Staff Report with Exhibits.102 Alta Heights
PREPARED BY: RYAN SAFTY
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 06/09/2021
ITEM NO: 2
DATE: June 4, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence
and Construction of a New Single-Family Residence with Reduced Front and
Side Setbacks on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. Located at 102 Alta
Heights Court. APN 532-29-045. Architectural and Site Application S-20-029.
Property Owner: Bo Development, LLC. Applicant: Eric Beckstrom. Project
Planner: Ryan Safty.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider approval of a request for demolition of an existing single-family residence and
construction of a new single-family residence with reduced front and side setbacks on
nonconforming property zoned R-1:8, located at 102 Alta Heights Court.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 0.121 acres (5,250 square feet)
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
PAGE 2 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
FINDINGS:
▪ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing
structures:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations), with the exception for front and side setbacks, as described below.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules on
nonconforming lots, including setback requirements:
1. The subject property is nonconforming with regard to lot size and width.
2. The proposed reduced setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood.
▪ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family
residences not located in hillside areas.
▪ The project design is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the
architect has responded to all recommendations from the Town’s Consulting Architect by
recessing windows and doors, adjusting the size of the windows on the front elevation and
adding clad siding to the front projecting bay to contrast with the stucco wall on the front
façade, modifying the scale and detail of the garage trellis brackets, refining the spacing and
detail of the rear elevation French doors and windows on the second floor, and simplifying
the roof forms. The project is not the largest for floor area or FAR in the neighborhood, and
meets the objective standards of the zoning code, except the front and side setbacks as
described below.
PAGE 3 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code , the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is located on the northwest side of Alta Heights Court, along a small cul-
de-sac off of Loma Alta Avenue (Exhibit 1). The lot is 5,250 square feet with an existing 1,037-
square foot single-story residence with a 308-square foot attached garage. The immediate low
density residential neighborhood contains one- and two-story residences.
On September 21, 2020, the applicant submitted an Architecture and Site application for the
demolition of an existing single-family residence, and construction of a new two-story residence
and attached garage with reduced front and side setbacks.
The proposed project meets all technical requirements of the Town Code including parking,
height, floor area, and building coverage, with the exception for front and side setbacks, as
described below.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is located on the northwest side of Alta Heights Court, along a small
cul-de-sac off Loma Alta Avenue (Exhibit 1). The surrounding properties in the low-density
residential neighborhood are one- and two-story single-family residences.
B. Project Summary
The applicant is proposing to construct a new 1,825-square foot two-story single-family
residence with an attached 454-square foot garage (Exhibit 11) with reduced front and side
setbacks.
PAGE 4 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (continued):
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:8 zone. The existing property is 5,250
square feet with 50 feet of frontage on a cul-de-sac bulb and a lot width of 50 feet. The
minimum lot size is 8,000 square feet and the minimum frontage for a property on a cul-de-
sac bulb is 30 feet with a 60-foot minimum lot width, and therefore it is considered a
nonconforming lot due to size and width.
The proposed residence is in compliance with the allowable floor area, h eight, and on-site
parking requirements for the property, and includes a request for an exception for the front
and side setbacks for the proposed residence and garage, as allowed by the zoning
regulations for nonconforming lots as discussed below.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant is proposing demolition of the existing residence and construction of a two-
story single-family residence with 1,825 square feet of living space, and a 454-square foot
attached garage. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 28.5 feet, where a
maximum of 30 feet is allowed.
The proposed project materials include an asphalt shingled roof, a mix of stucco and wood
siding, and metal window trim and railings (Exhibit 10). The applicant has provided a
Project Description and Letter of Justification detailing the project (Exhibit 4). The project
plans show a future Accessory Dwelling Unit above the proposed garage. The Accessory
Dwelling Unit is not being reviewed as a part of this Architecture and Site Application per
State law.
The subject property is nonconforming with a lot size of 5,250 square feet where 8,000
square feet is required, and a lot width of 50 feet where 60 feet is required for properties
fronting on a cul-de-sac bulb. Section 29.10.265 of the Town Code allows for modification
of any rule of the zone for nonconforming lots, including setback requirements, if the
modifications are found to be compatible with the neighborhood.
As detailed in the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of Justification (Exhibit 4), the
applicant requests exceptions to the front and side setback requirements due to the
nonconforming lot size and compatibility with the neighborhood.
PAGE 5 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
As described below in the Neighborhood Compatibility section of this report, the majority of
the lots in the immediate neighborhood are non-conforming as it pertains to the minimum
lot size of 8,000 square feet for the zone. The average lot size in the immediate
neighborhood is 6,903 square feet. The subject property is 5,250 square feet and is the
smallest in the immediate neighborhood.
The existing single-story residence on the subject property does not meet setback
requirements, with a 24-foot, six-inch front yard setback when 25 feet is required, and a
five-foot, six-inch side yard setback when eight feet is required. The applicant is requesting
to maintain the existing side yard setbacks and encroach further into the front yard setback
with an 18-foot proposed front setback to the attached garage.
In evaluating the request for reduced setbacks, the setbacks of the residences in the
immediate and surrounding neighborhood are reviewed to determine if the request is
compatible with the neighborhood. There are residences in the immediate neighborhood ,
along Alta Heights Court, that do not meet side or street-side setback requirements, and
residences fronting along Loma Alta Avenue in the surrounding neighborhood that do not
meet front setback requirements.
The adjacent neighbor to the south, a corner property at 175 Loma Alta Avenue, encroaches
into the required street side setback along Alta Heigh ts Court. The two-story residence has
a 10-foot street-side setback, adjacent to the proposed 18-foot front yard setback for 102
Alta Heights Court, when 15 feet is required. The attached single-story garage encroaches
further into the required street-side setback, with a setback of under five feet when 15 feet
is required for attached garages. Per the applicant’s Project Description and Letter of
Justification (Exhibit 4), the two-story wall of 175 Loma Alta Avenue shields the view of the
proposed residence from Loma Alta Avenue. Additionally, per Town permit records, 175
Loma Alta has a reduced 17-foot, six-inch front setback along Loma Alta Avenue when 25
feet is required.
Across the street from 175 Loma Alta, 116 Alta Heights Court also does not meet the
required street side setback along Alta Heights Court. 116 Alta Heights Court has an 11-foot
setback from Alta Heights Court when 15 feet is required. The residence at 116 Alta Heights
Court is also two-story, but the second-story steps inward.
106 Alta Heights Court, two properties to the northeast of the subject property, is a single-
story residence with a five-foot side yard setback to the attached garage when eight feet is
required.
PAGE 6 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
If the immediate neighborhood is expanded to include properties fronting along Loma Alta
Avenue, with five properties on the south side of Loma Alta Avenue (154, 156, 162, 172, and
176 Loma Alta Avenue) and two additional properties on the north side of Loma Alta
Avenue (161 and 177 Loma Alta Avenue), there are examples of additional properties along
Loma Alta Avenue that do not meet front setback requirements. Per Town permit records,
four of these seven properties do not meet front setback requirements, with three of the
four having 20 feet or less (156, 161, and 162 Loma Alta Avenue).
The request is being considered by the Planning Commission because there are no
residences with reduced front yard setbacks in the immediate neighborhood and fronting
along Alta Heights Court. However, if the immediate neighborhood is expanded to
properties fronting along Loma Alta Avenue, there are five properties that do not meet
front setback requirements. If the Planning Commission determines that the reduced front
and side yard setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood, the request can be approved
as allowed by Section 29.10.265 (3) of the Town Code.
B. Building Design
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the design of the proposed project within the
neighborhood context to provide recommendations regarding the building design. The sit e
is located on a narrow but deep lot on a cul-de-sac with both one- and two-story homes in a
wide variety of traditional architectural styles.
In the Issues and Concerns background section of the Consulting Architect’s report (Exhibit
6), the Consulting Architect noted that the proposed house is very well designed with an
identifiable architectural style and details, but identified issues with certain aspects of the
design and made recommendations to address each issue. The Consulting Architect made
six recommendations to address consistency of the project with the Residential Design
Guidelines, as follows:
1. Recess the windows and French doors without trim, or add wood trim and projecting
sills around all windows to address the issue of the narrow window frames.
2. Group the double windows on the front elevation or reduce the sizes to remedy the
crowding of the windows.
3. Refine the scale and detail of the garage trellis brackets.
4. Recess the garage doors.
5. Refine the spacing and detail of the rear elevation French doors and the adjacent
window on the second floor.
6. Remedy the awkward roof transitions on the left side elevation.
PAGE 7 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
The applicant revised the plans (Exhibit 11) per the Consulting Architect’s
recommendations, addressing each issue, and has provided a written response to each
issue and recommendation (Exhibit 7).
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
The immediate low-density residential neighborhood is made up of one- and two-story
single-family residences. Based on Town and County records, the residences in the
immediate area range in size from 1,152-square feet to 2,652-square feet. The floor area
ratios range from 0.17 to 0.42. The proposed residence would be 1,825-square feet with a
floor area ratio of 0.35. Pursuant to Town Code, the maximum allowable square footage for
the 5,250-square foot lot is 1,827 square feet with a maximum floor area ratio of 0.35. The
table below reflects the current conditions of the immediate neighborhood:
The proposed residence would not be the first two-story home, not the largest home in the
immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage or FAR, and not the tallest. All but two
of the lots in the immediate neighborhood are nonconforming as they do not meet the
minimum lot size requirement of 8,000 square feet in the R-1:8 zone.
D. Tree Impacts
The Town’s Consulting Arborist prepared a report for the site and made recommendations
for the project (Exhibit 5). The project site contains four protected trees. The applicant is
proposing to remove two non-flowing Pear trees within or adjacent to the proposed
footprint. Both trees proposed for removal have an Overall Heath Rating of below 50
percent. The applicant is proposing to preserve the two remaining trees on-site, per the
Consulting Arborist’s recommendations, and plant four new 15-gallon Crepe Myrtle trees
along the front yard and rear yard to meet the tree replacement requirement.
PAGE 8 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
DISCUSSION (continued):
E. Neighbor Outreach
The applicant provided a summary of their efforts to communicate with their neighbors
(Exhibit 8).
F. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and signage were installed on the site and written notice was sent to property
owners and tenants located within 300 feet of the subject property. Public comments received
by 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 2021 are included as Exhibit 9.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for demolition
of an existing single-family residence and construction of a new single-family residence with
reduced setbacks on a nonconforming property, consistent with the neighborhood. With
the modification for reduced side and front yard setbacks, the project would be in
compliance with the Town Code if the exceptions for the front and side yard setbacks is
granted, and Residential Design Guidelines.
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning
Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the
adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2);
2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) with the exception for setbacks (Exhibit 2);
PAGE 9 OF 10
SUBJECT: 102 Alta Heights Court/S-20-029
DATE: June 4, 2021
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\Item 2 - 102 Alta Heights Court\Staff Report.102 Alta Heights.docx
CONCLUSION (continued):
4. Make the finding required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of
zoning rules on nonconforming lots (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
6. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
7. Approve Architecture and Site application S-20-029 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 11.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Project Description and Letter of Justification
5. Consulting Arborist’s Report, dated November 3, 2020
6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated October 6, 2020
7. Applicant’s response to the Consulting Architect’s Report, received February 11, 2021
8. Applicant’s neighborhood outreach efforts
9. Public Comments received prior to 11:00 a.m., Friday, June 4, 2021
10. Color and Materials Board, received December 16, 2020
11. Development Plans, received May 9, 2021
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
L
O
M
A
A
L
T
A
A
V
S
T
A
C
I
A
S
T
J
O
H
N
S
O
N
A
V
R
E
E
D
S
H
E
A
D
L
N RAM
E
L
W
YWHITNEY AVCROSS WYFOSTER RDALTA HEIGHTS CT102 Alta Heights Court
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
Update Notes:- Updated 12/20/17 to link to tlg-sql12 server data (sm)- Updated 11/22/19 adding centerpoint guides, Buildings layer, and Project Site leader with label- Updated 10/8/20 to add street centerlines which can be useful in the hillside area- Updated 02-19-21 to link to TLG-SQL17 database (sm)
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\ITEM 2 - 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT\EXHIBIT 2 - DRAFT FINDINGS AND
CONSIDERATIONS.DOCX
PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
102 Alta Heights Court
Architecture and Site Application S-20-029
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-family Residence with Reduced Front and Side Setbacks
on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-29-045.
PROPERTY OWNER: Bo Development, LLC.
APPLICANT: Eric Beckstrom.
PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty.
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures.
Required finding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing
structures:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance and is in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations), with the exception for setbacks, as described below.
S:\PLANNING COMMISSION REPORTS\2021\6-9-21\ITEM 2 - 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT\EXHIBIT 2 - DRAFT FINDINGS AND
CONSIDERATIONS.DOCX
EXHIBIT 2
Required findings for reduced setbacks on a nonconforming lot:
■ As required by Section 29.10.265(3) of the Town Code for modification of zoning rules
on nonconforming lots, including setback requirements:
1. The subject property is nonconforming with regard to lot size and width.
2. The proposed reduced setbacks are compatible with the neighborhood.
Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family
residences not located in hillside areas.
■ The project design is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines in that the
architects have responded to all recommendations from the Town’s Consulting Architect by
recessing all windows and doors, adjusting the size of the windows on the front elevation
and adding clad siding to the front projecting bay for a gentle contrast to the main stucco
wall on the front façade, modifying the scale and detail of the garage trellis brackets,
refining the spacing and detail of the rear elevation French doors and windows on the
second floor, and simplifying the roof forms. The project is not the largest for floor area or
FAR in the neighborhood, and meets the objective standards of the zoning code, except for
setbacks.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture and Site applications:
■ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project .
PLANNING COMMISSION – June 9, 2021
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
102 Alta Heights Court
Architecture and Site Application S-20-029
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence and
Construction of a New Single-family Residence with Reduced Front and Side Setbacks
on Nonconforming Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-29-045.
PROPERTY OWNER: Bo Development, LLC.
APPLICANT: Eric Beckstrom.
PROJECT PLANNER: Ryan Safty.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or
modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Prior to final occupancy all exterior lighting shall be kept to a
minimum and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto
adjacent properties. All exterior lighting shall utilize shields so that no bulb is visible and to
ensure that the light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto
neighboring parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. No flood lights shall
be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security.
4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any protected trees
to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
6. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing, and other protection measures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the
construction plans.
7. TREE REPLACEMENT: Prior to issuance of final occupancy replacement trees must be
planted.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
9. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard
must be landscaped.
EXHIBIT 3
10. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report. These recommendations must be
incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building
permit where applicable. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations
have or will be addressed.
11. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the
requirements of the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. Submittal of a Landscape
Documentation Package pursuant to WELO is required prior to issuance of a building
permit. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is
required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. A
completed WELO Certificate of Completion is required prior to final inspection/certificate
of occupancy.
12. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of the
company that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, glass, and
aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a
company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these
materials, noting the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to
the Town’s demolition inspection.
13. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
14. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnif y,
and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to
overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of
approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the
approval and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
15. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
16. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of the existing
single-family residence and attached garage. A separate Building Permit is required for the
construction of the new single-family residence and attached garage, and an additional
permit is required for the attached ADU. An additional Building Permit will be required for
the PV System if the system is required by the California Energy Code.
17. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos
as of January 1, 2020, are the 2019 California Building Standards Code, California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.
18. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in ful l on the
cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval
will be addressed.
19. BUILDING & SUITE NUMBERS: Submit requests for new building addresses to the Building
Division prior to submitting for the building permit application process.
20. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
21. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building
Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has
been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all
utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department
Service Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of
site plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer,
and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the
Town.
22. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with
the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
specializing in soils mechanics.
23. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed
five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent
property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a
California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.
24. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land
surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils
Report, and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the
following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
25. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms
must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
26. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed
with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water
closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the
backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch wide doors on the accessible floor level.
c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing,
no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an
18-inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
27. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary
sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the
plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los
Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on
drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches abov e the
elevation of the next upstream manhole.
28. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof
assemblies.
29. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High
Fire Area and must comply with Section R337 of the 2019 California Residential Code,
Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182.
30. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California
licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291
and California Government Code Section 51182.
31. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape
Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been
completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section
51182.
32. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the
Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
33. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be
part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the
Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
34. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit
issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
35. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept
clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of
the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed int o storm drainage facilities. The storing of
goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department. The Owner's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all
working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may
result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town
performing the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.
36. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved
development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of
approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
37. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1
(Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are
available for download from the Town’s website.
38. PRIOR APPROVALS: All conditions per prior approvals shall be deemed in full force and
affect for this approval.
39. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right -of-way will require a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the
responsibility of the Owner/Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary encroachmen ts
permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas
and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California
Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits m ust be
submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
prior to releasing any permit.
40. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The
property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed
private improvements within the Town’s right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely
responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and
shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted
by the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the Town Clerk at
the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk-Recorder, prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits. Please note that this process may take approximately six to eight (6-8)
weeks.
41. GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE: The property owner shall provide proof of insurance to
the Town on a yearly basis. In addition to general coverage, the policy must cover all
elements encroaching into the Town’s right-of-way.
42. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner or their representative shall notify the
Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining
to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way.
Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without
inspection.
43. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner and/or Developer or their
representative shall repair or replace all existing imp rovements not designated for removal
that are damaged or removed because of the Owner and/or Developer or their
representative's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs, gutters,
sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic
pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better
than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names,
graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed
and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be
allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the
direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24
Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of all improvements identified by the
Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed before the issuance of a certificate
of occupancy. The Owner and/or Developer or their representative shall request a walk-
through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to
verify existing conditions.
44. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction.
45. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and/or
sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works
hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner
may be required.
46. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited
with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the
commencement of plan check review.
47. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits or recordation of the Parcel / Final Map.
48. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTOR: The Owner shall fund a full time public works inspector,
selected by the Town of Los Gatos, for the duration of the demolition and grading
operations. The Owner will be charged on a time and materials basis. A deposit for the full
amount, to be estimated by the Town based on the Contractor’s approved schedule, shall
be paid prior to issuance of the demolition permit.
49. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the
approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The
Owner’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two
(72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be
incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.
50. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other
studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the
Owner.
51. GRADING PERMIT DETERMINATION DURING CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS: In the event
that, during the production of construction drawings and/or during construction of the
plans approved with this application by the Town of Los Gatos, it is determined that a
grading permit would be required as described in Chapter 12, Article II (Grading Permit) of
the Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, an Architecture and Site Application would need
to be submitted by the Owner/Applicant/Developer for review and a pproval by the
Development Review Committee prior to applying for a grading permit.
52. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work
unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required
grading permit fees associated with an application for grading will be charged accordingly.
53. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Alta Heights Ct. shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstruc ted.
54. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, it shall be
the sole responsibility of the Owner to obtain any and all proposed or required easements
and/or permissions necessary to perform the grading herein proposed. Proof of
agreement/approval is required prior to the issuance of any Permit.
55. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
56. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT: All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity
fees shall be paid either immediately prior to the recordation of any subdivision or tract
maps with respect to the subject property or properties or immediately prior to the
issuance of a sewer connection permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation
of payment of these fees shall be provided prior to map recordation.
57. DEMOLITION: Within 60-days of the approval action being final (i.e. after the 10-day appeal
period and no requested appeals being submitt ed to the Town), the Property Owner shall
record a Deed Restriction on each of the parcels in question which prohibits the recording
of a Certificate of Compliance until one of the two (2) prerequisite actions occurs prior to
the proposed recordation: 1) removal of any structures which cross lot/property lines or 2)
the Property Owner successfully obtaining an Architecture & Site approval from the Town
of Los Gatos for the demolition of the existing house and construction of a replacement
house.
58. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Owner and/or Developer shall install a Town standard
residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town
Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of
Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps,
logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall
be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation
shall be allowed therefore.
59. FENCING: Any fencing proposed within two hundred (200) feet of an intersection shall
comply with Town Code Section §23.10.080.
60. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not
limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080,
26.10.065, and 29.40.030.
61. FENCES: Fences between all adjacent parcels will need to be located on the property
lines/boundary lines. Any existing fences that encroach into the neighbor’s property will
need to be removed and replaced to the correct location of the boundary lines before a
Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. Waiver of this condition will
require signed and notarized letters from all affected neighbors.
62. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right-of-
way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by
the Town.
63. ADVANCE NOTIFICATION: Advance notification of all affected residents and emergency
services shall be made regarding parking restriction, lane closure or road closure, with
specification of dates and hours of operation.
64. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to
the issuance of a grading or building permit, the Owner and/or Applicant or their
representative shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division
Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under
periods when soil is hauled on or off the project site. This may include, but is not limited to
provisions for the Owner and/or Applicant to place construction notification signs noting
the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic
control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required.
Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris.
65. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All subdivision improvements and site improvements construction
activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment,
supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case
basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner and/or Developer shall provide written
notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this
request is at discretion of the Town.
66. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall
be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty -
five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a
structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-
five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the
property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
67. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits, the Owner and/or Applicant’s design consultant shall submit a
construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at
a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security
fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s),
construction trailer(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer
to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional
information.
68. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner and/or Developer is responsible for
ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality meas ures and that such
measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and
be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment
and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during
construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply
with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or
stop work orders.
69. NPDES STORMWATER COMPLIANCE: In the event that, during the production of
construction drawings for the plans approved with this application by the Town of Los
Gatos, it is determined that the project will create and/or replace more than 2,500 square
feet of impervious area, completion of the NPDES Stormwater Compliance Small Projects
Worksheet and implementation of at least one of the six low impact development site
design measures it specifies shall be completed and submitted to the Engineering Division
before issuance of a grading/building permit.
70. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following
measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
71. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A
maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building
on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures,
to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall
be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt
fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard
seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion
control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months.
The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and
the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout
the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit
and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.
72. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present
and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily,
or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging
areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the
duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned
by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at
least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place
between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late -afternoon
watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to
this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek
to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when
wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All t rucks
hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
73. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant
emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-
recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan,
building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust-free.
b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site
shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal
from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off-site shall be
covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in
areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by
Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out
control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt -track-out onto adjacent
public roads.
f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour.
g. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the
lead agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective
action within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be
visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the
BAAQMD’s complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR
(6367).
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average
wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
74. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any
grading or building permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater
management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swale s, pipes, bubble-ups, dry
wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be
provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public
Works Department, and approved for implementation.
75. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of
the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities
and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control
ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as
required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
76. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb
drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to
public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to
Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one
of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These
include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious
surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If stormwater treatm ent
facilities are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent
property line and/or right-of-way. Alternatively, the facilities may be located with an offset
between 5 and 10 feet from the adjacent property and/or right-of-way lines if the
responsible engineer in charge provides a stamped and signed letter that addresses
infiltration and states how facilities, improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s
right-of-way (driveway approach, curb and gutter, etc.) and/or th e adjacent property will
not be adversely affected. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the
detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property.
77. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and
homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on
a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into
the Town’s storm drains.
78. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during
the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or
persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The Owner's representative
in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public
right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town
performing the required maintenance at the Owner's expense.
79. NEIGHBORHOOD CONSTRUCTION COMMUNICATION PLAN: Immediately upon approval of
an encroachment permit, the Owner and/or Developer shall initiate a weekly
neighborhood email notification program to provide project status updates. The email
notices shall also be posted on a bulletin board placed in a prominent location along the
project perimeter.
80. PERMIT ISSUANCE: Permits for each phase shall be issued simultaneously.
81. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
82. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access,
water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire
department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review
to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all
applicable construction permits.
83. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet A0.0) An automatic residential fire
sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1) In all new
one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when
additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet whether
by increasing the area of the primary residence or by creation of an attached Accessory
Dwelling Unit. 2) In all new basements and in existing basements that are expanded by
more than 50%. 3) In all attached ADUs, additions or alterations to an existing one- and
two-family dwelling that have an existing fire sprinkler system. Exceptions: 1) One or more
additions made to a building after January 1, 2011 that does not total more than 1,000
square feet of building area and meets all access and water supply requirements of
Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of the 2019 California Fire Code.
84. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: (As noted on Sheet A0.0) Potable water supplies shall be
protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the
responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water
purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that
purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire
protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers
that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing
contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the
system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having
been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7
85. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: (As noted on Sheet A0.0) New and existing buildings shall have
approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in
a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property.
These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code
official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate
emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of
0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the bu ilding cannot be
viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1.
86. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: (As noted on Sheet A0.0) All construction sites must
comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and
Specification Sl-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as
appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33.
87. GENERAL: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the
provisions of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A
permit presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or
other such laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved
construction documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
\\tlg-file\data\DEV\CONDITIONS\2021\Alta Heights, 102 - A&S PC COA - 06-09-21 - DRAFT.docx
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 1
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030
650 847-8351
E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
May 9, 2020
TO:
Los Gatos Planning/Building Dept
Project: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, 95030
APN: 532-29-045
Zoning: R:1-8
Construct New 2-story Residence in R:1-8 Zone
Urban History Overview
In 1840 Mexico made a 6,331 acre land grant called ‘Rancho Rinconda De Los Gatos’ see the map on the left with
Los Gatos creek in the middle. The subject site would be located to the right of the creek.
EXHIBIT 4
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 2
1876 Santa Clara County Map
1876 Santa Clara County Map & details
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 3
1876 Santa Clara County Map & details, the ‘P. Johnson’ area at the bottom, center of the pink area is the Loma
Alta/Johnson Addition neighborhood
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 4
Los Gatos was incorporated in 1887. Below is a map of 1890. The subject site is 2/3 down to the left of the vertical
black line.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 5
Below is a view of Downtown Los Gatos in 1910, the subject neighborhood is off to the right where there are buildings.
It is the area below the grassed field. What is to become Los Gatos Blvd is the string of structures moving from right
to left in the middle of the view. This clearly shows that Loma Alta was actually an integral part of historic Los Gatos.
The 1954 street map below
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 6
HISTORY OF JOHNSON ADDITION/LOMA ALTA AVE. NEIGHBOOD LOTS
Platting (making house lots) started in the late 19th century. Downtown Los Gatos and the Loma Alta Ave.
neighborhood were developed at the same time as can be seen in the colored 1895 Sanborn map below and the
historic photo and on sheet A1.7. The lots were the same general size as the downtown lots which today are zoned:
R-1D, Medium Density Residential with setbacks: 15’ Front, 5’ Side and 20’ rear. These setbacks would be
more appropriate for this entire neighborhood given its history and urban fabric and especially for 102 AHC which
was literally carved out of the backyards of 2 earlier, historic lots application in this historic neighborhood.
When this neighborhood was made there was no General Plan and no setbacks for +65 years. There were no
setbacks when the house at 102 AHC was built on its 5,250 sf lot.
As stated above, originally 102 AHC was NOT A LOT, but was part of the backyards of 161 and 175
Loma Alta Avenue. Alta Heights Court was split from the backyard and was re-platted twice in the mid, 20th century.
First 102 AHC was not a lot but was made as an access road, then it was re-platted to be the smallest lot in the Alta
Heights Court cul de sac. Furthermore 102 AHC is an odd shaped lot which narrows in both the front and rear. Loma
Alta Neighborhood are sections 2 & 3 below.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 7
The 1895 Sanborn map below shows the typical rectangular lots on the bottom left; Market St. is now Loma Alta
Avenue. The Alta Height Court is up and right from the number ’52’ on the map below (also shown on sheet A1.7).
This neighborhood was built at the same time as downtown Los Gatos.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 8
The 1954 street map below
The 1954 street map detail
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 9
The Loma Alta Avenue/Johnson Addition neighborhood lots range from 5,500- 7,500 sf. A few lots are larger while
some are as small as 240 sf. In 1963 the general plan (zoning) was adopted and the ‘suburban’ R:1-8 zoning was
imposed on this neighborhood requiring setbacks: 25’ front, 8’ side and 20’ rear yard. Much of the urban fabric
(houses/garages) was already built.
For comparison, R-1:D zoning has setbacks of 15’ front, 5’ side and 20’ rear yard; and lot sizes of 5,000 – 8,000 sf.
In 1947 there was a lot adjustment in the Alta Heights Court Area. An interior access road was built between what is
now 175 Loma Alta Avenue (22) and 116 Alta Heights Court and(25-which was later split again). This road was used
for lower access to 3 rectangular lots to the South of 215 Stacia(lot 20), these lots do not exist today. This was done
because the access from Stacia above these lots was impossible due to the steep grade. Ironically, 102 Alta Heights
Court was originally an access road, seen just above lots 21 & 22. This explains the curious shape and size of 102 AHC.
Survey detail below
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 10
In 1964 this area was re-platted again to form the Alta Heights Court cul-de-sac. 102 Alta Heights Court is lot 1, see
below.
Survey detail below
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 11
Urban Planning Overview
Alta Heights Court (AHC) sits next to Loma Alta Avenue, and is .25 mile from the main thoroughfare of Los Gatos
Boulevard. The neighborhood nestles in a raised, flat valley between wooded hillsides. The neighborhood urban fabric
has a wide range of architectural styles and street wall patterns. Most houses are very close to the street and
sidewalk, as they predate zoning, which is what creates a friendly, gracious charm. The styles range from Victorian,
Spanish, Tudor, Arts and Crafts, mid-century, and later to 70’s and 80’s, and finally to ultra-modern and transitional
styles. Some lots have outbuildings, some are on small, tight alleys, others are tight and constrained by the hillside,
while some have +3-story street frontage with garages below. The high density and street trees/sidewalks weave the
neighborhood together. It is obvious residents chose to live in this neighborhood due to the high density and
proximity to downtown which fosters supportive connections and a close community. People do not move to urban
neighborhoods for ‘privacy’, quite the opposite. The attraction is the old American tradition of truly knowing your
neighbor which only close proximity affords whether one is on the front porch or handing garden produce over a
backyard fence (which a neighbor has done).
Planning/Zoning Overview
102 AHC has R-1:8 zoning, this is meant for lot sizes of 8,000 sf to 10,000 sf. However, as stated above the typical
lot is 5,500 to 7,500. The majority of the lots are ‘non-conforming’. Many of the houses are built beyond the R-1:8
setbacks and are larger than R-1:8 massing suggestions, see A3.0 for the dashed setback lines.
The lots around 102 AHC vary in size, see City chart below. Most are well below the minimum 8,000 sf lot size.
Loma Alta (Johnson Addition) neighborhood below, Most of the houses are large and it shows the diminutive size of
the 102 AHC lot and that it is tucked away. It also shows the high, 2-story density which predominates.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 12
102 Alta Height Court at 5,250 sf is nearly ½ the size of the 10,000 sf max. lot size. The ‘norm’ for the housing
fabric in this neighborhood appears to be non-conformance with the current zoning designation.
Below Loma Alta and AHC is shown; Property lines-Blue, Setbacks-Red, Proposed 102 AHC setbacks-Purple, non-
conforming structures at 161 LA-Yellow; please also note that 102 AHC proposed purple setback is still behind the
‘urban streetwall’ created by 175 LA
Google Earth view below, 102 AHC is completely blocked by the 175 LA Redwood tree and the shared Oak tree. It is
clear to see the many large 2-story houses surrounding the area, most of which are also built over the setbacks.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 13
To the West, neighboring, 2-story 175 Loma Alta Ave has a 5,660 sf lot and the house/garage extends over the
setbacks on three sides. As can be seen from the photos and 3D views, the massing of the 175 house is large with a
‘2-story street wall’. The effect is that 102 AHC is virtually blocked when driving down AHC. The 102 AHC street
frontage is diminutive in scale in comparison to 175. 175 Loma Alta seems twice as big and has a higher 2 -story wall
on 2 street sides. The garage which is entirely in the 20’ rear yard setback does not allow for parking on the driveway.
175 Loma Ave would not be allowed to be built today unless the zoning code had flexibility built in. It is Stucco with
tile roof in a modified Spanish style. Previously it was ones-story and then a second floor added straight up.
Privacy: 175 has a second-floor deck/sliding glass doors 47’ from the property line. The door is shielded by a large
Redwood tree and the Oak tree. 102 AHC has 2 windows in the ADU (separate permit) which face towards 175 LA.
Due to the 52’ distance through the tree limbs, the 175 sliding doors and 102 windows appear to have adequate
privacy for both house houses. The point of the 102 AHC windows is not ‘viewing’ a neighbor but to allow natural
daylighting/ventilation and balance the space for comfort. Most historic homes have large windows on first and
second floors in a village setting as can be seen when walking through the neighborhood.
Below 175 Loma Alta to the left, 102 on the right; Property lines-Blue, Setbacks-Red, Proposed 102 AHC setbacks-
Purple, non-conforming structures at 161 LA-Yellow; please also note that 102 AHC proposed purple setback is still
behind the ‘urban streetwall’ created by 175 LA
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 14
175 on the left and 102 AHC on the right below, the new house will project a few feet beyond the roofline of the
existing house into the backyard. 104 AHC will still have second floor windows which will look right into 102 AHC rear
yard. The new house will basically wrap around the large Oak which is to the left of the 102 AHC roof. The Oak will be
the dominant vertical mass on the 102 AHC as it is today.
Backyard view looking South, 102 AHC on the left and 175 sliding door and deck on the right
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 15
To the SouthWest, neighboring, 2-story 161 Loma Alta Ave has a 9,000 sf lot and yet the house extends over the front
yard setback. The garage was recently built and was illegally built over the 5’ rear garage setbacks and also sits on
the property line. The garage eaves extend approximately 1’-8” over the property line onto the 102 AHC lot. 161
LA also built another non-conforming accessory building over the setbacks and approximately 40% of it sits on the
102 AHC property (see yellow building below). 102 AHC owners have initiated several polite discussion and
requests about shifting or moving the accessory building since Sept 2019 but to date there has been no interest by
the 161 owners. As can be seen from the photos and 3D views, the massing of the 161 house is large with a square 2
house with a hip roof and it also has windows in the third floor facing the street. 161 is a traditional, transitional
house with wood siding, double hung windows on all sides.
Privacy: The second floor has large, second floor windows, approximately 50’ from the property line which look into
the 102 AHC back yard which could create privacy issues for 102 AHC.
Below 175 LA on the left, 161 Loma Alta in the middle, 102 on the bottom; Property lines-Blue, Setbacks-Red,
Proposed 102 AHC setbacks-Purple, non-conforming structures at 161 LA-Yellow
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 16
To the East, neighboring, 2-story 104 AHC lot is +/- 6,300 sf lot is a new, ultra-modern design with large windows,
flat roofs, no wall/window definition, etc. with bright white stucco and some wood siding.
