been provided (See Exhibit B). ATTACHMENT NO. 4 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE APPLICANT RESPONSE TO COMMENTS W/ ATTACHMENTS A-G Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting 3. Clarification on tree count, landscape features and how specific trees were selected. Response: Tree calculation plan (LP-1A) has been added. Landscape Design/plant selections based mainly for their drought tolerant/low water used plants with region’s climate’s appropriateness in mind. Tall and Topiary shaped trees added next to bldg. and driveway so tree’s canopy will not fully blocked the bldg. and branches will not encroached onto the Driveway/Fire lane which have certain clearance requirement. (See revised Landscape Plans) 4. Preservation of the Moreton Bay Fig tree and which mitigation measures have been applied to protect it during construction and post construction. Response: The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020, and the Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 include recommendations for protection and preservation of the Moreton Bay fig during and post construction. 5. Michael Green, arborist for the applicant, provided an explanation of how he conducted his analysis of his overall evaluation of the health, depth, and root structure. Response: The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020 provides additional information and analysis. 6. The Committee is concerned about the removal of the pine trees and the intermingling of roots in the area. Especially, placing enhanced paving within the drip zone, which is the most vital support piece of the Moreton bay Fig. Response: The Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 includes recommendations for careful removal of the two silk oak trees, including the roots that may be intermingled. The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020 provides a calculation of the root area that will be impacted by the replacement of the project driveway. The calculated area is 15% of the overall canopy area. The area of impact is currently paved with asphalt, as is the church driveway immediately to the north of the project property line. Sidewalk and street paving exists to the east of the tree trunk, as well, and has been present for decades. As indicated in the arborist reports through discussion and photographs, there does not appear to be significant surface rooting from the Moreton Bay fig under the existing project site driveway. The driveway and property line wall are not displaced, cracked, or buckled. Replacement of the existing project driveway with a new paving stone driveway will essentially keep the root zone impacts the same as they are currently. Recommendations in the two arborist reports will provide for monitoring and protection of the Moreton Bay fig canopy and root zone that is beneath proposed driveway base during construction. 7. The Committee asked for clarification on the demo process and replacing the pavement in that area; will there be permeable paving, and a cross-section by the landscape architect to show how water can still infiltrate the area. Response: The July 7, 2020 Evergreen Protected Tree Report and the Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 include recommendations for the demolition process under the Monterey pine and Moreton Bay fig. The new paving system will be impermeable due to a shallow clay soil layer that will prevent the vertical infiltration of stormwater. See the Geotechnical report for additional information. New irrigation will be placed in the planter planned next to the north property line wall. Irrigation is expected to infiltrate under the driveway to some extent. 8. Did the applicant consider placing the entry of the project on the south side which would lessen and completely remove impacts to the Moreton bay Fig; placing the public outdoor space to the north, which would provide more shading for seniors and have less of a privacy impact on the Holy Family edge. Response: Prior to developing a site plan, several design goals and objectives were identified to aid in the design process, help optimize the site and ensure the safety of the Moreton Bay Fig tree. These goals have been identified below and in Exhibit C: Considerations taken during the site design process: a. We believe it is important to follow the historic design pattern of the site to reduce any impact to the Moreton Bay Fig tree. The original Yen Ching Restaurant with its parking and driveway located to the north of the property has been in existence for over 40 years without having negative impacts to the Moreton Bay fig tree. By maintaining the driveway in the same location, we are maintaining the footprint that has existed for many years thereby minimizing the overall impact and disturbance to the site and the Moreton Bay fig tree. The proposed senior residential use will have significantly less traffic than previously seen by the original restaurant use further reducing the impact to the Moreton Bay fig. b. We believe it is important to celebrate the historic Moreton Bay Fig Tree. By having the canopy of the Moreton Bay fig tree at the entrance to the community, we would be highlighting and celebrating the importance and significance of the tree without turning our back to it. From the Lobby and the residential units, the tree could be admired from afar and serve as a prominent entry feature for arriving residents and guests. c. Limit building deepened footings in the general vicinity of the tree. Moving the building to the north side of the property would greatly impact the tree with both the massing of the building and the deepened footings necessary to support the building. The building would need to shift further west to avoid the dripline, creating a negative ripple effect on several necessary programmatic elements and City Building and Fire code requirements: 1. A fire access road would not have direct access to the building along the northern and western facades. 2. Parking would be reduced, no longer meeting the minimum requirement necessary to support the community and per City requirements. 3) The service/loading zone would need to be placed along the street-facing, the eastern edge of the property. d. Being a good neighbor. Creating greater distance between the proposed building and the existing church home would limit the impact to our neighbor. Having the courtyard and residential units in close proximity to the property line would reduce the privacy and increase the noise levels for our neighbor. e. Safety for the residents, visitors, and staff. Because this will be a continuum of care community, residents, staff and visitors alike will be utilizing both buildings. Having a pedestrian connection is vital to the operations of the community. Having to traverse a driveway on a daily basis would not only make it more challenging for residents and staff but it would create an unnecessary hazard for the community as a whole. Based on the operations and functionality of senior housing, we believe the proposed plan is the best organization for the site. 9. Clarification from the arborist on why he chose impermeable pavers. Response: The use of pavers was discussed at length between the arborist, geotech consultant, civil engineer, landscape architect, architect and Owner and it was determined that impermeable pavers would be best suited for the site and in reducing the impact on the Moreton Bay fig tree for the following reasons: 1. The site is generally underlain by a clay layer at approximately 5 to 10 feet below grade. Surface water is not likely to infiltrate into the clay layer but is more likely to travel on top of the clay and spread through paths of least resistance such as aggregate base course and utility trenches. Depending on the quantity, the water may travel quite a distance and there is potential for the water to show up somewhere else, such as in elevator pits and utility vaults. 2. The current driveway and parking lot is asphalt (an impervious material) which has not impacted the Moreton Bay fig tree. By using impervious pavers, we would maintain the same level of water infiltration the tree roots have been accustomed to for over 40+ years. 3. A detail of the Acker-stone concrete paver has been provided by PLSA, the civil engineering firm (See Exhibit E). A geogrid system is being proposed to possibly reduce the depth of required compaction. 4. We reached out to Acker-Stone and confirmed the use of a geogrid system to be an acceptable product when used in conjunction with the Acker-Stone pavers. (See Exhibit F for paver technical sheet). 5. In addition, the proposed paver will meet Fire Department truck loading requirements. (See Exhibit G) 6. See Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 for additional information. 10. Finding a solution that is compliant with CEQA. Response: Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 in the MND (as amended by an update to the Protected Tree Report, dated July 7, 2020, and as bolstered by the Supplemental Tree Assessment, dated August 6, 2020) comply with CEQA. 11. There should not be any crossing of the drip line with heritage trees. Response: All new underground utilities are being routed around the drip line. All existing utilities that are not being used will be capped and abandoned to avoid disturbing the existing condition. 12. The arborist report for site grading and improvements states “all trenching, scraping, compaction, grading, excavation etc. shall be avoided.” How does the architect propose to build the project and meet all the requirements? Response: The Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 includes recommendations for the demolition and construction process under the Monterey pine and Moreton Bay fig. 13. What reasoning did the geotechnical engineer use to recommend impervious paving? Response: The use of pavers was discussed at length between the arborist, geotech consultant, civil engineer, landscape architect, architect and Owner and it was determined that impermeable pavers would be best suited for the site and in reducing the impact on the Moreton Bay fig tree for the following reasons: 1. The site is generally underlain by a clay layer at approximately 5 to 10 feet below grade. Surface water is not likely to infiltrate into the clay layer but is more likely to travel on top of the clay and spread through paths of least resistance such as aggregate base course and utility trenches. Depending on the quantity, the water may travel quite a distance and there is potential for the water to show up somewhere else, such as in elevator pits and utility vaults. 2. The current driveway and parking lot is asphalt (an impervious material) which has not impacted the Moreton Bay fig tree. By using impervious pavers, we would maintain the same level of water infiltration the tree roots have been accustomed to for over 40+ years. 3. A detail of the Acker-stone concrete paver has been provided by PLSA, the civil engineering firm (See Exhibit E). A geogrid system is being proposed to possibly reduce the depth of required compaction. 4. We reached out to Acker-Stone and confirmed the use of a geogrid system to be an acceptable product when used in conjunction with the Acker-Stone pavers. (See Exhibit F for paver technical sheet). 5. In addition, the proposed paver will meet Fire Department truck loading requirements. (See Exhibit G) 6. See Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 for additional information. 14. Concerns about lighting at the upper windows of the entry and the potential for views of the light source. Response: Per the attached exhibit, there will be a suspended cross pattern ceiling with coved lighting. The only lighting that will be visible will be decorative pendant lights in the stairwell. (See Exhibit D) 15. Can the drive aisle be placed between the two buildings on the south property line? Response: Please see response to item #8 above. 16. The project still looks too institutional. Response: The project was designed to complement the existing community which is a 1980’s postmodern design. Because the new building will be an extension of the existing community by offering a continuum of care, we felt it important to have some relationship to the existing building without replicating the existing design. We also looked at the surrounding neighborhood to ensure consistency with the use of materials, color and scale. The proposed building also meets all City’s design standards. 17. Project does not embrace Old Towne and Hart Park and does not address historical characteristics of the neighborhood. Response: The Project’s relationship to the Historic District and Hart Park were in fact taken into consideration in the design of the Project and was addressed in the MND. The DRC is referred to the text on pages 20 and 21 of the MND that reads as follows: (c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality? The Project Site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is currently developed with a restaurant building, surface parking, and ornamental landscaping. As discussed in response to Checklist Question 4(a) (Cultural Resources – Historical Resources), the existing restaurant building on the Project Site (constructed in 1962) is not considered a significant historical resource under CEQA. The Project Site, while not located within the boundaries of the Old Towne Historic District, is directly across the street from structures within the Old Towne Historic District. Also, Hart Park, across the street and just to the south, is located within the boundaries of the Old Towne Historic District. The Project Site containing the restaurant building was initially developed at a time when the surrounding neighborhood was already in transition. In the 1960s, along Glassell Street, there were single-family residences and institutional buildings and sites, such as the Holy Family Cathedral School and Hart Park, that were built in the 1930s, and still extant orange groves to the west of the Project Site. In the mid-century, as the local population boomed, new infill, single-family residences were constructed among existing homes. By the late 1960s, Glassell Street became a major thoroughfare to on-ramps for the new Garden Grove Freeway (State Route 22). Since that time, the Project Site area has continued to evolve. Historic aerial photographs reveal that the neighborhood in which the Project Site is located underwent substantial redevelopment between the 1960s and 1990s. By 1986, a multi-story senior-living community residence was built adjacent to the south of the Project Site on the previous site of a miniature golf course that had been associated with the restaurant building on the Project Site. All of this development contributed to a change in character within the immediate neighborhood. While modern in appearance, the Project is designed to blend visually into the setting of this transitional neighborhood and still provide a glimpse back to what the Project Site area once was. The proposed building has not been designed to replicate any historic building type, but has instead been designed to complement the surrounding neighborhood in mass, scale, appearance and material type. The two-story scale of the building is in keeping with the many buildings in the nearby Old Towne Historic District. Additionally, the use of materials such as plaster, stone and siding can be found on structures throughout the surrounding areas, and the use of aluminum storefront and entry canopy compliments the many buildings within The Plaza. The locally designated historic tree located adjacent to the Project Site would be protected and preserved and would provide additional visual connection to the remaining historic elements such as Hart Park and the nearby Old Towne Historic District. The Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Element of the City’s General Plan describes that part of the overall vision for the future of the City requires that “[t]he City will build upon existing assets to create a living, active, and diverse environment that compliments all lifestyles and enhances neighborhoods, without compromising the valued resources that make Orange unique.” Additionally, one of the stated goals of the Cultural Resources & Historic Preservation Element is to protect neighborhood character. The Project’s design, as proposed, would achieve both these goals. The existing zoning for the Project Site is C-1 (Limited Business), which allows development and operation of a memory care facility on the Project Site with a Conditional Use Permit (CUP), as is being requested by the Project Applicant. At a height of 32 feet and two stories, the proposed building is consistent with the heights of the buildings located adjacent to the Project Site to the south and north. Additionally, because the Project would be associated with the existing senior living facility to the south of the Project Site, the Project would complement the surrounding area more than the existing restaurant building. Further, the Project would be subject to the City’s Design Review process, which would ensure that the Project would comply with the City’s applicable design standards. Thus, the Project would not conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, Project impacts related to scenic quality regulations would be less than significant. 