Item 2 - Staff Report with Exhibits - 18 Filmer Avenuel w F
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ti''""' PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
os os Meeting Date: May 8, 2013
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
ITEM NO: 2
Erin M. Walters, Associate Planner
ewalters@losgatosca.gov
Architecture and Site Application 5-13-007
18 Fillmer Avenue (south side of Fillmer Avenue near the
intersection of Los Gatos Boulevard)
Tony Jeans
Mark VonKaenel and Dan Feece
Tony Jeans
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 single-
family residence and to construct a new residence and detached
garage with reduced side and rear yard setbacks on property
zoned R-1:8. APN 532-35-029.
DEEMED COMPLETE: Apri18, 2013
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: October 8, 2013
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DATA:
Approve, subject to conditions.
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans & Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Low Density Residential, 0-5
dwelling units/acre
R-1:8 — Single-Family
Residential, 8,000 square foot
minimum lot size
General Plan; Residential
Design Guidelines
8,400 square feet
Existing Land Use j General Plan Zoning
North . Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8
East ! Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Single Family Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Single Family Single Family R-1D
Residential Downtown I
CEQA: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303
of the State Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town
because the project consists of a demolition of a single-family
dwelling and construction of a single-family dwelling.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 2
18 Fillmer Avenue/5-13-007
May 8, 2013
FINDINGS: As required by Section 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town that this project is
Categorically Exempt.
As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single-family residence.
As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
CONSIDER.ATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application.
As required by Section 29.40.O10.B(1) of the Town Code for
granting reduced setbacks.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless .
appealed within ten days.
EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (eight pages)
4. Applicant's Letter (one page), received Apri18, 2013
5. Project Data Sheet
6. Structural Evaluation (five pages), received February 4, 2013
7. February 27, 2013, Historic Preservation Committee Minutes
five pages)
8. Consulting Architect's Report (five pages), received April 2,
2013
9. Original Arborist Report (31 pages), received February 4,
2013
10. Consulting Arborist's Peer Review (eight pages), received
February 24, 2013
11. Development Plans (12 sheets), received Apri18, 2013
BACKGROUND:
The subject property is developed with a one-story single family residence with a detached
garage. The house was built in 1938 and is in poor condition. There are a number of trees on the
site, most of which are in poor condition.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 3
18 Fillmer Avenue/5-13-007
May 8, 2013
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surroundin borhood
The property is located at 18 Fillmer Avenue on the southside of Fillmer Avenue,
approximately 100 feet east of the Los Gatos Boulevard and Fillmer Avenue intersection.
Surrounding properties are a mixture of both one and two story single-family homes
zoned R-1:8. Existing home sizes in the immediate area range from 1,420 to 2,374
square feet.
B. Architecture and Site Approval
Although the Development Review Committee has the authority to take action on this
type of development, this matter was referred to the Planning Commission due to the
application creating the largest residence within the immediate neighborhood in terms of
square footage and floor area ratio.
C. Compliance
1. Zonin
The zoning permits a single family dwelling use.
2. Hei ht, Lot Coverage, Floor Area Ratio (FARI and Parking
The project is in compliance with height, building coverage and floor area ratio
limitations as well as parking requirements.
3. Setbacks
The proposed house meets the required setbacks of the R-1:8 zone. This project also
proposes a detached garage with reduced side and rear yard setbacks of four (4) feet as
shown on Sheet C-1 of Exhibit 11. Section 29.40.010(B.)(1) of the Los Gatos Town
Code allows required side and rear yard setbacks for accessory structures to be
reduced to no less than three (3) feet from a property line in the R-1 zone.
This proposal meets the criteria to be considered when reviewing an accessory
structure with reduced setbacks as:
1. The existing garage is in a similar location to the proposed garage;
2. There are other detached garages with reduced setbacks in the neighborhood;
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 4
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
3. The proposed detached garage will be consistent with prior approvals and
compatible with the neighborhood; and
4. The detached garage was determined to not have historic significance, as
determined by the Historic Preservation Committee on February 27, 2013 (Exhibit
7).
ANALYSIS:
A. Architecture and Site
The applicant is proposing to demolish an existing 1,050 square foot single family house
and detached 770 square foot garage to construct a new 2,708 square foot two story
craftsman style home with a 552 square foot detached two-car garage. The Residential
Design Guidelines is the guiding document for the subject property.
General project data is included in Exhibit 5. The applicant's project description and
letter of justification is attached as Exhibit 4.
The applicant initially submitted plans for a two story Spanish style home with a rear
balcony and detached garage. Staff and the Town's Consulting Architect, Larry Cannon
of Cannon Design Group recommended that the applicant redesign the project to
complement the architectural style of the neighborhood which is largely cottage, ranch,
and 1930's style homes. It was also recommended that the applicant reduce the second
story massing as the initial proposal was out of scale in comparison to the surrounding
homes. The surrounding homes are a combination of one and two stories. The two story
homes on the street have reduced their volume by incorporating the second story into the
roof form or with only partial second stories, expressed by small dormers on the front
elevations as seen in Exhibit 7, page 2.