Privacy: The 2-story walls of 102 and 104 overlap for 15-17 lineal feet. 102 has three small, second-floor windows in
this area, with 6’-4” and 5’ sills which prevents ‘privacy’ issues. 104 has large format windows on the second floor
which could pose privacy concerns for the backyard of 102 AHC. 104 also has a large stair landing window which will
look right down onto102 Dining Rm window which could pose privacy issues, but 102 AHC are not concerned. 102
also has a stair landing window which is shifted towards the front yard from the 104 stair and which looks over the
one-story blank walls of 104. 102 has two second-floor front yard window which overlook the front yard and street.
Below 104 on top, 102 on the bottom; Property lines-Blue, Setbacks-Red, Proposed 102 AHC setbacks-Purple, non-
conforming structures at 161 LA-Yellow
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 17
The grade of 104 AHC is approximately 4-5’ higher than 102 Alta Heights Court. The other houses on Alta Heights
Court also have grades from 5’ - 14’ higher. The result is that 102 has the lowest grade house on the cul de sac. The
low grade and the existence of a very large oak and redwood on the west side property line cause the proposed 102
house design to look relatively small in scale.
S-20-029, Architecture Response # 4 102 Alta Heights Court Page 18
As is typical in California and the USA, zoning codes were developed to be flexible to allow modifications due to the
prevalence of pre-existing, non-conforming lots and structures. Above a comparison was made to the R-1D zoning
which has setbacks which might be more appropriate for this area and small lots.
As an exercise: if proportional zoning adjustments were made to 102 AHC compared to the maximum 10,000 sf lot
max. size then the side setbacks would be 4’ instead of 8’ (5’ is the min. allowed in Los Gatos for residential) and the
front setback would be 12’-6” instead of 25’-0”, etc. The same logic could be applied to massing and FAR. In a way
the R-1:8 zoning is best loosely applied to this area of Los Gatos due to pre-existing lot sizes and the peculiarities of
the cul de sac lots themselves. Perhaps R-1 D zoning might be more appropriate in the future for the smaller lots?
Zoning/Setback Request
The proposal for a new single-family home with attached ADU (under a separate permit by code) and attached
Garage entails deconstructing a dilapidated, 1950’s 2 Bedroom/1 Bath single story home. The minimum lot size for
R:1-8 zoning is 8,000 square feet and max. is 10,000 sf. 102 AHC is a substandard lot of 5,250 square feet, which is
35%-47.5% under the min. and max. sizes. The current house and lot existed before zoning as described above. The
Alta Heights Court and Loma Alta neighborhood houses all have varying setbacks due to the irregular lots, and most
do not meet current zoning setbacks. It would be more appropriate to have R-1D zoning setbacks of 15’ front, 5’ side
and 20’ rear given the history of this lot and neighborhood.
The proposed home will be 1,825 sf and attached garage, 454 sf which is consistent with the neighborhood. The
house will blend into the neighborhood underneath the existing Oak tree and the house would not be the tallest in
the neighborhood. As can be seen by the Google Earth views, the lot is both tucked behind the access road to Alta
Heights Court and the house will literally be tucked under the existing Oak and Redwood trees which is how it was
designed. The layout of the house on the lot was done to minimize the rear yard projection and to ‘wrap’ around the
existing tree canopy to both protect the tree and have the trees shield the house in the backyard for all concerned.
We request to maintain the existing 39’ house footprint width and the resultant, existing 5’-6” side setbacks on the
East and West which conforms to the existing, dense neighborhood fabric. The front setback will be 18’-0”.
Background: Before purchasing the house in August, we provided existing conditions, site plans and 3D CAD views
of the neighborhood to garner input from Los Gatos Planning regarding the setbacks. It was communicated that this
would be possible through the A&S public hearing process due to the non-conforming lot. The Los Gatos Planning
Department helped us to understand the possibilities with this lot and we sincerely appreciate their assistance.
We have attempted to create a handsome, classic, transitional 1920’s ‘Tudor inspired’ design which is common
in all 1920’s urban cottage neighborhoods across the USA. The design of the house is meant to bring a ‘friendly’ face
to the neighborhood. We have met the neighbors and given them copies of the renderings and site plan of the
proposed house. We feel grateful that the response has been so supportive. We have raised 5 of our 6 children in the
Saratoga/Los Gatos school system and feel grateful to be members of this community.
Please call or email with any follow up questions. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Eric A. Beckstrom
Architect
DESCRIPTION
TITLE FIRST FLOOR HISTORY
SCALE 1:3428.57
SK.17
FILENAME 102 ah cd5.4.pln
Los Gatos Residence
New House
102 Alta Heights Court
Los Gatos, CA 95030C-25632
CA LICENSE
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S
BECKSTROM
P: 650.847.8351
E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com; W:BeckstromArchitecture.com
PO BOX 1317, Los Gatos, CA 95030
THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
N
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT AREA ALTA HEIGHTS COURT AREA
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT AREA ,
CURRENT AND PROPOSED
BUILDINGS SUPERIMPOSED
102 AHC-IN BACKYARD OF ORIGINAL
161 & 175 LOMA ALTA LOTS
MAP #1-ALTA HEIGHTS COURT AREA IN KEY MAP
1891
SANBORN FIRE MAPS
1895 1908
NOTE:
THIS SEQUENCE OF MAPS CLEARLY SHOW THE HISTORICAL QUALITY OF THE
LOMA ALTA/JOHNSON ADDITION - THESE MAPS WOULD NOT BE MADE AT THIS
TIME IF THIS WAS NOT AN INTEGRAL PART OF LOS GATOS DOWNTOWN, BUILT AS
A DENSE URBAN VILLAGE. THIS URBAN NEIGHBORHOOD HAD ITS ORIGINS 70
YEARS BEFORE THE 1960 ZONING. THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS LAID OUT AND
BUILT +130 AGO.
IT IS ALSO CLEAR THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES AND OUTBUILDINGS ARE
CLOSER TO THE STREET AND PROPERTY LINES THAN THE 1960 R:1-8 ZONING
OVERLAY. THERE WAS NO ZONING AT THE TIME. THE HISTORICAL PATTERN THEN
AND TODAY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS A PREDOMINANCE OF HOUSES AND
OUTBUILDINGS CONSTRUCTED IN THE SAME DENSITY AND MASSING AS THE
DOWNTOWN AREA.
THE 1960'S R:1-8 ZONIING OVERLAY IS MORE RELEVANT IN THE 1950'S BLOSSOM
HILL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS WHICH WERE A NEW AMERICAN ARCHETYPE.
DESCRIPTION
TITLE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
SCALE 1:960
SK.18
FILENAME 102 ah cd5.4.pln
Los Gatos Residence
New House
102 Alta Heights Court
Los Gatos, CA 95030C-25632
CA LICENSE
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S
BECKSTROM
P: 650.847.8351
E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com; W:BeckstromArchitecture.com
PO BOX 1317, Los Gatos, CA 95030
THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
161 LA
175 LA
153 LA
116 AHC
104 AHC
106 AHC
108 AHC
110 AHC
112 AHC
250
STACIA
177 LA
N
THERE ARE MANY 3 STORY HOUSES ALONG THIS SIDE OF
LOMA ALTA DUE TO THE STEEP UPHILL GRADE FROM LOMA
ALTA
THE MAJORITY OF THE
HOUSES ON LOMA ATLA ARE
BUILT BEYOND THE R:1-8
ZONING SETBACKS
LOMA ALTA STARTS SLOPING
DOWN IN FRONT OF 175 LA;
THERE IS A STOP SIGN AT
THIS POINT ALSO
ONLY A FRAGMENT OF 102
AHC IS VISIBLE FROM LOMA
ALTA AS 175 IS SUCH A LONG,
IMPOSING FORM
THE GARAGE ROOF IS THE
ONLY THING VISIBLE FROM
LOMA ALTA, THE FRONT
HOUSE ELEVATION IS
BLOCKED
104 AHC, STARK WHITE W/
BLACK WINDOWS AND FLAT
ROOF IS VISIBLE FROM LOMA
ALTA
BOTH 161 LA AND 175 LA HAVE
OUTBUILDINGS THAT
ENCROACH IN THE SETBACKS
FACING 102 AHC;
175 GARAGE ENCROACHES
APPROX. 18' WHEREAS 161 LA
IS LITERALLY ON OR OVER
THE PROPERTY LINE OF 102
AHC
104 AHC IS BUILT PARALLEL AND
CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE
OF 102 AHC AND ITS FIRST
FLOOR IS APPROX. 4.5' HIGHER
THAN 102 AHC, SO IT LOOKS
DOWN ONTO 102 AHC,
THE SECOND FLOOR OF 102 AHC
WILL LOOK AT THE 104 AHC
STARK WHITE, 2-STORY WALLS
WITH LARGE WINDOWS, 102 AHC
IS SLID FORWARD TO MITIGATE
THE AMOUNT OF 2-STORY WALL
OVERLAP BETEWEEN THE 2
HOUSES, TO MAX. PRIVACY FOR
BOTH HOUSES
DESCRIPTION
TITLE SITE PLAN ANALYSIS
SCALE 1:800
SK.19
FILENAME 102 ah cd5.4.pln
Los Gatos Residence
New House
102 Alta Heights Court
Los Gatos, CA 95030C-25632
CA LICENSE
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R S
BECKSTROM
P: 650.847.8351
E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com; W:BeckstromArchitecture.com
PO BOX 1317, Los Gatos, CA 95030
THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
161 LA
175 LA
153 LA
116 AHC
104 AHC
106 AHC
108 AHC
110 AHC
112 AHC
250
STACIA
177 LA
N
161 LA - OVERLY DOMINANT MASSING ON LOMA ALTA AND
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT,
FULL HEIGHT, 2-STORY WALLS, HOUSE EXTENDS INTO
ALL SETBACKS;
THE GARAGE IS FULLY BEYOND ALL SETBACKS AND IS
4.6' FROM THE STREET.
THE NEW SECOND FLOOR ADDITION DOES NOT RESPECT
THE ORIGINAL 1-STORY HISTORIC HOUSE.
10 SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS FACE 114 AHC, APPROX. 12
SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS FACE 161 LA, 27' AWAY
THE GARAGE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR PARKING IN FRONT
AND IS A PROMINENT, BLANK, BROWN STUCCO WALL FOR
THE CUL DE SAC
161 LA - TALL, BOXY MASSING ON ALL SIDES,
FULL HEIGHT, 2-STORY WALLS WITH HIP ROOF, 8 LARGE,
SECOND FLOOR WINDOWS LOOK DOWN ONTO 102 AHC
BACKYARD, WITHIN 30-38' OF THE PROPERTY LINE;
THE SEPARATE GARAGE WAS BUILT OVER THE SETBACK IS
ON THE 102 AHC PROPERTY AND ITS ROOF PROTRUDES
OVER THE PROPERTY LINE; THE SECOND ACCESSORY
BUILDING SITS OVERTHE 102 AHC PROPERTY LINE
104 AHC, MODERN, STARK WHITE, NON DESCRIPT BUILDING
IS VISIBLE FROM THE 161 LA SIDEWALK AT THE DRIVEWAY,
102 STORY POLES ARE NOT VISIBLE
104 AHC, 2017. MODERN, STARK WHITE, COMMERCIAL
LOOKING BUILDING, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR THIS
FLAT ROOFED, HOUSE WITH BOXY FORMS; AESTHETICALLY
THE HOUSE DOMINATES THE CU DE SAC WITH ITS STARK
WHITE COLOR, IT LOOKS LIKE OUT OF PLACE IN THE
HISTORIC LOMA ALTA NEIGBHORHOOD . ;
THE HOUSE EXTENDS FAR BACK INTO THE PROPERTY IN ITS
PIE SHAPED LOT AND HAS SEVERAL FIRST AND SECOND
FLOOR, LARGE WINDOWS WHICH LOOK STRAIGHT DOWN ON
THE 102 AHC BACKYARD AS ITS FIRST FLOOR IS APPROX. 4-5'
HIGHER THAN THE 102 AHC HOUSE; IT IS A CONTROVERSIAL
DESIGN TO BE CONSTRUCTED AND WAS DESIGNED BY AN
ARCHITECT FROM TEXAS
106 AHC, 1958 HOUSE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
REMODELED IN THE 1970'S?; IT IS A PLAIN, NON DESCRIPT
HOUSE DESIGN, THE DOMINANT FORM IS THE GARAGE
WHICH IS UP A STEEP DRIVEWAY, APPROX. 6' HIGHER THAN
THE CUL DE SAC
108 AHC, 1958 HOUSE THAT IS TYPICAL FOR PLAIN, SIMPLE
SPEC. HOUSES OF THE TIME, THE 2 BAY GARAGE IS A
PROMINENT FORM; THE GARAGE IS UP A STEEP DRIVEWAY,
APPROX. 7' HIGHER THAN THE CUL DE SAC
110 AHC, 1958 HOUSE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN
REMODELED IN THE 90'S OR 2000'S WITH A
TRANSITIONAL/TRADITIONAL DESIGN REMODEL; THE 2 BAY
GARAGE IS A PROMINENT FORM; THE GARAGE IS UP A STEEP
DRIVEWAY, APPROX. 9-10' HIGHER THAN THE CUL DE SAC
112 AHC, A 2001 HOUSE, IN A STUCCO, SPANISH STYLE WITH
SOME DETAIL AND FORM, THE 2 BAY GARAGE IS UP A STEEP
DRIVEWAY, APPROX.8-9' HIGHER THAN THE CUL DE SAC
161 LA HAS APPROX. 56' LF OF 2-STORY, BROWN
STUCCO WALLS;
FOR COMPARISON, 102 AHC HAS APPROX. 18.25' LF OF
1.75- STORY WALLS WHICH ARE BROKEN UP BY A
WINDOW BAY AND ENTRY ARCH;
161 HAS 3X MORE 2 -STORY WALL FACE THAN THE102
AHC PROPOSAL:
175 WALLS ARE APROX. 8.5-10' AWAY FROM THE
SIDEWALK AND THE HOUSE MASS LITERALLY BLOCKS A
VIEW OF 102 AHC FROM LOMA ALTA AVE.
THE RIGHT FACE OF 102 AHC IS APPROX. 21' BACK FROM
THE FACE/STREET WALL OF 161 LA,
SEE DASHED LINE
116 AHC, A 1957 HOUSE THAT APPEARS TO HAVE HAD A
SECOND FLOOR BUILT IN THE 2000'S? , IT IS A SIMPLE,
TRANSITIONAL STYLE; THE GARAGE IS APPROX. 10.5'
FROM THE STREET AND THE HOUSE SITS BEYOND THE
SIDE SETBACK
ALL THE LOTS IN THE CUL DE SAC ARE PIE-SHAPED
EXCEPT FOR 102 AHC WHICH IS TRUNCATED IN HTE
FRONT AND BACK WITH PARALLEL SIDE PROPERTY
LINES; A MAJORITY OF THE STRUCTURES WERE
CONSTRUCTED OVER THE R:1-8 SETBACKS, WHICH IS
TYPICAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND TYPICAL FOR
LOTS UNDER THE 8,000 SF MIN. THRESHOLD
THE 102 AHC DESIGN PROPOSAL IS STEPPED BACK
AROUND THE OAK TREE TO MINIMIZE REDUCE THE
EXISTIING HOUSE FOOTPRINT AND TO REDUCE LIMB
PRUNING WHICH ALSO ALLOWS THE REMAINING TREE
CANOPY TO BLOCK VIEWS TO AND FROM 161 AND 175 ;
THE 18' FRONT SETBACK ON THE GARAGE HELPS
MITIGATE AND SUPPORT THE CONTINUED HEALTH OF
THE OAK WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ATTRACTIONS TO THIS
SITE BY ALLOWING THE GARAGE TO SLIDE FORWARD
FROM THE EXISTING GARAGE FOOTPRINT
THE 102 AHC DESIGN PROPOSAL SETBACK AT THE FRONT
ENTRY ARCH IS 30', THE ENTRY FACADE SETBACK
INCREASES FROM 18' TO 30' FROM RIGHT TO LEFT;
THE LAYOUT OUT ALSO FOLLOWS AN IMAGINARY LINE FROM
THE 175 GARAGE TO THE FRONT CORNER OF 104 AHC, SEE
DASHED LINE
THE 102 AHC DESIGN PROPOSAL EXTENDS A
FEW FEET BACK FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE
WHICH HELPS 104 AHC MAINTAIN MOUNTAIN
VIEWS FROM ITS SEVERAL LARGE WINDOWS
FACING 102 AHC;
102 AHC COULD HAVE BEEN EXTENDED
SEVERAL FEET BACK BUT THAT COULD HAVE
ADVERSE RESULTS FOR BOTH 161 LA AND 104
AHC
THE 175 LA GARAGE AND 102 AHC GARAGE HAVE HAD
THE SAME SPACE BETWEEN FOR +59 YEARS.
175 LA GARAGE IS A FEATURELESS BLANK STUCCO WALL
153 LA WAS RECENTLY LISTED AND SOLD
WITHIN DAYS, WE SPOKE TO THE NEIGHBORS
TELLING THEM OUR PLAN BEFORE THEY
SOLD, NOT REALIZING THAT THEY WERE
MOVING
WE REACHED OUT THE OWNERS OF 110 AHC, BUT THEN
FOUND OUT THEY WERE SELLING THEIR HOUSE AND
MOVING;
THE HOUSE WAS JUST LISTED LAST WEEK
WE DO NOT KNOW IF OTHER NEIGHBORS WILL ALSO BE
SELLING THEIR HOUSES AND MOVING AWAY GIVEN THE
CURRENT REAL ESTATE MARKET
S-20-029, Architecture Pics from 102 AHC lot 102 Alta Heights Court Page 1
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030, 650 847-8351, E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
May 25, 2020
TO: Los Gatos Planning/Building Dept
Project: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, 95030; APN: 532-29-045, Zoning: R:1-8
Construct New 2-story Residence in R:1-8 Zone – Pictures from lot to adjoining Neighbors
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking West from at 175 Loma Alta, car and scooter are both parked in front of
proposed garage. Please note the 175 Loma Lata house sits nearly completely in front of the line of the 102 AHC
proposed garage front and it also shows the minimal 4.75’ driveway in front of the 175 LA garage.
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking West -NorthWest from at 175 Loma Alta, car and scooter are both parked
in front of proposed garage. This clearly shows the exceptionally tall 2-story wall of 175 LA which is approx. 10’ from
the sidewalk, the bays are closer.
S-20-029, Architecture Pics from 102 AHC lot 102 Alta Heights Court Page 2
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking East at 104 AHC, the rear story pole of the proposed house is on the right.
Please note that the first floor window overlooks the backyard due to the raised floor level next door. 104 AHC 2-
story flat wall extends over the majority of the 102 AHC backyard.
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking East-SouthEast at 104 AHC, the rear story pole of the proposed house is
on the right. Please note that the 102 AHC is slid forward in order to preserve the mountain views for 104 AHC over
the backyard of 102 AHC.
S-20-029, Architecture Pics from 102 AHC lot 102 Alta Heights Court Page 3
From 102 Alta Heights Court roof - View looking East at 104 AHC
From 102 Alta Heights Court roof - View looking East-NorthEast at 104 AHC
S-20-029, Architecture Pics from 102 AHC lot 102 Alta Heights Court Page 4
From 102 Alta Heights Court - View looking West at 161 Loma Alta house and garage in the foreground, please note
the large second floor windows which look over the backyard of 102 AHC.
From 102 Alta Heights Court roof - View looking West at 161 Loma Alta house and garage on bottom right.
S-20-029, Architecture Pics from 102 AHC lot 102 Alta Heights Court Page 5
From 102 Alta Heights Court roof - View looking West-SouthWest at 175 Loma Alta house and garage on bottom left.
From 102 Alta Heights Court roof - View looking West-SouthWest at 175 Loma Alta house and garage on bottom left.
Sincerely,
Eric A. Beckstrom Catherine DuBridge
Architect/Owner Designer/Owner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
1 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Assessment of Four (4) Protected-Size Trees
at
102 Alta Heights Court
Los Gatos, California
Prepared for:
Mr. Ryan Safty, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Field Visit:
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA)
10/25/2020
Report by CTA
11/3/2020
EXHIBIT 5
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
2 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
1.0 Summary __________________________________________________________________________ 3
2.0 Assignment & Background _____________________________________________________________ 6
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected? ___________________________________________ 6
4.0 Recommendations ___________________________________________________________________ 8
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town Code _________________________________ 16
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code ______________________________________ 19
7.0 Author’s Qualifications _______________________________________________________________ 22
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ____________________________________________________ 23
9.0 Certification ________________________________________________________________________ 24
10.0 Digital Images _____________________________________________________________________ 24
11.0 Tree Data Table ___________________________________________________________________ 29
12.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA _________________________________ 36
13.0 Attached: Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA ______________________________________________ 38
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
3 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1.0 Summary
a. Below is a matrix style overview of protected-size trees (non-exempt species, 4-inches diameter at 4.5 feet above grade on site, and adjacent to the site).
In the table, the CTA (Contract Town Arborist) has outlined expected impacts to each tree, along with suggestions for adjustments to the plan set
(if applicable) that will optimize tree survival over the long term.
The CTA calculated the appraised value of each tree, which can be used as a tool for determining the proper security bond amount to have the applicant
post with the Town as a hedge against site plan-related tree damages (if applicable). Appraised values can also be used to determine damage fees if trees
are determined during or after construction to have been damaged such that mitigation is required.
Mitigation replacement rate and size is noted for each tree in the case that removal or damage to trees occurs.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
4 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table 1.0(a) (REFER TO THE CTA’S TREE MAP MARKUP WHEN REVIEWING THE BELOW MATRIX)
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
71
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing
and airspace conflicts.
No.
Poor
$2,050. 6.5 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
72
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing,
airspace conflicts, and
assumed gas pipe
trenching during gas
pipe diameter upgrade.
No.
Poor
$5,000. 8.7 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
73
GOOD
RETAIN
Minor.
No
Moderate
$800. 2.1 feet
No applicant plan changes required.
Maintain chain link RPZ fencing per the CTA’s
tree map markup embedded in this report, and
5 feet to 8 feet RADIUS offset from trunk
edge, and use hand-watering or timer type
irrigation to maintain soil moisture during the
project buildout.
2 X $250 =
$500.
15 gallon or
24” box
1 Calculated per the newest edition (10th edition, 2nd Printing) of Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2019. The Trunk Formula Technique (TFT) was the specific technique noted in the
Guide used to determine the dollar valuations noted in Table 1.0(a). Palm appraisals are performed differently, using a calculation of replacement cost, and then multiplying
that cost by a condition rating factor and a functional limitations factor.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
5 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
74
GOOD
RETAIN
Moderate to Severe.
Root loss will occur
during foundation
footing work west of the
trunk, where new
foundation will be
poured closer to the
trunk edge than the
original existing
residence foundation
edge.
New roof peak is
roughly 28.5 feet
elevation above grade
at centerline of garage,
which is +/- 20
horizontal feet east of
the trunk.
Canopy extends 75 feet
diameter (mainly
southwestward over the
adjoining neighbor
property), and appears
to be mainly clear of
proposed new
residence roof peak
elevations.
Yes
Moderate
$23,900.
CRZ 18 feet
offset radius,
which is not
going to be
able to be
achieved
except along
the west side
of the rear
yard, where
fencing can
be erected
out to roughly
50 feet from
trunk.
The proposed new plan shows new
foundation work along much of the existing
residence foundation footing edge, with a new
bumpout of 5.5 lateral feet west of the existing
foundation in the area directly east of trunk.
Given the proposed configuration as shown
on the October 2020 site plan iteration, the
expected impacts to the oak #74 root system
will be moderate, assuming that protective
chain link fencing will be erected as shown on
the CTA’s tree protection map markup
embedded in this arborist report.
In a perfect world, the “ideal” new foundation
work would match the existing older edge of
foundation exactly, to minimize or eliminate all
new work west of the existing older residence
foundation footprint.
10 X $250 =
$2,500.
15 gallon or
24” box
2020-21 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent = $250 per each required 24” box mitigation tree planting not installed on the site.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
6 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
2.0 Assignment & Background
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA) was directed to tag and assess all Protected-Size (4-inch diameter and greater) trees at and adjacent to the
Lora Drive property.
The CTA assessed the set of site plans dated September, 2020, and a single sheet A1.0 updated 10/13/2020 which was used as the CTA’s tree map
markup embedded in this report.
Tree data were collected and assembled by the CTA in section 11.0 of this report.
Tree tags were affixed by the CTA to the mainstems of the on-site trees. The CTA’s tags are professional grade racetrack shaped aluminum tags
numbering “71” through “74”.
The CTA’s recommendations in section 4.0 of this report are based on published information in various standard arboriculture texts, such as the series of
Best Management Practices (BMP) companion publication (booklets) published by International Society of Arboriculture that are periodically updated over
time. The series of BMP booklets accompany the ANSI-A300 USA standards for tree care used by U.S.-based tree care companies.
Additional supporting information includes digital images archived by the CTA as section 10.0, a tree map markup JPEG embedded as section 12.0, and an
appraisal data worksheet attached as section 13.0.
The CTA utilized a forester’s D-tape to determine tree mainstem (trunk) diameters at 4.5 feet above grade. The D-tape is a circumferential tape that converts
actual trunk circumference to an averaged diameter in inches and tenths of inches.
Tree heights were determined using a digital Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer. Tree canopy spread diameters were estimated visually or paced off. The
tree canopy driplines shown as black clouding on the tree map markup are approximate only.
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected?
Per the most recent (2015) iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance (Town Code Chapter 29 – Zoning Regulations, Article 1), the following
regulations apply to all trees within the Town’s jurisdiction (wordage adjusted):
1. All trees with at least a single mainstem measuring four (4) inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Protected Trees” when
removal relates to any development review.
2. 12 inch diameter (18 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review.
3. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kellogii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and
Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) on developed residential lots not currently subject to development review.
4. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review, on lots in the designated
Hillside Area per the official Town map.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
7 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. All trees with a single mainstem or sum of multiple mainstems totaling 48 inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large
Protected Trees” (LPT).
6. All oak species (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) with one or more mainstems
totaling 24 inches diameter or more at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large Protected Trees” (LPT).
7. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-
year period, affecting 25% or more of any Protected Tree (including below ground root system).
8. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, or cut any branch or root greater than four (4) inches in diameter of a Large
Protected Tree.
9. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to conduct severe pruning on any protected tree. Severe pruning is defined in section
29.10.0955 as “topping or removal of foliage or significant scaffold limbs or large diameter branches so as to cause permanent damage and/or
disfigurement of a tree, and/or which does not meet specific pruning goals and objectives as set forth in the current version of the International Society
of Arboriculture Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard
Practices, (Pruning).”
10. Exceptions:
Severe Pruning Exception in Town Code section 29.10.1010(3) “…..except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry (Morus alba) or other species approved
by the Town Arborist….”.
Protected Tree Exceptions:
a. Edible fruit or nut bearing trees less than 18 inches diameter (multistem total or single stem), including fruiting olive trees.
b. Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood acacia) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
c. Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
d. Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
e. Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
f. Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
g. Other eucalyptus species (E. spp.) not noted above, less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
(REMOVAL O.K. ONLY AT HILLSIDE AREA LOCATIONS PER OFFICIAL TOWN MAP):
www.losgatosca.gov/documentcenter/view/176
h. All palm species (except Phoenix canariensis) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
i. Ligustrum lucidum (glossy privet) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
Note that per the exception in part ‘a’ above, fruiting olive trees with stems totaling less than 18 inches are considered non-
protected tree specimens.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
8 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
4.0 Recommendations
1. Project Arborist (“PA”):
Initial Signoff
It is recommended that a third party ASCA registered consulting arborist or ISA Certified Arborist with good experience with tree protection during
construction be retained by the applicant, to provide pre-project verification that tree protection and maintenance measures outlined in this section of
the arborist report are adhered to. Periodic (e.g. monthly) inspections and summary reporting, if required as a project condition of approval, are
suggested in order to verify contractor compliance with tree protection throughout the site plan project. This person will be referred to as the project
arborist (“PA”). The PA should monitor soil moisture within the root protection zones of trees being retained, using a Lincoln soil moisture probe/meter
or equivalent. If required, inspection reports shall be sent to Mr. Ryan Safty, Associate Planner (rsafty@losgatosca.gov). Sample wordage for a
condition of approval regarding monitoring of tree protection and tree condition:
“The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained
and documented in a monthly site activity report sent to the Town. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent at least once monthly to the
Town planner associated with this project (rsafty@losgatosca.gov) beginning with the initial tree protection verification approval letter”.
2. Project Team Pre-Project Adjustments, Clarifications, and Limits Suggested or Required:
2a. Tree Protection Fencing and Trunk Buffer Wraps:
Fence off trees #73 and #74 using chain link fencing per the distances indicated as red dashed lines shown to scale on the CTA’s tree map markup
below in this arborist report. The fencing for tree #74 will range from 8 feet radius offset from trunk in the area directly east of trunk, to 50 feet offset
radius in the area north of trunk (along the west side of the rear yard).
Install trunk buffer wrap around tree #74 per the specifications listed below in this recommendations section of the arborist report.
2b. Ground Protection:
Install ground protection along the west side yard area west of the proposed garage footprint, to prevent soil rutting and soil compaction during
proposed demolition of existing residence, and proposed new residential build work. Specifications are indicated below in this section of the arborist
report.
2c. Pruning:
Perform minor (10% to 15% of total biomass) limb length reduction pruning (aka “limb endweight reduction pruning”) at the outermost ends of the
southwest section of the canopy of tree #74. All pruning will need to conform to the most current iterations of ANSI A300 pruning standards and the
Best Management Practices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 standards. Details are indicated below in this section of the arborist
report.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
9 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
3. Trunk Buffer Wrap Type III Protection:
Prior to demolition commencement, install trunk buffer around tree #74 being retained on-site.
Wrap one (1) entire roll of orange plastic snow fencing around the trunk of tree #74, between grade and
up to 6 or 8 feet above grade to create a padding of at least 1 to 2 inches thickness around each tree trunk.
Stand 2x4 wood boards upright, side by side, around the entire circumference of the orange plastic wraps. Affix
using duct tape (do not use wires or ropes). See spec image at right showing the wooden boards correctly
mounted against one entire roll of orange snow fencing, such that the wood does not actually touch the trunk at
all.
4. (Required) Chain Link Fencing Type I and/or Type II Root Protection Zone (RPZ):
Prior to demolition commencement, erect chain link fencing panels set on moveable concrete block footings
(see sample image below right). Wire the fence panels to iron layout stakes pounded 24 inches into the
ground at the ends of each fence panel to keep the fence route stabilized and in its correct position. Do not
wire the fence panels to the trunks of the trees. These panels are available commonly for rent or purchase.
Fence routes: Per the red dashed lines indicated on the CTA’s tree map markup, drawn to scale, below in this
arborist report.
This fencing must be erected prior to any heavy machinery traffic or
construction material arrival on site.
The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction.
No materials, tools, excavated soil, liquids, substances, etc. are to be
placed or dumped, even temporarily, inside the root protection zone or
“RPZ”.
No storage, staging, work, or other activities will be allowed inside
the RPZ except with PA monitoring.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
10 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. Signage: The RPZ fencing shall have one sign affixed with UV-stabilized zip ties to the chain link at eye level for every 15 linear feet of fencing,
minimum 8”X11” size each, plastic laminated or printed with waterproof ink on waterproof paper, with wordage that includes the Town Code section
that refers to tree fence protection requirements (wordage can be adjusted):
TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCE
ZONA DE PROTECCION PARA ARBOLES
-NO ENTRE SIN PERMISO-
-LLAME EL ARBOLISTA-
REMOVAL OF THIS FENCE IS
SUBJECT TO PENALTY ACCORDING TO
LOS GATOS TOWN CODE 29.10.1025
PROJECT ARBORIST:
TELEFONO CELL: EMAIL:
Note: Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist is an independent consultant retained under contract with Town of Los Gatos Planning Division Staff, and is not
the “PROJECT ARBORIST”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
11 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
6. Ground Protection:
Project team contractors shall install ground protection “soil buffer” prior to start of demolition of the existing
residence, in order to avoid soil compaction and soil rutting caused by machinery use, foot traffic, and other
high ground pressure type activities.
Location:
The ground protection shall be set up over the entire west side yard of the site, between tree #74 trunk,
and southward to the proposed driveway (see black rectangle area on the markup at right).
Construction of:
The ground protection soil buffer shall consist of:
• Geotextile fabric laid down over the ground.
• 6 inches thickness wood chip mulch laid over the geotextile.
• 1 inch thick exterior grade plywood boards (full sheets), set side by side over the wood chips.
• Steel screw plates to affix the plywood sheets together, side by side.
• (See photo at right for
example of correctly-
installed soil buffer on a
site where trees were
protected using chain
link fence panels, trunk
buffers, and the
complete soil buffer
system as described on
this page.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
12 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
7. Tree Removals:
It is suggested that Town Staff allow the applicant to remove trees #71 and #72 due to their locations in close proximity to proposed new work, which
will cause both root loss below ground and canopy loss above ground, resulting in premature decline or death of the trees.
Mitigation Options
The canopy replacement mitigation standard for loss of these two regulated size trees, per the CTA’s summary table in section 1.0 of this report, is
$2,000, or on-site installation of eight (8) 15 gallon size or 24” box size tree plantings with high flow type flood bubbler irrigation (two bubblers emitting
2 gallons per minute each, per each tree).
Given the limited available land at this project site that has full sun access appropriate for installation of new landscape trees, the maximum number of
new plantings will likely need to be limited to between two (2) and four (4) new tree plantings.
The mitigation requirement can be either $2,000, or a combination of both on-site tree plantings and a fee payment.
On-site plantings need to be minimum 15 gallon size (24” box size is optional), of a species or multiple species approved by Town Staff.
8. Pruning / Oak #74:
Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reduction pruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting of removal of selected
branches only from the outermost section of the southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10% or 15% of total live biomass.
Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower or inner areas of the canopy.
The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removing only certain end sections of branches from that southwestmost section of the
canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systems extended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forces acting on the limb attachment
points, and reducing risk of limb splitout.
All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-time site supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conform to all of the
most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for tree care operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet
that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruning standards.
The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning 2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet by
International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019). Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:
• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greater than 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommends only
removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at the most, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest end of the canopy.
• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branches should be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood or tearing the bark”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
13 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
9. New Plantings / Tree Installation Specs (if applicable):
Ideally, two (2) high flow type adjustable bubblers each emitting 1/2 to 2 gallons per minute
(2GPM), depending on percolation rate of planting pit, are set over the rootball of each single
tree planting, and each tree is installed with two (2) or three (3) 2-inch diameter wooden planting
stakes (not the shipping stake), with a set of figure-8 Cinch Ties ™ affixed per the standard spec
image at right.