18. The project is hard edged and does not address the heritage tree. Response: Please see response to item #8 and #16 above. 19. The architecture is not specifically designed for this context; it could be found anywhere. Response: Please see response to item #16 above. 20. The Committee is not convinced that the analysis of the landscape for this project will save the tree. Response: The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020 provides a calculation of the root area that will be impacted by the replacement of the project driveway. The calculated area is 15% of the overall canopy area. The area of impact is currently paved with asphalt, as is the church driveway immediately to the north of the project property line. Sidewalk and street paving exists to the east of the tree trunk, as well, and has been present for decades. As indicated in the arborist reports through discussion and photographs, there does not appear to be significant surface rooting from the Moreton Bay fig under the existing project site driveway. The driveway and property line wall are not displaced, cracked, or buckled. Replacement of the existing project driveway with a new paving stone driveway will essentially keep the root zone impacts the same as they are currently. Recommendations in the two arborist reports will provide for monitoring and protection of the Moreton Bay fig canopy and root zone that is beneath proposed driveway base during construction. New irrigation will be placed in the planter planned next to the north property line wall where one does not exist now. Irrigation is expected to infiltrate under the driveway to some extent. This will supplement the irrigation that the tree receives from the planters on the church property. 21. There is no sense of the landscaping, bulk and mass of the proposed project, where it falls and what is allowed. Response: sheet LP-1A was added to show the tree calculation. The number of trees have been replaced as well. Please see sheet LP-1 and LP-1A for new selections/ calculation table. Landscape Design/plant selections based mainly for their drought tolerant/low water use plants with region’s climate’s appropriateness in mind. Tall and topiary shaped trees added next to the bldg. and driveway so tree’s canopy will not fully block the bldg. and branches will not encroached onto the driveway/fire lane which have certain clearance requirement. 22. The proposed trees are too small in terms of their projected mature size. Response: The trees along the entry driveway aisle have been replaced. Taller, large and more topiary shaped trees are being proposed. The topiary shape will ensure the larger trees can be accommodated within the limited landscape area, reduce the need for tree maintenance and ensure the proper fire access road clearances, as required by the Fire Department, are met. The size at maturity of all trees has also been added for reference. 23. Concerns about scraping and digging to repave within the historic heritage tree’s root zone. Response: The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020, and the Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 include recommendations for protection and preservation of the Moreton Bay fig during and post construction. These include prohibiting the use of heavy equipment, use of hand tools, and directions for treatment of roots that need to be cut and treatment of any exposed roots to remain. Potholing in one area under the Moreton Bay fig revealed only fine roots, and very few of those. The existing condition of the driveway for the church, the property line wall, the sidewalk, the landscape curb along the church driveway, and the curb along Glassell are not buckling, heaving, cracking or displaced. This indicates that the larger roots are not immediately under the pavement. Monitoring during demolition of the existing driveway will record the root conditions and the project arborist will be able to guide decisions about root pruning and compaction with the contractor. Both arborists independently assessed the existing conditions and the proposed impacts to the Moreton Bay fig and concur that, with implementation of the recommendations in their reports, the impacts related to renovating an existing driveway on 15% of the Moreton Bay fig’s tree protection zone will be less than significant. 24. An optional site plan was not considered to address the historic tree. Response: Please see response to item #8 above. 25. If the project gets built as proposed, it will affect a historic tree that can never be replaced. Response: The Evergreen Protected Tree Report dated July 7, 2020, and the Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 include recommendations for protection and preservation of the Moreton Bay fig during and post construction. Both arborists independently assessed the existing conditions and the proposed impacts to the Moreton Bay fig and concur that, with implementation of the recommendations in their reports, the impacts related to renovating an existing driveway on 15% of the Moreton Bay fig’s tree protection zone will be less than significant. 26. The Committee is not convinced that the project can be built and still adhere to all the design guidelines and restrictions in the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Response: This comment expresses an opinion about the Project. However, the comment does not address the sufficiency of the MND in identifying and analyzing the possible impacts on the environment and ways in which the significant effects of the Project might be avoided or mitigated. 27. The Committee would benefit from a more integrated recommendation from the geotechnical engineer, arborist and landscape architect. Response: The project team, including the geotechnical engineer, landscape architect, the architect, and the two arborists, along with the Applicant, held numerous meetings and correspondence regarding the driveway design and ways to reduce impacts to the Moreton Bay fig tree. They reviewed and discussed the following documents when coming to conclusions about the feasibility of the new driveway: · the two Evergreen Protected Tree Reports · the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1866-19, dated May 2020 (CAJA Environmental Services, LLC) · the site plan (Shelter, LLP) · the landscape plans (SQLA Incorporated) · the geotechnical engineer’s email comments on the proposed paving system (Leighton Group) · the civil/utility plans and email comments on paving system design and the northerly adjacent sidewalk, drive apron, and curb and gutter work (Pasco, Laret, Suiter & Associates) · the Ackerstone Holland I (8cm) impervious paver stone system specifications The Supplemental Tree Assessment by Carlberg Associates dated August 6, 2020 includes recommendations for protection and preservation of the Moreton Bay fig during and post construction based on those conversations and meetings. • 12 MAP OF OLD TOWNE HISTORIC DISTRICTS Maps of the Old Towne historic districts are also available on the Historic Preservation page of the City website: www.cityoforange.org. 16 March 2020 Park Plaza Expansion 574 S Glassell St Orange, California 92866 2. Exterior Cement Plaster Color 2 1. Exterior Cement Plaster Color 13. Cementitious Board Siding 4. Cultured Stone Veneer Arcadia #85 Black AB-8Arcadia #88 Standard Dark Bronze AB-7Dark Bronze AB-6Standard Medium Bronze AB-5Arcadia #11 Clear AC-2Medium Bronze AB-4Light Bronze AB-3Champagne AB-2Light Champagne AB-1© ColornodicAnodized Aluminum5. Aluminum Storefront Window Frames, Vinyl Window Color, Sim12345 Color and Materials Board 6. Accent Color SW Otter 6 8. Roof Mech Screen Seawolf Gray 7. Trellis Color SW Extra White SW 2835 Craftsman Brown SW 7710 Brandywine SW 7012 Creamy Arcadia Standard Medium Bronze El Dorado Stone - European Ledge Linen 5 PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE 08.21.19 | Design Development Presentation scale: 1/8”=1’-0” Keynotes 1. Reception/Lobby - 367 sf 2. Discovery Rm - 150 sf 3. Workroom - 70 sf 4. Beauty Salon - 100 sf 5. Hair Wash/Styling Stations 6. Hair Dryer 7. Elevator 8. TV 9. Built-in Cabinet with Under- counter Refrigerator 10. Built-in Reception Desk 11. Accent Wall with Sconces 12. Built-in Banquette 13. Veranda Level 1 Lobby, Discovery, Salon 8'-6"8'-0" TYP 8'-0"8'-4" 9'-5" TYP 8'-6"8'-0" TYP 9'-5" TYP 8'-4" 8'-4" 8'-4" 8'-6" 9'-5" 9'-0" 9'-9" 18'-0" 18'-8" 19'-4" 20'-0" 21'-7" 19'-8" 19'-0" 18'-4" 21'-7" 9'-5" 8'-0" FURNITURE PLAN REFLECTED CEILING PLAN 12 3 4 8 9 11 12 13 10 6 5 7 Lobby, Discovery, Salon Recessed cove lighting within wood paneling EXHIBIT B 6 PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE 08.21.19 | Design Development Presentation R F R HS HS F HS ICE DCV 1KBKB2R F R HS HS F HS ICE DCV 1KBKB22- ELEVATION1 - ELEVATION Lobby Scale: 3/16”=1’-0” Level 1 1 2 Lobby EXHIBIT B Application Guide for Interlocking Concrete Pavements Product Description Applications: Interlocking concrete pavements are appro- priate for any application that requires paving. These areas include patios, driveways, pool decks, sidewalks, parking lots, pedestrian plazas, roof plaza decks, roof ballast, roof parking decks, embankment stabilization, gas stations, medians, streets, industrial pavements, ports, and airports. Vehicle speeds are generally 45 mph (70 kph) or lower. © 1999 ICPI Tech Spec No. 10 • Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute • Revised September 2015 • All rights reserved Composition and Mate rials: Interlocking concrete pav- ers are composed of portland cement, fine and coarse aggregates. Color pigment is typically added. Admixtures are typically placed in the concrete mix to reduce the risk of efflorescence and improve durability. These materials are combined with a small amount of water to make a “zero slump” concrete. Pavers are made in factory-controlled con- This technical bulletin provides an overview of interlocking concrete pavements for a range of applicatons. The Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute (ICPI) technical bulletins, brochures, design manuals and software are referenced to assist project owners, design professionals and contractors on design, construction and maintenance. Visit icpi.org for guide specifications and detail drawings for a range of applications Edge restraint/curb Concrete pavers with sand filled joints Bedding sand nominal 1 in. (25 mm) thick Compacted aggregate or stabilized base to suit traffic and environmental conditions Compacted soil subgrade Geotextile as required by design Figure 1. Typical components of an interlocking concrete pavement system Tech Spec 10 ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 2 ditions with machines that apply pressure and vibration. The result is a consistent, dense, high strength concrete molded into many shapes. Special surface finishes can be produced to give an upscale architectural appearance. These include unique aggregates, colors, tumbling, shot blasting, bush hammering, and polishing. Technical Data Physical Characteristics: When manufactured in the U.S., interlocking concrete pavers made by ICPI members typi- cally meet the requirements in ASTM C936, Standard Specifi cations for Solid Interlocking Concrete Paving Units. This standard defines concrete pavers as having a surface area no greater than 101 in.2 (0.065 m2), and their overall length divided by thickness, or aspect ratio, does not exceed 4. The minimum thickness is 2 3/8 in. (60 mm). Concrete pavers produced by Canadian ICPI members typically conform to Canadian Standards Association, CSA- A231.2, Precast Concrete Pavers. This standard defines a con- crete paver as having a surface area less than or equal to 140 in.2 (0.09 m2), an aspect ratio less than or equal to 4:1 for pedes- trian applications, and less than or equal to 3:1 for vehicular applications. The minimum thickness is 2 3/8 in. (60 mm). Design and Application Standards: For pedestrian applications and residential driveways, 2 3/8 in. (60 mm) thick pavers are recommended. Pavements subject to vehicular traf- fic typically require 3 1/8 in. (80 mm) thick pavers. Some heavy- duty commercial pavements use minimum 4 in. (100 mm) thick units and sometimes 5 in. (120 mm) thick for the heaviest load applications. Units with an overall length to thickness (aspect) ratio of 4:1 or greater should not be used in vehicular applications. Those with aspect ratios between 4:1 and 3:1 may be used in areas with limited automobile use such as residential driveways. Units with aspect ratios of 3:1 or less are suitable for all vehicular applications. Interlocking concrete pavements are typically designed and constructed as flexible pavements on a compacted soil subgrade and compacted aggregate base. See Figure 1. Concrete pavers are then placed on a layer of bedding sand (1 in. or 25 mm thick), compacted, sand swept into the joints, and the units compacted again. When compacted, the pav- ers interlock, transferring vertical loads from vehicles to sur- rounding pavers by shear forces through the joint sand. The sand in the joints enables applied loads to be spread in a manner similar to asphalt, reducing the stresses on the base and subgrade. Like other pavement systems, interlocking concrete pave- ment systems subject to vehicular applications require engi- neered design. Structural design should follow ASCE Standard 58-10 Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Municipal Streets and Roadways based on AASHTO flexible pavement design. In addition, ICPI Tech Spec 4–Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavements provides flexible and rigid pavement design guidance. ICPI provides structural design software that follows the ASCE design standard as well and a mechanistic design-based program called Lockpave for streets and industrial pavements. In addition, structural design for ports and container areas should follow the ICPI manual, Port and Industrial Design with Concrete Pavers, based on the British Ports Association design method. Airfield pavement design should follow the proce- dures in the ICPI manual, Airfield Pavement Design with Concrete Pavers. This manual applies U.S. Federal Aviation Administration design procedures to interlocking concrete pavements. ICPI publishes a manual of the same name for design of airfields in Canada. The manual follows Public Works Canada design methods. For street, industrial, port and airport pavement designs, consult with a qualified civil or geotechni- cal engineer familiar with local soils, pavement design meth- ods, ICPI resources, materials, and construction practices. Benefits: As interlocking concrete pavements