Note how the tree stakes are cut to just above the elevation of the Cinch-Ties to avoid abrasion
between the stakes and the limbs and trunk during wind movement.
A watering berm consisting of site soil is formed around the edge of the rootball to force irrigation
water to pool up directly over the rootball, as seen in the image below in this arborist report.
Above Right: Spec planting at a site on which the CTA consults, June, 2020. Note that the shipping
stake was removed from the mainstem, and a narrow diameter bamboo pole was tied to the
mainstem using biodegradable masking tape. This is considered a Best Management Practice at
this particular site, because the mainstem was leaning off-vertical. Do not allow the large
diameter wooden shipping stake to remain tied to the mainstem, as this will cause
permanent irreversible problems with tree stability over time.
Below Right: Proper installation of a new 24” box size tree with two (2) high flow type ½ GPM to 2.0
GPM (gallon-per-minute) flood bubblers seen inside a steeply sloped watering berm built using site
soil. The watering berm is built up directly over the rootball edge, which forces irrigation water
directly downward into the rootball via gravity. Total volume of water flow typically needs to be at
least +/-1 gallon per minute, in order to physically flood the watering berm and force water
downward into the rootball via gravity flow.
Next Page: Walter Levison and Dave Muffly Planting Spec Sheet, indicating correct irrigation and
watering berm building procedures for first 4 years (sandy soils may require significantly greater
irrigation volume than indicated).
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
14 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
15 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
10. Temporary Irrigation During Construction:
It is suggested that the applicant’s project arborist monitor soil moisture using a soil moisture probe and/or a soil recovery device, to ensure that root
zones are being kept irrigated to field capacity soil moisture per the following irrigation regime:
a. Crape myrtle #73 at right side of rear yard: 50 to 100 gallons per week, applied 1x/week.
b. Coast live oak #74 at left side yard west of garage: (To be determined by project arborist. Tree may or may not require irrigation to
boost soil moisture. Coast live oaks can in some cases decline in condition if irrigation water is applied within 25 feet of the trunk.
Therefore, any irrigation of the tree would need to occur in the area north of trunk in the west portion of the rear yard only).
o Apply indicated water volume all on a single day during a single application, such as by garden hose running at high volume, or a soaker hose
running on a timer system attached to an active hose bib at standard residential water pressure (e.g. 60psi to 70psi).
o If runoff of water will be a problem, then build a 6 inch tall watering berm along the chain link fence perimeters to contain the irrigation water and
force it downward via gravity.
o Alternatively, a straw wattle can be pinned down
over the ground using wooden dowels, as a quick
watering berm that may be far more easily
maintained than a soil watering berm that is subject
to damage by construction personnel foot traffic,
etc. See sample image below as an example of
how this is done.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
16 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town Code
The following is excerpted directly from the 2015 iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance sections which provide specific tree protection directions
and limitations on root pruning and above-ground pruning: Sec. 29.10.1000. New property development.
(a) A tree surve y shall be conducted prior to submittal of any developm ent application proposing the removal of or impact to one or more protected
trees. The developm ent application shall include a Tree Survey Plan and Tree Preservation Report based on this surve y. The tree survey inventory
numbers shall correspond to a num bered m etal tag placed on each tree on site during the tree survey. The tree surve y plan shall be prepared by a certified
or consulting arborist, and shall include the following inform ation:
(1) Location of all existing trees on the property as described in section 29.10.0995;
(2) Identif y all trees that could potentially be affected by the project (directl y or indirectly- imm ediately or in long term), such as upslope grading or
com paction outside of the dripline;
(3) Notation of all trees classified as protected trees;
(4) In addition, for trees four (4) inches in diam eter or larger, the plan shall specif y the precise location of the trunk and crown spread , and the
species, size (diam eter, height, crown spread) and condition of the tree.
(b) T he tree survey plan shall be reviewed b y the Town’s consulting arborist who shall, after m ak ing a field visit to the property, indicate in writing or as
shown on approved plans, which trees are recommended for preservation (based on a retention rating of high/m oderate/low) using, as a m inimum, the
Standards of Review set forth in section 29.10.0990. This plan shall be m ade part of the staff report to the Town reviewing bod y upon its consideration of the
application for new property developm ent;
(c) W hen development im pacts are within the dripline of or will affect any protect ed tree, the applicant shall provide a tree preservation report prepared
by a certified or consulting arborist. The report, based on the findings of the tree survey plan and other relevant inform ation, shall be used to determ ine the
health and structure of existing trees, the effects of the proposed developm ent and vegetation rem oval upon the trees, recommendations for specific
precautions necessary for their preservation during all phases of development (demolition, grading, during construction, landscapin g); and shall also
indicate which trees are proposed for removal. The tree preservation report shall stipulate a required tree protection zone (TPZ) for trees to be
retained, including street trees, protected trees and trees whose canopies are hanging over the project site from adjacent properties. The TPZ shall be
fenced as specified in section 29.10.1005:
(1) T he final approved tree preservation report shall be included in the building perm it set of developm ent plans and printed on a sheet titled:
Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T -1). Sheet T-1 shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, dem olition, utility, landscape,
irrigation) where tree im pacts from im provem ents m ay be shown to occur;
(2) T he T own reviewing bod y through its site and design plan review shall endeavor to protect all trees recomm ended for preservation b y the
Town’s consulting arborist. The Town reviewing body m ay determ ine if any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed, if
based upon the evidence subm itted the reviewing body determ ines that due to special site grading or other unusual characteristics
associated with the propert y, the preservation of the tree(s) would significantly preclude feasible developm ent of the property as described in
section 29.10.0990;
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
17 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
(3) Approval of final site or landscape plans by the appropriate Town reviewing body shall com ply with the following requirem ents and conditions of
approval:
a. T he applicant shall, within ninety (90) days of final approval or prior to issuance of a grading or building perm it, whichever occurs
first, secure an appraisal of the condition and value of all trees included in the tree report affected by the developm ent that are required to
rem ain within the development using the Tree Value Standard m ethodolog y as set forth in this Chapter. The appraisal of each tree shall
recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. T he appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of
the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and the Species and Group Classification
Guide published by the W estern Chapter of the International Societ y of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be perform ed at the applicant's
expense, and the appraisal shall be subject to the Director's approval.
b. T he site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be rem oved. However, the plans do not constitute approval to rem ove a
tree until a separate permit is granted. The propert y owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree rem oval perm it, as outlined in section
29.10.0980, for each tree to be removed to satisf y the purpose of this division.
(d) Prior to acceptance of proposed developm ent or subdivision im provem ents, the developer shall subm it to the Director a final tree preservation
report prepared by a certified or consulting arborist. T his report shall consider all trees that were to rem ain within the developm ent. The report shall note
the trees' health in relation to the initially reported condition of the trees and shall note any changes in the trees' num bers or physical conditions. The
applicant will then be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For protected trees, which were rem oved, the
developer shall pa y a penalty in the am ount of the appraised value of such tree in addition to replacem ent requirem ents contained in section
29.10.0985 of this Code. The applicant shall rem ain responsible for the health and survival of all trees within the development for a period of five (5) years
following acceptance of the public im provem ents of the development or certificate of occupancy.
(e) Prior to issuance of any dem olition, grading or building perm it, the applicant or contractor shall submit to the Building Department a written
statem ent and photographs verif ying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees in accordance with the tree
preservation report.
(f) If required by the Director and conditioned as part of a discretionary approval, a security guarantee shall be provided to the Town. Prior to the
issuance of any perm it allowing construction to begin, the applicant shall post cash, bond or other security satisfactory to the Director, in the penal
sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each tree required to be preserved, or twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), whichever is less. The
cash, bond or other security shall be retained for a period of one (1) year following acceptance of the public im provements for the developm ent and shall
be forfeited in an am ount equal to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per tree as a civil penalt y in the event that a tree or trees required to be preserved
are rem oved, destroyed or severely dam aged.
(g) An applicant with a proposed developm ent which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of
existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring, air-spade excavation or b y hand,
tak ing extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. W ork within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or
consulting arborist.
(h) It shall be a violation of this division f or any property owner or agent of the owner to fail to com ply with any developm ent approval condition
concerning preservation, protection, and m aintenance of any protected tree.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
18 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction.
(a) Protective tree fencing shall specif y the following:
(1) Size and m aterials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, m ounted on two-inch diam eter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground
to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no m ore than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be dem olished and when stipulated in a tree
preservation plan, posts m ay be supported b y a concrete base.
(2) Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when
specified by a certified or consulting arborist. T ype II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire
planter strip to the outer branches. T ype III: Protection for a tree located in a sm all planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic
fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside.
Caution shall be used to avoid dam aging any bark or branches.
(3) Duration of T ype I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before dem olition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in
place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to rem oving a tree protection
fence.
(4) W arning sign. Each tree fence shall have prom inently displa yed an 8.5 x 11 -inch sign stating: "W arning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall
not be rem oved and is subject to penalt y according to Town Code 29.10.1025".
(b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions:
(1) Prior to the comm encem ent of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist
report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit an y storage of construction
materials or other m aterials, equipm ent cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any wa y so as to
increase the encroachment of the construction.
(2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not lim ited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of
the tree unless approved by the Director.
(3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chem icals or other harmful m aterials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or
areas that m ay lead to the dripline of a protected tree.
(4) Prohibit the attachm ent of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
(5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
(6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic m onitoring of the project site and the
health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved and shall docum ent all site visits.
(7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any dam age that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatm ent m ay
be adm inistered.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
19 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance.
All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Societ y of Arboriculture Best Managem ent Practices—T ree Pruning
and ANSI A300-Part 1 T ree, Shrub and Other W oody Plant Managem ent—Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determ ined b y the
Director. For developm ents, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving
protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified.
(1) Any public utility installing or maintaining an y overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain
perm ission from the Director before perform ing any work , including pruning, which m ay cause injur y to a protected tree. (e.g. cable TV/fiber optic
trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.).
(2) Pruning for clearance of utilit y lines and energized condu ctors shall be perform ed in com pliance with the current version of the Am erican
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)- Pruning, Section 5.9 Utilit y Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no
other alternative is available, is prohibited.
(3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cum ulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five
percent or m ore of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a perm it pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless
mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other species approved b y the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning perm it shall include photographs indicating
where pruning is proposed.
(4) No person shall rem ove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in
diameter (12.5” in circumference) without first obtaining a perm it pursuant to this division.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code
(Excerpted from Town Code 29.10.0985 and 29.10.0987)
(1) T wo (2) or more replacement trees, of a species and size designated b y the Director, shall be planted on the subject private property. Table 3-1
The Tree Canopy—Replacem ent Standard shall be used as a basis for this requirem ent. The person requesting the perm it shall pay the cost
of purchasing and planting the replacem ent trees.
(2) If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu paym ent in an am ount set forth by the Town Council b y
resolution shall be paid to the Town Tree Replacem ent Fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public propert y in the vicinit y of the subject propert y; or
b. Add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town propert y; or
c. Support the T own’s urban forestry management program. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Table 3-1 - Tree Canop y - Replacement Standard
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
20 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Canopy Size of Removed Tree 1
(Staff is using 24” box size as
the Replacement Standard for
SFR Projects as of 2016) 2,4
Single Family
Residential
Replacement3,4
10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon trees
More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon trees
More than 25 feet to 40 feet
Four 24 inch box
trees; or Two 36
inch box trees
Four 15 gallon trees
More than 40 feet to 55 feet
Six 24 inch box
trees; or Three
36 inch box
t
Not Available
Greater than 55 feet
Ten 24 inch box
trees; or Five 36
inch box trees
Not Available
Notes 1T o m easure an asymm etrical canopy of a tree, the widest m easurement shall be used to determ ine canopy size.
2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree m ay be replaced with a com bination of
both the Tree Canopy Replacem ent Standard and in-lieu paym ent in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree
Replacement Fund.
3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single fam ily residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not
subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. An y in-lieu fees for single
fam ily residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council.
4Replacem ent Trees shall be approved b y the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures,
overhead clearances, soil type, com patibilit y with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacem ent with native species shall be strongly
encouraged. Replacem ent requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Developm ent Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and
Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions--Hillsides.
Sec. 29.10.0987. Special Provisions—Hillsides
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
21 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
The Town of Los Gatos recognizes its hillsides as an im portant natural resource and sensitive habitat which is also a key com ponent of the
Town’s identity, character and charm . In order to m aintain and encourage restoration of the hillside environm ent to its natural state, the Town
has established the following special provisions for tree rem oval and replacem ent in the hillsides:
(1) All protected trees located 30 or m ore feet from the prim ary residence that are rem oved shall be replaced with native trees listed in Appendix A
Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Ar eas of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G).
(2) All protected trees located within 30 feet of the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced as follows:
(a) If the removed tree is a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G, it shall only be replaced with a native tree listed in Appendix A of
the HDS&G.
(b) If the removed tree is not listed in Appendix A, i t m ay be replaced with a tree listed in Appendix A, or replaced with another species of
tree as approved b y the Director.
(c) Replacem ent trees listed in Appendix A m ay be planted anywhere on the property.
(d) Replacem ent trees not listed in Appendix A m ay only be planted within 30 feet of the primary residence.
(3) Replacement requirements shall com ply with the requirem ents in Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement Standard of this Code.
(4) Property owners should be encouraged to retain dead or declining trees where they do not pose a safety or fire hazard, in order to foster wildlife
habitat and the natural renewal of the hillside environment.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
22 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
7.0 Author’s Qualifications
• Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and
various governmental and non-governmental entities.
• Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California
Community Development Department / Planning Division
2015-present
• Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California)
• Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board)
2001-2006
• ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401
• ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000
• Associate Consulting Arborist
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
4/99-8/99
• Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California
Planning and Community Development Department
5/99-5/20 (21 Years)
• ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A
• Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent
Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993
• B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources
UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990
UCSC Chancellor’s Award, 1990
(My full curriculum vitae is available upon request)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
23 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed
for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management.
It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for
the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is
addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.
Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated
designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications.
This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a
stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys
unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of
coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of
said information.
Unless expressed otherwise:
a. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and
b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that
problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
Arborist Disclosure Statement:
Arborists are tree specialists who use 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 to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden
within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any
medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between
neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to
reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
24 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
9.0 Certification
I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith.
Signature of Consultant
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist
DIGITAL BADGES:
ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL:
https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpaw8u
ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ):
https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
25 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
10.0 Digital Images
Below: Digital Images by the CTA archived 11/3/2020:
Tag # Image Tag # Image
71
72
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
26 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
73
74
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
27 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
74
74
74
74
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
28 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
74
-- (Intentionally Blank)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
29 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
11.0 Tree Data Table
NOTE 1: Fruit and nut trees measuring less than 18” diameter (total of all mainstems), including fruiting olive trees, both on the site and on
adjacent neighbor properties are excluded from the CTA’s tree studies as “exemption trees” per the Town tree ordinance.
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 71 Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
pear 12.9 -- -- 12.9 30/30 40/35 38%
Poor X Poor South South
Tree located 1 foot
or less from the
proposed new
residence
foundation footing
edge, and is
assumed to be
proposed for
removal due to
direct impact from
this work. Some
evidence of
fireblight bacteria
infection noted.
Tree has been
severely pruned
over the years,
which has
permanently
damaged the
branch architecture
assemblages.
Also note that the
canopy conflicts
with the proposed
new residence and
garage footprints.
(Tree
assumed
to be
removed)
Not
applicable.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
30 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 72 Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
pear 17.4 -- -- 17.4 30/30 50/40 45% Fair X Poor South
Tree located 3 feet
or less from the
proposed new
residence
foundation footing
edge, and is
assumed to be
proposed for
removal due to
direct impact from
this work.
Also note the
existence of a gas
line that is almost
directly in line with
this tree trunk
location. Typically,
most or all existing
gas lines are
required to be
upgraded (removed
and replaced)
during residential
rebuilds. Therefore,
it is assumed that
this gas line will be
dug out and
replaced as part of
the proposed
residence rebuild,
which will require
removal of the tree
if it is performed in-
line with the trunk
as currently shown.
The canopy
conflicts with the
proposed new
residence footprint.
Some evidence of
fireblight bacteria
infection noted.
Tree has been
severely pruned
over the years,
which has
permanently
damaged the
(Tree
assumed
to be
removed)
Not
applicable.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
31 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 73 Lagerstroemia
indica (Cult.)
Crape myrtle
cultivar 4.2 -- -- 4.2 15/7 80/60 70%
Good X Mod
Irrigated turf lawn
is 2 feet from trunk
edge. Tree is
feeding off the
incidental soil
moisture provided
to this turf lawn.
Tree is assumed to
be protected and
retained during
construction, given
its position offset
from the proposed
new residence and
patio areas.
The CTA suggested
an ideal RPZ (root
protection zone)
fence line route as
red dashed lines on
the tree map
markup embedded
in this report.
5 to 8 feet
radius
offset from
trunk edge.
RPZ fence,
and maintain
heavy
irrigation at
least
2x/week.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
32 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 74
Quercus
agrifolia
Large
Protected Tree
(“LPT”)
Coast live oak Est. 36 -- -- Est. 36 45/75 70/60 63%
Good X Mod South
west
South
west
Moderate live twig
density and
extension, with
some patchy
dieback visible in
canopy.
Buttress root flares
normal.
Wide saddle
shaped fork normal
at 10 feet.
Splitout stem noted
at 35 feet elevation
above grade: an 8
inch diameter stem
at the southwest
end of the canopy.
Tree may require
some limb length
reduction pruning
(aka “endweight
reduction pruning”)
to remove the
endmost portions
of some extended
stems in the
southwest portion
of the canopy.
See the
CTA’s tree
map
markup
embedded
in this
report for
the
suggested
route
shown as
red dashed
lines.
Trunk Buffer
(TB),
Protective
Fencing
(RPZ),
Ground
Protection
(GP), and
perform
some minor
limb
endweight
reduction
pruning
under direct
guidance of
an ISA
Certified
Arborist to
reduce
lengths of
over-
extended
limbs in
southwest
portion of
canopy
(not to
exceed
10% - 15%
reduction of
total tree live
biomass).
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
33 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Overall Tree Condition Ratings / Breakdown of Numeric Ranges
(New, Per Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition):
00 - 05% = Dead
06 - 20% = Very Poor
21 – 40% = Poor
41 – 60% = Fair
61 – 80% = Good
81 – 100% = Exceptional
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
34 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Conservation Suitability (TCS) Ratings 2
A tree’s suitability for conservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances, proximity to proposed cutting and
filling, proximity to proposed construction or demolition, and potential longevity, using a scale of good, fair, or poor (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). The
following list defines the rating scale.
Note that if the applicant’s proposed site work can be offset to relatively far linear offset distances from a tree’s trunk edge, a tree’s Tree Conservation
Suitability (TCS) rating may be elevated by one rating tier, given that there would be a corresponding reduction in expected future root zone impacts. Thus,
specific adjustments to the applicant’s proposed plans (if and when itemized by the CTA in Summary Table 1.0(a) above in this report) could boost the TCS
ratings from “Poor” to ‘Moderate’ or ‘Good’.
TPS Ratings Range of values
Good 80-100 Trees with good health, good structural stability and good expected longevity after construction.
Moderate 60-79
Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees
require more intense management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have
shorter life expectancy after development.
Poor <59
Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or
individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or
unsuited for the intended use of the site.
TCS Ratings Worksheet Factors (Total Possible: 100 Points)
Health (1-15)
Root Cut/Fill Distance from Trunk (1-15)
Structure Defects (1-15)
Construction Tolerance of the tree species (1-15)
Age relative to typical species lifespan (1-10)
Location of construction activity (1-10)
Soil quality/characteristics (1-10)
Species desirability (1-10)
2 Derived from Fite and Smiley, 2016. Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition. International Society of Arboriculture.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
35 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Maintenance and Protection Codes Used in Data Table:
RPZ: Root protection zone fence, chain link, with 2" diameter iron posts driven 24" into the ground, 6 to 8 feet on center max. spacing. Alternative material:
chain link fence panels set over concrete block-type footings, with the fence panels wired to steel pins pounded 24 inches into the ground at both ends of each
panel.
GP: Ground protection soil buffer, consisting of a geotextile laid over grade, with 6 inches of wood chip mulch placed over the geotextile, overlain with 1 inch or
greater plywood strapped together with steel screw plates. This ground protection soil buffer should be placed over the entire width of the construction corridor
between tree trunks and new construction.
RP: Root pruning. Prune woody roots measuring greater than or equal to 1 inch diameter by carefully back -digging into the soil around each root using small
hand tools until an area is reached where the root is undamaged. Cleanly cut through the root at right angle to the root growth direction, using professional
grade pruning equipment and/or a Sawzall with wood pruning blade. Backfill around the cut root immediately (same day), and thoroughly irrigate the area to
saturate the uppermost 24 inches of the soil profile.
BDRP: Back-dig root pruning: Hand-dig around the broken root, digging horizontally into the open soil root zone until a clean, unbroken, unshattered section of
the root is visible. Proceed as per ‘root pruning’.
RCX: Root crown excavation. Retain an experienced ISA-Certified arborist to perform careful hand-digging using small trowels or other dull digging tools to
uncover currently-buried buttress root flares. Digging shall occur between trunk edge and at least two (2) feet horizontal from trunk edge. The final soil
elevation will be at a level such that the tree’s buttress roots visibly flare out from the vertical trunk.
TB: Trunk buffer consists of 20-40 wraps of orange plastic snow fencing to create a 2 inch thick buffer over the lowest 8 feet of tree trunk (usually takes at least
an entire roll of orange fencing per each tree). Lay 2X4 wood boards vertically, side by side, around the entire circumference of the trunk. Secure buffer using
duct tape (not wires).
F: Fertilization with slow-release Greenbelt 22-14-14 tree formula, as a soil injection application using a fertilizer injection gun. This brand and formulation is
commonly used by reputable tree care companies in the Bay Area. Apply at label rate and injection hole spacing.
M: 4-inch thick layer of chipper truck type natural wood chips (example source: Lyngso Garden Supply, self pick-up). Do not use bark chips or shredded
redwood bark.
W: Irrigate using various methods to be determined through discussion with General Contractor. Irrigation frequency and duration to be determined through
discussion and/or per directions in this report. Native oak species typically require 1x/month irrigation, while other tree species tend to prefer 2x/month or
4x/month moderate to heavy irrigation during construction.
P: Pruning per specifications noted elsewhere. All pruning must be performed only under direct site supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist, or performed
directly by an ISA Certified Arborist, and shall conform to all current ANSI-A300 standards for tree care (Pruning) (2017 iteration), and the accompanying ISA
Best Management Practices Pruning booklet (3rd Printing, 2019).
MON: A Project Arborist must be present to monitor specific work as noted for each tree.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
36 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
12.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA
The CTA marked up the applicant’s new residence plan sheet A1.0 dated 10/13/2020, as the background for the tree map markup.
The CTA added the following items to this sheet for reference purposes:
a. Tree tag numbers are noted in black numeric oversized type. Important Note: The numbers on the CTA’s map refer to new racetrack shaped professional
grade aluminum tags affixed to the trees or on the fencing in front of each tree, by the CTA. They are affixed to the mainstem of each tree at between 4
and 6 feet above grade.
b. Tree plot dots are in some cases added as new, or blackened, for clarity. Most of the CTA’s survey trees were not plotted by the applicant’s civil surveyor.
c. Canopy dripline of oak #74 was drawn out by the CTA to approximate scale, using black clouding.
The canopies of trees #71 and #72 as indicated on the applicant’s sheet A1.0 is not accurate. The canopy spread of each of those trees is actually 30 feet
diameter. The applicant’s sheet A1 indicates canopy spreads of only 18 feet diameter for each of these trees.
Note that the extent of oak #74 canopy spread diameter is roughly 65 to 75 feet, which is approximately 200% of the diameter indicated on the applicant’s
architectural rendering of the canopy where it was shown incorrectly as a 36 foot diameter black cloud.
d. Red dashing indicates suggested chain link root protection zone (RPZ) fencing routes, drawn to approximate true scale to indicate optimal placement in
terms of root protection and preservation for trees #73 and #74.
e. Yellow highlight indicates the applicant’s proposed new construction.
f. Magenta highlight indicates the applicant’s existing gas line (assumed to be existing), which is likely required by Los Gatos public works to be removed
and replaced with a larger diameter pipe (not verified).
g. Black lines indicate the CTA’s rough representation of likely extent of coast live oak #74 lateral woody root extension on the 102 Alta Heights Court
property that will be preserved to some degree, assuming that chain link fencing is erected and maintained along the red dashed lines indicated on the
CTA’s map markup below.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
37 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Note that the canopy dripline of oak #74 is far greater in
dimensions than shown on the applicant’s original proposed sheet
A1.0.
The black clouding indicating on the CTA’s markup at right is
roughly to scale, and is a more accurate albeit crude
representation of the extent of this very large tree specimen.
The tree protection fencing will need to be erected at roughly 7 to 8
feet east of trunk of oak #74, but will extend 50 feet northward per
the markup at right, in order to protect as much square footage of
the tree’s lateral woody root system extending along the 102 Alta
Heights Ct. property.
The fencing routes shown will allow for staging/storage/work in the
center of the rear yard, but will protect the tree’s root system along
the west side of the rear yard.
The side yard along the proposed garage area is too narrow to
allow for any protective fence erection, and that root zone area will
need to be sacrificed and cannot be preserved. The roots below
grade may however still survive the construction period, if ground
protection such as plywood boards are laid down on the ground to
prevent rutting and compaction.
Note: As indicated above in this report, the applicant’s original
sheet A1.0 shows the canopy driplines of trees #71, 72, and #74 at
dimensions far smaller than actual. The CTA enlarged the tree #74
canopy in the marked up image at right to rough- scale
dimensions.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
38 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
13.0 Attached: Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA
This appraisal worksheet was prepared using the 10th edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2nd Printing (2019). The dollar values of each survey tree
derived from these calculations are useful in helping determine the monetary fines for construction team violations of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance,
and for other Town Staff purposes. For instance, if a tree is found by an ISA Certified Arborist (e.g. the Project Arborist, or the Contract Town Arborist) to be
“50% damaged” in terms of below and/or above-ground losses to structure and/or health (vigor), the fine assessed against the construction team might be
calculated as 50% of the tree’s appraised dollar value.
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 1 of 2
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values71 Pk 30 0.4 0.35 0.4 37%12.9 40%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 130.63 15,626$ 2,053$ $2,050
72 Pk 30 0.5 0.4 0.55 44%17.4 45%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 237.67 28,429$ 5,037$ $5,000
73 Li 19 0.8 0.6 0.85 67%4.2 80%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 13.85 1,656$ 796$ $800
74 Qa 30 0.7 0.6 0.75 64%
Est. 36 (cannot
access around
circumference
of lower trunk).
Use Adjusted
Trunk Area
(ATA) since
>30" diameter.
65%90%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 974.00 64,079$ 23,897$ $23,900
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , 2nd Printing (2019)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
11/3/2020
102 Alta Heights Ct., Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 2 of 2
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , 2nd Printing (2019)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
11/3/2020
102 Alta Heights Ct., Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Total Appraised
Value of All
Study Trees
$31,750
Notes:
1. OVERALL CONDITION RATING RANGE per the new 10th edition, 2nd Printing, of Guide for Plant Appraisal (2019):
Excellent: 81-100%
Good: 61-80%
Fair: 41-60%
Poor: 21-40%
Very Poor: 6-20%
Dead: 0-5%
2. MULTI STEM TREES: For trees with multiple mainstems, the total of all mainstem cross sectional areas was used as the "trunk area" calculation.
3. LARGE TREES: For trees with mainstems larger than 30 inches diameter each, an "adjusted trunk area" or "ATA" value is used, from a table of values in the older 9th edition of the Guide for
Plant Appraisal.The ATA value is smaller than the actual trunk diameter, and brings the tree's appraised dollar value down to a more "reasonable" level.
4. NEIGHBOR TREES: For neighbor-owned trees that were not accessible by the CTA, the trunk diameter was estimated from a distance to the best of the CTA's ability.
5. CONDITION RATINGS / APPRAISAL TABLE VS. DATA TABLE: Because of the new appraisal methods outlined in the 2019 edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition 2nd printing,
the condition ratings calculated in the "Overall Condition Rating / Weighted Method" column, and the data noted in the health and structure columns of this spreadsheet (with calculations
embedded), may in some cases be slightly different from data in the CTA's arborist report tree data table. The CTA attempted to keep overall condition rating values as consistent as possible
between the two data tables (i.e. the appraisal data table and the tree data table in the arborist report).
October 6, 2020
Mr. Ryan Safty
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 102 Alta Heights Court
Dear Ryan:
I reviewed the drawings, and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located on a narrow but deep lot on a cul-de-sac with both one and two-story homes in a wide variety of tradi-
tional architectural styles. . The site is shown on the aerial photo below, and photos of the site and its surroundings are on
the following page.
EXHIBIT 6
102 Alta Heights Court
Design Review Comments
October 6, 2020 Page 2
THE SITE House immediately across Alta Heights Court
House to the immediate left House to the immediate right
Nearby house on Alta Heights Court Nearby house on Alta Heights Court
Nearby house on Alta Heights Court Nearby house at entry to Alta Heights Court
102 Alta Heights Court
Design Review Comments
October 6, 2020 Page 3
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The house is very well designed with an identifiable architectural style and details - see elevations and sketch below.
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
PROPOSED LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
PROPOSED RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION
102 Alta Heights Court
Design Review Comments
October 6, 2020 Page 4
I reviewed the architects’ portfolio of work on their website, and found that they have substantial successful experience in
designing contemporary homes in a convincing range of traditional styles. I have only a limited number of issues to bring
to staff’s attention.
1. The window frames, as drawn, seem too small compared to typical Tudor Style homes.
2. There is a rather awkward roof transition on the left side elevation which is complex and inconsistent with the tradi-
tional simplicity of the Tudor Style.
3. The trellis brackets over the garage door look good as drawn on the front elevation, but seem too small in profile.
4. The relationship between the French doors and adjacent window at the second floor rear deck is awkward.
102 Alta Heights Court
Design Review Comments
October 6, 2020 Page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. There are multiple ways to address the issue of the narrow window frames to better relate the windows to the
traditional detailing of Tudor Style homes. Given the architects’ past demonstrated skills in detailing traditional
style homes, I would only suggest that staff work with the applicant to find a suitable solution. Two typical win-
dow treatments consistent with the style would be:
• substantially recessing the windows and French doors without trim.
• Adding wood trim and projecting sills around all windows.
Illustrative examples of each are shown on the front elevations below.
Whatever solution is selected, it should be carried consistently around all facades of the house.
RECESSED WINDOWS APPROACH
WINDOW TRIM APPROACH
RECESSED WINDOWS APPROACH WINDOW TRIM APPROACH
102 Alta Heights Court
Design Review Comments
October 6, 2020 Page 6
2. I would also suggest that the double windows on the front elevation be grouped as is consistent with the architec-
tural style. If the are kept as independent windows, my recommendation would be to reduce them a bit in size.
They are currently rather crowded into the projecting facade bay.
3. Refine the scale and detail of the garage trellis brackets.
4. Recess the garage doors - see photo example below. Note that garages placed in front of the main living space is not
consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.4.1, but the integration of living space above the garage is sufficient
mitigation to make the garage placement acceptable.
5. Refine the spacing and detail of the rear elevation French doors and the adjacent window on the second floor.
6. With regard to the awkward roof transitions on the left side elevation, I looked at the issue, but was unable to find a
satisfactory solution. My recommendation would be for staff to work with the applicant to find a more refined solu-
tion consistent with the proposed Tudor Style. Some floor plan changes might be required to bring the design into
consistency with Residential Design Guideline 3.1.1
3.3.1 Develop the house plans and elevations together
• Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building mass and roof forms.
• Work within the traditional forms of the architectural style selected. Unless the architectural style selected clearly
supports substantial complexity, generally keep building massing and roof forms simple as is the norm for tradi-
tional architecture.
• Avoid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that is not the norm for the neighborhood.
Ryan, I have no further recommendations for changes.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
S-20-029, Architecture Response 102 Alta Heights Court Page 1
Beckstrom Architecture/Planning + Consulting Inc.
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030
650 847-8351
E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
February 11, 2020
Mr. Ryan Safty
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos 110
E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 102 Alta Heights Court
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
The house is very well designed with an identifiable architectural style and details - see elevations and
sketch below.
I reviewed the architects’ portfolio of work on their website, and found that they have substantial
successful experience in designing contemporary homes in a convincing range of traditional styles. I
have only a limited number of issues to bring to staff’s attention.
1. The window frames, as drawn, seem too small compared to typical Tudor Style homes.
Response: See A3.0-A3.4, all the windows and doors are now recessed 2” x 2”, typical
2. There is a rather awkward roof transition on the left side elevation which is complex and
inconsistent with the traditional simplicity of the Tudor Style.
Response: See A3.4, the roof was redesigned to be more uniform and the dormer roof at the ADU
was lowered to be a smaller feature which then allowed the main, upper ADU/Garage roof to turn
the corner in a very small, hip roof at the back which is cleaner.
3. The trellis brackets over the garage door look good as drawn on the front elevation, but seem too
small in profile.
EXHIBIT 7
S-20-029, Architecture Response 102 Alta Heights Court Page 2
Response: See A3.3, brackets size increased width
4. The relationship between the French doors and adjacent window at the second floor rear deck is
awkward.
Response: See A3.4, the plans and rear elevations were thoroughly reworked for more simplicity
and balance.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. There are multiple ways to address the issue of the narrow window frames to better relate the
windows to the traditional detailing of Tudor Style homes. Given the architects’ past demonstrated
skills in detailing traditional style homes, I would only suggest that staff work with the applicant to
find a suitable solution. Two typical window treatments consistent with the style would be:
• substantially recessing the windows and French doors without trim.
Response: See A3.0 - A3.4 all the windows and doors are now recessed 2” x 2”, typical
• Adding wood trim and projecting sills around all windows.
Response: See A3.0 - A3.4 all the windows and doors are now recessed 2” x 2”, typical
Illustrative examples of each are shown on the front elevations below.
Whatever solution is selected, it should be carried consistently around all facades of the house.
S-20-029, Architecture Response 102 Alta Heights Court Page 3
RECESSED WINDOWS APPROACH
2. I would also suggest that the double windows on the front elevation be grouped as is consistent
with the architectural style. If they are kept as independent windows, my recommendation would
be to reduce them a bit in size. They are currently rather crowded into the projecting facade bay.
Response: See A3.3, the window sizes were adjusted, the bay is clad with vertical, gray stained
cedar for a gentle contrast to the main stucco wall of the front facade
3. Refine the scale and detail of the garage trellis brackets.
Response: See A3.3, the scale and detail of the trellis brackets was modified
4. Recess the garage doors - see photo example below. Note that garages placed in front of the
main living space is not consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.4.1, but the integration of
living space above the garage is sufficient mitigation to make the garage placement acceptable.
Response: See A3.3, all the windows and doors are now recessed 2” x 2”, typical
5. Refine the spacing and detail of the rear elevation French doors and the adjacent window on the
second floor.
Response: See A3.0 - A3.4 the rear and side elevations have been modified to be more
harmonious
6. With regard to the awkward roof transitions on the left side elevation, I looked at the issue, but was
unable to find a satisfactory solution. My recommendation would be for staff to work with the
S-20-029, Architecture Response 102 Alta Heights Court Page 4
applicant to find a more refined solution consistent with the proposed Tudor Style. Some floor
plan changes might be required to bring the design into consistency with Residential Design
Guideline 3.1.1
3.3.1 Develop the house plans and elevations together
• Avoid complex floor plans that require complicated building mass and roof forms.
• Work within the traditional forms of the architectural style selected. Unless the architectural
style selected clearly supports substantial complexity, generally keep building massing and
roof forms simple as is the norm for traditional architecture.
• Avoid complex second floor plans and roof forms if that is not the norm for the
neighborhood.
Response: See A3.3, A3.4, we simplified the plan and window layouts with more simple massing
and roof forms.
Please call or email with any follow up questions. Thanks.
Sincerely,
Eric A. Beckstrom
President/Architect
S-20-029, Architecture Neighbor Comm. Timeline 102 Alta Heights Court Page 1
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030, 650 847-8351, E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
May 23, 2020
TO: Los Gatos Planning/Building Dept
Project: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, 95030; APN: 532-29-045, Zoning: R:1-8
Construct New 2-story Residence in R:1-8 Zone – Neighbor Communication Timeline
Background:
Our goal in designing this new Los Gatos home is to have open communication with the City and the neighborhood.
Before we purchased the lot, we reached out to the City to ascertain the flexibility in zoning for this non-
conforming lot, which is 35-50% smaller than the standard lot in this zone. We bought the property after learning
the zoning conditions are flexible for a non-conforming lot. We reached out to the neighborhood to bring
awareness to our plans to build a handsome, 2-story house within the legally allowed square footage. We had
sensitivity to the existing large trees and close proximity to the neighbors.
8/29/2020
We went door to door to 8 neighbors to introduce ourselves and show them the house plans, which included an
accurate 3D rendering of a BIM model, floorplans and a 3D model view of the street (see attached). Of the 8
neighbors, 6 were home and met with us. All 6 gave very positive feedback on the design and welcomed us to the
neighborhood. All 6, including Ms. Shah and Mr. Eng, signed letters of support (see attached), which were sent to the
City Planning Department. The only request we received at this time was from the Engs, who asked that we not have
a second story window facing their upstairs bedroom 56’ away.
Of the other 2 neighbors, 1 was not home and they currently have their house up for sale. The remaining 1 was very
positive about the plans, but wanted to take time before signing a support letter.
Additionally, we gave our contact information and encouraged each neighbor to contact us with questions or
concerns.
9/14/2020
We submitted the project to the Planning Department, essentially identical to what had been presented to the
neighbors on 8/29. Very minor changes were made, which reduced the overall size of the house. The revised design
has a lower roof by 1’-3”, the garage moved back 3’ for an 18’ setback, the rear projection of the house was shortened,
and the garage roof eave line was lowered by 3’. To satisfy the Eng’s request, we redesigned the garage dormer - it
was moved back and the dormer and windows were made smaller, so that the Redwood and Oak tree canopies would
partially block the view to the Eng’s home next door. This was a sacrifice for us, as the view from this room looks out
to the lovely trees.
9/30/2020
Mr. Eng sent us a letter (see attached.) We addressed his concerns in the design (see above), and tried to connect
with him via voicemail with no response.
EXHIBIT 8
S-20-029, Architecture Neighbor Comm. Timeline 102 Alta Heights Court Page 2
11/9/2020
Ryan Safty forwarded a letter sent to the city by Mr. Eng (see attached.) We tried again to contact Mr. Eng, and left a
voicemail and email, asking for a meeting to discuss his concerns. We had hoped to show him that we listened to his
request and adjusted our plans to alleviate his concern for privacy. Mr. Eng never responded.
October 2020 - present
Eric moved his Architecture office into 102 Alta Heights and has worked there every day, communicating with
neighbors regularly. Ms. Shah has been exceptionally friendly and interested in the project. At one point she even
expressed interest in buying the house when completed. She and her husband had just built their house a couple
years ago, so she had a lot of advice about the neighborhood and the permitting and building process. Ms. Shah
indicated that their house approval had been controversial due to the unusually modern design. All indicators
suggested she was very supportive of our project.
4/1/2021
The project story poles were installed.
4/2/2021
Ms. Shah approached Eric and asked for a copy of the house rendering, which Eric gave her. Ms. Shah also asked for
the 3D CAD files. Eric offered to meet with her to show her on his computer at her convenience, which she declined.
4/8/2021
Mr. Eng wrote a very negative letter to us (see attached.)
4/12/2021
Ryan Safty forwarded a letter written to the city from Mr. Eng (see attached.)
4/20/2021
The story poles were certified.
Ryan Safty communicated to Eric that Ms. Shah had called numerous times with inquiries about the project.
Subsequently to these letters from both Ms. Shah and Mr. Eng, we reached out and scheduled meetings with them
for 5/10 and 5/11 respectively.
5/11/2021-5/21/2021
We approached a few neighbors after the story poles were installed. 112 & 114 Alta Heights Ct verbally indicated
they were supportive of the design.
5/10/2021
We met with Ms. Shah and Mr. Parihar at 102 Alta Heights for ~90 minutes. Their concerns as we understood were
1) They wanted us to lower the house height, and indicated they thought the ridge line of our house would be lower
based on proposed plans, 2) They didn't want to look at our roof from any of their windows, and 3) They wanted us
to push the entire house back on the lot. Our responses were 1) The proposed house design is within the legal height
limit, the story poles certify that the ridge is 1’-3” below the allowed height limit as shown on the plans. 2) Moving
the house back on the lot would block Ms. Shah and Mr. Parihar’s view of the mountains, as well moving the house
back puts the large oak tree at risk, and 3) It is impossible to build a 2-story house on this lot without them seeing the
roof from their windows.
S-20-029, Architecture Neighbor Comm. Timeline 102 Alta Heights Court Page 3
We walked our lot with them, and showed them the imposing view of their house from inside our house and backyard.
We discussed our intention of trying to build an attractive house on a very small, irregular lot that would preserve the
large oak tree and the neighbor’s views. The house fits almost perfectly onto the existing house footprint. They did
not seem to grasp any of the points, and seemed unwilling to compromise.
5/11/2021
We met with Mr and Mrs. Eng at 102 Ala Heights for over an hour. Their concerns were 1) They didn't want any
garage dormer windows to face their house 2) They wanted us to move the house back on the lot to make our
driveway longer, and 3) They wanted more distance between their garage and ours. Our responses were 1) We made
the 2nd story windows smaller and moved them so the redwood and oak trees would partially block the view, but we
did not intend to entirely give up our view of the lovely trees from the 2nd story. Their window of concern is approx.
56’ away from our proposed dormer. 2) Moving the house back on the lot would threaten the health of the large oak
tree and actually push the house more in the view of both 161 Loma Alta and 104 Alta Heights Ct. The proposed
driveway is 18’ long, and we are doubling the parking for this lot, from 2 spaces to 4.
3) Their garage extends over 18' from his rear yard setback, which is what causes the proximity to our proposed
garage. Our lot is narrow, and it is extremely challenging to design a narrow house with the required 2 car garage.
The new garage is in the same location as the current garage. They also did not seem to grasp any of the points, and
seemed unwilling to compromise.
5/21/2021
Ryan Safty forwarded letters submitted to the city from both Mr. Eng and Ms. Shah (see attached.) These letters
continue to bring up the same issues we discussed with them at our meetings. We are frustrated, as there appears
to be no way to appease these people, short of scrapping the project altogether.
Conclusion:
Both neighbors, at 104 Alta Heights Ct and 175 Loma Alta seemed to demand that we redesign our house exactly
as they wished without compromise. We tried to explain that their requests were in fact, impossible to achieve.
We were quite taken aback as we had made ourselves available for dis cussion for months, and neither neighbor
seemed willing to talk until now, in the 11th hour. We are simply desiring to build a handsome house within our
legal limits, with sensitivity to the neighbors and existing trees - a house design which will aesthetically fit in with
the Loma Alta neighborhood, sits on the footprint of the existing house and will improve property values for all.
It is absurd that Mr. Parihar and Ms. Shah, who have the most radical, modern, boxy house in the neighborhood,
say that our design is not compatible with the neighborhood. In addition to dominating the cul de sac aesthetically,
their house also has a very imposing 2-story blank façade overlooking our house and backyard.
It is also bewildering that Mr. and Mrs Eng have a house which grossly defies 3 setbacks and dominates the cul de
sac with a 56’ long, 2-story tall, brown stucco wall (3x longer than our entry wall). It is also the house with the
smallest 4.75’ driveway, providing no room for parked cars.
Both neighbors seem entitled to have houses which flagrantly overstep setbacks and neighborhood aesthetics, yet
they seem to refuse to support a new neighbor in building a house that is compatible with the neighborhood and
is within the legal parameters of the substandard lot. The Loma Alta neighborhood is a historic village setting, with
small lots, many tall 2-story houses built before setbacks and a density 2.25 times more than other R:1-8 zones.
Sincerely,
S-20-029, Architecture Neighbor Comm. Timeline 102 Alta Heights Court Page 4
Eric A. Beckstrom Catherine DuBridge
Architect/Owner Designer/Owner
1
Eric Beckstrom
From:Ron E <175.ron@gmail.com>
Sent:Sunday, August 30, 2020 8:50 PM
To:Catherine DuBridge; Eric beckstrom
Subject:102 Alta Heights Ct - Eng letter
Attachments:Eng Planning Letter.doc; 2020·09·01_letter to beckstrom.doc
Hello Catherine and Eric
Attached are letters we prepared in response to our meeting over the weekend.
One letter is for the Town Planning Department and the other letter reflects comments we have about the renderings
you shared with us.
Feel free to contact us if you have any questions.
Regards
Ron Eng
1
Eric Beckstrom
From:Ron E <175.ron@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 3:24 PM
To:Catherine DuBridge
Cc:eric@beckstromarchitecture.com
Subject:Re:
At our initial meeting we expressed concerns about having windows facing our bedroom and deck.
Your plans show total disregard for our early apprehensions about our privacy concerns .
Unfortunately I imprudently wrote a hasty letter approving the renderings without seeing actual floor plans.
Given your initial duplicitous behavior, I am skeptical that you people are serious about willing to negotiate aspects of
your plans.
If you are serious about compromise, you can show a sign of good faith by removing the side window or changing the
side window to a clear story window.
Otherwise I will continue to direct my concerns through the Town Planning Department.
Regards
Ron
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 11:32 AM Catherine DuBridge <catherinedubridge@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ron
We see that a second letter was written to the city regarding our proposed home. We are very interested in discussing
any questions and concerns. We are available this evening or tomorrow evening to get together. Let us know if either
time works for you.
Respectfully,
Catherine and Eric
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
650-847-8351
www.BeckstromArchitecture.com
Ron and Linda Eng
175 Loma Alta Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
September 30, 2020
Re 102 Alta Heights Court
Hello Eric and Catherine
Thank you for sharing your architectural renderings with the neighborhood. We’ve all been
looking forward to meeting our new neighbor and anxious to get a glimpse of the new house you
are proposing in the cul-de-sac.
Since we are an adjoining neighbor we will be directly impacted by the new house, so we have
some concerns and comments we want to share with you. As mentioned in our letter to the
Town Planning Department, we have no objection the architectural style of the house, but here is
a list of our comments for your review and consideration.
1. We ask that any windows in the bonus room that face us be designed as a clerestory
window wherein the glazing be installed above the line of sight so as not to compromise
the privacy of our second level room and deck. Or install a skylight in-lieu of windows.
2. I understand that the side setback is 5 feet but from our backyard, the 30 feet height will
be massive and create a canyon affect in our backyard. Designing the southerly face to
step back would temper the massiveness of the side of the new house and allow more
sunlight into our yard.
3. The 30 feet height will block our northerly view and sunlight. Trimming back the oak tree
branches that overhang into our property will permit more sunlight and lessen impact of
the height of the new house. Reducing the pitch of the roof, will also lower the 30 feet
height.
4. There are couple items to consider along the side of our garage.
a. Note that the property line between us lies 3 feet north of the side of garage. We are
agreeable to leaving this area open to “light landscaping” without any fencing.
b. The rendering exhibiting the front of the proposed house indicates a tree along the
side of the garage. We are opposed to any trees along the side of garage. It has been
our experience that trees planted is this narrow space will grow roots that will
compromise the integrity of the garage foundation and will undermine the adjacent
driveway.
Please give our comments some consideration as you move forward with your project and
contact us any time to clarify or discuss any of the above matters.
Thank you for this opportunity to dialogue with you about your future plans as you move
forward.
Regards,
Ron Eng
EXHIBIT 9
1
Ryan Safty
From:Ron E <175.ron@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 1:36 PM
To:Ryan Safty; Sally Zarnowitz
Subject:102 Alta Hts Cts building separation
Attachments:IMG_0051.jpg; IMG_0052.jpg
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
RE: 102 Alta Heights Court
S-20-029
Hello Ryan
I forgot to mention side setback reduction in my last letter.
The architect is proposing to reduce the Side Setback from 8' to 5'-6". The ramification is that the proposed house
would only have 7 feet of separation between my garage and the proposed house.
What is the Building Code that addresses minimum separation between structures?
I tried calling the Building Dept but they are not answering phone calls nor did they call me back
Please ask your contemporaries to help answer my question about building separation
Thank you in advance
Regards
Ron Eng
1
Ryan Safty
From:Ron E <175.ron@gmail.com>
Sent:Thursday, April 8, 2021 2:54 PM
To:Ryan Safty
Cc:Sally Zarnowitz
Subject:Re: 102 Alta Hts Cts building separation
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Thank you for your quick response.
If I understand your response correctly, setbacks for a non-conforming lot are left to the discretion of the plan review committee.
The Town has an 8’ side setback requirement, which would in essence require houses to have 16’ of separation. Allowing a house to
be constructed 7 feet adjacent to a garage sounds perversely counterintuitive.
Given the density of trees adjacent to the property and recent fires in densely populated cities, we hope that the plan reviewers can
appreciate our concern for having houses built too close to each other.
Please share this message with your colleagues and the plan review committee.
Regards
Ron Eng
On Thu, Apr 8, 2021 at 1:59 PM Ryan Safty <RSafty@losgatosca.gov> wrote:
Hi Ron,
Thank you for your email. Your email will be added to the public record and forwarded to the applicant and
deciding body.
Please note that per your last letter, you are correct in that Town Code Section 29.40.055 regarding front
yard setback reductions would not apply in this case. The applicant is requesting a front yard and side yard
setback reduction per Town Code Section 29.10.265 (copied below).
Respectfully,
Ryan
Sec. 29.10.265. - Nonconforming lots.
The following provisions apply to nonconforming lots:
(1)If the lot is in a residential zone and recognized by the Town as a lawful, separate nonmerged lot pursuant
to section 29.10.070, a single-family dwelling may be erected if architecture and site approval is obtained.
(2)If the lot is in other than a residential zone, it may be used for any purpose allowed in the zone.
(3)Any rule of the zone including front, side and rear yard requirements may be modified by the terms of the
architecture and site approval so that the building and its use will be compatible with the neighborhood.
(Ord. No. 1316, § 3.50.140, 6-7-76; Ord. No. 1344, 1-17-77; Ord. No. 1756, 8-1-88; Ord. No. 2024, § II, 12-2-
96)
Ryan Safty ● Associate Planner
1
Ryan Safty
From:Eric Beckstrom <eric@beckstromarchitecture.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 14, 2021 9:54 AM
To:Ryan Safty
Cc:'Catherine DuBridge'
Subject:RE: Staff Tech Review - 102 Alta Heights Ct - S-20-029
Hi Ryan
Thanks for the meeting today.
Below is the email from Ron
We will meet with Ron the week of April 26th
Eric
Having lived here for 40 years I have seen many changes to our cul de sac neighborhood. Every house
has undergone major reconstruction or renovations, which has enhanced our area and undoubtedly
increased the value of the surrounding properties. Generally speaking, the entire community can benefit
from gentrification and the transformation can be especially gratifying if improvements can be carried
out in a mutually agreeable manner.
It is inherent that property development and changes to our environment will trigger repercussions and
have consequences for all parties involved. After during our 40 years of tenancy we have endured many
inconveniences with noise, dust, and traffic congestion. Although we are not inherently against your
development, privacy and security remain our primary concerns.
I know you have committed time and resources to purchase the property and develop the plans as they
stand today. It would be impractical for us to wish for solitude in the area we live but I wish to find a
common ground wherein we can preserve our privacy and ensure safety for our cozy cul de sac.
I believe the Town staff prefers that we work out our differences and come to some amicable terms so
they don’t have to be an intermediary between developer and neighbors.
To avoid any future acrimonious feelings, I would be remiss if I did not provide an opportunity for us to
discuss our individual issues.
That said, provide me with a date and time that you are available to meet at your office.
Regards
Ron Eng
Eric Beckstrom
Architect
Beckstrom Architecture + Interiors
650-847-8351
www.BeckstromArchitecture.com
IMG_0068
Tesla overhangs into sidewalk
5/12/2021
Mr. Ryan Safty
Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos
CC: Ms. Jennifer Armer, Los Gatos Planning
RE: proposed project at 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos
Dear Mr. Ryan Safty,
This letter is regarding the proposed project at 102 Alta Heights Court by Beckstrom Architecture
And Interiors. For reference, this is “Architecture and Site Application S-20-029”.
We are the owners and residents of the neighboring house at 104 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos.
We have reviewed both the current plans available online at the Town of Los Gatos Pending
Planning Projects page, and have also reviewed the story pole installation.
We have strong objections to several aspects of the project which we enumerate below:
1) This design comes across as too big a house on too small a lot with too little setback at the
front, and especially on the sides.
a. The small size of the applicant’s lot (at 5250 sq ft, this is the smallest lot on the cul-
de-sac), combined with the large size of the house exacerbates this effect
b. When one examines the story poles, the applicant’s house does NOT “look relatively
small in scale”
1. From applicant’s Project Description. April 21, 2020; p. 16: “The low
grade and the existence of a very large oak and redwood on the west side
property line cause the proposed 102 house design to look relatively small in
scale.”
c. The current proposal requests exceptions for both the side setbacks and the front
setback rules. These proposed exceptions to the setback requirements significantly
impact the presentation of the proposed house to the cul-de-sac and the proposed
5’6” side setbacks result raise significant safety, natural light and privacy concerns.
In addition, the applicant’s proposed design contains a projection of 1’ 9” for the
dining room and stairwell on the already reduced East setback side. On the West
side, the two garage structures are too close together. On the side shared with 104
Alta Heights Court, the requested 5’6 setback is simply insufficient.
d. Given the size and scale of the proposed construction on what is a small lot, we
ask that the applicant’s request for a 5’6” setback on the East & West side be
denied and it be maintained at 8’.
2) The massing of the house is out of scale/character with the other houses on the cul-de-sac.
a. The steep, visually dominant Tudor-inspired roofline with such a small setback from
the front of the lot is simply not in keeping with the other houses on the cul-de-sac.
It visually presents as an overwhelming view of roof and wall to the neighboring
houses in the cul-de-sac and is not visually consistent with other houses on the cul-
de-sac.
b. The west facing views of the upper floor of 104 Alta Heights Ct now are presented
with a mass of roofline and wall by the proximity and height of the proposed 102
Alta Heights Ct. plans (See Picture Attachments #1, #2, #3) to the west side of 104
Alta Heights Ct.
c. In addition, the current plans (Picture attachment #5) indicate that the roof ridge
line for the proposed construction is to be about the same height as that of 104 Alta
Heights Ct. roof line. But from pictures taken of the peak story-pole roofline, from
the roof of 104 Alta Heights (Picture Attachment #4), the peak ridge height of the
roof at 102 appears to be higher than that of 104 Alta Heights Ct. We request that
the height of the roof ridge be checked given the contradictory appearance as
seen from the roof of 104 Alta Heights Ct.
d. In the interest of both adequate light and privacy for 104 Alta Heights Court, we
request that roof ridge line of the proposed house be lowered and that the front
setback be increased to be similar to the other houses on the cul-de-sac.
3) The impact to existing mature tree’s on the applicants property is substantial.
a. Tree #74, the Coast Live Oak, is a prominent visual feature of the Cul-De-Sac and
home to many bird species. The Arborist’s report indicates that the Coast Live Oak
should have no more than 10-15% of its canopy live biomass reduced. We are
concerned that the impact to the Coast Live Oak’s canopy may be more
substantive and request that measures be taken to ensure that it is not.
Summary
Last year, Beckstrom Architecture and Interiors (BAI) visited us and showed a 3D render of the
proposed construction. Based on that early information, we had provided BA with a letter of
approval.
Unfortunately, the current plans appear to be substantively different in scope and in detail from
what was initially presented. The current story pole installation and detailed plans suggest a huge
mass placed forward on a small lot, very close to the neighboring properties.
We understand that some of the changes were done at the request of the consulting architect, yet
we were not presented with any new renderings or plans.
The story-poles communicate a design with an oversized house on an undersized lot, with
inadequate setbacks, and substantive impact to mature and appealing trees which might have
served to soften the presentation to the cul-de-sac.
We feel that the proposed project does not present well to the cul-de-sac as currently designed and
negatively impacts light, safety and privacy on our property. We feel that it will degrade not only
our quality of life, but also decrease our property value.
Given these serious concerns, we withdraw our earlier approval of the design and strongly request
that the current proposal be modified to accommodate these concerns, per aforementioned
requests.
Sincerely,
Raj Parihar & Swati Shah, 104 Alta Heights, Owners and Residents
Story Pole Pictures for 102 Alta Heights Ct.
1. Front Balcony View facing west (from 104 Alta Heights Ct)
a.
2. Stairwell Windows View facing west (from 104 Alta Heights Ct)
a.
3. Upstairs Family Room View facing west (from 104 Alta Heights Ct)
a.
4. Rooftop View facing west (from 104 Alta Heights Ct)
5. 102 Proposed Height vs 104 Height Plan
a.
6. View of 102 Alta Heights back from backyard of 104 Alta Heights Ct
a.
1
Ryan Safty
From:raghuvir@gmail.com
Sent:Thursday, June 3, 2021 10:10 AM
To:Ryan Safty
Cc:Veeru
Subject:Concerns regarding 102 Alta Heights Ct Demolition (Application S-20-029)
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Dear Mr. Safty
My name is Raghuvir Ramachandran and I am the owner of 108 Alta Heights, Los Gatos, CA 95030. There is
a proposal to demolish one of the houses in our small cul-de-sac: 102 Alta Heights Ct (Applicant: Eric
Beckstrom) and a public hearing is planned for June 9, 2021.
I will be traveling during this time. Hence, please use this email as a proxy of my attendance and my
concerns regarding the proposed construction.
Here are some of the key points:
They are proposing building 3078 sq ft on a 5250 sq ft lot. The house will be too big for the lot.
Their front setback is too small and too close to the street. This is out of character with other houses in
the cul-de-sac. It could also make car parking more difficult. The street is already crowded with a lot of
cars, given it is a small cul-de-sac.
They have inadequate setbacks on the side of the house. The standard setback is 8ft and they are
asking for a 5’6” setback. This is too close and raises safety and privacy concerns.
For these reasons, I would like to rescind our approval of this project till some modifications are made. Please
email me if you would like any further information.
Sincerely,
Raghuvir Ramachandran
Hamsa Subramanian
1
Ryan Safty
From:Harvey Grasty <harveygrasty@yahoo.com>
Sent:Friday, June 4, 2021 10:18 AM
To:Ryan Safty
Subject:102 Alta Heights Ct
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
Ryan,
I live at 106 Alta Heights Ct, in the same cul-de-sac, two houses from the proposed new construction at 102
Alta Heights Ct.
From my perspective, it seems that the proposed new structure protrudes closer to the street than one would
proportionately expect based on the two houses on either side. It seems the front should be constructed
slightly back from the street as proposed. Not only will this make the cul-de-sac more visually consistent,
additionally, this will allow larger cars, like a minivan for instance, to be parked in the driveway without
blocking the sidewalk.
Additionally, the height of the proposed house also seems slightly taller than both houses on either
side. While I do not know the exact measurements, please consider a slight reduction to be consistent with
the other houses that are adjacent.
Thank you for your consideration,
Harvey Grasty
106 Alta Heights Ct
Harvey Grasty
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Beckstrom Architecture/Planning + Consulting Inc.
PO Box 1317, Los Gatos, CA 94030 650 847-8351 E: Eric@BeckstromArchitecture.com
Project: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, 95030; APN: 532-29-045
Gray Architectural Asphalt Shingles Off White/Lt Gray Integral Color Stucco Gray, Stained Wood Siding Marvin, Gun Metal Gray Window
Gray Metal Balcony Gray Paver Stone Driveway and Walk
EXHIBIT 10
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A0.0
1:2.43, 1:1.55, 1' = 1'-0"
EB
COVER SHEET
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
LOT CALCULATIONS
LOT AREA 5,250.00 SF
COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
BULDING COVERAGE ALLOWED 40%
ALLOWED COVERAGE 2,100.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
EXISTING COVERAGE
HOUSE 1,037.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 20-3"
GARAGE 308.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 16'-7"
DRIVEWAY/WALK 468.00 SF
SIDE PATIO 75.00 SF
EXISTING COVERAGE TOTAL 1,888.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
PROPOSED COVERAGE Note: driveway, patio & walks to be pavers on sand
HOUSE 1,082.77 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
ADU STAIR (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)57.63 SF
TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE 1,594.46 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER ALLOWED 505.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER EXISTING 293.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
102 ALTA HEIGHTS LOT SIZE 5,250 SF
FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR HOUSE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.2 0.002 0.35 0.348 5,250 1,827.0 SF
GARAGE FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR GARAGE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.1 0.0007 0.1 0.099 5,250 521.3 SF
FLOOR AREAS
FIRST FLOOR 1,082.77 SF
SECOND FLOOR 742.40 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 1,825.17 SF
HOUSE ALLOWED 1,827.00 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 1.83 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
GARAGE ALLOWED 521.33 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 67.27 SF
ADU (SEPARATE PERMIT)798.58 SF
ADU ALLOWED (SEPARATE PERMIT)801.63 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 3.05 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 3,077.81 SF
NNN102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
Los Gatos Residence CLIENT/OWNER: Bo Development LLC
127 Wilder Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
ARCHITECT: Beckstom Architecture + Interiors
PO Box 1317
Los Gatos, CA 95030
650 847-8351
eric@beckstromarchitecture.com
STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: Efe Sozkesen MS. PE.
4x Engineering, Inc.
4340 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite # 240
San Jose, CA 95129
408 642-5464
contact@4xengineering.com
CONTRACTOR: Owner-Bo Development LLC
TITLE 24/ Title 24 Data Corp
GREENPOINT RATER: Monika Taylor CEA R13-14-10017
633 Monterey Trail, POB 2199, Frazier Park, CA 93225-2199
800-237-8824; title24@frazmtn.com
ABBREVIATIONS
LEGEND
ELEVATION HEIGHTS
SLOPE
(UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE)
SECTION
A-XX Sheet #
Detail #
X'-X"
X
X
A-XX
A-XX
X'-X"
WINDOW#
#DOOR
DETAIL
INTERIOR ELEVATIONS
Sheet #
Sect. #
X
X
X
X
X
EXTERIOR ELEVATIONX
A-XX Sheet #
Sect. #
ARCH. ARCHITECTURAL
BTWN. BETWEEN
BLDG. BUILDING
BLK. BLOCK
BM. BEAM
CSMT. CASEMENT
CLR. CLEAR
CL'G. CEILING
C.J.CEILING JOIST
COL.COLUMN
CONC.CONCRETE
CONT.CONTINUOUS
DRY.DRYER
DIA.DIAMETER
DIM.DIMENSION(S)
D.W.DISHWASHER
DWGS.DRAWINGS
ELEV.ELEVATION
EQ.EQUAL
(E)EXISTING
EXT. EXTERIOR
F.A.U. FORCED AIR UNIT
FIN. FINISH, FINISHED
FLR. FLOOR
F.J. FLOOR JOIST
FTG. FOOTING
FRZ. FREEZER
GA. GAUGE
GALV. GALVANIZED
G.D.GARBAGE DISPOSAL
GRD.GRADE
GYP. BD. GYPSUM BOARD
HDR. HEADER
HGT. HEIGHT
INT. INTERIOR
MAX. MAXIMUM
MIN. MINIMUM
MECH. MECHANICAL
MFGR. MANUFACTURER
MICRO. MICROWAVE
MTL. METAL
NAT. NATURAL
(N)NEW
NO. NUMBER
O.C.ON CENTER
PLYWD. PLYWOOD
RIS. RISERS
R.O. ROUGH OPENING
R.R. ROOF RAFTERS
REV. REVISION
REFR. REFRIDGERATOR
REQD. REQUIRED
SHT. SHEET
SL. SLIDER
SIM. SIMILAR
STL. STEEL
STRUCT. STRUCTURAL
TEMP. TEMPE RED
TR. TREADS
T&G. TOUNGE & GROOVE
T.O. TOP OF
TYP. TYPICAL
U.N.O UNLESS NOTED OTHERWISE
V.I.F.VERIFY IN FIELD
WASH.WASHER
W.H.WATER HEATER
WD.WOOD
PROJECT DATA & DESCRIPTION
CONTENTS
CONTACTS
ARCHITECTURAL
A0.0 COVER SHEET
A0.1 BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY
LOS GATOS GIS TAX MAP
ASSESSOR MAP
APPLICABLE CODES
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
EXISTING 1958, 1-STORY RESIDENCE TO BE REMOVED
CONSTRUCT NEW 2 STORY HOUSE WITH ATTACHED ADU AND
GARAGE
EXISTING LOT IS FLAT, LANDSCAPING & GRADE TO REMAINS AS IS
Assessor's Parcel Number(APN): 532-29-045
ZONING: R:1-8
LOT SIZE: 5,250 SF
CONSTRUCTION TYPE: TYPE V
OCCUPANCY GROUP: R3 - 2-STORY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING +
ATTACHED ADU / ,
GROUP U PRIVATE GARAGE
VICINITY MAP
NOTES
FIRE SPRINKLERS ARE REQUIRED
R313.2 One- and two-family dwellings automatic fire sprinkler systems. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family
dwellings as follows:
1.In all new one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than
three thousand six hundred (3,600) square feet.
Fire Sprinkler Systems: Where automatic fire sprinkler systems are required
to be installed in new buildings, the system shall be placed in service as soon
possible. Immediately upon the completion of sprinkler pipe installation on
each floor level, the piping shall be hydrostatically tested and inspected.
After inspection approval from the Fire department, each floor level of
sprinkler piping shall be connected to the system supply riser and placed
into service with all sprinkler heads uncovered. Protective caps may be installed on the active sprinklers during the installation of drywall, texturing
and painting, but shall be removed immediately after this work is
completed. For system activation notification, an exterior alarm bell can be
installed and connected to the sprinkler waterflow device prior to
installation of the monitoring system.
Water Supply Requirements
Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors
and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements
shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and / or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may
be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of
the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by
that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2016 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7
CONSTRUCTION FIRE SAFETY
Section A33-47 of the Santa Clara County Code and Section 101 of the California Fire Code give the County Fire Marshal the authority to make and enforce
such rules and regulations for the prevention and control of fire and fire hazards as may be necessary to carry out the intent of the Code. Copies of Santa Clara
County Fire Marshal Standards and the County Fire Code Amendments can be found on this website. [REF: SCC §A33-47 & CFC §101.4] Construction to comply
with Chapter 33 Std Detail and Specification S1-7.
The Fire Marshal's Office also has the responsibility for enforcing Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations, and portions of the California Building Code, as
adopted by the County of Santa Clara. A copy of the County Fire Code is kept at the County Clerk of the Board's Office.
PREMISES/ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION
The address numbers of the property or project location shall be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting
the property at the fire apparatus access point or as otherwise approved per code: These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the
fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic
numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is
by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewedfrom the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the
structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1
ADDITIONAL NOTE: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automaƟc residenƟal fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings
as follows: 1) In all new one- and twofamily dwellings and in exisƟng one- and two-family dwellings when addiƟons are made that increase the building
area to more than 3,600 SF whether by increasing the area of the primary residence or by creaƟon of an aƩached Accessory Dwelling Unit. 2) In all
new basements and in exisƟng basements that are expanded by more than 50%. 3) In all aƩached ADUs, addiƟons or alteraƟons to an exisƟng one-
and two-family dwelling that have an exisƟng fire sprinkler system. ExcepƟons: 1) One or more addiƟons made to a building aŌer January 1, 2011 that
does not total more than 1 ,000 square feet of building area and meets all access and water supply requirements of Chapter 5 and Appendix B and C of
the 2019 California Fire Code.
PROJECT AREA CALCULATIONSDEFERRED SUBMITTALS
1.SPRINKLER SYSTEM Type 13D system required per SCCFD
2.SOLAR PV PANEL PLAN /SYSTEM - separate permit
3.WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE /PLAN:
The final landscape plan shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water
Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape
Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. A review fee based on the
current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when
working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review.
2019 California Building Code - CCR Title 24 Part 2
2019 California Residential Code - CCR Title 24 Part 2.5
2019 California Electrical Code - CCR Title 24 Part 3
2019 California Mechanical Code - CCR Title 24 Part 4
2019 California Plumbing Code - CCR Title 24 Part 5
2019 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards – CCR Title 24 Part 6
2019 California Historical Building Code - CCR Title 24 Part 8
2019 California Existing Building Code - CCR Title 24 Part 10
2019 California Green Building Standards Code - CCR Title 24 Part 11
2019 International Existing Building Code, Appendix Chapters A2 and A5 VIEW 'C' ABOVE LOOKING NORTH
VIEW 'B' LOOKING NORTHWEST
RENDERING
EXISTING SITE DRAINS ONTO THE EXISTING FLAT VEGETATED
LAWN WHICH SURROUNDS THE EXISTING HOUSE.
ENTIRE LOT HAS MAX. VERTICAL CHANGE OF LESS THAN 1'.