receive traf- fic, they stiffen and increase their structural capacity over time. The structural contribution of the interlocking pavers and sand layer can exceed that of an equivalent thickness of asphalt. The interlock contributes to the structural perfor- mance of the pavement system. ICPI Tech Spec 4–Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavements provides additional information on structural design of the pavers, bedding sand, and base. ICPI takes a conservative approach by not recogniz- ing differences among shapes with respect to structural and functional performance. Certain manufacturers may have materials and data that discuss the potential benefits of shapes that impact functional and structural performance. Concrete pavers arrive at the site ready to install, ready for traffic immediately after installation. This can reduce construc- tion time and restore access quickly. The joints between each paver help reduce cracking occurrence typically seen on con- ventional asphalt and concrete pavement. Unlike concrete or asphalt, concrete pavers do not rely on monolithic continuity of their material for structural integrity. Therefore, utility cuts can be reinstated without damage to the pavement surface. ICPI Tech Spec 6–Reinstatement of Interlocking Concrete Pavements covers this topic in detail. Repair to underground utilities and to local deformations in the base materials can be accessed by removing and later reinstating the same pavers. No pavement materials are wast- ed or hauled to the landfill. Jackhammers are not required to ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 3 open interlocking pavements. The modular units enable changes in the layout of the pavement over its life. Colored units can be used for lane and parking delinea- tions, traffic direction markings, utility markings, and artistic super graphic designs. Various colors, shapes, textures and laying patterns can help direct pedestrians and calm vehicular traffic in urban areas. Pavers can be manufactured with detect- able warnings for use on pedestrian curb ramps at intersec- tions or at rail platforms and crossings. The chamfered joints in the pavement surface facilitate removal of surface water. This decreases nighttime glare when wet and enhances skid resistance. ICPI Tech Spec 13–Slip and Skid Resistance of Interlocking Concrete Pavements includes information on slip and skid resistance. Snow is removed as with any other pavement. Concrete pavers can have greater resistance to deicing salts than conventional paving materials due to high cement content, strength, density, and low absorption. Sustainable Aspects: Interlocking concrete pavements can be eligible for LEED® credits including those under Sustainable Sites (e.g., high solar reflectance index), Materials & Resources. See ICPI Tech Spec 16–Achieving LEED® Credits with Segmental Concrete Pavement. In addition, permeable inter- locking concrete pavements can earn Sustainable Site credits for reducing runoff and water pollution. See the ICPI manual, Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements for design, specifi- cation, construction and maintenance guidelines, or ICPI Tech Spec 18–Construction of Interlocking Concrete Pavements. Installation Installation should be performed by experienced contrac- tors who hold a current certificate in the ICPI Concrete Paver Installer Certification Program. Con tractors holding this certificate have been instructed and tested on knowl- edge of interlocking concrete pavement construction. ICPI guide specifications available on www.icpi.org and project specifications should require that the job foreman hold this certificate and be present on the job site during paver installation. A certified installer with an Advanced Residential Paver Technician and/or Commercial Paver Technician designation has demonstrated knowledge of best construction practices for these applications. Project specifications should reference these contractor qualifica- tions as well. The installation guidelines below apply to pedestrian and vehicular applications. Soil Subgrade: Once excavation is complete, the soil sub- grade should be compacted prior to placing the aggregate base. Compaction should be at least 98% Proctor density (per ASTM D698) for pedestrian areas and residential driveways, and at least 98% modified Proctor density (per ASTM D1557) for areas under constant vehicular traffic. Consult compaction equipment manufacturers’ recommendations for applying the proper equipment to compact a given soil type. Geotextiles are sometimes used to separate fine subgrade soils from the base/subbase material. Geotextiles should be selected using AASHTO M-288 Geotextile Specification for Highway Applications. Geotextiles can help reduce the onset of deformation. Some soils may not achieve these recommended mini- mum levels of density. These soils may have a low bearing capacity or be continually wet. If they are under a base that will receive constant vehicular traffic, the soils may need to be sta- bilized, or have drainage designed to remove excess water. Aggregate Base: Aggregate base materials should con- form to that used under asphalt. If no local, state, or provincial standards exist, then the requirements for aggregate base in ASTM D2940 are recommended. Compacted lift thickness is based on the force of the compaction equipment. Minimum lift thickness are typically between 4 to 6 inches. Consult with compaction equipment manufacturers for minimum lift thick- ness recommendations. The thickness of the base depends on the strength of the soil, drainage, climate, and traffic loads. Base thickness used under asphalt can typically be used under interlocking concrete pavers. Minimum aggregate base thick- ness for walks should be 4 to 6 in. (100 to 150 mm), driveways 6 to 8 in. (150 to 200 mm), and streets 8 to 12 in. (200 to 300 mm). Thicknesses may be greater depending on site condi- tions, freezing temperatures, and traffic (typically defined at 18,000 lb. or 80 kN equivalent single axle loads), as well review by a qualified design professional. Aggregate base compaction under pedestrian and resi- dential driveway pavements should be at least 98% of stan- dard Proctor density (per ASTM D698). The aggregate base should be compacted to at least 98% modified Proctor den- sity (per ASTM D1557) for vehicular areas. Compaction equip- ment suppliers can provide information on the appropriate machines for compacting base material. These density rec- ommendations for areas next to curbs, utility structures, lamp bases, and other protrusions in the pavement are essential to minimize settlement. Site inspection and testing of the compacted soil and base materials are recommended to ensure that compaction requirements have been met. Compacted base materials stabilized with asphalt or cement may be used in heavy load applications or over weak soil subgrades. The surface of the compacted base should be smooth with a maximum tolerance of ±3/8 in. (10 mm) over a 10 ft. (3 m) straight-edge. ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 4 Bedding Sand: Bedding sand should conform to the grad- ing requirements of ASTM C33 or CSA-A23.1-FA1. Do not use mason sand because it can be slow draining and unstable. Stone dust or waste screenings should not be used, as they can have an excessive amount of material passing the No. 200 (0.075 mm) sieve. ICPI Tech Spec 17–Bedding Sands for Vehicular Applications provides additional guidance on evalu- ating beddings sands under vehicular traffic. The sand should be screeded to 1 to 11/2 in. (25 to 40 mm) uncompacted, con- sistent thickness. Do not use the sand to fill depressions in the base. These eventually will be reflected in the surface of the finished pavement. Fill any depressions with base material and compact. Geotextile is recommended in the following places to pre- vent migration into joints and cracks. These areas are adjacent to curbs, roof parapets, drains, utility structures, and over asphalt or cement stabilized bases. When applied in these locations the fabric should be turned up against vertical sur- faces to contain the bedding sand. Bedding sand drainage should be accomplished with weep holes through stabilized, asphalt or concrete bases, or through curbs, and typically placed at the lowest elevations. Joint Sand: Bedding sand may be used as joint sand; dry sand may be used that conforms to the grading requirements of ASTM C144 or CSA-A179. This sand is often called mason sand and is used to make mortar. This sand should not be used for bedding sand. Concrete Pavers: The shape of the concrete pavers deter- mines the range of laying patterns (Figure 2). 45° or 90° her- ringbone patterns are recommended in areas subject to con- tinual vehicular traffic. They provide maximum interlock and structural performance. Some patterns have “edge” pavers specifically designed to fit against the pavement edge. Concrete pavers are cut with a masonry saw to fit. Cut pavers should be no smaller than one-third of a unit when exposed to vehicular traffic. Joints between (cut or uncut) concrete pavers are typically 1/16 to 3/16 in. (2 to 5 mm) wide. They can be 1 to 2 mm wider for units in pedestrian areas with a stone like finish with rough edges and sides. Bond or joint lines tolerances should be +/- 1/2 in. over a 50 ft. (15 m) string line. Once the pavers are placed in their specified pattern(s), they are compacted into the bedding sand with a plate compactor. The compactor should have a minimum force of 5,000 lbs. (22 kN) and frequency of 75 to 100 hz. A protective pad on the compactor plate may be required to minimize the risk of etched paver surfaces during compaction. After the pavers are compacted, sand is swept and vibrated into the joints until they are full. All pavement not within 6 ft. (2 m) of unfinished edges should have the joints full and be compacted by the end of each day. Final surface elevations of the pavers should be 1/8 to 1/4 in. (3 to 6 mm) above edges to allow for minor settlement. Final surface elevations around drains should not exceed 1/4 in. (6 mm) in pedestrian areas but may be as much as 3/8 in. (10 mm) in vehicular areas. Paver-to-paver lippage should not exceed 1/8 in. (3 mm). See ICPI Tech Spec 2– Construction of Interlocking Concrete Pavements for further information on construction. ICPI Tech Spec 9–Guide Specifications for the Construction of Interlocking Concrete Pavements provides a guide specification for installation. Detail drawings and other guide specifications are available at the ICPI web site, icpi.org. Edge Restraints: Edge restraints around interlocking con- crete pavement are essential to their performance. The pavers and sand are held together by them, enabling the system to remain interlocked. For walks, patios, and driveways, edge restraints can be steel, aluminum, troweled concrete and sub- merged concrete curb, or plastic edging specifically designed for concrete pavers. Concrete restraints are recommended for crosswalks, parking lots, drives, streets, industrial, port, and airport pavements. Precast concrete and cut stone curbs are suitable for streets, drives, and parking lots. Edge restraints are typically placed before installing the bedding sand and con- crete pavers. Some edge restraints such as plastic, steel, and aluminum can be installed after placing the concrete pavers. These edge restraints will require the compacted base to extend past the stakes that secure edging in the base. For resi- dential projects, the distance from the stakes to the base perimeter should be consistent, not be greater than 10 in. (250 Laying patterns for pedestrian traffic Laying patterns for pedestrian or vehicular traffic Figure 2. Typical laying patterns. Parquet Running Bond 45o Herringbone 90o Herringbone ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 5 mm). For commercial applications, the distance should equal the base thickness. See ICPI Tech Spec 3–Edge Restraints for Interlocking Concrete Pavements for further information on edge restraints. Drainage: Surface and subsurface drainage systems, as well as pavement grades, should conform to that used for any other flexible pave - ment. Swimming Pools: High slip-resistance and rapid drainage of water make concrete pavers a desirable surface around commercial or residen- tial swimming pools. A minimum 4 in. (100 mm) thick concrete base is typically used around pools when backfill soils or an aggregate base cannot be adequately compacted. Slope paver surfaces and bases towards stormwater drains. Such drains must have holes or slots at the bedding sand level to drain excess moisture from it. These openings should be covered with geotextile to pre - vent bedding sand loss. Vertical weep holes may be required through a concrete base at the lowest elevations, usually placed next to curbs. Typically, 2 in. (50 mm) diameter holes are cast or cored then filled with washed pea gravel and cov- ered with geotextile to prevent bedding sand loss. A ure - thane or neoprene sealant and backer rod typical to pool construction should be placed between the course of pavers and the pool coping. This prevents water from entering this joint while allowing for differential movement between the pool wall and the adjacent pavement. Sealing the pavers and joints is recommended to keep sand in place Geotextile Concrete pavers Concrete slab Collar and frame Grate Slope to drain Bedding sand 1 in. (25 mm) thick Water proof membrane Drain Hole Figure 4. Roof drain holes at bottom of bedding sand layer Roof Plaza/Parking Decks: Interlocking concrete pave- ments can be placed on parking garage roofs and pedestrian roof plazas. Concrete pavers provide an attractive ballast for the waterproof membrane (Figure 3). As a heat sink, the pav- ers reduce thermal stress on the membrane. The roof struc- ture should be waterproofed, designed to withstand pedes- trian or vehicular loads as well as wind loads, and be sloped at least 2% to drain. Protection board should be applied according to the recommendations of the waterproof mem- brane manufacturer. Geotextile is applied around roof drains to prevent the migration of bedding sand. The drains should have holes at the level of the waterproof membrane to allow removal of subsurface water (Figure 4). Drainage mats are not recommended for roof decks subject to vehicular traffic. See Tech Spec 14–Concrete Paving Units for Roof Decks for fur- ther information on roof plaza deck applications including Counter flashing Concrete pavers Bedding sand Waterproof membrane Structural concrete Geotextile Flashing membrane Protection board where required Figure 3. Roof assembly ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 6 those with pedestals and paving slabs. Pavement Overlay/Inlay: New or exist- ing asphalt or concrete pavements can be overlaid or inlaid with concrete pavers (Figure 5). The surface of the existing pave - ment can be ground out and bedding sand and pavers placed in the milled area. Consideration should be given to draining excess moisture in the bedding sand. Drainage can be achieved by drilling/cast- ing vertical holes at the lowest elevations of the pavement, or directing drain holes to catch basins. The drain holes should be cov- ered with geotextile to prevent loss of bed- ding sand. Drainage into impervious or expansive soils will require piping drain holes to a storm sewer or other appropriate outlet. Geotextile may need to be applied at pavement joints and cracks. Cracks 3/8 in. (10 mm) or larger in width should be patched prior to placing geotextile, bedding sand, and pavers. Thin paving units, 11/4 to 1 3/4 in. (30 to 45 mm) thick, have been used in over- lays. The units are typically sand set on or adhered to a concrete base for pedestrian applications. They are not recommended for any vehicular application. Embankments and Vehicular Pavements with High Slopes: Pavers pro- vide a durable surface for control of soil erosion from embankments. A backfill of open-graded aggregate with drains