SLOPE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.5%
PER LID SITE DESIGN MEASURES:
EXISTING ROOF DRAINAGE TO DISCHARGE ACROSS SPLASH
BLOCKS AND INTO EXISTING LANDSCAPED AND VEGETATED
AREAS
DRAINAGE NOTES
NOTE: THE ADU IS
UNDER A
SEPARATE
PERMIT, TYPICAL
A0.1
A1.0
A1.1
A1.2
A1.3
A1.4
A1.5
A1.6
A1.7
A2.0
A2.1
A2.2
A2.3
A3.0
A3.1
A3.2
A3.3
A3.4
NOTES
SITE PLAN
GRADING PLANS/INFO
SITE PLAN-LARGE
SITE PLAN-TREE DIAGRAM/INFO
ARBORIST REPORT-1
ARBORIST REPORT-2
SHADOW STUDIES & FLOOR AREA DIAGRAMS
SITE PLAN-NEIGHBORHOOD HISTORY
FLOOR PLAN-EXISTING
SLAB PLAN
FLOOR PLANS
ROOF PLAN
SITE ELEVATIONS/PLAN-NEIGHBORHOOD
EXISTING PICS, NEIGHBORHOOD ELEVATIONS/VIEWS
NEIGHBORHOOD ELEVATIONS/VIEWS
ELEVATIONS
ELEVATIONS
A4.0
A4.1
BUILDING SECTIONS
BUILDING SECTIONS
EXHIBIT 11
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A0.1
1:1.20
EB
BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN
BAY
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
Materials storage & spill cleanup
Non-hazardous materials management
4 Sand, dirt, and similar materials must be stored at least 10 feet from catch
basins, and covered with a tarp during wet weather or when rain is forecast.
4 Use (but don’t overuse) reclaimed water for dust control as needed.
4 Sweep streets and other paved areas daily. Do not wash down streets or work
areas with water!
4 Recycle all asphalt, concrete, and aggregate base material from demolition
activities.
4 Check dumpsters regularly for leaks and to make sure they don’t overflow.
Repair or replace leaking dumpsters promptly.
Hazardous materials management
4 Label all hazardous materials and hazardous wastes (such as pesticides, paints,
thinners, solvents, fuel, oil, and antifreeze) in accordance with city, state, and
federal regulations.
4 Store hazardous materials and wastes in secondary containment and cover
them during wet weather.
4 Follow manufacturer’s application instructions for hazardous materials and be
careful not to use more than necessary. Do not apply chemicals outdoors when
rain is forecast within 24 hours.
4 Be sure to arrange for appropriate disposal of all hazardous wastes.
Spill prevention and control
4 Keep a stockpile of spill cleanup materials (rags, absorbents, etc. ) available at
the construction site at all times.
4 When spills or leaks occur, contain them immediately and be particularly care-
ful to prevent leaks and spills from reaching the gutter, street, or storm drain.
Never wash spilled material into a gutter, street, storm drain, or creek!
4 Report any hazardous materials spills immediately! Dial 911 or your local emer-
gency response number.
Vehicle and equipment
maintenance & cleaning
4 Inspect vehicles and equipment for leaks
frequently. Use drip pans to catch leaks
until repairs are made; repair leaks
promptly.
4 Fuel and maintain vehicles on site only
in a bermed area or over a drip pan that
is big enough to prevent runoff.
4 If you must clean vehicles or equipment
on site, clean with water only in a
bermed area that will not allow
rinsewater to run into gutters, streets,
storm drains, or creeks.
4 Do not clean vehicles or equipment
on-site using soaps, solvents, degreasers,
steam cleaning equipment, etc.
Dewatering
operations
4 Reuse water for dust control, irrigation,
or another on-site purpose to the greatest
extent possible.
4 Be sure to call your city’s storm drain
inspector before discharging water to a
street, gutter, or storm drain. Filtration or diversion through a basin, tank, or
sediment trap may be required.
4 In areas of known contamination, testing is required prior to reuse or discharge
of groundwater. Consult with the city inspector to determine what testing to do
and to interpret results. Contaminated groundwater must be treated or hauled
off-site for proper disposal.
Concrete, grout, and mortar
storage & waste disposal
4 Be sure to store concrete, grout, and mortar under cover and
away from drainage areas. These materials must never reach a
storm drain.
4 Wash out concrete equipment/trucks off-site or designate an on-site
area for washing where water will flow onto dirt or into a temporary
pit in a dirt area. Let the water seep into the soil and dispose of
hardened concrete with trash.
Make sure your crews and subs do the job right!
Storm drain polluters may be liable for fines of up to $10,000 per day!
Runoff from streets and other paved areas is a major source of pollution in San Francisco Bay. Construction
activities can directly affect the health of the Bay unless contractors and crews plan ahead to keep dirt, debris, and
other construction waste away from storm drains and local creeks. Following these guidelines will ensure your
compliance with local ordinance requirements.
4 Divert water from washing
exposed aggregate concrete
to a dirt area where it will
not run into a gutter, street,
or storm drain.
4 If a suitable dirt area is not
available, collect the wash
water and remove it for
appropriate disposal off site.
Earthwork & contaminated soils
4 Keep excavated soil on the site where it is least likely to collect in the street.
Transfer to dump trucks should take place on the site, not in the street.
4 Use hay bales, silt fences, or other control measures to minimize the flow of silt
off the site.
Paving/asphalt work
Saw cutting
4 Always completely cover or barricade storm drain inlets when saw cutting. Use
filter fabric, hay bales, sand bags, or fine gravel dams to keep slurry out of the
storm drain system.
4 Shovel, absorb, or vacuum saw-cut slurry and pick up all waste as soon as you
are finished in one location or at the end of each work day (whichever is
sooner!).
4 If saw cut slurry enters a catch basin, clean it up immediately.
4 Do not pave during wet weather or when
rain is forecast.
4 Always cover storm drain inlets and man-
holes when paving or applying seal coat,
tack coat, slurry seal, or fog seal.
4 Place drip pans or absorbent material un-
der paving equipment when not in use.
4 Protect gutters, ditches, and drainage
courses with hay bales, sand bags, or
earthen berms.
4 Do not sweep or wash down excess sand
from sand sealing into gutters, storm drains, or creeks. Collect sand and return
it to the stockpile, or dispose of it as trash.
4 Do not use water to wash down fresh asphalt concrete pavement.
Painting
4 Never rinse paint brushes or
materials in a gutter or street!
4 Paint out excess water-based
paint before rinsing brushes,
rollers, or containers in a sink.
If you can’t use a sink, direct
wash water to a dirt area and
spade it in.
4 Paint out excess oil-based paint before cleaning brushes in thinner.
4 Filter paint thinners and solvents for reuse whenever possible.
Dispose of oil-based paint sludge and unusable thinner as
hazardous waste.
4 Avoid scheduling earth moving activities
during the rainy season if possible. If
grading activities during wet weather
are allowed in your permit, be sure to
implement all control measures necessary
to prevent erosion.
4 Mature vegetation is the best form of
erosion control. Minimize disturbance to
existing vegetation whenever possible.
4 If you disturb a slope during construction,
prevent erosion by securing the soil with
erosion control fabric, or seed with fast-
growing grasses as soon as possible. Place
hay bales down-slope until soil is secure.
4 If you suspect contamination (from site history, discoloration, odor, texture,
abandoned underground tanks or pipes, or buried debris), call your local fire
department for help in determining what testing should be done.
4 Manage disposal of contaminated soil according to Fire Department instructions.
Bay Area Stormwater Management
Agencies Association (BASMAA)
1-888-BAYWISE
Pollution Prevention —It’s Part of the Plan
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.0
1/8" = 1'-0", 1' = 1'-0",
1:1.14
EB
SITE PLAN
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
1,347.75 sq ft
456.25 sq ft 20'-0" SETBACK(E) 5'-6" SETBACK
50.0'
20.29'66.90'8'-0"
5'-0
"+/-11'-1/2"2'-0"1'-1 1/2"
2'-0"
1'-9"
21'-0"
20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"4'-7 1/2"5'-0"19'-0"
DRIVEWAY
8'-0"
50.0'
8'-0"102.62'150'-0"107.67'89.40'118.87'16'-5 1/2" BALCONY5'-6"5'-1 1/4"+
/
-
5
'
-
6
"19'-1"10'-0"+/- 18'-4 1/2"
4
A4.0
(N) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE,
TO BE REMOVED
(N) HOUSE/GARAGE
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) SEWER LATERAL &
CLEANOUT
(E) HOUSE
(N) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE,
TO BE
REMOVED
(E) HOUSE
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING, TYP.,
SEE A1.4, A1.5
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING,
TYP., SEE
A1.4, A1.5
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
SITE
PROTECTION
FENCING
FROM THE ARBORIST REPORT, A1.4, A1.5;
Pruning / Oak #74:
Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reduction
pruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting of
removal of selected branches only from the outermost section of
the southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10%
or 15% of total live biomass.
Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower or
inner areas of the canopy.
The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removing
only certain end sections of branches from that southwestmost
section of the canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systems
extended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forces
acting on the limb attachment points, and reducing risk of limb
splitout.
All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-time
site supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conform
to all of the most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for tree
care operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best Management
Practices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruning
standards.
The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning
2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet
by International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019).
Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:
• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greater
than 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommends
only removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at the
most, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest end
of the canopy.
• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branches
should be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood or
tearing the bark”.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
17'-11 1/2" FRONT
SETBACK
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
40"
RDWD
112 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
106 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
110 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
161 LOMA ALTA
ACCESSORY BLDG
24'-6" (E)1'-4"1'-6"18'-0"3
A4.1
1,662.8 sq ft
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
(E) SHEET FLOW
AWAY FROM
HOUSE ONTO (E)
VEGETATED
AREAS
FIBER ROLL,
TYP.
(E) LAWN
TRASH BIN
AREA
ELEC SERVICE
& 200 AMP
PANEL
(E) 8' H. WOOD
FENCE, TYP.
(E) 6' H. WOOD
FENCE, TYP.2 PARKING
SPACES IN
GARAGE
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.(E) SHEET FLOW
AWAY FROM
HOUSE ONTO (E)
VEGETATED
AREAS
(E) LAWN
(E) CURB
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
WATER SHUTOFF (E) UNDERGROUND
ELEC SERVICE
(E) WOOD DECK
FIRST FLOOR EAVE
(E) HOUSE SETBACK, TYP.
(E) HOUSE
SETBACK, TYP.
FIBER ROLL, TYP.
INSTALL SITE PROTECTION
GATE, 6' TALL
INSTALL TREE
PROTECTION FENCING,
SEE ARBORIST REPORT,
A1.4, A1.5
STREET ADDRESS SIGN: 4-inches high, with a
minimum stroke width of 1/2-inch, and shall
contrast with their background - BRASS PLATE W/
BLACK NUMBERS PER CRC Section R31 9
INSTALL SITE PROTECTION FENCING, 6'
TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ POSTS
DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND
LINE OF EAVES
LINE OF BAY;
3'-9"
PROPOSED
BAY SETBACK
PAVERS IN SAND
DRIVEWAY
L=6.72' R=35'L=27.13' R=35'
L=78.55' R=50'
SECOND FLOOR DECK
SLIDING DOORS ON SECOND
FLOOR
PAVERS IN SAND
PATIO
STEPPING STONES
(E) SIDEWALK
(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY/WALKS TO
BE REMOVED (AREA BELOW)
(E) HOUSE
(E) GARAGE
(E) HOUSE
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
LINE OF EAVES
LINE OF EAVES
L=37.02' R=35'
5'-6" SETBACK,
PROPOSED
5'-6" SETBACK,
PROPOSED
8' (E) SETBACK
8' (E) SETBACK
25' (E) FRONT
SETBACK
LINE OF BALCONY
ABOVE,
16'-5 1/2" SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
STONE STEP SET ON
SAND
STONE STEP SET ON
SAND
(E) WATER LATERAL
(E) WATER
METER BOX
(E) STREET
DRAIN
(E) SEWER CLEANOUT
BALCONY
25' (E) FRONT
SETBACK
175 LOMA ALTA
SETBACK
161 LOMA ALTA
AVE. ACCESSORY
BLDG IS ON 102
ALTA HEIGHTS
COURT
PROPERTY
161 LOMA ALTA AVE. GARAGE IS ON
THE PROPERTY LINE, BEYOND THE
REQUIRED 5' SETBACK (PERMIT
DATE IS UNKNOWN DUE TO COVID);
THE GARAGE EAVE IS
APPROXIMATELY 20" OVER THE
PROPERTY LINE INTO 102 AHC
PROPERTY
5' GARAGE SETBACK LINE
SETBACK
LINES, TYP.
18'-0" FRONT
SETBACK18'-0" FRONT
SETBACK
(E) GARAGE (E) GARAGE
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) GARAGE
1-STORY
2-STORY
1-STORY
153
POOL
(N) HOUSE
2-STORY
1-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
REF
MICRO
DW
PANTRY
LOT CALCULATIONS
LOT AREA 5,250.00 SF
COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
BULDING COVERAGE ALLOWED 40%
ALLOWED COVERAGE 2,100.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
EXISTING COVERAGE
HOUSE 1,037.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 20-3"
GARAGE 308.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 16'-7"
DRIVEWAY/WALK 468.00 SF
SIDE PATIO 75.00 SF
EXISTING COVERAGE TOTAL 1,888.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
PROPOSED COVERAGE Note: driveway, patio & walks to be pavers on sand
HOUSE 1,082.77 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
ADU STAIR (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)57.63 SF
TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE 1,594.46 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER ALLOWED 505.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER EXISTING 293.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
102 ALTA HEIGHTS LOT SIZE 5,250 SF
FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR HOUSE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.2 0.002 0.35 0.348 5,250 1,827.0 SF
GARAGE FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR GARAGE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.1 0.0007 0.1 0.099 5,250 521.3 SF
FLOOR AREAS
FIRST FLOOR 1,082.77 SF
SECOND FLOOR 742.40 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 1,825.17 SF
HOUSE ALLOWED 1,827.00 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 1.83 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
GARAGE ALLOWED 521.33 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 67.27 SF
ADU (SEPARATE PERMIT)798.58 SF
ADU ALLOWED (SEPARATE PERMIT)801.63 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 3.05 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 3,077.81 SF
FLOOR AREA HOUSE
SECTION WIDTH HEIGHT AREA (SF)
A 11.87 13.25 157.28
B 6.37 5.45 34.72
C 11.08 3.33 36.90
D 19.91 23.50 467.89
E 11.08 13.12 145.37
F 17.50 13.75 240.63
FIRST FLR SUBTOTAL 1,082.77
G 9.12 12.79 116.64
H 9.87 20.16 198.98
I 6.04 10.05 60.70
J 5.95 7.62 45.34
K 10.87 7.37 80.11
L 17.50 13.75 240.63
SECOND FLR SUBTOTAL 742.40
HOUSE TOTAL 1,825.17 SF
ADU (SEPARATE PERMIT)
M 5.95 2.39 14.22
N 12.00 13.44 161.28
O 19.00 16.58 315.02
P 6.12 5.75 35.19
Q 20.00 7.50 150.00
R 7.16 17.16 122.87
ADU TOTAL (SEPARATE PERMIT)798.58 SF
GARAGE
S 20.75 20.87 433.05
T 5.54 3.79 21.01
GARAGE TOTAL 454.06 SF
N
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR-SITE PLAN
FLOOR AREA-SEE DIAGRAMS ON A1.6
NOTES
1. ALL DIMENSIONS FROM FACE OF STRUCTURE UNLESS
OTHERWISE NOTED.
2. CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCTION , TYP.
3. SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR EXTENT OF BRACED
AND SHEAR WALLS.
4. EXTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X4 STUD, U.O.N.
5. INTERIOR WALLS TO BE 2X4 STUD, U.O.N.
6. PROVIDE MIN. 1-HR FIRE SEPARATION CONSTRUCTION
BETWEEN R-3 AND U OCCUPANCIES AND MECH. RMS, TYP.
5/8" TYPE X GYP. BD. TO BE APPLIED TO THE GARAGE SIDE
WALLS.
7. SHOWER WALLS TO HAVE A SMOOTH , HARD, NON-
ABSORBANT SURFACE OVER MOISTURE RESISTANT
UNDERLAYMENT OT A HEIGHT OF 72" ABOVE THE DRAIN
INLET, PER CRC R307.2.
8. 3/8" (MIN.) THICK TEMPERED GLASS DOOR AT ALL BATH/
SHOWER ENCLOSURES, TYP.
9. PROVIDE 36" MIN. DEEP LANDING (7.75" MAX. BELOW
THRESHOLD FOR IN-SWING/ SLIDER DOORS, 11/2" MAX. AT
OUT-SWING DOORS) AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS .
10. THERMAL INSULATION:
R-15 FACTOR THERMAL INSULATION TYPICAL IN EXTERIOR
2X4 WALLS
R-19 or R-30 FACTOR THERMAL (FOAM) INSULATION
TYPICAL AT ROOFS .
R-13 FACTOR THERMAL INSULATION AT INTERIOR FOR
NOISE REDUCTION.
11. EGRESS WINDOW MIN. NET CLEAR OPENING 5.7 SQ. FT.
MIN. NET CLEAR WIDTH 20" MIN. NET CLEAR HT. 24".
FINISHED SILL NOT MORE THAN 44" ABOVE FINISHED
FLOOR.
12. 1/2" THK. GYP. BD, LEVEL 4 FOR ALL INTERIOR WALLS,
U.O.N.
13. ANY STUD IN AN EXTERIOR WALL OR BEARING PARTITION
MAY BE NOTCHED TO A DEPTH OF 25% MAX. OF ITS WIDTH.
ANY NONBEARING PARTITION MAY BE NOTCHED TO A
DEPTH OF 40%, PER CRC 602.6.1.
14. ANY STUD MAY BE BORED OR DRILLED PROVIDED THAT
THE DIA. OF THE RESULTING HOLE IS NO MORE THAN 60%
OF THE STUD WIDTH AND THE EDGE OF THE HOLE IS NO
MORE THAN 5/8" FROM THE EDGE OF THE STUD, AND THE
HOLE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE SAME SECTION AS A CUT
OR NOTCH OR USE OF AN APPROVED STUD SHOE IS
PERMITTED WHEN THEY ARE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE
WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS, PER
CRC 602.6.2.
15.* ANNULAR SPACES AROUND PIPES, ELECTRIC CABLES,
CONDUITS, OR OTHER OPENINGS IN SOLE/BOTTOM
PLATES AT EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE CLOSED WITH
CEMENT MORTAR, CONCRETE MASONRY OR SIMILAR
METHOD ACCEPTABLE TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY TO
PREVENT PASSAGE OF RODENTS .
16.* AT THE TIME OF FINAL INSPECTION , A MANUAL , CD, WEB-
BASED REFERENCE OR OTHER MEDIA ACCEPTABLE TO
THE ENFORCING AGENCY WHICH COMPLIES WITH THE
SPECIFICATIONS IN CALGREEN 4.410.1.
17.* ADHESIVES, SEALANTS, AND CAULKS USED ON THE
PROJECT SHALL MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF SCAQMD
RULE 1168 VOC LIMITS UNLESS MORE STRINGENT LOCAL
OR REGIONAL AIR POLLUTION OR AIR QUALITY
MANAGEMENT DISTRICT RULES APPLY.
18.* ARCHITECTURAL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL COMPLY
WITHY VOC LIMITS IN TABLE 1 OF THE AIR RESOURCES
BOARD ARCHITECTURAL SUGGESTED CONTROL
MEASURE, AS SHOWN IN CALGREEN TABLE 4.504.3,
UNLESS MORE STRINGENT LOCAL LIMITS APPLY.
19.* AEROSOL PAINTS AND COATINGS SHALL MEET THE
PRODUCT-WEIGHTED MIR LIMITS FOR ROC IN SECTION
94522(a)(3) AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS, INCLUDING
PROHIBTIONS ON USE OF CERTAIN TOXIC COMPOUNDS
AND OZONE DEPLETING SUBSTANCES, IN SECTION 94522
(c)(2) AND (d)(2) OF THE CA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE
17, COMMENCING WITH SECTION 94520; AND IN AREAS
UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF THE BAAQMD SHALL
ADDITIONALLY COMPLY WITH THE PERCENT VOC BY
WEIGHT OF PODUCT LIMITS OF REGULATION 8, RULE 49.
20.* HARDWOOD PLYWOOD, PARTICLEBOARD AND MDF
COMPOSITE WOOD PRODUCTS USED ON THE INTERIOR
OR EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING SHALL MEET THE
REQUIREMENTS OFOR FORMALDEHYDE AS SPECIFIED IN
ARB'S AIR TOXICS CONTROL MEASURE FOR COMPOSITE
WOOD CA CODE OF REGULATIONS, TITLE 17, SECTION
93120.1(a).
21.* WHERE CONCRETE SLAB FOUNDATIONS OR CONCRETE
SLAB-ON-GROUND FLOORS ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A
VAPOR RETARDER, A CAPILLARY BREAK SHALL BE
INSTALLED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ONE OF THE
FOLLOWING:
A) A 4-INCH THICK BASE OF 1/2" OR LARGER CLEAN
AGGREGATE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH A VAPOR
RETARDER IN DIRECT CONTACT WITH CONCRETE AND
A CONCRETE MIX DESIGN WHICH WILL ADDRESS
BLEEDING, SHRINKAGE AND CURLING SHALL BE USED
B) OTHER EQUIVALENT METHODS APPROVED BY THE
ENFORCING AGENCY
C) A SLAB DESIGN SPECIFIED BY A LICENSED DESIGN
PROFESSIONAL
22.* BUILDING MATERIALS WITH VISIBLE SIGNS OF WATER
DAMAGE SHALL NOT BE INSTALLED. WALL AND FLOOR
FRAMING SHALL NOT BE ENCLOSED WHEN THE FRAMING
MEMBERS EXCEED 19% MOISTURE CONTENT.
23.* INSULATION PRODUCTS WHICH ARE VISIBLY WET OR HAVE
A HIGH MOISTURE CONTENT SHALL BE REPLACED OR
ALLOWED TO DRY PRIOR TO ENCLOSURE IN WALL OR
FLOOR CAVITIES. MANUF. DRYING RECOMMENDATIONS
SHALL BE FOLLOWED FOR WET-APPLIED INSULATION
PRODUCTS PRIOR TO ENCLOSURE.
24.* WHEN REQUIRED BY THE ENFORCING AGENCY, SPECIAL
INSPECTORS SHALL PROVIDE INSPECTIONS OR OTHER
DUTIES NECESSARY TO SUBSTANTIATE COMPLIANCE
WITH APPLICABLE CODES. SPECIAL INSPECTORS MUST
BE QUALIFIED AND ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCE
TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY IN THE DISCIPLINE IN WHICH
THEY ARE INSPECTING.
25.* DOCUMENTATION OF COMLIANCE SHALL INCLUDE, BUT IS
NOT LIMITED TO, CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS, PLANS,
SPECIFICATIONS, BUILDER OR INSTALLER CERTIFICATION,
INSPECTION REPORTS, OR OTHER METHODS ACCEPTABLE
TO THE LOCAL ENFORCING AGENCY.
1. ALL DEMOLITION WORK SHALL AT ALL TIMES BE UNDER THE
IMMEDIATE SUPERVISION OF A PERSON WITH THE PROPER
EXPERIENCE, TRAINING, AND AUTHORITY.
2. ALL REMOVED BUILDING MATERIALS, APPLIANCES, AND FIXTURES
MAY BE SALVAGED AT THE OWNER 'S DISCRETION. VERIFY WITH
OWNER PRIOR TO DEMOLITION WHAT IS TO BE REMOVED WITH
CARE, SALVAGED, AND STORED AT A LOCATION DESCRIBED BY THE
OWNER.
3. DEMOLITION CONTRACTOR TO REDIRECT / RECONNECT ANY ACTIVE
EXISTING UTILITY, DRAINAGE, AND SPRINKLER LINES WHICH ARE
DISTURBED BY DEMOLITION. CAP ALL ABANDONED LINES.
4. CONTRACTOR IS TO BE FAMILIAR WITH DEMOLITION AND FIELD
VERIFY ALL DEMOLITION PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK, REPORT ANY
DISCREPANCIES TO ARCHITECT .
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL SELECTIVE
DEMOLITION AS REQUIRED FOR IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED,
RENOVATIONS, AND ALTERATIONS TO (E) GARAGE AND (E)
RESIDENCE.
6. OWNER AND ARCHITECT TO WALK JOB WITH CONTRACTOR PRIOR
TO COMMENCEMENT OF DEMOLITION.
7.* RECYCLE AND/OR SALVAGE FOR REUSE A MINIMUM OF 50% (BY
WEIGHT) OF THE NONHAZARDOUS CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION WASTE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALGREEN 4.408.2.
8.* SUBMIT A CONSTRUCTION WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN:
A) IDENTIFYING THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
MATERIALS TO BE DIVERTED FROM DISPOSAL BY RECYCLING,
REUSE ON THE PROJECT OR SALVAGE FOR FUTURE USE OR
SALE
B) SPECIFYING IF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
MATERIALS WILL BE SORTED ON-SITE OR BULK MIXED
C) IDENTIFYING DIVERSION FACILITIES WHERE THE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS WILL BE
TAKEN
D) IDENTIFYING CONSTRUCTION METHODS EMPLOYED TO REDUCE
THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION WASTE
GENERATED
E) SPECIFYING THAT THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION AND
DEMOLITION WASTE MATERIALS DIVERETED SHALL BE
CALCULATED BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME BUT NOT BY BOTH
9.* DOCUMENTATION WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE ENFORCING AGENCY
WHICH DEMONSTRATES COMPLIANCE WITH CALGREEN 4.408.2.
10.*A PLAN MUST BE DEVELOPED AND IMPLEMENTED TO MANAGE
STORM WATER DRAINAGE DURING CONSTRUCTION .
*CALGREEN RESIDENTIAL MANDATORY MEASURES
DEMOLITION NOTES LOS GATOS PLANNING NOTES :
1. ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING WILL
BE DOWNWARD DIRECTED/NIGHT
SKY TYPE AND SHIELDED FROM
NEIGHBOR'S PER TOWN CODE
NOTE: THE ADU IS
UNDER A
SEPARATE
PERMIT, TYPICAL
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.1
1/8" = 1'-0", 1' = 1'-0",
1:4.25, 1:1.26, 1:2.29
EB
GRADING PLANS/INFO
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
98.36 sq ft
101.89 sq ft
67.88 sq ft
32.65 sq ft
209.97 sq ft
62.14 sq ft
22.46 sq ft
103.44 sq ft
4
A4.0
DRIVEWAY-PAVERS
ON SAND, TYP.
PATIO - PAVERS ON
SAND, TYP.
PROPOSED HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SHADED
HATCH
PROPOSED HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SHADED
HATCH
PROPOSED HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SHADED
HATCH
(E) STREET CATCH
BASIN
(E) CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY AND
WALKS TO BE
REMOVED
(E) CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY AND
WALKS TO BE
REMOVED
(E) CURB/SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION
FENCING AND
EROSION FIBER
ROLL, ALSO SEE A1.0
TREE PROTECTION
FENCING, ALSO SEE
A1.0
AVERAGE GRADE SLOPE IS
.1% - 1.5%
(E) GRADE TO
REMAIN, TYP.
(E) GRADE TO
REMAIN, TYP.
(E) GRADE TO
REMAIN, TYP.
DS ON
SPLASHBLOCK,
TYP.
DS ON
SPLASHBLOCK,
TYP.
DS ON
SPLASHBLOCK,
TYP.
DS ON
SPLASHBLOCK,
TYP.
DS ON
SPLASHBLOCK,
TYP.
SILT ROLL, TYP.
SILT ROLL, TYP.
SILT ROLL, TYP.
STONE STEP
SET ON SAND
NO GRADING FOR PATIO,
INSTALLED ABOVE (E)
GRADE
A
E
B
G
F
D
3
A4.1
16.33 sq ft
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SQUARE
HATCH
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SQUARE
HATCH
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN WITH SQUARE
HATCH
BAY
BAY
(E) VEGETATED SWALE
NO NEW GRADING:
(E) VEGETATED AREA
SURROUNDING HOUSE TO
REMAIN, EXISTING GRADE
REMAINS THROUGHOUT
SITE, TYP.
EXISTING GARAGE,
SHOWN WITH LG
SQUARE HATCH
STONE STEP
SET ON SAND
NO NEW GRADING:
(E) VEGETATED AREA
SURROUNDING HOUSE TO
REMAIN, EXISTING GRADE
REMAINS THROUGHOUT
SITE, TYP.
C
-0'-7 1/2"
98.675'
0'-0" REF
99.3'
-0'-1"
-1'-5"
-1'-4 1/2"
97.925'
0'-0"
-0'-7 1/2"
-1'-3"
98.05'
-0'-7 1/2"
98.68'
-1'-4.5"
98.0'
-1'-3"
98.05'
0'-0" REF
99.3'
95.61' (E)
96.6' (E)
97.21' (E)
97.87' (E)
98.18' (E)
96.6' (E)
97.58' (E)
97.14' (E)
97.09' (E)
97.59' (E)
97.67' (E)
97.5' (E)
97.95' (E)
97.45' (E)
98.18' (E)
97.63'(E)
97.66' (E)
97.17' (E)
97.21' (E)
97.02' (E)
97.25' (E)
97.28' (E)
95.59' (E)
98.11' (E)
97.44' (E)
96'
98'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
96'
96'
98'
97.31' (E)
0'-0" REF
99.3'
97.5' (E)
98.05'
97.5' (E)97.8'
PATIO
-0'-7 1/2"
98.675'
0'-0" REF
99.3'
98.05'
98.05'
PATIO
97.8'
PATIO
97.5'
PATIO
97.7'
PATIO
97.17' (E)
97.17' (E)
97.31' (E)
H
97'
161 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE 104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURTSTRUCTURAL
SLAB ON GRADE
THROUGOUT
PROPOSED HOUSE
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN DASHED
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN DASHED
STRUCTURAL
SLAB ON GRADE
THROUGOUT
PROPOSED HOUSE
4
A4.0
0'-0"
0'-0"
0'-0"
-0'-1"
-0'-7 1/2"
-1'-3"
HOUSE SLAB
001
GARAGE SLAB
002
3
A4.1
LOT CALCULATIONS
LOT AREA 5,250.00 SF
COVERAGE CALCULATIONS
BULDING COVERAGE ALLOWED 40%
ALLOWED COVERAGE 2,100.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
EXISTING COVERAGE
HOUSE 1,037.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 20-3"
GARAGE 308.00 SF EXISTING HEIGHT: APPROX. 16'-7"
DRIVEWAY/WALK 468.00 SF
SIDE PATIO 75.00 SF
EXISTING COVERAGE TOTAL 1,888.00 SF IMPERVIOUS
PROPOSED COVERAGE Note: driveway, patio & walks to be pavers on sand
HOUSE 1,082.77 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
ADU STAIR (UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT)57.63 SF
TOTAL PROPOSED COVERAGE 1,594.46 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER ALLOWED 505.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE AMOUNT UNDER EXISTING 293.54 SF IMPERVIOUS
102 ALTA HEIGHTS LOT SIZE 5,250 SF
FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR HOUSE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.2 0.002 0.35 0.348 5,250 1,827.0 SF
GARAGE FAR CALCULATIONS AREA FAR GARAGE
5.25 5 0.25 25 0.01 0.1 0.0007 0.1 0.099 5,250 521.3 SF
FLOOR AREAS
FIRST FLOOR 1,082.77 SF
SECOND FLOOR 742.40 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 1,825.17 SF
HOUSE ALLOWED 1,827.00 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 1.83 SF
GARAGE 454.06 SF
GARAGE ALLOWED 521.33 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 67.27 SF
ADU (SEPARATE PERMIT)798.58 SF
ADU ALLOWED (SEPARATE PERMIT)801.63 SF
AMOUNT UNDER 3.05 SF
HOUSE TOTAL 3,077.81 SF
SPLASH BLOCK D
2334"
11"
3"134"
HOUSE - GRADING QUANTITIES (approx. cu. yds)
AREA CUT sq. ft 9 sq. f/sq. yd sq. yd MAX. DEPTH yd TOTAL (cu. yds)AREA FILL sq. ft 9 sq. f/sq. yd sq. yd MAX. DEPTH yd TOTAL (cu. yds)GRAND TOTAL (cu. yds)
A 67.88 9.00 7.54 x 0.40 3.02 D 98.36 9.00 10.93 x 0.40 4.37
B 32.65 9.00 3.63 x 0.40 1.45 E 101.89 9.00 11.32 x 0.40 4.53
C 16.33 9.00 1.81 x 0.40 0.73 F 209.97 9.00 23.33 x 0.40 9.33
G 62.14 9.00 6.90 x 0.40 2.76
SubTotal 12.98 sq. yd SUBTOTAL 5.19 SubTotal 52.48 sq. yd SUBTOTAL 20.99 26.19 cu. yds
MAX. ALLOWED 50.00 cu. yds
AMOUNT UNDER -23.81 cu. yds
DRIVEWAY - GRADING QUANTITIES (approx. cu. yds)
AREA CUT sq. ft 9 sq. f/sq. yd sq. yd MAX. DEPTH yd TOTAL (cu. yds)AREA FILL sq. ft 9 sq. f/sq. yd sq. yd MAX. DEPTH yd TOTAL (cu. yds)GRAND TOTAL (cu. yds)
H 103.44 9.00 11.49 x 0.15 1.72
SubTotal 11.49 sq. yd SUBTOTAL 1.72
1.72 cu. yds
MAX. ALLOWED 50.00 cu. yds
AMOUNT UNDER -48.28 cu. yds
N
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR-GRADING PLAN
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR-SLAB PLAN
SPLASH BLOCK, TYP.
DRAINAGE NOTES
1. FINISH GRADE AROUND THE STRUCTURE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM
THE FOUNDATION A MIN. OF 5%
FOR A MINIMUM DISTANCE OF 10'. (CBC 1804.3) EXCEPTION: WHERE
CLIMATIC OR SOIL CONDITIONS
WARRANT, THE SLOPE OF THE GROUND AWAY FROM THE BUILDING
FOUNDATION SHALL BE PERMITTED
TO BE REDUCED TO NOT LESS THAN 2%. THE PROCEDURE USED TO
ESTABLISH THE FINAL GROUND
LEVEL ADJACENT TO THE FOUNDATION SHALL ACCOUNT FOR
ADDITIONAL SETTLEMENT OF BACKFILL.
2. ON GRADED SITES, THE TOP OF ANY EXTERIOR FOUNDATION SHALL
EXTEND ABOVE THE ELEVATION
OF THE STREET GUTTER AT POINT OF DISCHARGE OR THE INLET OF AN
APPROVED DRAINAGE DEVICE A
MINIMUM OF 12" PLUS 2%. ALTERNATE ELEVATIONS ARE PERMITTED
SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE
BUILDING OFFICIAL, PROVIDED IT CAN BE DEMONSTRATED THAT THE
REQUIRED DRAINAGE TO THE
POINT OF DISCHARGE AND AWAY FROM THE STRUCTURE IS PROVIDED
AT ALL LOCATIONS OF THE SITE.
(CBC 1808.7.4)
3. ALL RUN OFF FROM ROOFS SHALL BE COLLECTED BY ROOF
GUTTERS. ALL ROOF GUTTER
DOWNSPOUTS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH SCREENS TO PREVENT THE
INTRUSION OF LEAVES, TWIGS &
DEBRIS .
4. ROOF GUTTER DOWN SPOUTS SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH SPLASH
BLOCKS LOCATED IMMEDIATELY
BELOW POINT OF DOWNSPOUT DISCHARGE. SPLASH BLOCKS SHALLL
DIRECT ROOF GUTTER FLOW
AWAY FROM BUILDING FOUNDATION AS REQUIRED TO PREVENT
PONDING OF WATER ADJACENT TO
BUILDING FOUNDATION.
5. ALL STORM DRAINAGE PIPING, FITTINGS, AREA DRAINS, DROP INLETS
ETC SHALL BE INSTALLED PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS AND SPECS.
6. ALL PIPES FROM THE ROOF GUTTER DOWN SPOUTS AND/OR YARD
PIPING SHALL BE IN 4" SDR-35,
UNO. SLOPE MIN. 1% MIN TO APPROVED RELEASE LOCATION.
7. SIDE YARD DRAINAGE SWALES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED TO
FACILITATE RUNOFF AWAY FROM
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS AT THE MAX RATE PRACTICABLE . RUNOFF TO
ADJACENT PARCELS IS
PROHIBITED.
8. UNO, ALL DRAINAGE SWALES AND OTHER LANDSCAPED FINISH
SURFACES SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED
TO PROMOTE RUNOFF CONTACT WITH LANDSCAPE VEGETATION AND
SOIL MEDIA EN ROUTE TO
APPROVED DISCHARGE LOCATION. RUN OFF SHALL BE DIRECTED
TOWARD FRONT YARD AND
BACKYARD AS SHOWN. PROVIDE 1% MINIMUM SLOPE TOWARD
DISCHARGE LOCATION IN LANDSCAPED
AREAS, EXCEPT TOWARD BUILDING FOUNDATION.
9. BACKWATER VALVE ON DRAINAGE PIPING SERVING FIXTURE THAT
HAVE FLOOD LEVEL RIMS LESS
THAN 12-INCHES ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE NEXT UPSTREAM
MANHOLE. CPC 710.0.
10. ONE OR MORE OF THE FOLLOWING MEASURES TO PREVENT
FLOODING OF ADJACENT PROPERTY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH CGBSC SECTION 4.106.2:
A. PROVIDE RETENTION BASINS OF SUFFICIENT SIZE TO RETAIN STORM
WATER ON SITE.
B. WHERE STORM WATER IS CONVEYED TO THE PUBLIC DRAINAGE
SYSTEM, SHOW METHOD OF
FILTRATION
CONSISTING OF A BARRIER SYSTEM, WATTLE OR OTHER APPROVED
METHOD.
C. SHOW COMPLIANCE TO LOCAL STORM WATER ORDINANCE.
11. MATERIAL COLLECTION : THE TOWN EXCLUSIVE PROVIDER OF THIS
SERVICE IS WEST VALLEY COLLECTION & RECYCLING (408) 283-9250.
EXISTING SITE DRAINS ONTO THE EXISTING FLAT VEGETATED
LAWN WHICH SURROUNDS THE EXISTING HOUSE.
ENTIRE LOT HAS MAX. VERTICAL CHANGE OF LESS THAN 1'.
SLOPE IS APPROXIMATELY 1.5%
PER LID SITE DESIGN MEASURES:
EXISTING ROOF DRAINAGE TO DISCHARGE ACROSS SPLASH
BLOCKS AND INTO EXISTING LANDSCAPED AND VEGETATED
AREAS
FIBER ROLL, TYP. DETAIL
GRADING NOTES
1. HOUSE/GARAGE - NO NEW GRADING ON THE SITE BEYOND THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT, IE. ALL EXISTING GRADES TO BE MAINTAINED. HOUSE IS UTILIZING A STRUCTURAL SLAB OVER THE EXISTING
HOUSE FOOTPRINT TO REDUCE SITE IMPACT EFFECTS
A. HOUSE/GARAGE GRADING QUANTITY: 26.19 CUBIC YARD TOTAL CUT /FILL
2. DRIVEWAY - EXISTING CONCRETE DRIVEWAY WILL BE USED DURING CONSTRUCTION AND REMOVED AT THE END OF CONSTRUCTION FOR A NEW PAVER OVER SAND DRIVEWAY TO REDUCE
IMPERVIOUS SURFACES, THE DRIVEWAY WILL INCREASE SLIGHTLY IN WIDTH WHICH WILL REQUIRE MINIMAL GRADING
A. DRIVEWAY QUANTITY: 1.72 CUBIC YARD TOTAL CUT /FILL
3. BACK PATIO - NO GRADING REQUIRED, PAVER PATIO WILL BE BUILT OVER THE EXISTING GRADE
A. NO GRADING REQUIRED
NOTE: THE ADU IS
UNDER A
SEPARATE
PERMIT, TYPICAL
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.2
3/16" = 1'-0"
EB
SITE PLAN-LARGE
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
1,347.75 sq ft456.25 sq ft20'-0" SETBACK(E) 5'-6" SETBACK50.0'20.29'66.90'8'-0"2'-0"1'-1 1/2"2'-0"1'-9"21'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"4'-7 1/2"19'-0"DRIVEWAY8'-0"50.0'8'-0"102.62'150'-0"107.67'16'-5 1/2" BALCONY5'-6"5'-1 1/4"+/- 5'-6"19'-1"10'-0"+/- 18'-4 1/2"4A4.0(N) HOUSE(E) HOUSE,TO BE REMOVED(N) HOUSE/GARAGE(E) DRIVEWAY(E) SEWER LATERAL &CLEANOUT(E) HOUSE(N) HOUSE(E) HOUSE,TO BEREMOVED(E) HOUSETREEPROTECTIONFENCING, TYP.,SEE A1.4, A1.5TREEPROTECTIONFENCING,TYP., SEEA1.4, A1.5(N) TREE,TYP.(N) TREE,TYP.(N) TREE,TYP.(N) TREE,TYP.SITEPROTECTIONFENCINGFROM THE ARBORIST REPORT, A1.4, A1.5;Pruning / Oak #74:Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reductionpruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting ofremoval of selected branches only from the outermost section ofthe southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10%or 15% of total live biomass.Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower orinner areas of the canopy.The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removingonly certain end sections of branches from that southwestmostsection of the canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systemsextended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forcesacting on the limb attachment points, and reducing risk of limbsplitout.All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-timesite supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conformto all of the most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for treecare operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best ManagementPractices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruningstandards.The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning bookletby International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019).Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greaterthan 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommendsonly removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at themost, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest endof the canopy.• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branchesshould be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood ortearing the bark”.(N) TREE,TYP.17'-11 1/2" FRONTSETBACKALTA HEIGHTS COURT40"RDWD104 ALTAHEIGHTS COURT106 ALTAHEIGHTS COURT108 ALTAHEIGHTS COURT175 LOMA ALTA161 LOMA ALTA104 ALTAHEIGHTS COURT104 ALTAHEIGHTS COURT161 LOMA ALTAACCESSORY BLDG24'-6" (E)1'-4"1'-6"18'-0"3A4.11,662.8 sq ftPROPERTYLINE, TYP.(E) SHEET FLOWAWAY FROMHOUSE ONTO (E)VEGETATEDAREASFIBER ROLL,TYP.(E) LAWNTRASH BINAREAELEC SERVICE& 200 AMPPANEL(E) 8' H. WOODFENCE, TYP.(E) 6' H. WOODFENCE, TYP.2 PARKINGSPACES INGARAGEPROPERTYLINE, TYP.PROPERTYLINE, TYP.PROPERTYLINE, TYP.(E) SHEET FLOWAWAY FROMHOUSE ONTO (E)VEGETATEDAREAS(E) LAWN(E) CURBPROPERTYLINE, TYP.WATER SHUTOFF(E) UNDERGROUNDELEC SERVICE(E) WOOD DECKFIRST FLOOR EAVE(E) HOUSE SETBACK, TYP.(E) HOUSESETBACK, TYP.FIBER ROLL, TYP.INSTALL SITE PROTECTIONGATE, 6' TALLINSTALL TREEPROTECTION FENCING,SEE ARBORIST REPORT,A1.4, A1.5STREET ADDRESS SIGN: 4-inches high, with aminimum stroke width of 1/2-inch, and shallcontrast with their background - BRASS PLATE W/BLACK NUMBERS PER CRC Section R31 9INSTALL SITE PROTECTION FENCING, 6'TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ POSTSDRIVEN INTO THE GROUNDLINE OF EAVESLINE OF BAY;3'-9"PROPOSEDBAY SETBACKPAVERS IN SANDDRIVEWAYL=6.72' R=35'L=27.13' R=35'L=78.55' R=50'SECOND FLOOR DECKSLIDING DOORS ON SECONDFLOORPAVERS IN SANDPATIOSTEPPING STONES(E) SIDEWALK(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY/WALKS TOBE REMOVED (AREA BELOW)(E) HOUSE(E) GARAGE(E) HOUSEPROPERTYLINE, TYP.LINE OF EAVESLINE OF EAVESL=37.02' R=35'5'-6" SETBACK,PROPOSED5'-6" SETBACK,PROPOSED8' (E) SETBACK8' (E) SETBACK25' (E) FRONTSETBACKLINE OF BALCONYABOVE,16'-5 1/2" SETBACKPROPOSED 5'-6"SETBACKPROPOSED 5'-6"SETBACKPROPOSED 5'-6"SETBACKSTONE STEP SET ONSANDSTONE STEP SET ONSAND(E) WATER LATERAL(E) WATERMETER BOX(E) STREETDRAIN(E) SEWER CLEANOUTBALCONY25' (E) FRONTSETBACK175 LOMA ALTASETBACK161 LOMA ALTAAVE. ACCESSORYBLDG IS ON 102ALTA HEIGHTSCOURTPROPERTY161 LOMA ALTA AVE. GARAGE IS ONTHE PROPERTY LINE, BEYOND THEREQUIRED 5' SETBACK (PERMITDATE IS UNKNOWN DUE TO COVID);THE GARAGE EAVE ISAPPROXIMATELY 20" OVER THEPROPERTY LINE INTO 102 AHCPROPERTY5' GARAGE SETBACK LINE18'-0" FRONTSETBACK18'-0" FRONTSETBACK(E) GARAGE(E) GARAGE(E) NEIGHBOR(E) GARAGE1-STORY2-STORY1-STORY153POOL(N) HOUSE2-STORY1-STORY2-STORY2-STORY1-STORY1-STORYREFMICRODWPANTRYNSCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"FIRST FLOOR-SITE PLAN
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.3
3/16" = 1'-0", 1:1.60, 6" =
1'-0", 1:1.70, 1:1.21, 1:2.13
EB
SITE PLAN-TREE
DIAGRAM/INFO
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
4
4
4
4
412' MIN. BETWEEN CANOPIES26'-7 1/4"
12' MIN. BETW
E
E
N
CANOP
I
E
S
12' MIN.
BETW
E
E
N
CANO
PI
E
S
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING, TYP.,
SEE A1.4, A1.5
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING,
TYP., SEE
A1.4, A1.5
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
FIRE PROTECTION
ZONE 1, NON
COMBUSTIBLE ZONE:
0' - 5' PERIMETER,
SEE DIAGRAM,
BOTTOM RIGHT; NO
GRASS, VEGETATION,
ETC.
DISTANCES PER
FIRE PREVENTION
MEASURES, SEE
DIAGRAM, BOTTOM
RIGHT
DISTANCES PER
FIRE PREVENTION
MEASURES, SEE
DIAGRAM, BOTTOM
RIGHT
FIRE PROTECTION
ZONE 3, CLEAN AND
GREEN ZONE: 5' -30'
PERIMETER, SEE
DIAGRAM
FIRE PROTECTION
ZONE 3, CLEAN AND
GREEN ZONE: 5' -30'
PERIMETER, SEE
DIAGRAM
SITE
PROTECTION
FENCING
FIRE PROTECTION
ZONE 1, NON
COMBUSTIBLE ZONE:
0' - 5' PERIMETER,
SEE DIAGRAM,
BOTTOM RIGHT; NO
GRASS, VEGETATION,
ETC.
FROM THE ARBORIST REPORT, A1.4, A1.5;
Pruning / Oak #74:
Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reduction
pruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting of
removal of selected branches only from the outermost section of
the southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10%
or 15% of total live biomass.
Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower or
inner areas of the canopy.
The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removing
only certain end sections of branches from that southwestmost
section of the canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systems
extended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forces
acting on the limb attachment points, and reducing risk of limb
splitout.
All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-time
site supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conform
to all of the most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for tree
care operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best Management
Practices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruning
standards.
The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning
2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet
by International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019).
Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:
• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greater
than 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommends
only removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at the
most, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest end
of the canopy.
• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branches
should be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood or
tearing the bark”.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
PRE DEMO - TREE
#74 PROTECTION,
SEE NOTE ON A1.4
74 - 30"
OAK
73 - 4"
CREPE MYRTLE
72 - 11"
PEAR
75
CREPE MYRTLE
76
CREPE MYRTLE
40"
RDWD
77
CREPE MYRTLE
78
CREPE MYRTLE
71 - 11"
PEAR
161 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE 104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT175 LOMA ALTA
HOUSE
TREE TABLE
ID SPECIES SIZE CONDITION STATUS NOTES
71 NON-FLOWERING PEAR 11"OVERMATURE, SEVERELY STRESSED REMOVE TOO CLOSE TO HOUSE, DISEASED, DEAD BRANCHES, ETC.
72 NON-FLOWERING PEAR 11"OVERMATURE, SEVERELY STRESSED REMOVE TOO CLOSE TO HOUSE, DISEASED, DEAD BRANCHES, ETC.
73 CREPE MYRTLE 4"AVERAGE HEALTH RETAIN
74 COASTAL OAK 30"AVERAGE HEALTH RETAIN ON 3 PROPERTIES, NEIGHBORS WANT IT TRIMMED FOR HEALTH
75 CREPE MYRTLE 2-3"NEW NEW 15 GALLON, STAKED PER CODE
76 CREPE MYRTLE 2-3"NEW NEW 15 GALLON, STAKED PER CODE
77 CREPE MYRTLE 2-3"NEW NEW 15 GALLON, STAKED PER CODE
78 CREPE MYRTLE 2-3"NEW NEW 15 GALLON, STAKED PER CODE
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
4 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table 1.0(a) (REFER TO THE CTA’S TREE MAP MARKUP WHEN REVIEWING THE BELOW MATRIX)
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
71
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing
and airspace conflicts.
No.
Poor
$2,050. 6.5 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
72
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing,
airspace conflicts, and
assumed gas pipe
trenching during gas
pipe diameter upgrade.
No.
Poor
$5,000. 8.7 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
73
GOOD
RETAIN
Minor.
No
Moderate
$800. 2.1 feet
No applicant plan changes required.
Maintain chain link RPZ fencing per the CTA’s
tree map markup embedded in this report, and
5 feet to 8 feet RADIUS offset from trunk
edge, and use hand-watering or timer type
irrigation to maintain soil moisture during the
project buildout.
2 X $250 =
$500.
15 gallon or
24” box
1 Calculated per the newest edition (10th edition, 2nd Printing) of Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2019. The Trunk Formula Technique (TFT) was the specific technique noted in the
Guide used to determine the dollar valuations noted in Table 1.0(a). Palm appraisals are performed differently, using a calculation of replacement cost, and then multiplying
that cost by a condition rating factor and a functional limitations factor.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
5 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
74
GOOD
RETAIN
Moderate to Severe.
Root loss will occur
during foundation
footing work west of the
trunk, where new
foundation will be
poured closer to the
trunk edge than the
original existing
residence foundation
edge.
New roof peak is
roughly 28.5 feet
elevation above grade
at centerline of garage,
which is +/- 20
horizontal feet east of
the trunk.
Canopy extends 75 feet
diameter (mainly
southwestward over the
adjoining neighbor
property), and appears
to be mainly clear of
proposed new
residence roof peak
elevations.
Yes
Moderate
$23,900.
CRZ 18 feet
offset radius,
which is not
going to be
able to be
achieved
except along
the west side
of the rear
yard, where
fencing can
be erected
out to roughly
50 feet from
trunk.
The proposed new plan shows new
foundation work along much of the existing
residence foundation footing edge, with a new
bumpout of 5.5 lateral feet west of the existing
foundation in the area directly east of trunk.
Given the proposed configuration as shown
on the October 2020 site plan iteration, the
expected impacts to the oak #74 root system
will be moderate, assuming that protective
chain link fencing will be erected as shown on
the CTA’s tree protection map markup
embedded in this arborist report.
In a perfect world, the “ideal” new foundation
work would match the existing older edge of
foundation exactly, to minimize or eliminate all
new work west of the existing older residence
foundation footprint.
10 X $250 =
$2,500.
15 gallon or
24” box
2020-21 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent = $250 per each required 24” box mitigation tree planting not installed on the site.
Ordinance 2301 - Amend Chapter 9 (Fire Prevention & Protection)
Defensible Space Zones
Following are guidelines from Santa Clara County Fire Department on how to create and maintain effective
defensible space zones:
Zone 1, extends 0 to 5 feet out: The Noncombustible Zone
Remove all plants and vegetation, especially those touching your home.
Clean roofs and gutters of dead leaves, debris and pine needles that could catch embers.
Replace or repair any loose or missing shingles or roof tiles to prevent ember penetration.
Reduce embers that could pass through vents in the eaves by installing 1/8 inch metal mesh screening.
Clean debris from exterior attic vents and install 1/8 inch metal mesh screening to block embers.
Repair or replace damaged or loose window screens and any broken windows.
Screen or box-in areas below patios and decks with wire mesh to prevent debris and combustible
materials from accumulating.
Move any flammable material away from wall exteriors – mulch, flammable plants, leaves and needles,
firewood piles – anything that can burn. Remove anything stored underneath decks or porches.
Mandated for new construction
Zone 2, extends 30 feet out: The Clean and Green Zone
Be Wildfire Ready | The Los Gatos CA Official Site!https://www.losgatosca.gov/2581/Be-Wildfire-Ready
2 of 7 2/10/2021, 9:03 PM
Remove all dead plants, grass and weeds (vegetation).
Remove dead or dry leaves and pine needles from your yard, roof and rain gutters.
Trim trees regularly to keep branches a minimum of 10 feet from other trees.
Remove branches that hang over your roof and keep dead branches 10 feet away from your chimney.
Create a separation between trees, shrubs and items that could catch fire, such as patio furniture, wood
piles, swing sets, etc.
Zone 3, extends 100 feet out: The Reduced Fuel Zone
Create horizontal spacing between shrubs and trees. (See diagram below)
Create vertical spacing between grass, shrubs and trees. (See diagram below)
Dispose of heavy accumulations of ground litter/debris.
Remove dead plant and tree material.
Remove small conifers growing between mature trees.
Remove vegetation adjacent to storage sheds or other outbuildings within this area.
Trees 30 to 60 feet from the home should have at least 12 feet between canopy tops.
Trees 60 to 100 feet from the home should have at least 6 feet between the canopy tops.
Plant and Tree Spacing
For vertical spacing remove all tree branches at least 6 feet from the ground. If there is a shrub near the tree,
the branch clearance needs to be 3 times the height of the shrub. Example: A 5-foot shrub is growing near a
tree. 3×5 = 15 feet of clearance needed between the top of the shrub and the lowest tree branch.
Be Wildfire Ready | The Los Gatos CA Official Site!https://www.losgatosca.gov/2581/Be-Wildfire-Ready
3 of 7 2/10/2021, 9:03 PM
Horizontal spacing
between shrubs and trees depends on the slope of the land and the height of the shrubs or trees. Check the
chart below to determine spacing distance.
Be Wildfire Ready | The Los Gatos CA Official Site!https://www.losgatosca.gov/2581/Be-Wildfire-Ready
4 of 7 2/10/2021, 9:03 PM
N
SCALE: 3/16" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR/SITE PLAN-GRADING
TREE PERMIT
FIRE PROTECTION/DEFENSIBLE SPACE
(4) 15-gallon Crepe Myrtle $1,000.00
$1,000.00
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.4
1:1.83, 1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
ARBORIST REPORT-1
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
1 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Assessment of Four (4) Protected-Size Trees
at
102 Alta Heights Court
Los Gatos, California
Prepared for:
Mr. Ryan Safty, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Field Visit:
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA)
10/25/2020
Report by CTA
11/3/2020
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
2 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
1.0 Summary __________________________________________________________________________ 3
2.0 Assignment & Background _____________________________________________________________ 6
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected? ___________________________________________ 6
4.0 Recommendations ___________________________________________________________________ 8
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town Code _________________________________ 16
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code ______________________________________ 19
7.0 Author’s Qualifications _______________________________________________________________ 22
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions ____________________________________________________ 23
9.0 Certification ________________________________________________________________________ 24
10.0 Digital Images _____________________________________________________________________ 24
11.0 Tree Data Table ___________________________________________________________________ 29
12.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA _________________________________ 36
13.0 Attached: Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA ______________________________________________ 38
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
3 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1.0 Summary
a. Below is a matrix style overview of protected-size trees (non-exempt species, 4-inches diameter at 4.5 feet above grade on site, and adjacent to the site).
In the table, the CTA (Contract Town Arborist) has outlined expected impacts to each tree, along with suggestions for adjustments to the plan set
(if applicable) that will optimize tree survival over the long term.
The CTA calculated the appraised value of each tree, which can be used as a tool for determining the proper security bond amount to have the applicant
post with the Town as a hedge against site plan-related tree damages (if applicable). Appraised values can also be used to determine damage fees if trees
are determined during or after construction to have been damaged such that mitigation is required.
Mitigation replacement rate and size is noted for each tree in the case that removal or damage to trees occurs.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
4 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table 1.0(a) (REFER TO THE CTA’S TREE MAP MARKUP WHEN REVIEWING THE BELOW MATRIX)
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
71
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing
and airspace conflicts.
No.
Poor
$2,050. 6.5 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
72
POOR
REMOVE
Tree will be severely
impacted by proposed
new foundation footing,
airspace conflicts, and
assumed gas pipe
trenching during gas
pipe diameter upgrade.
No.
Poor
$5,000. 8.7 feet
offset. Assume tree is to be removed. 4 X $250 =
$1,000.
15 gallon or
24” box
73
GOOD
RETAIN
Minor.
No
Moderate
$800. 2.1 feet
No applicant plan changes required.
Maintain chain link RPZ fencing per the CTA’s
tree map markup embedded in this report, and
5 feet to 8 feet RADIUS offset from trunk
edge, and use hand-watering or timer type
irrigation to maintain soil moisture during the
project buildout.
2 X $250 =
$500.
15 gallon or
24” box
1 Calculated per the newest edition (10th edition, 2nd Printing) of Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2019. The Trunk Formula Technique (TFT) was the specific technique noted in the
Guide used to determine the dollar valuations noted in Table 1.0(a). Palm appraisals are performed differently, using a calculation of replacement cost, and then multiplying
that cost by a condition rating factor and a functional limitations factor.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
5 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1
Tree Tag
Number /
Overall
Condition
Rating/
Disposition
2
Impacts Expected if
Site were Built as
Currently Proposed
on Applicant Sheet
A1.0.
3
Large
Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree
Conservation
Suitability
Rating
(TCS)?
4
Appraised
Value 1
5
Critical Root
Zone (CRZ)
(6 X Dia.) as
an Offset
Radius
6
Suggested Changes to Applicant’s
Proposed Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”, if Tree is to be
Preserved and Protected.
Suggested Root Protection Zone (RPZ)
Chain Link Fence Offset Radius.
7
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
8
Replacement
Size Tree
74
GOOD
RETAIN
Moderate to Severe.
Root loss will occur
during foundation
footing work west of the
trunk, where new
foundation will be
poured closer to the
trunk edge than the
original existing
residence foundation
edge.
New roof peak is
roughly 28.5 feet
elevation above grade
at centerline of garage,
which is +/- 20
horizontal feet east of
the trunk.
Canopy extends 75 feet
diameter (mainly
southwestward over the
adjoining neighbor
property), and appears
to be mainly clear of
proposed new
residence roof peak
elevations.
Yes
Moderate
$23,900.
CRZ 18 feet
offset radius,
which is not
going to be
able to be
achieved
except along
the west side
of the rear
yard, where
fencing can
be erected
out to roughly
50 feet from
trunk.
The proposed new plan shows new
foundation work along much of the existing
residence foundation footing edge, with a new
bumpout of 5.5 lateral feet west of the existing
foundation in the area directly east of trunk.
Given the proposed configuration as shown
on the October 2020 site plan iteration, the
expected impacts to the oak #74 root system
will be moderate, assuming that protective
chain link fencing will be erected as shown on
the CTA’s tree protection map markup
embedded in this arborist report.
In a perfect world, the “ideal” new foundation
work would match the existing older edge of
foundation exactly, to minimize or eliminate all
new work west of the existing older residence
foundation footprint.
10 X $250 =
$2,500.
15 gallon or
24” box
2020-21 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent = $250 per each required 24” box mitigation tree planting not installed on the site.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
6 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
2.0 Assignment & Background
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA) was directed to tag and assess all Protected-Size (4-inch diameter and greater) trees at and adjacent to the
Lora Drive property.
The CTA assessed the set of site plans dated September, 2020, and a single sheet A1.0 updated 10/13/2020 which was used as the CTA’s tree map
markup embedded in this report.
Tree data were collected and assembled by the CTA in section 11.0 of this report.
Tree tags were affixed by the CTA to the mainstems of the on-site trees. The CTA’s tags are professional grade racetrack shaped aluminum tags
numbering “71” through “74”.
The CTA’s recommendations in section 4.0 of this report are based on published information in various standard arboriculture texts, such as the series of
Best Management Practices (BMP) companion publication (booklets) published by International Society of Arboriculture that are periodically updated over
time. The series of BMP booklets accompany the ANSI-A300 USA standards for tree care used by U.S.-based tree care companies.
Additional supporting information includes digital images archived by the CTA as section 10.0, a tree map markup JPEG embedded as section 12.0, and an
appraisal data worksheet attached as section 13.0.
The CTA utilized a forester’s D-tape to determine tree mainstem (trunk) diameters at 4.5 feet above grade. The D-tape is a circumferential tape that converts
actual trunk circumference to an averaged diameter in inches and tenths of inches.
Tree heights were determined using a digital Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer. Tree canopy spread diameters were estimated visually or paced off. The
tree canopy driplines shown as black clouding on the tree map markup are approximate only.
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected?
Per the most recent (2015) iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance (Town Code Chapter 29 – Zoning Regulations, Article 1), the following
regulations apply to all trees within the Town’s jurisdiction (wordage adjusted):
1. All trees with at least a single mainstem measuring four (4) inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Protected Trees” when
removal relates to any development review.
2. 12 inch diameter (18 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review.
3. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kellogii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and
Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) on developed residential lots not currently subject to development review.
4. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review, on lots in the designated
Hillside Area per the official Town map.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
7 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. All trees with a single mainstem or sum of multiple mainstems totaling 48 inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large
Protected Trees” (LPT).
6. All oak species (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) with one or more mainstems
totaling 24 inches diameter or more at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large Protected Trees” (LPT).
7. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-
year period, affecting 25% or more of any Protected Tree (including below ground root system).
8. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, or cut any branch or root greater than four (4) inches in diameter of a Large
Protected Tree.
9. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to conduct severe pruning on any protected tree. Severe pruning is defined in section
29.10.0955 as “topping or removal of foliage or significant scaffold limbs or large diameter branches so as to cause permanent damage and/or
disfigurement of a tree, and/or which does not meet specific pruning goals and objectives as set forth in the current version of the International Society
of Arboriculture Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard
Practices, (Pruning).”
10. Exceptions:
Severe Pruning Exception in Town Code section 29.10.1010(3) “…..except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry (Morus alba) or other species approved
by the Town Arborist….”.
Protected Tree Exceptions:
a. Edible fruit or nut bearing trees less than 18 inches diameter (multistem total or single stem), including fruiting olive trees.
b. Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood acacia) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
c. Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
d. Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
e. Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
f. Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
g. Other eucalyptus species (E. spp.) not noted above, less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
(REMOVAL O.K. ONLY AT HILLSIDE AREA LOCATIONS PER OFFICIAL TOWN MAP):
www.losgatosca.gov/documentcenter/view/176
h. All palm species (except Phoenix canariensis) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
i. Ligustrum lucidum (glossy privet) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
Note that per the exception in part ‘a’ above, fruiting olive trees with stems totaling less than 18 inches are considered non-
protected tree specimens.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
8 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
4.0 Recommendations
1. Project Arborist (“PA”):
Initial Signoff
It is recommended that a third party ASCA registered consulting arborist or ISA Certified Arborist with good experience with tree protection during
construction be retained by the applicant, to provide pre-project verification that tree protection and maintenance measures outlined in this section of
the arborist report are adhered to. Periodic (e.g. monthly) inspections and summary reporting, if required as a project condition of approval, are
suggested in order to verify contractor compliance with tree protection throughout the site plan project. This person will be referred to as the project
arborist (“PA”). The PA should monitor soil moisture within the root protection zones of trees being retained, using a Lincoln soil moisture probe/meter
or equivalent. If required, inspection reports shall be sent to Mr. Ryan Safty, Associate Planner (rsafty@losgatosca.gov). Sample wordage for a
condition of approval regarding monitoring of tree protection and tree condition:
“The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained
and documented in a monthly site activity report sent to the Town. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent at least once monthly to the
Town planner associated with this project (rsafty@losgatosca.gov) beginning with the initial tree protection verification approval letter”.
2. Project Team Pre-Project Adjustments, Clarifications, and Limits Suggested or Required:
2a. Tree Protection Fencing and Trunk Buffer Wraps:
Fence off trees #73 and #74 using chain link fencing per the distances indicated as red dashed lines shown to scale on the CTA’s tree map markup
below in this arborist report. The fencing for tree #74 will range from 8 feet radius offset from trunk in the area directly east of trunk, to 50 feet offset
radius in the area north of trunk (along the west side of the rear yard).
Install trunk buffer wrap around tree #74 per the specifications listed below in this recommendations section of the arborist report.
2b. Ground Protection:
Install ground protection along the west side yard area west of the proposed garage footprint, to prevent soil rutting and soil compaction during
proposed demolition of existing residence, and proposed new residential build work. Specifications are indicated below in this section of the arborist
report.
2c. Pruning:
Perform minor (10% to 15% of total biomass) limb length reduction pruning (aka “limb endweight reduction pruning”) at the outermost ends of the
southwest section of the canopy of tree #74. All pruning will need to conform to the most current iterations of ANSI A300 pruning standards and the
Best Management Practices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 standards. Details are indicated below in this section of the arborist
report.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
9 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
3. Trunk Buffer Wrap Type III Protection:
Prior to demolition commencement, install trunk buffer around tree #74 being retained on-site.
Wrap one (1) entire roll of orange plastic snow fencing around the trunk of tree #74, between grade and
up to 6 or 8 feet above grade to create a padding of at least 1 to 2 inches thickness around each tree trunk.
Stand 2x4 wood boards upright, side by side, around the entire circumference of the orange plastic wraps. Affix
using duct tape (do not use wires or ropes). See spec image at right showing the wooden boards correctly
mounted against one entire roll of orange snow fencing, such that the wood does not actually touch the trunk at
all.
4. (Required) Chain Link Fencing Type I and/or Type II Root Protection Zone (RPZ):
Prior to demolition commencement, erect chain link fencing panels set on moveable concrete block footings
(see sample image below right). Wire the fence panels to iron layout stakes pounded 24 inches into the
ground at the ends of each fence panel to keep the fence route stabilized and in its correct position. Do not
wire the fence panels to the trunks of the trees. These panels are available commonly for rent or purchase.
Fence routes: Per the red dashed lines indicated on the CTA’s tree map markup, drawn to scale, below in this
arborist report.
This fencing must be erected prior to any heavy machinery traffic or
construction material arrival on site.
The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction.
No materials, tools, excavated soil, liquids, substances, etc. are to be
placed or dumped, even temporarily, inside the root protection zone or
“RPZ”.
No storage, staging, work, or other activities will be allowed inside
the RPZ except with PA monitoring.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
10 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. Signage: The RPZ fencing shall have one sign affixed with UV-stabilized zip ties to the chain link at eye level for every 15 linear feet of fencing,
minimum 8”X11” size each, plastic laminated or printed with waterproof ink on waterproof paper, with wordage that includes the Town Code section
that refers to tree fence protection requirements (wordage can be adjusted):
TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCE
ZONA DE PROTECCION PARA ARBOLES
-NO ENTRE SIN PERMISO-
-LLAME EL ARBOLISTA-
REMOVAL OF THIS FENCE IS
SUBJECT TO PENALTY ACCORDING TO
LOS GATOS TOWN CODE 29.10.1025
PROJECT ARBORIST:
TELEFONO CELL: EMAIL:
Note: Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist is an independent consultant retained under contract with Town of Los Gatos Planning Division Staff, and is not
the “PROJECT ARBORIST”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
11 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
6. Ground Protection:
Project team contractors shall install ground protection “soil buffer” prior to start of demolition of the existing
residence, in order to avoid soil compaction and soil rutting caused by machinery use, foot traffic, and other
high ground pressure type activities.
Location:
The ground protection shall be set up over the entire west side yard of the site, between tree #74 trunk,
and southward to the proposed driveway (see black rectangle area on the markup at right).
Construction of:
The ground protection soil buffer shall consist of:
• Geotextile fabric laid down over the ground.
• 6 inches thickness wood chip mulch laid over the geotextile.
• 1 inch thick exterior grade plywood boards (full sheets), set side by side over the wood chips.
• Steel screw plates to affix the plywood sheets together, side by side.
• (See photo at right for
example of correctly-
installed soil buffer on a
site where trees were
protected using chain
link fence panels, trunk
buffers, and the
complete soil buffer
system as described on
this page.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
12 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
7. Tree Removals:
It is suggested that Town Staff allow the applicant to remove trees #71 and #72 due to their locations in close proximity to proposed new work, which
will cause both root loss below ground and canopy loss above ground, resulting in premature decline or death of the trees.