at the bottom of the slope is recommended to relieve hydrostatic pressure (Figure 6). Concrete pavers restrained at the sides and top of the slope should have adjacent areas graded and slope in such a manner that water runs away from the restraints. Vehicular pavements with slopes over 8% may require concrete header beams. Concrete header beams are recommend- ed at the top and bottom of the sloped area. Intermittently placed beams along the sloped area are not recommended. Drainage of water in the bedding sand and base is essential along the upslope side of the concrete headers. For concrete pavers and bedding sand over aggregate base, removal of water can be accomplished Curb Concrete pavers Bedding sand Existing asphalt or concrete pavement Compacted soil subgrade Geotextile applied over joints, typically 12 in. (300 mm) wide Carry pavers past crest of slope and restrain to prevent undermining Bedding sand Geotextile Compacted aggregate fill Drain as required Compacted soil subgrade Weep holes as required Edge restraint/curb Concrete pavers with sand filled joints Bedding sand 1-1/2 in. (25 - 40 mm) thick Compacted aggregate or stabilized base to suit traffic and environmental conditions Compacted soil subgrade Geotextile as required by design Optional snow melting tubes/wires Figure 5. Typical overlay/inlay on existing pavement. Figure 6. Embankment with concrete pavers Figure 7. Snow melting system with concrete pavers for pedestrian areas or residential driveways ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 7 with minimum 1 in. (25 mm) diameter horizontal weep holes spaced every 10 ft. (3 m) and covered with geotextile to pre- vent loss of base fines or bedding sand. When pavers and bedding are over concrete or asphalt, there should be several vertical, geotextile-covered drain holes in these pavements on the upslope side of the header. The water collected by these drain holes or geocomposite drains should be directed beyond the edge restraints of the pavement. The overall dimensions of, and the steel reinforcement within, the concrete headers will depend upon traffic loads and base design. Minimum recommended dimensions are 6 in. (150 mm) wide and 12 in. (300 mm) deep. The joint sand between the pavers should be stabilized to prevent washout. The crossfall of the pavement should be at least 2% from the center. Snow Melting Systems: Interlocking concrete pavements can accommodate snow melting systems for pedestrian and vehicular applications (Figure 7). The systems consist of hot, liquid-filled tubing or radiant wires placed in the bedding sand, in compacted aggregate or concrete bases. Snow melt sys- tems can turn on automatically when a snowstorm starts, eliminating plowing, ice hazards, and the need for de-icing salts. The result is less potential for injuries from slipping on ice and decreased liability. An aggregate base can be used to support the tubing or wires for pedestrian areas and residential driveways. Both sys- tems must be secured to the base prior to placing the bedding sand. The systems are installed by specialty contractors (electri- cians and/or plumbers). The bedding sand may be as much as 2 in. (50 mm) thick to cover and protect the tubing or wires. For other vehicular areas, the tubing or wires should be placed in a concrete or asphalt base and these bases require drain holes at the lowest elevations. See ICPI Tech Spec 12–Snow Melting Systems for Interlocking Concrete Pavements for further informa- tion on snow melting systems. Rigid Pavements: These pavements consist of a concrete base, a thin sand-asphalt bedding layer, an adhesive, and con- crete pavers with sand-filled joints. This system is often called bitumen-set concrete pavers. Construction is slower and more expensive compared to sand-set installations. However, the result can be a very durable assembly. Draining excess water from the concrete base is accomplished with 2 to 3 in. (50 to 75 mm) diameter vertical holes through the concrete. Placed at lowest elevations, the holes are filled with washed pea gravel. Bitumen-set concrete pavers subject to vehicular traffic fol- low this construction sequence. A tack coat is placed on a concrete base, the asphalt bed is placed, screeded, and then compacted. Adhesive is applied to the bed and the pavers are placed on it. The pavers are placed on the adhesive after it is dried and the pavers are compacted onto the adhesive. The joints are filled with sand or stabilized sand. Since the com- pacted bitumen-sand bedding allow for no additional consoli- dation, concrete pavers will require plus or minus 1/16 in. (1.5 mm) height tolerance. Reinstatement of bitumen-set pavers is difficult because the asphalt material adheres to the bottom of the pavers when removed. Discarding removed pavers may be less expensive than removing asphalt adhered to the bottom and reinstating them. Bitumen-set concrete pavers are not recommended over asphalt bases for heavy urban vehicular applications or over aggregate bases for any application. Mortared pavers should only be used in pedestrian areas in non-freeze-thaw areas. Mortared joints have a high risk of deterioration when subjected to vehicular traffic, freeze- thaw cycles and/or de-icing salts. Mortared pavers using liq- uid latex additives as thinset or thickset mixture are recom- mended for bonding pavers to existing concrete in pedes- trian applications. Polymer adhesives specially designed for adhering con- crete pavers to concrete enable faster installation without the chance of accidentally staining the surface of the pavers with mortar. These adhesives can be used in areas with freezing climates. Pavers set with adhesives are not recommended for vehicular areas. Mechanical Installation: Many laying patterns can be installed mechanically, saving construction time and costs compared to manual installation. Specialized installation equipment enables over a square yard (m2) of concrete pav- ers to be placed in succession, rather than one paver at a time (Figure 8). Contact a local ICPI supplier for availability of laying patterns and for contractors experienced with mechanical installation equipment. See ICPI Tech Spec 11– Mechanical Installation of Interlocking Concrete Pavements and ICPI Tech Spec 15–A Guide for the Specification of Mechanically Installed Interlocking Concrete Pavements for further information on mechanical installation. Availability and Price Availability: Interlocking concrete pavers are available from ICPI members throughout the U.S. and Canada. ICPI members can be located by visiting www.icpi.org. Check with a local member for available shapes, thicknesses, and colors. Price: Prices vary depending on the site location, local compe- tition, pattern, thickness, color, area, base requirements, edge restraints, installation method and drainage. ICPI Tech Spec 10 Page 8 Warranty Contractors typically offer warranties on workmanship as well as material supplier warranties. Details should be confirmed with installation contractor. ICPI paver suppli- ers will typically provide laboratory test results demon- strating that the specified product meets the require- ments of ASTM C936 or CSA A231.2 as applicable. Maintenance When properly installed, interlocking concrete pavements require little maintenance. As with all pavements, they will become soiled over time depending on the amount of use. Contact a local ICPI supplier for information on clean- ing concrete pavers. ICPI publishes other technical bulle- tins on cleaning, sealing, including ICPI Tech Spec 5– Cleaning, Sealing and Joint Sand Stabilization of Interlocking Concrete Pavements and ICPI Tech Spec 6–Reinstatement of Interlocking Concrete Pavements. Unlike conventional pave- ments, interlocking concrete pavers can be reinstated after repairs thereby avoiding disposal costs and related environmental impacts. This provides lower down times and user costs especially on high use urban roads and sidewalks. Management of interlocking concrete pavement can be accomplished using ASTM E2840 Standard Practice for Pavement Condition Index Surveys for Interlocking Concrete Roads and Parking Lots. This practice establishes survey proce- dures for determining the condition and wear severity of interlocking concrete pavements. The guide develops a pave- ment condition index or PCI value for the pavement that can be used to forecast when maintenance might be required. The PCI also enables performance comparisons to asphalt and concrete streets since ASTM E2840 uses evaluation methods similar to another ASTM standard used to evaluate asphalt and concrete pavements. Figure 8. Mechanical installation equipment places concrete pavers rapidly. The content of ICPI Tech Spec technical bulletins is intended for use only as a guide- line. It is not intended for use or reliance upon as an industry standard, certification or as a specification. ICPI makes no promises, representations or warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, as to the content of the Tech Spec Technical Bulletins and disclaims any liability for damages resulting from the use of Tech Spec Techni- cal Bulletins. Professional assistance should be sought with respect to the design, specifications and construction of each project. BOD Approved: August 2015 14801 Murdock Street Suite 230 Chantilly, VA 20151 In Canada: P.O. Box 1150 Uxbridge, ON L9P 1N4 Canada Tel: 703.657.6900 Fax: 703.657.6901 E-mail: icpi@icpi.org www.icpi.org 1 CALIFORNIA FACILITY: 13296 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD – CORONA, CA 92883 ARIZONA FACILITY: 6700 W. ALLISON ROAD – CHANDLER, AZ 85226 T ECHNICAL I NFORMATION Design Considerations for Concrete Paver Surfaced Access Lanes Subjected to Fire Truck Loading A common question posed by design professionals is the ability of interlocking concrete pavers (ICPs) and permeable interlocking concrete pavers (PICPs) to withstand fire truck loading. This is due to the relatively large axle weights they exert along with the fact that fire trucks are critical service vehicles that must be able to access sites in emergency situations. In terms of structural design for entry, access lane and roadway applications, pavements must be designed to resist rutting, bearing capacity of the supporting pavement system and resistance to repeated axle load applications. Pavement design procedures typically utilize information which describe the strength of the subgrade soils, axle loadings and frequency, and strength of the various layered pavement components. The actual design procedures for flexible and rigid pavements are well documented in Civil Engineering texts with ICPs & PICPs well recognized to behave and follow the design procedures set forth for “flexible” pavement design. References for ICP and PICP pavement design are provided in the Appendix to this report (AASHTO 1993, ASCE 2016 & 2018, Caltrans 2016). While not a comprehensive primer on pavement design, the focus of this report is to demonstrate that ICP and PICPs are not adversely affected by heavily loaded vehicles and are suitable for use in vehicular areas exposed to fire truck loadings. The primary discussion herein will focus on fire truck loadings on ICP/PICP systems as they relate to: • Design ESALs applied to the pavement system • Fire truck wheel and axle loads relative to the strength of the paver • Point loads that may occur when the stabilizer outriggers are in place Because this document focuses on fire truck loading, data on a typical heavily loaded fire truck was obtained for a “ladder truck” used by the City of Scottsdale, AZ. The vehicle chosen is one of the heaviest vehicles in a typical Fire Department’s fleet and considered on the higher end of the loading spectrum. Ve hicle characteristics are provided below: • Ladder Engine: Pierce Manufacturing ID Decal; GVWR - 76,800 lbs. GAWR – Front = 22,800 lbs. = 11,400 lbs./tire: GAWR - Rear=54,000 lbs. = 27,000 lbs./axle; 6750 lbs./tire Cold Tire Inflation Pressure – 120 psi (single and dual) Max Load per Single Tire – 11,400 lbs. – 2 – July 29, 2019 CALIFORNIA FACILITY: 13296 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD – CORONA, CA 92883 ARIZONA FACILITY: 6700 W. ALLISON ROAD – CHANDLER, AZ 85226 DESIGN ESALs Design references have been developed by several credible organizations including AASHTO, ASCE and Caltrans as shown below. In almost all cases, the design guidelines for the structural aspects of the pavements are based on the 1993 AASHTO Guide for Design of Pavement Structures (AASHTO 1993). As with the design references for ICP and PICPs, the 1993 AASHTO document calculates the thickness of a roadway cross section required to withstand the applied loads for the given lifespan based on the native soils strength and traffic loading. The supporting soil strength is typically described by a CBR value (California Bearing Ratio), Mr (Resilient Modulus), R-value or some other geotechnical measurement describing the strength of the supporting soil. The traffic loading is typically described by TI (Traffic Index), ESALs (Equivalent Single Axle Loads) or other measurement to express the traffic type and equivalent damage (VLF, Vehicle Load Factor) created by each type of vehicle as compared to the passage of a “standard” 18,000-pound axle load (one 18,000 lb. ESAL provides a unit value of 1.0). For perspective on ESALs, passenger cars have a Vehicle Load Factor (VLF) of 0.0004 whereas a fully loaded fire truck as shown above would have a VLF of about 10. Hence, it would take over 20,000 cars to affect the same level of deterioration on the pavement as 1 pass of a fire ladder truck. It should be noted that not all fire trucks exhibit this same degradational effect on pavements as most are lighter and exhibit considerably lower axle loads than the Ladder Truck which has a GVWR (Gross Vehicle Weight Rating) of 76,800 lbs. Although it is evident by the VLFs shown above that fire trucks can exert high ESALs on the pavement surface, it is important to note that typical roads are designed around hundreds of thousands of ESALs, so the impact of the occasional fire truck is relatively small on those pavements. Notable in the design procedure is that the axle/tire loads applied to the completed pavement system is transferred through the pavement to the subgrade via a series of structural layers which distribute the vehicle loads to a relatively large area of the subgrade. The distribution of the loads through the pavement system enables relatively weak subgrades to support very high concentrated axle/wheel loads much like a snowshoe or wide tracks of low ground pressure vehicles to traverse low strength materials which would otherwise not support the weight of applied loads. Along those same lines, pavement design isn’t so much about how much a vehicle weighs but rather the load transfer of axle loads through the pavement system and how many passes can be achieved prior to development of unacceptable rutting or excessive pavement deterioration. To further expand on this subject, pavement sections for standard asphaltic concrete (AC) and aggregate base systems and interlocking concrete pavement (ICP) systems are essentially identical in thickness with the wearing course being the primary difference in the systems. An ICP 80mm (3-1/8”) thick paver laid on 1” of bedding sand provides a layer coefficient of 1.82 which is roughly the same as 4” of asphaltic concrete. The aggregate base and subbase section used to distribute the wearing course loads provide the same support to either an AC or ICP system. For a PICP, an 80mm paver on 2” of bedding (5.125” thick) has a layer coefficient of 1.54, the same as 3-1/2” of AC. The above analogies can be verified by comparing section thicknesses for designs done in accordance with AASHTO (AASHTO 1993) and ASCE (ASCE 2016 and 2018) methods. – 3 – July 29, 2019 CALIFORNIA FACILITY: 13296 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD – CORONA, CA 92883 ARIZONA FACILITY: 6700 W. ALLISON ROAD – CHANDLER, AZ 85226 TIRE CONTACT PRESSURES In terms of being able to withstand the surface pressure exerted by fire truck tires, the gross axle weight rating(GAWR) on a two tire (steering) axle and tandem axle (rear axles) for the 76,800 lb. fire truck referenced above is 22,800 lbs. and 54,000 lbs., respectively. Each tire is rated at a max load rating of 11,400 lbs. at a cold inflation tire pressure of 120 psi. By definition, the maximum applied contact pressure is then 120-psi. Any concrete paver offered under the ACKER-STONE line is made in accordance with ASTM C936, which requires an average compressive strength of 8,000 psi with no individual unit being less than 7,200 psi. So, simply put, the pavers are on average 8000/120 > 60 times stronger in compression than required to withstand the surface pressure that would be exerted under the extreme loading conditions imposed by a fire truck. POINT LOADS When the stabilizer outriggers are in place, a point load of as much as 45,000 pounds can be applied to the pavement surface. Although significant, when distributed over an “un-factored” stabilizer plate surface area of 0.97 square feet (area of 10x14 inches), this equates to a surface pressure of 322 psi, which again is well within the compressive strength capabilities of ACKER-STONE pavers. – 4 – July 29, 2019 CALIFORNIA FACILITY: 13296 TEMESCAL CANYON ROAD – CORONA, CA 92883 ARIZONA FACILITY: 6700 W. ALLISON ROAD – CHANDLER, AZ 85226 REFERENCES 1. AASHTO 1993. Guide for Design of Pavement Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC. 2. ASCE 2016. Structural Design of Interlocking Concrete Pavement for Municipal Streets and Roadways, ASCE/T&DI/ICPI Standard 58-16, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 3. ASCE 2018. Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavement, ASCE/T&DI/ICPI Standard 68-18, American Society of Civil Engineers, Reston, VA. 4. Caltrans 2016. Pervious Pavement Design Guidance, California Department of Transportation, Division of Design, Office of Storm Water Management, Sacramento, CA. Protected Tree Report July 7, 2020 Report Prepared on Behalf of: Mr. Axel Guerra Kisco Senior Living 5790 Fleet Street Suite 300 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Project Location: 574 S Glassell St, Orange CA. 92866 Prepared by: Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Michael Green Registered Consulting Arborist No.: 602 Certified Arborist No.: WE9464A 26040 Acero, Suite #104 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 213.293.2444 © 2020 Evergreen Arborists Consultants. All Rights Reserved. ATTACHMENT NO. 5 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE EVERGREEN ARBORIST CONSULTANTS, INC. PROTECTED TREE REPORT (DATED 07/07/20) Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting Table of Contents 1.0 Introduction.............................…………….............…………............…………………....3 2.0 Background and Project Description .................................................................................. 3 3.0 Observations and Summary ................................................................................................ 4 4.0 Summary Statement ............................................................................................................ 4 Matrix of Trees, Table 1 ..................................................................................................... 5 5.0 Tree Preservation Guidelines .............................................................................................. 6 6.0 Tree Protection Measures ................................................................................................... 6 7.0 Conclusions ......................................................................................................................... 9 8.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................. 10 9.0 Definitions ......................................................................................................................... 12 Attachments Attachment A - Aerial Image ........................................................................................................ 19 Attachment B - Historical Aerial Images ...................................................................................... 20 Attachment C - Site Plan ............................................................................................................... 23 Attachment D - Utility Plan .......................................................................................................... 24 Attachment E - Site Photos ........................................................................................................... 25 Attachment F - Road Building over Tree Root Zone ................................................................... 34 Report Writer ................................................................................................................................ 36 Assumptions and Limitations ....................................................................................................... 37 3 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 1.0 Introduction This arborist report discusses the impact of the proposed construction of a multi-unit senior living facility at 574 S. Glassell Street and a replacement driveway near two offsite trees on an adjacent property located at 566 S. Glassell Street, Orange, CA. This arborist report serves as an amended report to my February 25, 2019 arborist report that was previously submitted to the city. The subject property has two silk oak trees in the front entrance driveway. Two adjacent offsite trees with large canopies overhang the subject property: one Moreton Bay Fig and one Monterey pine (see Matrix of Trees). The two silk oak trees are proposed for removal due to the construction of the driveway for the project. The two adjacent offsite trees, a Moreton Bay Fig and Monterey pine, are to be preserved and protected throughout the duration of the project. Purpose and Use of Report Kisco Senior Living engaged the services of Evergreen Arborist Consultants (EAC) to evaluate four trees and prepare a report. This report presents my observations and opinions concerning the four subject trees. Information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspections on January 21, 2019 and August 19, 2019. The report is to be used by Kisco Senior Living at their discretion. Limits of Agreement The examination of the trees is based on my visual inspection. My site examination and the information in this report is limited to the date, time and condition of the trees at the time of my inspection. My examination is not a tree risk assessment. This report is not intended as and does not represent legal advice and should not be relied upon to take the place of such advice. All measurements are approximate. 2.0 Background and Project Description The property is located on one parcel in a mixed commercial and residential neighborhood zone. The site use consists of an existing restaurant building and parking lot. The topography of the site is flat. The proposed new building and driveway were not under construction at the time of my inspection. Four trees were inventoried, two silk oak trees, one Moreton Bay Fig and one Monterey pine tree as depicted on the attached Site Plan and shown with tree I.D. numbers. Onsite silk oak trees #3 and #4 are proposed for removal due to the construction of the new driveway for the project. In addition, two potholes were performed for the Moreton Bay Fig and one pothole for the Monterey pine on August 19, 2019 to determine the depth of roots for the two trees. Sparse roots 4 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. less than ½ inch in diameter were found at a depth of two feet below existing grade for the Moreton Bay Fig. In addition, sparse roots less than ¼ inch in diameter were found at a depth of 18 inches below existing grade for the Monterey pine. This is due to their roots being cut likely from previous construction activities that occurred around both trees. The approximate locations of these potholes are depicted on the Site Plan. Refer to Attachment C. 3.0 Observations & Summary Each listed tree is assigned “Good,” “Fair,” “Poor” or “Dead/Dying” condition rating as a means to cumulatively measure their physiological health, structural integrity, anticipated life span, location, size, and specie type. A description of these ratings with the assigned tree numbers are presented below. Good: These trees appear in overall good health, seem structurally stable, and have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site. They are the most suitable for retention and protection. Applies to tree #1. Fair: These trees require frequent care throughout their remaining life span and provide less significance to the site than those assigned a high suitability. They may be worthy of retention, but not at the expense of significant design revisions. Applies to trees #2, #3 and #4. Poor: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health and structural problems that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed. Low suitability for preservation or survival from development impacts suggest they are appropriate for removal and replacement with suitable landscape trees. Applies to no trees. Dead or dying: Applies to no trees. 4.0 Summary Statement If all the EAC recommendations are implemented, including the driveway design; and the City of Orange tree ordinance regulations are followed, the trees proposed for retention (see Matrix of Trees) should be reasonably preserved and protected. Therefore, significant detrimental impacts to the protected trees including the historic Moreton Bay Fig, should be avoided. 5 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Matrix of Trees, Table 1 Plans shall delineate TPZ fencing according to Table 1 dimensions. Trees #1 and #2 – install Type I chain link fencing to provide protection during the all construction step phases. Relocation or entry requires coordination with project arborist. Tree Tag Tree Species Condition DBH - Inches Height - Feet Canopy Width - Feet Suitability for Preservation Fencing Type Tree Fencing Dimensions Recommendation Notes 1 Moreton Bay Fig Ficus macrophylla Good 12.5 ft 80'150' x 142'High Type I minimum 3' outside dripeline of tree Protect 2 Monterey Pine Pinus radiata Fair 21"25'30' x 34'High Type I 10' outside dripeline of tree Protect Browning on needles 3 Silk Oak Tree Grevillea robusta Fair 45"90'30' x 32'Low NA NA Remove 4 Silk Oak Tree Grevillea robusta Fair 34"90'34' x 32'Low NA NA Remove 6 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 5.0 Tree Preservation Guidelines The proposed trees designated for protection (see Matrix of Trees) must be protected by the contractors in the TPZ. The trees listed in this report under “preserve” are suitable for preservation and have the potential for longevity at the site. The trees proposed for retention are rated for suitability for preservation based upon age, health, structural condition, and ability to safely coexist within a development environment. If all my recommendations are implemented, including the driveway’s design materials; and the City of Orange tree ordinance regulations are followed, the trees proposed for retention (see Matrix of Trees) should be reasonably preserved and protected. Therefore, significant detrimental impact to the protected trees should be avoided. Construction activities near trees may have long-term effects on trees. Trees vary in their ability to adapt to altered growing conditions. Mature trees can have established stable biological systems in the pre-existing physical environment. Disruption of this environment by construction activities interrupts the tree’s physiological processes causing depletion of energy reserves and a decline in vigor, which may result in a tree’s death. Typically, this reaction develops between one to five years, but symptoms may not show for many years after injurious disruption. The tree protection regulations are intended to guide a construction project to ensure that appropriate design and best practices will be implemented in the field to eliminate undesirable consequences that may result from uninformed or careless acts, and preserve both trees and property values. The Best Management Practices (BMP) are designed to preserve and protect tree health by avoiding damage to tree roots, trunk, or crown. Site development and detailed planning conditions are important components to avoid disturbance within the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for all trees designated for protection. Tree protection provides for the physical protective barriers to control site disturbances and activities such as grading, demolition, building, hardscape and landscape construction, infrastructure and utility installation, maintenance, or other changes. Any of these impacts can affect the structural integrity, stability and vigor of protected trees. 6.0 Tree Protection Measures The recommended Tree Protection Measures presented within this section serve as general design guidelines to help mitigate or avoid tree injury to remain consistent with the City goals, policy and ordinance requirements. The measures listed are intended to be utilized as Conditions of Approval by the approving review body. They are subject to revision upon any changes to the project plans reviewed and the Project Arborist must be consulted in the event any measure cannot be feasibly implemented. Please note any referenced distances from trunks are intended from the closest edge (face) of their outermost perimeter at soil grade. At a minimum, a Type I 7 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. chain link fencing should also be installed at minimum 3-feet outside the dripline of tree #1 and 10-feet outside the dripline of tree #2. 5.1 Design Guidelines—Site, Grading & Improvements 1. In the TPZ, all equipment cleaning, stockpiling/dumping of materials shall be avoided Where an impact encroaches slightly within a setback, it can be reviewed on a case-by- case basis by the Project Arborist to determine appropriate mitigation measures. 2. All existing unused lines, pipes, and vaults within the TPZ should be abandoned and cut off at existing grade rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage. 3. The permanent and temporary drainage design, including downspouts, should not require water being discharged within the TPZ. The drainage should not require trenching for storm drains or swales within the TPZ. 4. Underground utilities and services should be routed beyond the TPZ. Reusing existing utility line as noted in Attachment D - Utility Plan, should have minimal negative impact on the tree. 5. The future staging area and route(s) of access should not be in TPZ. 6. Restrict spoils and runoff from traveling into root zones, the future erosion control design should establish any silt fencing or straw wattles away from the tree’s trunk (not against it) and as close to the canopy’s edge as possible. 5.2 Design Guidelines--Proposed Landscape Design 7. Plant material installed beneath the canopies of the protected trees, if applicable, must be appropriate and planted at least 3 feet from the trunk. 8. Irrigation should not spray the trunk. 9. Irrigation, valves, and lighting features should be placed so that no trenching occurs within the TPZ. 10. New property fencing and fence posts should be placed at least 2 feet from the tree trunk. 11. Groundcover beneath the canopy should be comprised of a 5” layer of wood chips or other high-quality mulch. Keep mulch at least 6 inches from trunk. 12. Tilling, ripping, and compaction within the TPZ should be avoided. 8 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 13. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopy should be placed at existing grade. 14. Roots with diameters of 2 inches or greater should not be damaged or cut without prior assessment of the Project Arborist. All tools shall be sanitized in between cuts. Materials commonly used to sterilize tools include bleach (10 percent solution) or Lysol. An hourly rate shall be charged for these inspections. 5.3 During Demolition and Construction 1. Tree trunks shall not be used as winch supports for moving or lifting heavy loads. 2. The removal of existing features within the TPZ must be carefully performed to avoid excavating into root zones. 3. Roots with diameters of 2 inches or greater should not be damaged or cut without prior assessment of the Project Arborist. All tools shall be sanitized in between cuts. Materials commonly used to sterilize tools include bleach (10 percent solution) or Lysol. An hourly rate shall be charged for these inspections. 4. Supplemental water will be needed to help mitigate root loss/disturbance. This is determined by the weather. Generally, it is recommended that the trees receive at minimum once a month watering. Supplemental watering is needed throughout the duration of the project. The contractor and project manager are responsible to ensure the two subject trees receive water 5. Spoils created during digging shall not be piled or spread on unpaved ground within the TPZ. 6. Digging holes for fence posts within the TPZ should be manually performed. In the event a root of 2 inches or greater in diameter is encountered, the process should be shifted over by 12 inches and the process repeated. 7. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks of protected trees. The Project Arborist can be consulted to provide a feasible solution if needed. 8. Dust accumulating on trunks and canopies during dry weather periods and should be periodically washed away every 3 to 4 months. Dust accumulating on trunks and canopies after grading should also be washed at the completion of the grading. 9. The disposal of harmful products is prohibited beneath the canopies. Herbicide should not be used within a TPZ on site or should be labeled for safe use near trees. 9 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 5.4 Soil Compaction Soil compaction is a complex set of physical, chemical, and biological constraints on tree growth. Principal components leading to limited growth are the loss of aeration and pore space, poor gas exchange with the atmosphere, lack of available water, and mechanical impedance of root growth. Soil compaction is considered to be the largest single factor responsible for the decline of trees on construction sites. 5.5 Grading Limitations within the Tree Protection Zone 1. Tilling, ripping, and compaction within the TPZ should be avoided. 2. Grade changes outside the TPZ should not significantly alter drainage. 3. Grade changes under specifically approved circumstances should not allow more than 6 inches of fill soil or allow more than 4 inches of existing soil to be removed from natural grade, unless mitigated. However, sparse roots were found during potholing, as a result, a 12-inch max cut is proposed near the Moreton Bay Fig and Monterey pine for the driveway. For the sidewalk excavation, an 8-inch max cut is proposed near the Moreton Bay fig. 4. Grade fills over 6 inches or impervious overlay should incorporate an approved permanent aeration system, permeable material, or other approved mitigation. 5. Roots with diameters of 2 inches or greater should not be damaged or cut without prior assessment of the Project Arborist. All tools shall be sanitized in between cuts. Materials commonly used to sterilize tools include bleach (10 percent solution) or Lysol. An hourly rate shall be charged for these inspections. 7.0 Conclusions In my professional opinion, the project could proceed with most likely minimal negative impact on protected trees #1 & #2, providing the following conditions are met and incorporated into the approved plan set: 1. Trees #1 and #2, are to be preserved throughout the duration of the project. They should be preserved by using Type I chain link fencing underneath the canopy of the tree. It is estimated that 15% of the root zone underneath the canopy of the Moreton Bay Fig will likely be impacted by the proposed construction. The 15% percent was derived by taking the square footage of the proposed construction underneath the canopy (approximately 10 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 2,600 sq. ft.). and dividing it by tree canopy (approximately 19,500 sq. ft.). The impact should be less than significant if the construction adheres to this report. Furthermore, sparse roots less than ½ inch in diameter were found at a depth of two feet below existing grade for the Moreton Bay Fig. In addition, sparse roots less than ¼ inch in diameter were found at a depth of 18 inches below existing grade for the Monterey pine. This is due to their roots being cut likely from previous construction activities that occurred around both trees. 2. Trees #3 and #4 will be significantly impacted by the proposed construction of the new driveway for the project and are therefore not suitable for preservation. 8.0 Recommendations 1. Tree Protection Sheet. This report in its entirety shall be added to the approved building permit plan sets as a critical reference for contractor implementation. The contractor should be familiar with the specific instructions and responsibilities revolving around the trees to be protected. It is recommended that prior to commencement the project arborist be retained to work with the contractor and his personnel during critical phases of the project. ex. demo and grading, construction of driveway and sidewalk, utilities. 2. Trees #3 and #4 will be significantly impacted by the proposed construction of the new driveway for the project, are not suitable for preservation and therefore are scheduled to be removed. 3. Trees #1 and #2, will need to be preserved throughout the duration of the project. They should be preserved by using Type I chain link fencing underneath the canopy of the tree. 4. All pruning for trees #1 and #2, should be performed by a qualified tree trimmer and should be consistent with ANSI A300 Standards - Part I Pruning, and the most recent edition of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices for Tree Pruning and Utility Pruning of Trees. All pruning shall be monitored and supervised by a Registered Consulting Arborist. All tools shall be sanitized prior to and in between cuts when pruning the tree. Materials commonly used to sterilize tools include bleach (10 percent solution) or Lysol. 5. Monitoring by project arborist during all phases of construction. 6. An hourly rate shall be charged for these inspections. All recommendations are at the client’s expense. 11 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 7. Exposed roots at the site of trees #1 and #2, to remain and should be immediately covered with burlap, carpet remnants or other material and kept moist until top soil can be replaced. 8. Roots with diameters of 2-inches or greater should not be damaged or cut without prior assessment of the Project Arborist. An hourly rate shall be charged for these inspections. Roots should be flush-cut with hand pruners, hand loppers, and/or handsaw (as appropriate) for roots ½ -inches or greater in diameter. All tools shall be sanitized prior to and in between cuts. Materials commonly used to sterilize tools include bleach (10 percent solution) or Lysol. 9. The water and gas line should be directionally bored. 10. Basic design steps for new driveway shall be as follows. Refer to Attachment E. a. Remove existing asphalt and only a limited amount of existing base rock for releveling. Removal of should be performed by a jackhammer or comparable tool to break material into small enough pieces to be removed by hand. b. Specify limits to rock, soil & root removal from historic trees. i. Leave as much existing rock as possible to avoid excess root removal. For the driveway, a 12-inch max cut is proposed near the Moreton Bay Fig and Monterey pine. For the sidewalk excavation, an 8-inch max cut is proposed near the Moreton Bay fig. c. Lay Geogrid (follow manufacturer recommendations), new layer of base rock (depth per Engineer) and approved surface above the newly established base. d. Driving surfaces over the historic tree roots should be low impact. i. Note: Overall finished grade. The engineered strength required for each of these materials can impose a different thickness (height) to the overall finished surface. It is a priority to select the material early in design for this elevation element. Non-pervious materials are recommended by Geotech engineer due to existing soil conditions. This should be feasible due to sparse roots that were found during potholing. 11. If additional site inspections by the Project Arborist are required, an hourly rate is charged. 12. Fenced enclosures should be erected around all trees to be protected to keep crowns and branching structure clear from contact by equipment, materials, and activities; preserve roots and soil condition in an intact and non-compacted state; and identify the Tree Protection Zone in which no soil disturbance is permitted and activities are restricted, unless otherwise approved by the Project Arborist. 12 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 13. A ‘Warning’ sign should be prominently displayed on each protective enclosure. The sign will be a minimum of 8.5 inches x 11 inches and clearly state the following: 14. A Type I Chain Link Tree Protection Fence should be preserved throughout the duration of the project. The fences should enclose the area under the canopy drip line or TPZ. 9.0 Definitions 1. Basal flair or root crown means the tree trunk where it emerges from the root system and flairs out to create the base of the tree. 2. Canopy means the area of a tree that consists primarily of branches and leaves. 3. Drip line means the outermost area of the tree canopy (leafy area of tree). 4. Root Protection Zone means the area within a circle with a radius equal to the greatest distance from the trunk to any overhanging foliage in the tree canopy. 5. Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) means the diameter of the perimeter tree trunk at 4.5 feet (or 54 inches) above natural grade level. The diameter may be calculated by using the following formula: DSH = circumference at 4.5 feet x 3.142 (D=C x Pi). The City of Orange Tree Ordinance uses this trunk sizing formula. 6. Disturbance refers to all of the various activities from construction, improvements or landscaping that may damage trees. 7. Drip line area means the area within X distance from the trunk of a tree, measured from the perimeter of the trunk of the tree at 54 inches above natural grade, where X equals a distance ten times the diameter of the trunk at 54 inches above natural grade. 8. Pruning Restrictions. To preserve the natural character of the historic Moreton Bay Fig #1, some limited crown raising on the project side may be required to achieve 14’ vertical clearance but yet allow naturally growing branches to extend over the property line, new parking and drive isle. Cutting vertically at property line would negatively alter the tree’s intrinsic character and is not advised. Excessive Pruning may also mean: removing in excess, one-fourth (25 percent) or greater, of the functioning leaf, stem or root area. Pruning in excess of 25 percent is injurious to the tree and is a prohibited act. Excessive 13 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. pruning typically results in the tree appearing as a ‘bonsai’, ‘lion’s-tailed’, ‘lolly-popped’, overly thinned or unbalanced. 9. Root pruning may include the cutting of any root 2 inches or greater in diameter and/or severing in excess of 25 percent of the roots. 10. Structural defect means any structural weakness or deformity of a tree or its parts. A tree with a structural defect can be verified to be hazardous by a certified arborist. 14 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Fencing Required fencing should not be removed until completion of project. The fence should enclose the area under the canopy drip line or TPZ of the tree to be saved throughout the life of the project, or until final improvement work within the area is required, typically near the end of the project. Tree fencing should be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins. Contact the Project Arborist for timing of TPZ alteration, access or removal. WARNING SIGN POSTED TO FENCING This warning sign shall be posted to the fencing. A warning sign shall be prominently displayed on the fence. The sign shall be a minimum of 8.5 x 11 inches and clearly state: WARNING - Tree Protection Zone - This fence shall not be removed according to the City of Orange. For illustration purposes only This fence shall not be removed according to City of Orange. 15 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Type I Tree Protection Fencing encloses a partial area of the canopy dripline. The fencing shall enclose the area under the canopy to be saved throughout the life of the project, or until final improvement work within the area is required, typically near the end of the project. Contractor is responsible for protecting roots. For illustration purposes only. 16 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Tree photo not taken from current site. For illustration purposes only. Example of Type I Chain link fencing underneath the dripline of tree canopy. For illustration purposes only 17 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. USE OF HERBICIDE IS NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 20 FEET OF THE TREE'S DRIPLINE. No Dumping Allowed Around the Protected Tree. Prohibited activities are: Storage or parking vehicles, building materials, refuse, excavated materials spoils or dumping of poisonous materials on or around trees and roots. Poisonous materials include, but are not limited to, paint, petroleum products, concrete or stucco mix, dirty water or any other material which may be deleterious to tree health. 18 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Figure 1. Recommended pruning cut example. When removing a branch, always cut outside the branch bark ridge and collar. Do not make a flush cut adjacent to the trunk of the tree or branch being pruned. A. Make a partial cut from beneath, at a point several inches away from the trunk. B. Make a second cut from above several inches out from the first cut, to allow the limb to fall safely. C. Complete the job with a final cut just outside the branch collar, the raised area that surrounds the branch where it joins the trunk. WOUNDS TO THE TRUNK AND LIMBS CAUSED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT SHALL BE TREATED as stated above. TREE TOPPING: It shall be unlawful for any person to top any tree without a tree permit approved by the Project Arborist. If the Project Arborist determines that crown reduction of the tree is necessary because the tree has been severely damaged by storms or other causes, or is in circumstance which makes other pruning practices impractical, the Project Arborist may issue a tree permit allowing topping of the tree. 19 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Attachment A – Aerial Image Figure 2. Google Aerial. Subject trees outlined in red. Moreton Bay Fig Monterey pine Silk oak Silk oak 20 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Attachment B – Historical Aerial Images County of Orange 1947 aerial depicts Moreton Bay Fig prior to development of surrounding buildings, roads, retaining wall, utilities, etc. Moreton Bay Fig 21 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. County of Orange 1960 aerial depicts Moreton Bay Fig prior to development of surrounding buildings, roads, retaining wall, utilities, etc. Moreton Bay Fig 22 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. County of Orange 1970 aerial depicts Moreton Bay Fig after development of surrounding buildings, roads, retaining wall, utilities, etc. We located sparse roots during the potholing inspection, the Moreton Bay Fig tree’s roots were previously cut likely from previous construction activities that occurred around the tree. Moreton Bay Fig 23 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Attachment C – Site Plan 24 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Attachment D – Utility Plan 25 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Attachment E – Site Photos Tree #1. Moreton Bay Fig #1 26 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Tree #1. Tree protection zone to extend a minimum 3-feet beyond the dripline of the tree canopy. Biaxial Geogrid material to be used for new driveway. Tree Dripline 27 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Tree #2. Tree protection zone to extend a minimum 10-feet beyond the dripline of the tree canopy for Monterey pine. Biaxial Geogrid material to be used for new driveway. #2 Tree Dripline Tree Dripline 28 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Trees #3 and #4. Silk oak trees. #3 #4 29 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Two potholes were performed for the Moreton Bay Fig and one pothole for the Monterey pine on August 19, 2019 to determine the depth of roots for the two trees. Sparse roots less than ½ inch in diameter were found at a depth of two feet below existing grade for the Moreton Bay Fig. Above photo depicts pothole #1. It is clear Moreton Bay Fig roots have been previously cut likely from previous construction activities. 