Mitigation Options
The canopy replacement mitigation standard for loss of these two regulated size trees, per the CTA’s summary table in section 1.0 of this report, is
$2,000, or on-site installation of eight (8) 15 gallon size or 24” box size tree plantings with high flow type flood bubbler irrigation (two bubblers emitting
2 gallons per minute each, per each tree).
Given the limited available land at this project site that has full sun access appropriate for installation of new landscape trees, the maximum number of
new plantings will likely need to be limited to between two (2) and four (4) new tree plantings.
The mitigation requirement can be either $2,000, or a combination of both on-site tree plantings and a fee payment.
On-site plantings need to be minimum 15 gallon size (24” box size is optional), of a species or multiple species approved by Town Staff.
8. Pruning / Oak #74:
Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reduction pruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting of removal of selected
branches only from the outermost section of the southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10% or 15% of total live biomass.
Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower or inner areas of the canopy.
The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removing only certain end sections of branches from that southwestmost section of the
canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systems extended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forces acting on the limb attachment
points, and reducing risk of limb splitout.
All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-time site supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conform to all of the
most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for tree care operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet
that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruning standards.
The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning 2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet by
International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019). Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:
• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greater than 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommends only
removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at the most, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest end of the canopy.
• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branches should be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood or tearing the bark”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
13 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
9. New Plantings / Tree Installation Specs (if applicable):
Ideally, two (2) high flow type adjustable bubblers each emitting 1/2 to 2 gallons per minute
(2GPM), depending on percolation rate of planting pit, are set over the rootball of each single
tree planting, and each tree is installed with two (2) or three (3) 2-inch diameter wooden planting
stakes (not the shipping stake), with a set of figure-8 Cinch Ties ™ affixed per the standard spec
image at right.
Note how the tree stakes are cut to just above the elevation of the Cinch-Ties to avoid abrasion
between the stakes and the limbs and trunk during wind movement.
A watering berm consisting of site soil is formed around the edge of the rootball to force irrigation
water to pool up directly over the rootball, as seen in the image below in this arborist report.
Above Right: Spec planting at a site on which the CTA consults, June, 2020. Note that the shipping
stake was removed from the mainstem, and a narrow diameter bamboo pole was tied to the
mainstem using biodegradable masking tape. This is considered a Best Management Practice at
this particular site, because the mainstem was leaning off-vertical. Do not allow the large
diameter wooden shipping stake to remain tied to the mainstem, as this will cause
permanent irreversible problems with tree stability over time.
Below Right: Proper installation of a new 24” box size tree with two (2) high flow type ½ GPM to 2.0
GPM (gallon-per-minute) flood bubblers seen inside a steeply sloped watering berm built using site
soil. The watering berm is built up directly over the rootball edge, which forces irrigation water
directly downward into the rootball via gravity. Total volume of water flow typically needs to be at
least +/-1 gallon per minute, in order to physically flood the watering berm and force water
downward into the rootball via gravity flow.
Next Page: Walter Levison and Dave Muffly Planting Spec Sheet, indicating correct irrigation and
watering berm building procedures for first 4 years (sandy soils may require significantly greater
irrigation volume than indicated).
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
14 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
15 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
10. Temporary Irrigation During Construction:
It is suggested that the applicant’s project arborist monitor soil moisture using a soil moisture probe and/or a soil recovery device, to ensure that root
zones are being kept irrigated to field capacity soil moisture per the following irrigation regime:
a. Crape myrtle #73 at right side of rear yard: 50 to 100 gallons per week, applied 1x/week.
b. Coast live oak #74 at left side yard west of garage: (To be determined by project arborist. Tree may or may not require irrigation to
boost soil moisture. Coast live oaks can in some cases decline in condition if irrigation water is applied within 25 feet of the trunk.
Therefore, any irrigation of the tree would need to occur in the area north of trunk in the west portion of the rear yard only).
o Apply indicated water volume all on a single day during a single application, such as by garden hose running at high volume, or a soaker hose
running on a timer system attached to an active hose bib at standard residential water pressure (e.g. 60psi to 70psi).
o If runoff of water will be a problem, then build a 6 inch tall watering berm along the chain link fence perimeters to contain the irrigation water and
force it downward via gravity.
o Alternatively, a straw wattle can be pinned down
over the ground using wooden dowels, as a quick
watering berm that may be far more easily
maintained than a soil watering berm that is subject
to damage by construction personnel foot traffic,
etc. See sample image below as an example of
how this is done.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
16 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town Code
The following is excerpted directly from the 2015 iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance sections which provide specific tree protection directions
and limitations on root pruning and above-ground pruning: Sec. 29.10.1000. New property development.
(a) A tree survey shall be conducted prior to submittal of any development application proposing the removal of or impact to one or more protected
trees. The development application shall include a Tree Survey Plan and Tree Preservation Report based on this survey. The tree survey inventory
numbers shall correspond to a numbered metal tag placed on each tree on site during the tree survey. The tree survey plan shall be prepared by a certified
or consulting arborist, and shall include the following information:
(1) Location of all existing trees on the property as described in section 29.10.0995;
(2) Identify all trees that could potentially be affected by the project (directly or indirectly- immediately or in long term), such as upslope grading or
compaction outside of the dripline;
(3) Notation of all trees classified as protected trees;
(4) In addition, for trees four (4) inches in diameter or larger, the plan shall specify the precise location of the trunk and crown spread, and the
species, size (diameter, height, crown spread) and condition of the tree.
(b) The tree survey plan shall be reviewed by the Town’s consulting arborist who shall, after making a field visit to the property, indicate in writing or as
shown on approved plans, which trees are recommended for preservation (based on a retention rating of high/moderate/low) using, as a minimum, the
Standards of Review set forth in section 29.10.0990. This plan shall be made part of the staff report to the Town reviewing body upon its consideration of the
application for new property developm ent;
(c) W hen development im pacts are within the dripline of or will affect any protected tree, the applicant shall provide a tree preservation report prepared
by a certified or consulting arborist. The report, based on the findings of the tree survey plan and other relevant information, shall be used to determine the
health and structure of existing trees, the effects of the proposed development and vegetation removal upon the trees, recommendations for specific
precautions necessary for their preservation during all phases of development (demolition, grading, during construction, landscaping); and shall also
indicate which trees are proposed for removal. The tree preservation report shall stipulate a required tree protection zone (TPZ) for trees to be
retained, including street trees, protected trees and trees whose canopies are hanging over the project site from adjacent properties. The TPZ shall be
fenced as specified in section 29.10.1005:
(1) The final approved tree preservation report shall be included in the building perm it set of development plans and printed on a sheet titled:
Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1). Sheet T-1 shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition, utility, landscape,
irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur;
(2) The Town reviewing body through its site and design plan review shall endeavor to protect all trees recommended for preservation by the
Town’s consulting arborist. The Town reviewing body may determine if any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed, if
based upon the evidence submitted the reviewing body determines that due to special site grading or other unusual characteristics
associated with the property, the preservation of the tree(s) would significantly preclude feasible development of the property as described in
section 29.10.0990;
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
17 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
(3) Approval of final site or landscape plans by the appropriate Town reviewing body shall comply with the following requirements and conditions of
approval:
a. The applicant shall, within ninety (90) days of final approval or prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs
first, secure an appraisal of the condition and value of all trees included in the tree report affected by the development that are required to
remain within the development using the Tree Value Standard methodology as set forth in this Chapter. The appraisal of each tree shall
recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of
the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and the Species and Group Classification
Guide published by the W estern Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant's
expense, and the appraisal shall be subject to the Director's approval.
b. The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However, the plans do not constitute approval to remove a
tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit, as outlined in section
29.10.0980, for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this division.
(d) Prior to acceptance of proposed development or subdivision improvements, the developer shall submit to the Director a final tree preservation
report prepared by a certified or consulting arborist. This report shall consider all trees that were to remain within the development. The report shall note
the trees' health in relation to the initially reported condition of the trees and shall note any changes in the trees' numbers or physical conditions. The
applicant will then be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For protected trees, which were removed, the
developer shall pa y a penalty in the am ount of the appraised value of such tree in addition to replacement requirements contained in section
29.10.0985 of this Code. The applicant shall remain responsible for the health and survival of all trees within the development for a period of five (5) years
following acceptance of the public improvements of the development or certificate of occupancy.
(e) Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall submit to the Building Department a written
statement and photographs verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees in accordance with the tree
preservation report.
(f) If required by the Director and conditioned as part of a discretionary approval, a security guarantee shall be provided to the Town. Prior to the
issuance of any permit allowing construction to begin, the applicant shall post cash, bond or other security satisfactory to the Director, in the penal
sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each tree required to be preserved, or twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), whichever is less. The
cash, bond or other security shall be retained for a period of one (1) year following acceptance of the public improvements for the development and shall
be forfeited in an amount equal to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per tree as a civil penalty in the event that a tree or trees required to be preserved
are removed, destroyed or severely damaged.
(g) An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of
existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring, air-spade excavation or by hand,
taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. W ork within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or
consulting arborist.
(h) It shall be a violation of this division for any property owner or agent of the owner to fail to com ply with any development approval condition
concerning preservation, protection, and maintenance of any protected tree.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
18 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction.
(a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:
(1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground
to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no m ore than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree
preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
(2) Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when
specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire
planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic
fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside.
Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
(3) Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in
place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection
fence.
(4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: "W arning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall
not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025".
(b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions:
(1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist
report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction
materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to
increase the encroachment of the construction.
(2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of
the tree unless approved by the Director.
(3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or
areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree.
(4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
(5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
(6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the
health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits.
(7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may
be administered.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
19 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance.
All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices—Tree Pruning
and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other W oody Plant Management—Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the
Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving
protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified.
(1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain
permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e.g. cable TV/fiber optic
trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.).
(2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)- Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no
other alternative is available, is prohibited.
(3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five
percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless
mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other species approved by the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating
where pruning is proposed.
(4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in
diameter (12.5” in circumference) without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code
(Excerpted from Town Code 29.10.0985 and 29.10.0987)
(1) Two (2) or more replacement trees, of a species and size designated by the Director, shall be planted on the subject private property. Table 3-1
The Tree Canopy—Replacement Standard shall be used as a basis for this requirement. The person requesting the permit shall pay the cost
of purchasing and planting the replacement trees.
(2) If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by the Town Council by
resolution shall be paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; or
b. Add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; or
c. Support the Town’s urban forestry m anagement program. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Table 3-1 - Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
20 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Canopy Size of Removed Tree 1
(Staff is using 24” box size as
the Replacement Standard for
SFR Projects as of 2016) 2,4
Single Family
Residential
Replacement3,4
10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon trees
More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon trees
More than 25 feet to 40 feet
Four 24 inch box
trees; or Two 36
inch box trees
Four 15 gallon trees
More than 40 feet to 55 feet
Six 24 inch box
trees; or Three
36 inch box
t
Not Available
Greater than 55 feet
Ten 24 inch box
trees; or Five 36
inch box trees
Not Available
Notes 1To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size.
2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of
both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree
Replacement Fund.
3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not
subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. Any in-lieu fees for single
family residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council.
4Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures,
overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly
encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and
Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions--Hillsides.
Sec. 29.10.0987. Special Provisions—Hillsides
4
TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION TREE PROTECTION
PRE DEMO-TREE PROTECTION
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.5
1:1.83
EB
ARBORIST REPORT-2
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
21 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
The Town of Los Gatos recognizes its hillsides as an important natural resource and sensitive habitat which is also a key component of the
Town’s identity, character and charm. In order to maintain and encourage restoration of the hillside environment to its natural state, the Town
has established the following special provisions for tree removal and replacement in the hillsides:
(1) All protected trees located 30 or more feet from the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced with native trees listed in Appendix A
Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G).
(2) All protected trees located within 30 feet of the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced as follows:
(a) If the removed tree is a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G, it shall only be replaced with a native tree listed in Appendix A of
the HDS&G.
(b) If the removed tree is not listed in Appendix A, it may be replaced with a tree listed in Appendix A, or replaced with another species of
tree as approved by the Director.
(c) Replacement trees listed in Appendix A m ay be planted anywhere on the property.
(d) Replacement trees not listed in Appendix A may only be planted within 30 feet of the primary residence.
(3) Replacement requirements shall comply with the requirements in Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement Standard of this Code.
(4) Property owners should be encouraged to retain dead or declining trees where they do not pose a safety or fire hazard, in order to foster wildlife
habitat and the natural renewal of the hillside environment.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
22 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
7.0 Author’s Qualifications
• Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and
various governmental and non-governmental entities.
• Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California
Community Development Department / Planning Division
2015-present
• Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California)
• Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board)
2001-2006
• ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401
• ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000
• Associate Consulting Arborist
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
4/99-8/99
• Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California
Planning and Community Development Department
5/99-5/20 (21 Years)
• ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A
• Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent
Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993
• B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources
UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990
UCSC Chancellor’s Award, 1990
(My full curriculum vitae is available upon request)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
23 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed
for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management.
It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for
the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is
addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.
Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated
designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications.
This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a
stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys
unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of
coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of
said information.
Unless expressed otherwise:
a. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and
b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that
problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
Arborist Disclosure Statement:
Arborists are tree specialists who use 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 to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden
within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any
medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between
neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to
reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
24 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
9.0 Certification
I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith.
Signature of Consultant
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist DIGITAL BADGES:
ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST CREDENTIAL:
https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpaw8u
ISA TREE RISK ASSESSMENT QUALIFIED (TRAQ):
https://certificates.isa-arbor.com/d180515f-ab75-440b-9c66-106005e3cf10?record_view=true#gs.hpb30w
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
25 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
10.0 Digital Images
Below: Digital Images by the CTA archived 11/3/2020:
Tag # Image Tag # Image
71
72
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
26 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
73
74
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
27 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
74
74
74
74
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
28 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
74
-- (Intentionally Blank)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
29 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
11.0 Tree Data Table
NOTE 1: Fruit and nut trees measuring less than 18” diameter (total of all mainstems), including fruiting olive trees, both on the site and on
adjacent neighbor properties are excluded from the CTA’s tree studies as “exemption trees” per the Town tree ordinance.
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall Condition
Rating
(0 to 100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 71 Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
pear 12.9 -- -- 12.9 30/30 40/35 38%
Poor X Poor South South
Tree located 1 foot
or less from the
proposed new
residence
foundation footing
edge, and is assumed to be proposed for removal due to direct impact from
this work. Some
evidence of
fireblight bacteria
infection noted.
Tree has been severely pruned over the years, which has permanently
damaged the
branch architecture
assemblages.
Also note that the
canopy conflicts
with the proposed new residence and garage footprints.
(Tree
assumed
to be
removed)
Not
applicable.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
30 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall Condition Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 72 Pyrus
kawakamii
Evergreen
pear 17.4 -- -- 17.4 30/30 50/40 45% Fair X Poor South
Tree located 3 feet
or less from the
proposed new residence foundation footing edge, and is assumed to be
proposed for
removal due to
direct impact from
this work.
Also note the existence of a gas line that is almost
directly in line with
this tree trunk
location. Typically,
most or all existing
gas lines are
required to be
upgraded (removed
and replaced) during residential rebuilds. Therefore, it is assumed that this gas line will be
dug out and
replaced as part of
the proposed
residence rebuild,
which will require removal of the tree if it is performed in-line with the trunk as currently shown.
The canopy
conflicts with the
proposed new
residence footprint.
Some evidence of
fireblight bacteria infection noted. Tree has been severely pruned over the years,
which has
permanently
damaged the
(Tree assumed
to be
removed)
Not
applicable.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
31 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 73 Lagerstroemia
indica (Cult.)
Crape myrtle cultivar 4.2 -- -- 4.2 15/7 80/60 70% Good X Mod
Irrigated turf lawn is 2 feet from trunk edge. Tree is feeding off the
incidental soil
moisture provided
to this turf lawn.
Tree is assumed to
be protected and
retained during
construction, given its position offset from the proposed new residence and
patio areas.
The CTA suggested
an ideal RPZ (root
protection zone) fence line route as red dashed lines on the tree map markup embedded
in this report.
5 to 8 feet radius offset from trunk edge.
RPZ fence,
and maintain heavy irrigation at least
2x/week.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
32 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree (TCS) Tree Conservation Suitability Rating Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION 74
Quercus
agrifolia Large Protected Tree (“LPT”)
Coast live oak Est. 36 -- -- Est. 36 45/75 70/60 63% Good X Mod South west South west
Moderate live twig
density and
extension, with
some patchy
dieback visible in
canopy. Buttress root flares normal. Wide saddle
shaped fork normal
at 10 feet.
Splitout stem noted at 35 feet elevation above grade: an 8 inch diameter stem at the southwest
end of the canopy.
Tree may require
some limb length
reduction pruning (aka “endweight reduction pruning”) to remove the endmost portions of some extended
stems in the
southwest portion
of the canopy.
See the
CTA’s tree map markup embedded
in this
report for
the
suggested
route
shown as
red dashed
lines.
Trunk Buffer (TB), Protective Fencing
(RPZ),
Ground
Protection
(GP), and
perform
some minor
limb
endweight reduction pruning under direct
guidance of
an ISA
Certified
Arborist to
reduce
lengths of
over-
extended limbs in southwest portion of canopy
(not to
exceed
10% - 15%
reduction of
total tree live biomass).
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
33 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Overall Tree Condition Ratings / Breakdown of Numeric Ranges
(New, Per Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition):
00 - 05% = Dead
06 - 20% = Very Poor
21 – 40% = Poor
41 – 60% = Fair
61 – 80% = Good
81 – 100% = Exceptional
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
34 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Conservation Suitability (TCS) Ratings2
A tree’s suitability for conservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances, proximity to proposed cutting and
filling, proximity to proposed construction or demolition, and potential longevity, using a scale of good, fair, or poor (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). The
following list defines the rating scale.
Note that if the applicant’s proposed site work can be offset to relatively far linear offset distances from a tree’s trunk edge, a tree’s Tree Conservation
Suitability (TCS) rating may be elevated by one rating tier, given that there would be a corresponding reduction in expected future root zone impacts. Thus,
specific adjustments to the applicant’s proposed plans (if and when itemized by the CTA in Summary Table 1.0(a) above in this report) could boost the TCS
ratings from “Poor” to ‘Moderate’ or ‘Good’.
TPS Ratings Range of values
Good 80-100 Trees with good health, good structural stability and good expected longevity after construction.
Moderate 60-79
Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees
require more intense management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have
shorter life expectancy after development.
Poor <59
Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or
individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or
unsuited for the intended use of the site.
TCS Ratings Worksheet Factors (Total Possible: 100 Points)
Health (1-15)
Root Cut/Fill Distance from Trunk (1-15)
Structure Defects (1-15)
Construction Tolerance of the tree species (1-15)
Age relative to typical species lifespan (1-10)
Location of construction activity (1-10)
Soil quality/characteristics (1-10)
Species desirability (1-10)
2 Derived from Fite and Smiley, 2016. Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition. International Society of Arboriculture.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
35 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Maintenance and Protection Codes Used in Data Table:
RPZ: Root protection zone fence, chain link, with 2" diameter iron posts driven 24" into the ground, 6 to 8 feet on center max. spacing. Alternative material:
chain link fence panels set over concrete block-type footings, with the fence panels wired to steel pins pounded 24 inches into the ground at both ends of each
panel.
GP: Ground protection soil buffer, consisting of a geotextile laid over grade, with 6 inches of wood chip mulch placed over the geotextile, overlain with 1 inch or
greater plywood strapped together with steel screw plates. This ground protection soil buffer should be placed over the entire width of the construction corridor
between tree trunks and new construction.
RP: Root pruning. Prune woody roots measuring greater than or equal to 1 inch diameter by carefully back-digging into the soil around each root using small
hand tools until an area is reached where the root is undamaged. Cleanly cut through the root at right angle to the root growth direction, using professional
grade pruning equipment and/or a Sawzall with wood pruning blade. Backfill around the cut root immediately (same day), and thoroughly irrigate the area to
saturate the uppermost 24 inches of the soil profile.
BDRP: Back-dig root pruning: Hand-dig around the broken root, digging horizontally into the open soil root zone until a clean, unbroken, unshattered section of
the root is visible. Proceed as per ‘root pruning’.
RCX: Root crown excavation. Retain an experienced ISA-Certified arborist to perform careful hand-digging using small trowels or other dull digging tools to
uncover currently-buried buttress root flares. Digging shall occur between trunk edge and at least two (2) feet horizontal from trunk edge. The final soil
elevation will be at a level such that the tree’s buttress roots visibly flare out from the vertical trunk.
TB: Trunk buffer consists of 20-40 wraps of orange plastic snow fencing to create a 2 inch thick buffer over the lowest 8 feet of tree trunk (usually takes at least
an entire roll of orange fencing per each tree). Lay 2X4 wood boards vertically, side by side, around the entire circumference of the trunk. Secure buffer using
duct tape (not wires).
F: Fertilization with slow-release Greenbelt 22-14-14 tree formula, as a soil injection application using a fertilizer injection gun. This brand and formulation is
commonly used by reputable tree care companies in the Bay Area. Apply at label rate and injection hole spacing.
M: 4-inch thick layer of chipper truck type natural wood chips (example source: Lyngso Garden Supply, self pick-up). Do not use bark chips or shredded
redwood bark.
W: Irrigate using various methods to be determined through discussion with General Contractor. Irrigation frequency and duration to be determined through
discussion and/or per directions in this report. Native oak species typically require 1x/month irrigation, while other tree species tend to prefer 2x/month or
4x/month moderate to heavy irrigation during construction.
P: Pruning per specifications noted elsewhere. All pruning must be performed only under direct site supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist, or performed
directly by an ISA Certified Arborist, and shall conform to all current ANSI-A300 standards for tree care (Pruning) (2017 iteration), and the accompanying ISA
Best Management Practices Pruning booklet (3rd Printing, 2019).
MON: A Project Arborist must be present to monitor specific work as noted for each tree.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
36 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
12.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA
The CTA marked up the applicant’s new residence plan sheet A1.0 dated 10/13/2020, as the background for the tree map markup.
The CTA added the following items to this sheet for reference purposes:
a. Tree tag numbers are noted in black numeric oversized type. Important Note: The numbers on the CTA’s map refer to new racetrack shaped professional
grade aluminum tags affixed to the trees or on the fencing in front of each tree, by the CTA. They are affixed to the mainstem of each tree at between 4
and 6 feet above grade.
b. Tree plot dots are in some cases added as new, or blackened, for clarity. Most of the CTA’s survey trees were not plotted by the applicant’s civil surveyor.
c. Canopy dripline of oak #74 was drawn out by the CTA to approximate scale, using black clouding.
The canopies of trees #71 and #72 as indicated on the applicant’s sheet A1.0 is not accurate. The canopy spread of each of those trees is actually 30 feet
diameter. The applicant’s sheet A1 indicates canopy spreads of only 18 feet diameter for each of these trees.
Note that the extent of oak #74 canopy spread diameter is roughly 65 to 75 feet, which is approximately 200% of the diameter indicated on the applicant’s
architectural rendering of the canopy where it was shown incorrectly as a 36 foot diameter black cloud.
d. Red dashing indicates suggested chain link root protection zone (RPZ) fencing routes, drawn to approximate true scale to indicate optimal placement in
terms of root protection and preservation for trees #73 and #74.
e. Yellow highlight indicates the applicant’s proposed new construction.
f. Magenta highlight indicates the applicant’s existing gas line (assumed to be existing), which is likely required by Los Gatos public works to be removed
and replaced with a larger diameter pipe (not verified).
g. Black lines indicate the CTA’s rough representation of likely extent of coast live oak #74 lateral woody root extension on the 102 Alta Heights Court
property that will be preserved to some degree, assuming that chain link fencing is erected and maintained along the red dashed lines indicated on the
CTA’s map markup below.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
37 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Note that the canopy dripline of oak #74 is far greater in
dimensions than shown on the applicant’s original proposed sheet
A1.0.
The black clouding indicating on the CTA’s markup at right is
roughly to scale, and is a more accurate albeit crude
representation of the extent of this very large tree specimen.
The tree protection fencing will need to be erected at roughly 7 to 8
feet east of trunk of oak #74, but will extend 50 feet northward per
the markup at right, in order to protect as much square footage of
the tree’s lateral woody root system extending along the 102 Alta
Heights Ct. property.
The fencing routes shown will allow for staging/storage/work in the
center of the rear yard, but will protect the tree’s root system along
the west side of the rear yard.
The side yard along the proposed garage area is too narrow to
allow for any protective fence erection, and that root zone area will
need to be sacrificed and cannot be preserved. The roots below
grade may however still survive the construction period, if ground
protection such as plywood boards are laid down on the ground to
prevent rutting and compaction.
Note: As indicated above in this report, the applicant’s original
sheet A1.0 shows the canopy driplines of trees #71, 72, and #74 at
dimensions far smaller than actual. The CTA enlarged the tree #74
canopy in the marked up image at right to rough- scale
dimensions.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
38 of 38
Site Address: 102 Alta Heights Court, Los Gatos, CA Version: 11/3/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
13.0 Attached: Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA
This appraisal worksheet was prepared using the 10th edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2nd Printing (2019). The dollar values of each survey tree
derived from these calculations are useful in helping determine the monetary fines for construction team violations of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance,
and for other Town Staff purposes. For instance, if a tree is found by an ISA Certified Arborist (e.g. the Project Arborist, or the Contract Town Arborist) to be
“50% damaged” in terms of below and/or above-ground losses to structure and/or health (vigor), the fine assessed against the construction team might be
calculated as 50% of the tree’s appraised dollar value.
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 1 of 2
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values71 Pk 30 0.4 0.35 0.4 37%12.9 40%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 130.63 15,626$ 2,053$ $2,050
72 Pk 30 0.5 0.4 0.55 44%17.4 45%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 237.67 28,429$ 5,037$ $5,000
73 Li 19 0.8 0.6 0.85 67%4.2 80%90%1 2.09 $250.00 $119.62 13.85 1,656$ 796$ $800
74 Qa 30 0.7 0.6 0.75 64%
Est. 36 (cannot
access around
circumference
of lower trunk).
Use Adjusted
Trunk Area
(ATA) since
>30" diameter.
65%90%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 974.00 64,079$ 23,897$ $23,900
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , 2nd Printing (2019)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
11/3/2020
102 Alta Heights Ct., Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 2 of 2
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition , 2nd Printing (2019)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
11/3/2020
102 Alta Heights Ct., Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Total Appraised
Value of All
Study Trees
$31,750
Notes:
1. OVERALL CONDITION RATING RANGE per the new 10th edition, 2nd Printing, of Guide for Plant Appraisal (2019):
Excellent: 81-100%
Good: 61-80%
Fair: 41-60%
Poor: 21-40%
Very Poor: 6-20%
Dead: 0-5%
2. MULTI STEM TREES: For trees with multiple mainstems, the total of all mainstem cross sectional areas was used as the "trunk area" calculation.
3. LARGE TREES: For trees with mainstems larger than 30 inches diameter each, an "adjusted trunk area" or "ATA" value is used, from a table of values in the older 9th edition of the Guide for
Plant Appraisal.The ATA value is smaller than the actual trunk diameter, and brings the tree's appraised dollar value down to a more "reasonable" level.
4. NEIGHBOR TREES: For neighbor-owned trees that were not accessible by the CTA, the trunk diameter was estimated from a distance to the best of the CTA's ability.
5. CONDITION RATINGS / APPRAISAL TABLE VS. DATA TABLE: Because of the new appraisal methods outlined in the 2019 edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th edition 2nd printing,
the condition ratings calculated in the "Overall Condition Rating / Weighted Method" column, and the data noted in the health and structure columns of this spreadsheet (with calculations
embedded), may in some cases be slightly different from data in the CTA's arborist report tree data table. The CTA attempted to keep overall condition rating values as consistent as possible
between the two data tables (i.e. the appraisal data table and the tree data table in the arborist report).
4 TREE FENCING
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.6
1:2.11, 1/8" = 1'-0", 1:1.14
EB
SHADOW STUDIES & FLOOR
AREA DIAGRAMS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
SOLAR INFO
DATE ALTITUDE AZIMUTH
21-Dec 9:00 AM 14 42 WINTER SOLSTICE
21-Dec 3:00 PM 14 42 WINTER SOLSTICE
21-Mar 9:00 AM 34 58 SPRING EQUINOX
21-Mar 3:00 PM 34 58 SPRING EQUINOX
21-Jun 9:00 AM 47 77 SUMMER SOLSTICE
21-Jun 3:00 PM 47 77 SUMMER SOLSTICE
104
105
114
115
116
2-8x8-0
1-10x8-0
109
110
103
2-10x8-02-8x6-8
108
107
101 1022-10x6-8117
112 111113
102
101 2-10x8-0106
5'-5 1/2"13'-3"23'-6"17'-6"
11'-10 1/2"
6'-4 1/2"3'-4"13'-1 1/2"5'-6 1/2"15'-2 1/2"
19'-11"11'-1"
105
103
104
106 2-6x6-820'-9"13'-9"20'-10 1/2"3'-9 1/2"3'-9 1/2"11'-1"
D
B
S
AT
STAIR,
NOT INCLUDED
57.63 SF COVERAGE
STAIR,
NOT INCLUDED
C
E
F
219220
217
218
216
215
214
201
211301213
207
208
209
205
206
221
222 2-8x6-82-10x6-82-4x6-8 2-8x8-05-0x6-84-0x6-8
204203
2-10x8-0
2-8x8-04-0x6-8
202201
202 2-6x8-02-8x8-02-4x8-0
3-0x8-0
17'-6"13'-5 3/8"2'-4 3/4"7'-7 7/8"6'-1/2"5'-9"17'-2"7'-2"7'-6"20'
12'
19'12'-9 1/2"9'-1 1/2"10'-5/8"5'-11 1/2"6'-1/2"
9'-10 1/2"20'-2"16'-7"7'-4 1/2"123456713'-9"10'-10 1/2"
I
L
G
H
J
OQ
R
KN
P
M
FLOOR AREA HOUSE
SECTION WIDTH HEIGHT AREA (SF)
A 11.87 13.25 157.28
B 6.37 5.45 34.72
C 11.08 3.33 36.90
D 19.91 23.50 467.89
E 11.08 13.12 145.37
F 17.50 13.75 240.63
FIRST FLR SUBTOTAL 1,082.77
G 9.12 12.79 116.64
H 9.87 20.16 198.98
I 6.04 10.05 60.70
J 5.95 7.62 45.34
K 10.87 7.37 80.11
L 17.50 13.75 240.63
SECOND FLR SUBTOTAL 742.40
HOUSE TOTAL 1,825.17 SF
ADU (SEPARATE PERMIT)
M 5.95 2.39 14.22
N 12.00 13.44 161.28
O 19.00 16.58 315.02
P 6.12 5.75 35.19
Q 20.00 7.50 150.00
R 7.16 17.16 122.87
ADU TOTAL (SEPARATE PERMIT)798.58 SF
GARAGE
S 20.75 20.87 433.05
T 5.54 3.79 21.01
GARAGE TOTAL 454.06 SF
N
3
N
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FIRST FLOOR-FAR
A1.6 SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
2 SECOND FLOOR-FAR
A1.6
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT175 LOMA ALTA
153 LOMA ALTA
150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
161 LOMA ALTA
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
153 LOMA ALTA 150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
153 LOMA ALTA 150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
153 LOMA ALTA 150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
153 LOMA ALTA 150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
153 LOMA ALTA 150 STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
161 LOMA ALTA 161 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA 161 LOMA ALTA 161 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
DARKENED HATCHES INDICATE
APPROXIMATE SHADOW CAST BEYOND
102 AHC PROPERTY, TYP.
12/21 9:00 AM 3/21 9:00 AM 6/21 9:00 AM
12/21 3:00 PM 3/21 3:00 PM 6/21 3:00 PM
12-21 9AM: 102 SHADOWS ON 175 L.A .
GARAGE
12-21 3PM: 102 SHADOWS 175 L.A.
BACKYARD
3-21 9AM: 102 SHADOWS 175 L.A.
BACKYARD
3-21 3PM: 102 SHADOWS 102 BACKYARD
6-21 9AM: 102 SHADOWS 102
FRONTYARD
6-21 3PM: 102 SHADOWS 102 BACKYARD
GENERAL COMMENT: THE 3D VIEWS
ARE THE EASIEST TO SEE THE SHADE
MOVEMENT. THE RESULT OF THE
PROPOSED 102 HOUSE IS NEGLIGIBLE
ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DUE TO
THE FLOOR LAYOUT AND ROOF PLAN
OF THE NEW HOUSE WHICH MITIGATES
NEARLY ALL SHADE ON NEIGHBORING
PROPERTIES AS CAN BE SEEN.