30 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Two potholes were performed for the Moreton Bay Fig and one pothole for the Monterey pine on August 19, 2019 to determine the depth of roots for the two trees. Sparse roots less than ½ inch in diameter were found at a depth of two feet below existing grade for the Moreton Bay Fig. Above photo depicts pothole #2. It is clear Moreton Bay Fig roots have been previously cut likely from previous construction activities. 31 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Sparse roots less than ¼ inch in diameter were found at a depth of 18 inches below existing grade for the Monterey pine. Above photo depicts pothole #3. It is clear Monterey pine roots have been previously cut likely from previous construction activities. 32 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Above January 21, 2019 photo taken from my initial inspection depicts driveway on adjacent property next to Moreton bay fig tree before it was repaved. 33 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Above August 19, 2019 photo taken from the potholing inspection depicts repaved driveway. The construction occurred sometime after my initial site inspection in January of 2019. It is unclear if any tree protection measures were taken during the construction to protect the Moreton Bay Fig tree and its roots. 34 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Attachment F – Road Building over Tree Root Zone 35 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. 36 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Report Prepared by: Michael Green This arborist report is prepared by Michael Green. He has over 15 years of experience in the landscape industry. His background includes hands-on experience in tree care, plant health care, landscape maintenance, landscape construction, and irrigation design and water management. His experience in the landscape industry makes him an excellent choice for preserving trees during construction. He has a Bachelor of Science degree in agribusiness from California State Polytechnic University, San Luis Obispo. Certifications, Licenses, and Professional Associations Registered Consulting Arborist No.: 602, American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Certified Arborist, International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Irrigation Auditor (IA) Licensed California Landscape Contractor (C-27) California Licensed Pesticide Applicator, (QAL) Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA) Ruben Green, contributing He is president of Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc. with more than 33 years of experience in the landscape industry. His background includes hands-on experience in tree care, landscape maintenance, construction, and irrigation management. He has a Master’s degree in plant science from California State Polytechnic University, Pomona. He provides detailed investigations, independent analysis, and expert witness testimony since 2003. He is a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA), a certified arborist and a certified tree risk assessor with the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), licensed pesticide applicator (QAL) with the state of California, and a (C-27) licensed California contractor. 37 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Assumptions and Limitations My field methods are evaluated with a 100 percent ground visual survey. No climbing, excavating, coring, boring, sounding of the trunk, or drilling was performed. Trees that require an additional inspection for risk and hazard evaluation beyond the visual ground inspection will be billed under a separate proposal. All inspections are visual ground inspections and are not considered as a risk inspection. No digging, root collar excavation, drilling, coring, or climbing was performed. A risk assessment includes but not be limited to a root collar excavation, climbing the tree, and further examining the upper side of branches and upper trunk and stems. My site examination and the information in this report are limited to the date and time the inspection occurred. The information in this report was limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection. Additional inspection(s) require a separate agreement between both parties in writing. Site inspections only provide a “snapshot” of the tree. Changes in environmental conditions such as but not limited to construction, surrounding site changes, flooding, root damage, fires, pruning practices, lack of maintenance, grade changes, and wind can impact the tree’s conditions, structure, safety, risk factor, and health, etc. A consulting arborist cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and/or below ground under the tree. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatment does not guarantee outcome or results. The web provides numerous tree risk assessment sites that offer tips for tree care and detecting and/or identifying potential tree hazards. If the client believes the tree’s condition has changed since the date of this inspection, the arborist should be contacted ASAP. Future inspections, canopy inspections, and root collar examinations are under the client’s discretion. Evergreen Arborist Consultants has no control over the enforcement of our recommendations or control over contractors and people who follow our recommendations, or anyone involved within the project or visiting the property. Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc., its employees, or related companies, makes no guaranties, express or implied to the tree’s health, risk, hazard, condition, potential for failure or future condition. Evergreen Arborists Consultants, Inc., its employees shall not be liable to client/owner or any other party(s) for loss of property, loss of life, loss of use, loss of profits or income(s), special damages, incidental damages, consequential damages, incidental damages, or damages arising from the failure of inspection(s) or weather conditions. This report is not valid until paid in full. The Client acknowledges and agrees that all intellectual property rights and title, including without limitation, all copyright in this Assessment shall remain solely with Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. Possession of this Assessment, or a copy thereof, does not entitle the Client or any third party to the right of publication or reproduction of the Assessment for any purpose save and except where Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. has given its prior 38 574 S Glassell St Orange CA. 92866 Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. written consent. The client shall hold this arborist harmless against any and all claims for injuries to persons or property on the premises. A consulting arborist is a tree specialist who uses their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist or seek additional advice. Any treatment(s), such as pruning and removal of trees, but not limited to, property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between neighbors, landlord-tenant matters, etc. are beyond the scope of this work. This arborist relies and accepts information from his client to be complete and accurate. The client hiring this arborist accepts full responsibility for authorizing the recommended treatment(s) or remedial measure(s) and holds this arborist harmless. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near a tree is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risks is to eliminate all trees. August 6, 2020 Mr. Axel Guerra Kisco Senior Living 5790 Fleet Street, Suite 300 Carlsbad, California 92008 Re: Supplemental Tree Assessment Park Plaza Memory Care Project, 574 South Glassell Street, Orange, California 92866 Dear Mr. Guerra, Kisco Senior Living proposes to construct a residential memory care facility at 574 South Glassell Street. The project includes demolition and removal of the existing restaurant and surface parking lot and development of the site with a two-story memory care facility. As part of the project, the existing asphalt driveway taking access from Glassell Street will be replaced. A portion of the sidewalk, drive apron, and curb and gutter in front of the Holy Family Cathedral Church to the north will also be replaced. Onsite trees are proposed for removal and two off-site trees, a Monterey pine and an historic Moreton Bay fig, located on the Holy Family Cathedral Church property, will sustain encroachments into their canopies. Evergreen Arborist Consultants, Inc. (Evergreen or EAC) prepared a Protected Tree Report, dated February 25, 2019, that discussed the proposed development impacts to the onsite and adjacent property trees. That report was submitted to the City of Orange. Upon review of the February 2019 Protected Tree Report, the City of Orange Design Review Committee (DRC) had some questions about the project’s impacts on the adjacent property trees. Evergreen prepared a second Protected Tree Report, dated July 7, 2020. The second report includes the results of exploratory root zone potholing efforts that took place subsequent to the February 2019 report. Carlberg Associates (Carlberg) was engaged to provide additional consultation and opinions on the project’s potential impacts on the Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) and Moreton Bay fig (Ficus macrophylla), and to clarify or expand on the recommended methods of preservation during construction. This photo-documented letter report has been prepared for submittal to the City of Orange as a supplemental arborist report related solely to the Monterey pine and Morton Bay fig. It details the undersigned arborist’s findings, opinions, and recommendations for preservation of the two offsite trees during demolition of the existing structure, hardscape and landscape, and construction of the new memory care facility. ATTACHMENT NO. 6 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE CARLBERG ASSOCIATES SUPPLEMENTAL TREE ASSESSMENT (DATED 08/06/20) Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 2 No mapping or tree preservation exhibits are included in this letter. Captioned photographs at the end of this letter provide additional commentary and illustrations to clarify my opinions or recommendations. For the purposes of this assignment, I reviewed the following documents as they relate to the two offsite trees: • the two Evergreen Protected Tree Reports • the Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 1866-19, dated May 2020 (CAJA Environmental Services, LLC) • the site plan (Shelter, LLP) • the landscape plans (SQLA Incorporated) • the geotechnical engineer’s email comments on the proposed paving system (Leighton Group) • the civil/utility plans and email comments on paving system design and the northerly adjacent sidewalk, drive apron, and curb and gutter work (Pasco, Laret, Suiter & Associates) • the Ackerstone Holland I (8cm) impervious paver stone system specifications Based on my review of those documents and several conversations with the project team, I understand that: • The project team is proposing to use an impervious paving system under the Moreton Bay Fig tree canopy because the geotechnical engineer found a clay layer about five (5) to ten (10) feet below existing grade under the site. That clay layer may suppress the infiltration rate of stormwater through the substrate below the driveway. Therefore, with the installation of a pervious paving system, storm water might spread out through the path of least resistance, such as the aggregate base under the pavers or in utility trenches; if that occurs there is the potential for storm water to infiltrate utility vaults or other undesirable areas. • The project team is proposing to use biaxial geogrid material under the driveway paving system. • It has been confirmed by the paving stone company that geogrid may be installed beneath the paving stone system without effecting the performance or warranty of the product. • The geotechnical report calls for 12 inches of compacted base under the paving system, plus an additional 6 inches of scarification below that. This results in a total of 18 inches of excavation below the new driveway paving system. The depth of excavation might be reduced by the use of the geogrid system as described in the Evergreen report dated July 7, 2020. • The actual depth of excavation and re-compaction of sub-grade and sub-base materials for the driveway will be determined based on existing soil conditions in the field. • There will be mandatory offsite improvements to the curb, gutter, driveway apron, and sidewalk in front of the church driveway that may impact the roots of the Moreton Bay fig. • The existing property line wall will remain in place, as-is. • The new sewer line and other utilities are being routed away, as practical and feasible, from the protected zones of the Monterey pine and the Moreton Bay fig. There • The potholing in two sample areas chosen by Evergreen revealed very little root presence in the upper soil horizon that was revealed by excavation of the pothole. • The two silk oak (Grevilia robusta) trees located in the center of the existing driveway in a raised planter will be removed. During my site visit I noted the following: • Both the Monterey pine and Moreton Bay fig appear to be in good health and structural form. • The February 2019 Evergreen report noted brown needles on the pine. The pine appears to have been recently pruned and no brown needles were noted at the time of my site visit. Monterey pine is particularly susceptible to pine pitch canker, which causes needle, twig, and branch dieback. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 3 • The Morton Bay fig has experienced many canopy and root pruning events throughout its 145+ years in this location. The canopy has been pruned repeatedly for road clearance and driveway clearance for both the church and the existing restaurant. • Neither the driveway for the church nor the restaurant exhibit any cracks or buckling that would indicate there are significant roots close to the surface • The property line wall does not exhibit any cracks that would indicate roots from the Moreton Bay fig are putting pressure on or lifting the wall • The sidewalk, curb, and gutter in front of the Moreton Bay fig are not cracked, buckled, or lifting • The landscape area adjacent to the church driveway does not contain surface roots of the Morton Bay fig, nor is the cement landscape curb exhibiting cracks or lifting from surface roots • The Morton Bay fig roots have been pruned over the years to accommodate the curb adjacent to the sidewalk and the church driveway; no decay or other detrimental structural issues were noted at the historic pruning sites. • The outer edges of the Moreton Bay fig canopy may require minor pruning to achieve fire department clearance from grade along the driveway. • The removal of the two silk oak trees will need to be performed carefully to avoid damage to the outer canopy of the Moreton Bay fig tree. Several of the above items indicate that the Morton Bay fig roots have likely been pruned by the church property during construction of the church driveway and by the city during installation and maintenance of the sidewalk, curb and gutter, and the driveway aprons over the decades. In general, I agree with the observations and recommendations in the July 7, 2020 Evergreen Protected Tree Report. The following points expand upon the discussion and recommendations in that report: • Since the driveway is the only ingress and egress for the project, it will be infeasible to maintain chain link fencing at the outer edges of the tree protection zones during active demolition and construction periods. Chain link fence as described in the Evergreen report for tree protection may be used during periods of inactivity that will extend for more than a normal or three-day weekend. When the project is not actively under demolition or construction, the chain link fence may be placed in the manner described in the Evergreen arborist report. • To highlight the Tree Protection Zones, the underside of the pine and the Moreton Bay fig canopies that extend over the project driveway should be fitted with orange construction fencing in a horizontal manner and tied to the branches. This will serve as a visual reminder to the trucks and other vehicles entering and exiting the driveway that the tree is protected, and that extra care should be taken to make sure that the branches are not impacted. • The outer edges of the Moreton Bay fig canopy can be tied up to the larger branches above in order to temporarily lift them out of the way of equipment that may be high profile. See the captioned photographs at the end of this letter for examples of branches being tied up temporarily during construction. • A qualified tree service contractor with a bucket truck should p erform the temporary branches and mesh fencing tie-ups. • Orange mesh fencing should be attached to the existing property line wall under the pine and Moreton Bay fig canopies, along with signage that indicates that the canopies above and the ground below the trees are protected and requires special attention and monitoring when work is performed in those areas. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 4 • Demolition and construction equipment that may hit the canopies of the Monterey pine or Moreton Bay fig trees shall be positioned outside of the tree protection zones as illustrated on the plans. Smaller equipment shall be used for demolition and reconstruction of the new driveway and landscape areas within the tree protection zones. • The Tree Protection Zones and notes related to monitoring and tree protection shall be included on all of the project plans, including but not limited to the Demolition Plan, Site Plan, Grading Plan, Utility Plan(s), Landscape Plans, etc. • As indicated in the Evergreen arborist report, no heavy equipment should be used under the Moreton Bay fig or pine canopy. • Smaller equipment, such as jackhammers and shovels, should be used to break up and remove the existing asphalt and base materials under the tree canopies. A small skip loader or mini bobcat may be used under the tree canopies, if deemed appropriate by the monitoring arborist. • Soil compaction equipment should be kept to the smallest piece of equipment capable of completing the work. Large backhoes or other heavy equipment with rollers should be excluded from the Tree Protection Zones. • Large equipment deliveries on flatbed trucks or trucks with high clearance requirements should b e routed to the southern half of the driveway for ingress and egress in order to reduce the potential for canopy sweeping and branch damage. This may require advance notice of deliveries/arrival, special instructions to those contractors, and a flagman or other manned direction during ingress and egress by those vehicles. • The pine tree should be monitored during construction and after construction for at least one year (2 monitoring visits 6 months apart) for browning needles. If browning occurs, the project arborist should conduct diagnostics to determine the cause. • Removal of the two onsite trees (silk oaks) immediately south of the Moreton Bay fig shall be performed by a qualified tree service contractor in a manner that avoids canopy or root impacts to the Moreton Bay fig. Work will have to be performed carefully so as to avoid breaking any branches in the Moreton Bay fig canopy. The silk oak trunks should be cut to grade and the root ball/mass carefully excavated without tearing or shattering roots of the Moreton Bay fig that may be intertwined. • Hand dig a 12-18-inch-wide trench along the northern limits of the driveway to the required depth of the new driveway base so that any roots coming from the Moreton Bay fig or Monterey pine will be cleanly cut at that point. It will eliminate tearing of the root system to remain to the north. • When roots from the pine or Moreton Bay fig are encountered under the existing pavement in the Tree Protection Zones, the soil and/or asphalt base materials should be removed with hand tools, not mechanical equipment. Once the roots are exposed, the monitoring arborist can provide guidance for root retention or removal. • Water management for both offsite trees will be especially important pre- and during construction. The applicant should work with the church on a pre- and post-construction irrigation regime. • The work required to replace the sidewalk, driveway apron, and curb and gutter in front of the subject property and the church will be performed to the standards required by the City of Orange. The project arborist may monitor and document that work for the project record. Based on my review of the project materials noted herein, my site observations, and since the site is already developed with a parking lot and driveway, I believe that the proposed project could move forward with less than significant impacts to the Monterey pine and the Moreton Bay fig tree if the conditions described here and in the July 7, 2020 Evergreen Protected Tree Report are adhered to during demolition and construction. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 5 Please feel welcome to call me at our Sierra Madre office (626.428.5072) with any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Christy Cuba ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist, #502 ISA Certified Arborist, WE-1982A Sierra Madre Office christy@cycarlberg.com A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 6 This photograph, facing north east, illustrates the condition of the Monterey pine and Moreton Bay fig in the existing site condition as of June 24, 2020. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 7 A general rendering of the draped orange construction fencing on the under side of the canopy and along the wall under the Moreton Bay fig. TREE PROTECTION ZONE TREE PROTECTION ZONE A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 8 Example of tying tree branches out of the way during construction. Smaller twigs can also be tied up to larger, higher branches for several months with no long-term impacts to their health or structure. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 9 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing sidewalk and church driveway. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 10 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing sidewalk and church driveway. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 11 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing driveway for the church. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape or driveway planter curbs. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 12 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing driveway for the church and the driveway for the project site. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape, driveway planter curb, or the wall. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 13 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing driveway for the church and the driveway for the project site. Note that there is no heaving or displacement of the wall. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 14 Facing generally west, illustrating the existing driveway for the church and the driveway for the project site. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape, driveway planter curb, or the wall. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 15 Facing north, illustrating the existing driveway and wall on the project side. Note that there is no cracking, buckling, or heaving of the hardscape or the wall. Orange construction fencing should be placed on the wall with clear Tree Protection Zone signage. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 16 Facing generally east, illustrating the existing driveway on the project site. If possible, heavy equipment should use the south side of the driveway for ingress and egress as long as possible. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 17 TREE PROTECTION ZONE A general rendering of the draped orange construction fencing on the underside of the canopy and along the wall under the Monterey pine. A U G U S T 6 , 2 0 20 / K I S C O S E N I O R L I V I N G S U P P L E M E N T A L T R E E A S S E S S M E N T , P A R K P L A Z A M E M O R Y C A R E F A C I L I T Y , C I T Y O F O R A N G E P A G E 18 CHRISTY CUBA CARLBERG ASSOCIATES 828 Fifth Street, Suite 3 • Santa Monica • California • 90403 Satellite Office – 80 W. Sierra Madre Blvd., #241 • Sierra Madre • California • 91024 christy@cycarlberg.com • o: 626.428.5072 • www.cycarlberg.com Education B.A., Environmental Analysis & Design, Cum Laude, University of California, Irvine, 1993 Graduate, International Society of Arboriculture Certification Study Program, April 1998 Graduate, Consulting Academy, American Society of Consulting Arborists, February 2008 Experience Consulting Arborist, Carlberg Associates, 2011 - Present Director of Environmental Services & Senior Arborist, Land Design Consultants, Pasadena, 1994 – 2011 Park Specialist/Naturalist, City of Monrovia, 1988-1996 Certificates Certified Arborist, WE-1982A, International Society of Arboriculture, 1998 Registered Consulting Arborist, #502, American Society of Consulting Arborists, 2011 Qualified Tree Risk Assessor, International Society of Arboriculture, 2013 AREAS OF EXPERTISE Ms. Cuba is experienced in the following areas of tree management and preservation: • Tree health & risk assessments • Inventories & reports for native and non-native trees • Master planning • Evaluation of trees for preservation, encroachment, relocation, restoration, and hazards • Value assessments (appraisals) for native and non-native trees • Post-fire inventories, assessments, and valuations for native and non-native trees • Guidelines for tree preservation, planting, pruning and maintenance specifications • Pest and disease identification • Tree and landscape resource mapping – GPS, GIS, and AutoCAD • Planning Commission, City Council, and community meetings representation • Review of landscape plans for mitigation compliance & fire fuel modification planning • Preparation of native habitat and woodland management plans • Performance of long-term mitigation compliance monitoring & reporting • Expert testimony PREVIOUS CONSULTING EXPERIENCE Ms. Cuba has performed hundreds of tree inventories, health evaluations, impact analyses, hazard, and value assessments for counties, cities, sanitation districts, and water districts, as well as private developers, architects, engineers, and homeowners. She has over 30 years of experience in the study of trees and arboricultural consulting, and is trained in environmental planning, state and federal regulatory permitting, preparation of CEQA analyses, and habitat mitigation planning and implementation. Representative clients include: City of Pasadena San Diego Gas & Electric City of Monrovia Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart and Sullivan (attorneys at law) City of Santa Clarita The New Home Company City of Glendora City of South Gate Los Angeles County Fire Department City of Sierra Madre California Institute of Technology Belzberg Architects Mia Lehrer + Associates Occidental College Pulte/Centex Homes Rose Bowl Stadium Newhall Land and Farming Las Encinas Hospital/Aurora Health Services KOVAC Design Studio Pomona College EPT Design Claremont University Consortium Pamela Burton & Company Gensler Architects Chandler School Claremont Graduate University Mesivta of Greater Los Angeles Harvey Mudd College Watt Companies, LLC Woodland Construction/D2Development/KIBO Group AFFILIATIONS Ms. Cuba serves with the following national and regional professional organizations: • Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists • Member, International Society of Arboriculture, Western Chapter • Member and Past President (2015), Street Tree Seminar, Inc. AGENDA ITEM DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE May 20, 2020 TO: THRU: FROM: CHAIR SKORPANICH AND MEMBERS OF THE DESIGN REVIEW COMMITTEE Anna Pehoushek, Assistant Community Development Director Kelly Ribuffo, Associate Planner 1. SUBJECT 2. SUMMARY 3. BACKGROUND INFORMATION D mm (G) Zg Ca m B () Exi Dvm 55 ur b s pg As pa U m .085-,Mj R N 721 Evm Rv N.866 Prvus Desg Re m (DRC)j R 4. PROJECT DESCRIPTION g rf kg l d cstuc w ry 0,q mry D u f pjt •Cpary a y •Ce r x w u pp g •mm e v w •R vr prt ATTACHMENT NO. 7 DRCITEM 1 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE STAFF REPORT AND MINUTES FROM 05/20/20 DRC MEETING Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting 5. EXISTING SITE 6. EXISTING AREA CONTEXT S Gl!S E.R A L V i Ca a (P-1 -3 z)a Hy m (P-1 z)P z S Lg (C z) () D j H g O H 7. ANALYSIS AND STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES I 1:Dig i c O H D P L,e v g f ma mid-2Qth n m j g b d tt g , mp g y -g f ry p i m ry I h ff l f j O g S d ff O H D s tw-2 g h a c P i y i tw ry o j f p h DRCITEM 2 05/20/2020 r B 8. ADVISORY BOARD RECOMMENDATION R v j 27 20 4 20,Jry 29 2020 p 1 2020 w D R 22,020 9. PUBLIC NOTICE O 14,2020 N O y_05 ni w y D 161 D R C 10. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW D .8 p nvnma a s C E Qu DRCITEM 3 05/20/2020 11. STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRED FINDINGS • The project design upholds community aesthetics through the use of an internally consistent, integrated design theme and is consistent with all adopted specific plans, applicable design standards, and their required findings (OMC 17.10.07.F.3). u ff l!. -rte t tw-ry u rt rt facade l! e DRCITEM 4 05/20/2020 12. CONDITIONS 13. ATTACHMENTS abe o Cty webse o by equest by cang 714-744-7220) F B B N:\CDD\PLNG\Applications\Conditional Use Permits\CUP 3085-19 Park Plaza Memory Care DRCITEM 5 05/20/2020 x rm Crm,Srp Mrm Im F MOTION CARRIED RECESS: 9:30 - 9:36 p.m. 3.3 DESIGN REVIEW NO. 4973-19 - PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE A u d d ru w -30 1 q 5 S S K R (74)-3 kr@ R A:nn Kly Ri Pnn d rvw j rt rp j M Hr rrv mm b c w d 5 7 g rn ur dr k n. wn Pk a h dr T tu s yw T C s p tr T h ,k T rm tur rn gg a ' . I n v . 6 7 k p y w p mmtn f t j. pl f uc mme mb rm md mt Rvw 4973-19 -Park Pz my C ern mms Cm. OO: O: AYS: S: ABE: rm Drm rm,rm m Fx N MOTION CARRIED 4. ADJOURNMENT: 11:02 p.m. x gul g Wdny,Ju 3,22,5:3 p.va vrius Pg 7 7 ATTACHMENT NO. 8 DRC NO. 4973-19; PARK PLAZA MEMORY CARE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 1866-19 (AVAILABLE ON CITY WEBSITE OR BY REQUEST) Sept. 2, 2020 DRC Meeting