SHADOW NOTES
FLOOR AREA
NOTE: THE ADU IS
UNDER A
SEPARATE
PERMIT, TYPICAL
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A1.7
1" =200', 1" = 50', 1:564.71
EB
SITE PLAN-NEIGHBORHOOD
HISTORY
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
456.25 sq ft
102 ALTA
HEIGHTS
COURT
116 ALTA
HEIGHTS
COURT LOMA ALTA AVENUELOS GATOS BOULEVARD
STACIALOS GATOS BOULEVARD
LOMA ALTA AVENUESANFORD KEY MAP 2
SANFORD MAP-1895
TAX MAP-2021
SANFORD KEY MAP 2
456.25 sq ft
102 ALTA
HEIGHTS
COURT
116 ALTA
HEIGHTS
COURT LOMA ALTA AVENUESTACIALOMA ALTA AVENUESANFORD MAP-1895
102 ALTA
HEIGHTS
COURT
DOWNTOWN
LOS GATOS
LOS GATOS
HIGH
SCHOOL
N
N
N
SCALE: 1" =200'1 AREA PLAT HISTORY
SCALE: 1" = 50'2 AREA PLAT HISTORY
DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS
JOHNSON ADDITION/
LOMA ALTA AVE. NEIGHBORHOOD
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
1910 PICTURE LOOKING SOUTH OVER DOWNTOWN LOS GATOS
1895 SANBORN MAP
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A2.0
1/8" = 1'-0"
EB
FLOOR PLAN-EXISTING
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
456.19 sq ft
50.0'66.90'50.0'102.62'20.29'
(E) 200 AMP
ELEC PANEL
AND METER
(E) 6' H. FENCE
(E) CONC. PATIO
TO BE REMOVED(E) OAK
(E) 8' H. FENCE
(E) 6' H. FENCE
(E) 6' H. FENCE
(E) DRIVEWAY/WALKS
TO BE REMOVED
TREE 72
TREE 71
TREE 74
TREE 73
WATER METER
(E) 6' H. FENCE
(E) SIDEWALK, CURB(E) SIDEWALK
175 LOMA ALTA
1-STORY GARAGE
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
2-STORY HOUSE
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
1-STORY GARAGE
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
PATIO
161 LOMA ALTA
1-STORY GARAGE
161 LOMA ALTA
2-STORY HOUSE
175 LOMA ALTA
2-STORY HOUSE
175 LOMA ALTA
2-STORY HOUSE
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT175 LOMA ALTASECOND FLOOR DOOR
SECOND FLOOR DECK
(E) RDWD
AVERAGE GRADE DELTA IS
MAX. 1'-6" OVER THE ENTIRE
LOT OR MAX 2%
(E) GAS METER
(E) HOUSE OUTLINE
8' SETBACK
25' SETBACK
20' SETBACK
L=6.72' R=35'
L=27.13' R=35'
L=78.55' R=50'
153 ALTA HEIGHTS POOL
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE
PROPERTY LINE
5.5' SETBACK
8' SETBACK
5.5' SETBACK
AREA OF (E) CONCRETE
DRIVEWAY AND WALKS TO BE
REMOVED AND REPLACE WITH
PAVERS
8' SETBACK
95.61' (E)
96.6' (E)
97.21' (E)
97.87' (E)
98.18' (E)
96.6' (E)
97.58' (E)
97.14' (E)
97.09' (E)
97.59' (E)
97.67' (E)
97.5' (E)
97.95' (E)
97.45' (E)
98.18' (E)
97.63'(E)
97.66' (E)
97.17' (E)
97.21' (E)
97.02' (E)
97.25' (E)
97.28' (E)
95.59' (E)
98.11' (E)
99.3' (E)
97.5' (E)
SLAB
97.5' (E)
SLAB
99.3' (E)
(E) HOUSE TO BE
REMOVED
1,345 SF
HOUSE/GARAGE
(E) GARAGE
TO BE
REMOVED
97.22' (E)
97.88' (E)
97.58' (E)
97.44' (E)
96'
98'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
97'
96'
96'
98'
97.31' (E)
97.5' (E)
97.5' (E)
97.17' (E)
97.17' (E)
97.31' (E)
97'
N
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
FLOOR PLAN-EXISTING
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A2.1
1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
SLAB PLAN
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
STRUCTURAL
SLAB ON GRADE
THROUGOUT
PROPOSED HOUSE
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN DASHED
EXISTING HOUSE,
SHOWN DASHED
STRUCTURAL
SLAB ON GRADE
THROUGOUT
PROPOSED HOUSE
4
A4.0
0'-0"
0'-0"
0'-0"
-0'-1"
-0'-7 1/2"
-1'-3"
HOUSE SLAB
001
GARAGE SLAB
002
3
A4.1
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR SLAB PLAN
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A2.2
1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
FLOOR PLANS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
104
105
114
115
116
2-8x8-0
1-10x8-0
109
110
103
2-10x8-02-8x6-8
108
107
101 1022-10x6-8117
112 111113
102
101 2-10x8-0106GR366 36 '' x 26 ''13'-6"17'-6"
31'
1'-9"24'-8"23'-6"13'-9"39'16'-5"18'-2 1/2"15'-10 1/2"50'-6"11'-5"1'-4"8'20'-7"61'-11"20' PARKING AREA REQ.20' PARKING AREA REQ.16'-6"
6'-1 1/2"
39'
20'-9"6'-4 1/2"11'-10 1/2"61'-11"1'-6"7'-9 1/2"6'-11"4'-11 1/4"3'-10 1/4"4
A4.0
(E) 200 AMP
ELEC PANEL
AND METER
DS/SPLASHBLOCK, TYP.
OVERHEAD, SECTIONAL DOORS,
W/ GLASS LITES, PTD, TYP.;
(PLANS SHOW SWINGING DOORS,
WHICH THEY AREN'T,
A CAD ISSUE..)
PAVER DRIVEWAY SET IN SAND
DINING RM BAY
STAIR BAY AT LANDING
BAY
HEAT PUMP CONDENSOR
LINE OF FIRST FLOOR EAVE
(E) 6' H. FENCE
TRASH/RECYCLING BINS
WD GATE, 6' H.
WD GATE, 6' H.
WD GATE, 6' H.
(E) OAK
WOOD TRELLIS(CEDAR) W/ MTL
BRACKETS, PTD, DARK GRAY
STEPPING STONES SET IN SAND
RECESSED DOOR
(E) 6' H. FENCE
TREE 74
WATER METER
(E) 6' H. FENCE
1" STEP
7.5" STEP
STAMPED CONCRETE SLAB
BALCONY ABOVE
-7 1/2" STEP
-7 1/2" STEP
36" H.
HANDRAIL/GUARDRAIL, MIN.
4" OPENING BETWEEN
BALLUSTERS, TYP.
7.5" STEP
HOUSE-
FIRST
FLOOR
1,082.77 SF
GARAGE
454.06 SF
ADU STAIR
57.63 SF 12345678912345678910111213141516171234567105
103
104
106 2-6x6-83
A4.1
(E) HOUSE OUTLINE
8' SETBACK
5.5' SETBACK
8' SETBACK
5.5' SETBACK
18 R @ 7 3/16"
17 TR @ 11"
8' SETBACK
UP
UP
REF
RANGE/
HOOD
DRYWASH
MICRO
DW
PANTRY
GARAGE
100
BED 1
103
ENTRY
101
KITCHEN
106
DINING
107
FAMILY RM
108
MUDRM/LAUN
102
BATH 1
104
PR
105
ADU STAIR
109
219220
217
218
216
215
214
201
211301213
207
208
209
205
206
221
222 2-8x6-82-10x6-82-4x6-8 2-8x8-05-0x6-84-0x6-8
204203
2-10x8-0
2-8x8-04-0x6-8
202201
202 2-6x8-02-8x8-02-4x8-0
3-0x8-0
4
A4.0
8'13'-6"17'-6"
39'16'-5"7'-8 1/2"26'-4 1/2"50'-6"17'-2"7'-6"23'-6"13'-9"39'
2'
1'-1 1/2"
1'-1 1/2"
2'61'-11"1'-4"1'-7 1/2"1'-6"BALCONY
20 MIN. LOCKABLE DOOR
1 HR RATED WALL
BETWEEN ADU
AND HOUSE;
1 HR RATING AT
FLOOR/ CEILING
LINE OF EAVE ABOVE, TYP.
LINE OF EAVE BELOW, TYP.
ROOF BELOW
LINE OF EAVE ABOVE, TYP.
LINE OF EAVE ABOVE, TYP.
LINE OF EAVE BELOW, TYP.
'FUTURE PROPOSED ADU IS NOT BEING
REVIEWED AT THIS TIME AND WILL BE
UNDER A FUTURE SEPARATE PERMIT "
ROOF BELOW
ELEC WATER
HEATER INTAKE AIR
301
302
ADU
798.58 SF
HOUSE-
SECOND
FLOOR
742.40 SF
12345673
A4.1
DECK/BALCONY;
5/4 X 6 IPE W/ 3/8" OPENINGS
ELEC HEAT PUMP,
WATER HEATER
DN
DN
REF
ELEC
COOKTOP
DRY
WASH
ADU FAMILY RM
214
M DRESS
203
HIS BATH
205
ADU BED 2
210
ADU BED 1
211
ADU BATH
212
ADU KIT
213
HALL
201
M BED 1
202
HER BATH
204
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
FIRST FLOOR PLAN
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
SECOND FLOOR PLAN
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A2.3
1' = 1'-0", 1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
ROOF PLAN
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
Model Applications
DJK466 Low profile, efficient
termination for safely
venting the dryer through
the roof.
DJK486 Extra clearance model for
high profile tile or heavy
snowfall zones.
General Information
Benefits:
• Venting through the roof can shorten duct length
• Zero back pressure lengthens appliance life
• Improved efficiency shortens cycles, saves energy
• Damper design deters bird and rodent entry
• Access features ease duct cleaning & maintenance
Features:
• Rugged 26 gauge Galvalume
• Rounded corner nailing flange and 6 nail holes
• Equally suitable for new and retrofit construction
• Watertight extended collar for secure docking
Manufactured By
Performance Data
For Use:
• Non-restrictive dryer roof vent termination
• Complies with IMC 504.4 & IRC 1502.3
Material:
• 26 gauge Galvalume®
Weight Each:
DJK466 / 3 lbs. — DJK486 4 lbs.
Technical Product Specifications
DryerJack Model 466
DryerJack Model 486
Made in the USA
Airflow Restriction Comparison (Back Pressure Measured in Water Column Inches)
In-O-Vate Technologies, Inc.
810 Saturn Street, Suite 20
Jupiter FL 33477
Telephone: 561-743-8696
Facsimile: 561-745-9723
www.DryerJack.com
DrainageOpening
5"
5"
9"
5"
RadiusCorners
DrainageOpening
Removable Access Panel
(4 #8 Dagger Guard Screws)
6"8"
12"14"
4"
DryerJack DryerJack Low Profile Low Profile Four Inch
Model 466 Model 486 Plastic Metal Gooseneck
0.001 0.02 .35 .30 .45
Curved Damper
Curved Damper
Collar 1.25" Above and 3" Below Plate and Positioned to the Rear
1"
2.25"
4.125" I.D.
4.125" I.D.1.25"
3"
4
A4.0
SOLATUBE, TYP.
SOLAR PV PANELS, LAYOUT
TBD, TYP.;
UNDER SEPARATE PERMIT
CONTINUOUS ALUMINUM
GUTTERS/DOWNSPOUTS TO
SPLASHBLOCKS BELOW, TYP.
WALL
STRUCTURE
BELOW
DRYER VENT, DRYERJACK
BATHS VENT
BATHS VENT
WALL
STRUCTURE
BELOW
BATHS VENT
ELEC WATER HEATER VENT
SLOPE
7:12
RIDGERIDGERIDGE
RIDGERIDGEVALLEYVALLEYRIDGE
SLOPE
7:12
SLOPE
7.5:12
SLOPE7:12SLOPE7:12SLOPE7:12SLOPE
16:12
SLOPE
16:12
SLOPE
9:12
SLOPE
3.5:12
SLOPE4:12SLOPE16:12RIDGE
3
A4.1
N
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
ROOF PLAN
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A3.0
1" = 20'
EB
SITE ELEVATIONS/PLAN-
NEIGHBORHOOD
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
1,347.75 sq ft
456.25 sq ft 20'-0" SETBACK(E) 5'-6" SETBACK
50.0'
20.29'66.90'8'-0"
5'-0
"5'-0"5'
-0
"
5'-0"5'-0"5'-0"+/-11'-1/2"+/-18'-9 1/4"5'
-0
"
5'-10"2'-0"1'-1 1/2"
2'-0"
1'-9"
21'-0"
20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"
20'-0"
20'-0"20'-0"20'-0"8'-0"
8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'
-0
"8'
-0
"
8'-0
"
8'-0
"
8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"20'-0"20'-0"8'-0"8'-0"25'-0"8'-0"20'-0"8'-0"8'-0"8'-0"
20'-0"
25'-0"
24'-5 3/4"
+/-16'-1/4"
25'-0"4'-7 1/2"15'-0"5'-0"25'-0"
25'-0"15'-0"19'-0"
DRIVEWAY
8'-0"
50.0'
8'-0"102.62'150'-0"150'-0"65.03'55.6'107.67'89.40'118.87'50'-0"16'-5 1/2" BALCONY5'-6"5'-1 1/4"+
/
-
5'
-
6
"19'-1"10'-0"+/- 18'-4 1/2"
4A4.0
(N) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE,
TO BE REMOVED
(N) HOUSE/GARAGE
(E) DRIVEWAY
(E) SEWER LATERAL &
CLEANOUT
(E) HOUSE
(N) HOUSE
(E) HOUSE,
TO BE
REMOVED
(E) HOUSE
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING, TYP.,
SEE A1.4, A1.5
TREE
PROTECTION
FENCING,
TYP., SEE
A1.4, A1.5
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
SITE
PROTECTION
FENCING
FROM THE ARBORIST REPORT, A1.4, A1.5;
Pruning / Oak #74:
Retain a tree care company to perform limb endweight reduction
pruning (aka “branch length reduction pruning”), consisting of
removal of selected branches only from the outermost section of
the southwest portion of the tree #74 canopy, not to exceed 10%
or 15% of total live biomass.
Do NOT thin or otherwise remove any material from the lower or
inner areas of the canopy.
The goal is to shorten the southwest section of canopy by removing
only certain end sections of branches from that southwestmost
section of the canopy, which reduces endweight of the limb systems
extended in that direction, resulting in a reduction of load forces
acting on the limb attachment points, and reducing risk of limb
splitout.
All work will have to be performed directly by or under direct full-time
site supervision by an ISA Certified Arborist, and will need to conform
to all of the most current iterations of ANSI A300 standards for tree
care operations “Pruning”, and the most current Best Management
Practices Pruning booklet that accompanies the ANSI A300 pruning
standards.
The most current ANSI A300 pruning standard is (Part 1) Pruning
2017. The most current Best Management Practices Pruning booklet
by International Society of Arboriculture is the 3rd edition (2019).
Some excerpts from the BMP booklet:
• Page 26: (Reduction Cuts): “When possible, avoid large (greater
than 4 inches diameter) reductions cuts…..”. The CTA recommends
only removing branches that are up to 2 or 3 inches diameter at the
most, during the limb length reduction pruning in the southwest end
of the canopy.
• Page 31: (Making Pruning Cuts): “Large or heavy branches
should be precut using three cuts to avoid splitting the wood or
tearing the bark”.
(N) TREE,
TYP.
17'-11 1/2" FRONT
SETBACK
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
LOMA ALTA AVE.175 LOMA ALTA161 LOMA ALTALOMA ALTA40"
RDWD153 LOMA ALTA150STACIA175 LOMA ALTA112 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
106 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
110 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT STACIA175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA
HEIGHTS COURT
161 LOMA ALTA
ACCESSORY BLDG
24'-6" (E)1'-4"1'-6"18'-0"3A4.1
1,662.8 sq ft
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
(E) SHEET FLOW
AWAY FROM
HOUSE ONTO (E)
VEGETATED
AREAS
FIBER ROLL,
TYP.
(E) LAWN
TRASH BIN
AREA
ELEC SERVICE
& 200 AMP
PANEL
(E) 8' H. WOOD
FENCE, TYP.
(E) 6' H. WOOD
FENCE, TYP.2 PARKING
SPACES IN
GARAGE
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.(E) SHEET FLOW
AWAY FROM
HOUSE ONTO (E)
VEGETATED
AREAS
(E) LAWN
(E) CURB
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
WATER SHUTOFF (E) UNDERGROUND
ELEC SERVICE
(E) WOOD DECK
FIRST FLOOR EAVE
(E) HOUSE SETBACK, TYP.
(E) HOUSE
SETBACK, TYP.
FIBER ROLL, TYP.
INSTALL SITE PROTECTION
GATE, 6' TALL
INSTALL TREE
PROTECTION FENCING,
SEE ARBORIST REPORT,
A1.4, A1.5
STREET ADDRESS SIGN: 4-inches high, with a
minimum stroke width of 1/2-inch, and shall
contrast with their background - BRASS PLATE W/
BLACK NUMBERS PER CRC Section R31 9
INSTALL SITE PROTECTION FENCING, 6'
TALL CHAIN LINK FENCE W/ POSTS
DRIVEN INTO THE GROUND
LINE OF EAVES
LINE OF BAY;
3'-9"
PROPOSED
BAY SETBACK
PAVERS IN SAND
DRIVEWAY
L=6.72' R=35'L=27.13' R=35'
L=78.55' R=50'
SECOND FLOOR DECK
SLIDING DOORS ON SECOND
FLOOR
PAVERS IN SAND
PATIO
STEPPING STONES
(E) SIDEWALK
(E) CONC. DRIVEWAY/WALKS TO
BE REMOVED (AREA BELOW)
(E) HOUSE
(E) GARAGE
(E) HOUSE
PROPERTY
LINE, TYP.
LINE OF EAVES
LINE OF EAVES
L=37.02' R=35'
5'-6" SETBACK,
PROPOSED
5'-6" SETBACK,
PROPOSED
8' (E) SETBACK
8' (E) SETBACK
25' (E) FRONT
SETBACK
LINE OF BALCONY
ABOVE,
16'-5 1/2" SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
PROPOSED 5'-6"
SETBACK
STONE STEP SET ON
SAND
STONE STEP SET ON
SAND
(E) WATER LATERAL
(E) WATER
METER BOX
(E) STREET
DRAIN
(E) SEWER CLEANOUT
BALCONY
25' (E) FRONT
SETBACK
175 LOMA ALTA
SETBACK
161 LOMA ALTA
AVE. ACCESSORY
BLDG IS ON 102
ALTA HEIGHTS
COURT
PROPERTY
161 LOMA ALTA AVE. GARAGE IS ON
THE PROPERTY LINE, BEYOND THE
REQUIRED 5' SETBACK (PERMIT
DATE IS UNKNOWN DUE TO COVID);
THE GARAGE EAVE IS
APPROXIMATELY 20" OVER THE
PROPERTY LINE INTO 102 AHC
PROPERTY
5' GARAGE SETBACK LINE
SETBACK
LINES, TYP.
18'-0" FRONT
SETBACK18'-0" FRONT
SETBACK
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) GARAGE (E) GARAGE
(E) GARAGE
(E) GARAGE
(E) GARAGE
(E) GARAGE
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) NEIGHBOR
(E) GARAGE
1-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
1 1/2-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
2-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
(E) POOL
HOUSE1-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
(E) NEIGHBOR
2-STORY
153
POOL
(N) HOUSE
2-STORY
1-STORY
2-STORY
(E) GARAGE
1-STORY
1-STORY
2-STORY
1-STORY
1-STORY
150
DECK
REF
MICRO
DW
PANTRY
REF
DW
N
SCALE: 1" = 20'
FIRST FLOOR-SITE PLAN
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA 116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
LOMA ALTA
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA 116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA
116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
150 STACIA153 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGE
175 LOMA ALTA
150 STACIA
VIEW 'A'
VIEW 'B'
VIEW 'C'
VIEW 'D'
ELEVATION 1/A3.1
ELEVATION 2/A3.1
ELEVATION 1/A3.2
ELEVATION 2/A3.2
ELEVATION 3/A3.2
VIEW 'D' ABOVE LOOKING EAST
NEIGHBORHOOD DESCRIPTION
THE LOMA ALTA NEIGHBORHOOD HAS A VARIEGATED URBAN FORM AND HISTORY. THE NEIGHBORHOOD 'STYLE' AND MASSING PATTERN IS DISTINCTIVE IN THAT THERE IS NO 'SET' PATTERN. WHAT IS COMMON IS A HIGH DENSITY
AND A RICH VARIETY OF FRONT ELEVATIONS/MASSINGS AND LANDSCAPING. THE NEIGHBORHOOD LOTS WERE LAID OUT BEFORE ZONING WHICH IS WHY IT HAS A VERY UNIQUE AND ATTRACTIVE 'URBAN VILLAGE' FEEL.
RESIDENTS WHO CHOSE THIS TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD ARE INTERESTED LESS IN PRIVACY AS IN A TYPICAL LEAFY SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD THAN IN HAVING ACTIVE CONNECTIONS WITH THEIR NEIGHORS. LOMA ALTA IS A
PRINCIPAL CIRCULATION ROUTE FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS UP THE HILL. LOMA ALTA IS APPROX . 1/2 MILE FROM LOS GATO HIGH SCHOOL AND DOWNTOWN. LOS GATOS BOULEVARD, A PRIMARY CIRCULATION CORRIDOR IN LOS
GATOS, INTERSECTS LOMA ALTA APPROX . 1/4 MILE FROM ALTA HEIGHTS COURT. BUS SERVICE IS 1/3 MILE FROM THE HOUSE SITE.
THE URBAN FABRIC IS 1, 2 AND 3 STORY RESIDENCES W/ VARYING SETBACKS AND MASSING AND STYLES. THE STYLE RANGE FROM VICTORIAN, SPANISH, CRAFTSMAN, BUNGALO, TUDOR, MODERN, FARMHOUSE, ETC. THERE IS
NO ONE DISTINCTIVE STYLE YET THE OVERALL FABRIC IS VERY PLEASING, PARTLY BECAUSE MOST OF THE FABRIC PREDATES ZONING SO THAT MANY OF THE HOUSES AND FORMS ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET AND TO
NEIGHBORS TO CREATE A HOMEY, URBAN VILLAGE SETTING.
HOUSE DESCRIPTION
THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS FLANKED BY A 2-STORY SPANISH HOUSE ON THE LEFT WHICH WAS RESULTED FROM A 2 STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1 STORY HOUSE. THIS HOUSE HAS A VERY STRONG STREET WALL AS IT IS
EXTRA CLOSE TO TO BOTH LOMA ALTA AND ALTA HEIGHTS COURT . THE 175 GARAGE IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE PROPERTY LINE OF THE 102 SITE AND SITS ONLY 5' FROM THE STREET PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY BUILT
BEFORE ZONING. THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT IS A NEW 2-STORY, HANDSOME, MODERN HOUSE. THE REST OF THE COURT IS MIXED WITH SPANISH AND BUNGALO AND TRANISTIONAL . ALL OF THE OTHER HOUSES SIT ON GRADES 4-
12' HIGHER THAN 102 EXCEPT FOR 175 LOMA ALTA. 102 IS LITERALLY THE LOWEST AND SMALLEST LOT IN THE COURT AND IS ALSO BLOCKED FROM VIEW ENTERING THE COURT BY 175 LOMA ALTA.
THE PROPOSED 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT DESIGN ATTEMPTS TO MODERNIZE A CLASSIC 1920'S TUDOR DESIGN WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN ALL OLDER URBAN VILLAGE NEIGHBORHOODS ACROSS CALIFORNIA AND THE USA. THE
GOAL IS TO HAVE A DISCRETE YET 'QUIET' HOUSE DESIGN TO BLEND INTO THE LARGER LOMA ALTA NEIGHBORHOOD . THE PROPOSED DESIGN WILL HAVE A 2 BEDROOM ADU WHICH IS INTENDED TO MEET THE CA MANDATE FOR
ADU CONSTRUCTION AND ALSO MORE SPECIFICALLY TO PROVIDE POTENTIAL HOUSING FOR ONE OF THE OWNERS' 6 ADULT CHILDREN AND THEIR BUDDING FAMILY OR TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC PER THE CA MANDATE.
VIEW 'C' ABOVE LOOKING NORTHVIEW 'B' LOOKING NORTHWESTVIEW 'A' LOOKING EAST-NORTHEAST
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A3.1
1" = 10'
EB
EXISTING PICS,
NEIGHBORHOOD
ELEVATIONS/VIEWS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
10'-9"26'-3/4"+/-28'-7 1/8"175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA GARAGE
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
175 LOMA ALTA 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
LOMA ALTA
STACIA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
106 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
EL. -1'-3" REF.; 98.05'
STREET ADDRESS SIGN: 4-inches high, with a
minimum stroke width of 1/2-inch, and shall
contrast with their background - BRASS PLATE W/
BLACK NUMBERS PER CRC Section R31 9
CLAD WOOD WINDOWS; COLOR:
BRONZE, TYP.
6' H. WOOD FENCE AND GATE
TYP.
CEMENTITIOUS WOOD
TRIM, WHITE, PTD, TYP.
ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS, TYP.
OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,
CARRIAGE STYLE, W/ LITES, PTD,
TYP. GRAY
CLASS 'A' ARCHITECTURAL
SHINGLES, LIGHT GRAY,
TYP.
30' HEIGHT LIMIT
SMOOTH STUCCO, LIGHT GRAY,
TYP.
WOOD PERGOLA ON STEEL
BRACKETS, PTD. DARK GRAY
NEIGHBOR'S 2-CAR GARAGE
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, DARK
BROWN STUCCO
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, NATURAL
HORIZ. CEDAR
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHITE
PANELS
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHITE
PANELS
MTL BALCONY, DARK GRAY, PTD.
TYP.
OUTLINE OF (E) HOUSE
TO BE REMOVED
16/12 ROOF PITCH
7/12 ROOF PITCH 4/12 ROOF PITCH
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
GARAGE DOOR
BAY HAS WOOD SIDING, PTD
(GRAY) W/ WOOD TRIM DETAILING
4/12 ROOF PITCH
97.45' (E) GRADE
97.45' GRADE
97.25' (E) GRADE 2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
WINDOWS, TYP.
97.58' (E) GRADE
102
+/- 29'-6"+/-28'-9 5/8"22'-11 1/4"22'-11 7/16"LOMA ALTA
STACIA
112 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
110 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
SCALE: 1" = 10'
1 SOUTH-ALTA HTS CT . ELEVATION
A3.1
SCALE: 1" = 10'
2 NORTH-ALTA HTS CT . ELEVATION
A3.1
175 LOMA ALTA 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 106 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 110 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 112 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
SOUTH-ENTRY
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT -EXISTING CONDITIONS PICTURES
WEST NORTH EAST WEST TOWARDS 161 LOMA ALTA NORTH-BACKYARD EAST TOWARD 104 ALTA HTS CT .
VIEW NORTH FROM ROOF VIEW SOUTH FROM ROOF VIEW SOUTHWEST FROM ROOF VIEW WEST FROM ROOFVIEW NORTHEAST FROM ROOF VIEW SOUTHEAST FROM ROOF
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A3.2
1" = 10'
EB
NEIGHBORHOOD
ELEVATIONS/VIEWS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
30'-2 3/4"50.0' 102 ALTA HTS COURT PROPERTY
PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'+/-28'-7 1/4"+/-29'-6 1/4"+/-29'-10 1/2"+/-29'-11 1/4"153 LOMA ALTA
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
LOMA ALTA
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
150 STACIA
175 LOMA ALTA 161 LOMA ALTA10'-9"50.0' 102 ALTA HTS COURT PROPERTY
PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'26'-3/4"+/-29'-10 3/8"+/-29'-11 1/4"+/-28'-7 1/8"T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
161 LOMA ALTA102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
LOMA ALTA104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
106 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
108 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
T.O. (E) GRADE
EL. 97.0' - 97.95'
175 LOMA ALTA175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGESOLATUBES, TYP.
96.98' (E) GRADE
97.44' (E) GRADE
97.59' (E) GRADE BEYOND
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS, TYP.+/-29'-6 1/4"+/-28'-9 1/2"+/-29'-10 1/2"+/-29'-11 1/4"PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'29'-11"116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA153 LOMA ALTA
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 177 LOMA ALTA
112 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
SCALE: 1" = 10'
3 NORTH SECTION/ELEVATION
A3.2
SCALE: 1" = 10'
2 NORTH ELEVATION
A3.2
SCALE: 1" = 10'
1 WEST-LOMA ALTA ST . ELEVATION
A3.2
175 LOMA ALTA ALTA HEIGHTS COURT161 LOMA ALTA153 LOMA ALTA 177 LOMA ALTA116 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A3.3
1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
ELEVATIONS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
10'-9"+/-28'-7 1/8"175 LOMA ALTA
175 LOMA ALTA GARAGE
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
175 LOMA ALTA 102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT 104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
EL. -1'-3" REF.; 98.05'
STREET ADDRESS SIGN: 4-inches high, with a
minimum stroke width of 1/2-inch, and shall
contrast with their background - BRASS PLATE W/
BLACK NUMBERS PER CRC Section R31 9
CLAD WOOD WINDOWS; COLOR:
BRONZE, TYP.
6' H. WOOD FENCE AND GATE
TYP.
CEMENTITIOUS WOOD
TRIM, WHITE, PTD, TYP.
ALUMINUM GUTTERS AND
DOWNSPOUTS, TYP.
OVERHEAD GARAGE DOOR,
CARRIAGE STYLE, W/ LITES, PTD,
TYP. GRAY
CLASS 'A' ARCHITECTURAL
SHINGLES, LIGHT GRAY,
TYP.
30' HEIGHT LIMIT
SMOOTH STUCCO, LIGHT GRAY,
TYP.
WOOD PERGOLA ON STEEL
BRACKETS, PTD. DARK GRAY
NEIGHBOR'S 2-CAR GARAGE
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, DARK
BROWN STUCCO
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, NATURAL
HORIZ. CEDAR
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHITE
PANELS
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, WHITE
PANELS
MTL BALCONY, DARK GRAY, PTD.
TYP.
OUTLINE OF (E) HOUSE
TO BE REMOVED
16/12 ROOF PITCH
7/12 ROOF PITCH 4/12 ROOF PITCH
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
GARAGE DOOR
BAY HAS WOOD SIDING, PTD
(GRAY) W/ WOOD TRIM DETAILING
4/12 ROOF PITCH
97.45' (E) GRADE
97.45' GRADE
97.25' (E) GRADE 2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
WINDOWS, TYP.
97.58' (E) GRADE
102
10'-9"PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'(E) 200 AMP ELEC PANEL AND METER
DS/SPLASHBLOCK, TYP.
DINING RM BAYSTAIR BAY AT LANDING
(E) GAS METER
THESE WINDOWS ARE 64' FROM
102 ALTA HTS CT MASTER BEDRM
WINDOWS
161 LOMA ALTA BEYOND
THESE WINDOWS ARE 55' FROM
102 ALTA HTS CT MASTER BEDRM
WINDOWS
175 LOMA ALTA BEYOND
175 LOMA ALTA SECOND FLOOR
BALCONY DOOR BELOW IS 54' FROM 102
ADU WEST CLERESTORY WINDOW
175 LOMA ALTA
BEYOND (28'),
THIS BLANK STUCCO
WALL IS 27' BEYOND
102 ALTA HEIGHTS
COURT
175 LOMA ALTA BLANK
STUCCO GARAGE
WALL BEYOND
161 LOMA ALTA GARAGE BEYOND
AIR INTAKE FOR ELEC
WATER HEATER
T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
DOWNSPOUT AND
SPLASHBLOCK, TYP.
DOWNSPOUT AND
SPLASHBLOCK, TYP.97.44' (E) GRADE
97.45' (E) GRADE97.58' (E) GRADE
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS, TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 SOUTH/ STREET ELEVATION
A3.3
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 EAST ELEVATION
A3.3
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A3.4
1/4" = 1'-0"
EB
ELEVATIONS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
10'-9"PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'+/-28'-7 1/8"T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
T.O. GARAGE SLAB
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
HEAT PUMP/CONDENSOR
FOR HIGH EFF. SPLIT DUCT
HEAT/AC ; CLEARANCES
METER PER CODE
DRYER EXHAUST VENT
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
GARAGE
(E) 9' H. WOOD FENCE
(E) FINISH GRADE
KITCHEN HOOD
EXHAUST VENT ADU ENTRANCE
SOLATUBE, TYP.
SOLAR PV PANELS,
DIAGRAM ONLY, UNDER
SEPARATE PERMIT
97.25' (E) GRADE96.98' (E) GRADE 97.31' (E) GRADE 98.0'97.59' (E) GRADE2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS, TYP.10'-9"50.0' 102 ALTA HTS COURT PROPERTY
PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'+/-29'-11 1/4"+/-28'-7 1/8"T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
102 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
104 ALTA HEIGHTS COURT
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
T.O. (E) GRADE
EL. 97.0' - 97.95'
175 LOMA ALTA175 LOMA ALTA
GARAGESOLATUBES, TYP.
96.98' (E) GRADE
97.44' (E) GRADE
97.59' (E) GRADE BEYOND
2" DEEP RECESS AROUND
DOOR/WINDOWS, TYP.
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
2 WEST ELEVATION
A3.4
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
1 NORTH ELEVATION
A3.4
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A4.0
1:1.31, 1' = 1'-0", 1/4" =
1'-0"
EB
BUILDING SECTIONS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
10'-9"4'-4 7/16"5'-4 15/16"1'-8 5/8"PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'+/-29'-10 3/8"+/-29'-11 1/4"T.O. SECOND FLOOR
EL. 10'-9"
T.O. FIRST FLOOR
EL. 0'-0" REF.; 99.3'
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, DARK
BROWN STUCCO
NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE, DARK
BROWN STUCCO
NEIGHBOR'S GARAGE
161 LOMA ALTA, NEIGHBOR'S
HOUSE,
APPROX. 60' AWAY
NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE, 171 ALTA,
APPROX. 60' AWAY
97.44' (E) GRADE
97.58' (E) GRADE
TRUSS ROOFS, TYP., NOT
HABITABLE
175 LOMA ALTA
161 LOMA ALTA
ATTIC HEIGHTS VARY, PLEASE
NOTE THE ROOF STRUCTURE OF
THE HOUSE WILL BE TRUSSES
ATTIC HEIGHTS VARY, 5'-6" MAX.
TRUSS ROOFS, TYP., NOT
HABITABLE
SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0"
4 ENTRY/ENTRY HALL/KITCHEN/FAMILY
A4.0 DIAGRAM ONLY
102 Alta Heights CourtLos Gatos, CA 95030APN: 532-29-045DRAWN
DATE
SCALE
JOB NO.
SHEET
DRAWING TITLE:
SEAL:
5/9/2021
6
FILENAME
102 ah cd5.3.pln
A4.1
1/8" = 1'-0", 1' = 1'-0"
EB
BUILDING SECTIONS
REVISIONS BY
EB
650.847.83517/31/2021
PLANNING
PERMIT
SUBMISSION
UPDATE
1 11/22/2020
New Residence2 1/5/2021 EB
3 2/11/2021 EB
A R C H I T E C T U R E + I N T E R I O R SBECKSTROMeric@beckstromarchitecture.comwww.beckstromarchitecture.comP.O. BOX 1317, LOS GATOS, CA 95030THESE DRAWINGS HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED BY BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS FOR THE TITLED SET ONLY, THE DRAWINGS ARE THE SOLE PROPERTY OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS AND
THEY SHALL NOT BE USED, LENT, COPIED OR ALTERED WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF BECKSTROM ARCHITECTURE + INTERIORS
4 4/1/2021 EB
5 5/9/2021 EB
5'-5 1/16"3'-9"PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'TRUSS ROOFS, TYP., NOT
HABITABLE
ATTIC HEIGHTS VARY, PLEASE
NOTE THE ROOF STRUCTURE OF
THE HOUSE WILL BE TRUSSES
PROPOSED HT. 28'-6 1/2"; EL. 126.265'ADU/GARAGE WILL HAVE RAFTER
CONSTRUCTION, IE. NO ATTIC
SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0"
5 BED 1/ ADU BED 1/STAIR, DINING/FAMILY
A4.1
DIAGRAM ONLY
DIAGRAM ONLY