The applicant resubmitted plans for a two story craftsman style house with a covered
front porch with wood columns and porch railings. Development plans are attached as
Exhibit 11. The applicant addressed staff and the Consulting Architect's initial issues by
proposing the following design changes:
Changing the architectural style from a stucco/tile Spanish style home to a wood
shingle craftsman style home;
Reducing the second story square footage and incorporating the second story
massing into the roof form;
Reducing the roof pitch from (9:12 to 4:12);
Providing a low eave line at the front porch;
Modifying the tile roofing to a composition shingle roofing;
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 5
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
Incorporating a deep front porch into the design;
Eliminating the second story rear balcony; and
Integrating the first floor rear covered patio into the house better.
The resubmittal of development plans were reviewed by staff and the Town's Consulting
Architect. The proposed craftsman style design was well done with traditional forms,
quality and good details. The challenge on this street is to design a two story home that
meets the context of the smaller scale surrounding homes. The Town's Consulting
Architect believes that the proposed house could be bigger than the neighboring homes as
long as the mass and design of the proposed house is developed with sympathy to the size
and scale of the neighborhood. The proposed house accomplishes this by maintaining a
similar sized building footprint as nearby homes, by placing most of the extra floor space
to the rear of the house and by providing similar front, side and rear setbacks as nearby
homes. The Architect concludes that the proposed design will not materially impact the
streetscape and in order to further fit into the neighborhood he has recommended three
modifications to the proposal as discussed in the Consulting Architect's Report in Exhibit
8.
The consulting architect has made the following recommendations:
Town'Architects Recommendation A licant's Res onse
1. Reduce the floor-to-ceiling heights to The applicant has reduced floor-to-ceiling
lower overall building height. heights reducing the height of the proposed
house from 27 ft.- 3 in. to 25 ft.- 9 in.(See
Exhibit 11, Sheet C1)
2. Utilize shingles on all exterior wall The applicant has modified plans to
surfaces per the Residential Design incorporate shingles on all exterior wall
Guidelines 3.2.3. Design for surfaces including the detached garage.
Architectural Integrity. (See Exhibit 11)
3. Utilize a shed dormer on the front The applicant feels strongly that a gable
elevation rather than the exposed dormer is more consistent with the design of
gable dormer. the rest of the house and is more compatible
with other homes on the street and their
extensive use of gables. See discussion
below.
By addressing all three of these architectural changes the Consulting Architect believes
the proposed two-story home will be consistent with the Town's Residential Design
Guidelines with regard to architectural integrity, and sensitivity to the size and scale of
existing homes within the neighborhood.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 6
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
Shed v. Gable Dormer
The Town Architect recommends a shed dormer on the front elevation rather than the
exposed gable dormer. The Town Architect states, "The second floor front-facing gable
dormer is well proportioned to the house, and typical of the architectural style. However,
in this neighborhood, I believe that it would tend to make the front elevation seem
visually taller than most nearby homes." He recommends utilizing a shed dormer instead
of a gable dormer to reduce the visual height of the second floor as seen in Exhibit 8,
Page 5.
The applicant feels strongly that a gable dormer on the front elevation is more consistent
with the design of the rest of the house and is more compatible with other homes on the
street and their extensive use of gable as seen in Exhibit 11, Sheet A3.
Staff recommends approval of the project with a gable dormer on the front elevation as
preferred by the applicant. Staff prefers the architectural continuity a gable provides in
this specific design. Staff agrees with the Consulting Architect that a shed dormer would
reduce the visual height of the second floor however staff concurs with the applicant's
desire to maintain architectural continuity. The applicant has provided elevations with
the shed dormer as recommended by the Consulting Architect (See Exhibit 11, Sheet A3-
1). The Planning Commission may condition this project to modify the dormer to a shed
style dormer per the Town Architects recommendation if they determine this option is
more appropriate.
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
The following table shows house size, FAR, and garage size from properties in the
immediate neighborhood of the project site. Data was obtained from Town and County
records and does not include cellars.
Address House Size Gara e Size Lot Size FAR Max Allowed Stories
7 Fillmer 2,274 0 9,000 0.25 0.32 1
12 Fillmer 1,420 288 8,470 0.17 0.32 1
15 Fillmer 1,540 300 9,348 0.16 0.32 1
21 Fillmer 1,479 414 6,435 0.23 034 1
24 Fillmer 2,205 400 8,400 0.26 0.32 2
25 Fillmer 1,677 480 15,120 0.11 0.27 1
30 Fillmer 1,942 360 2,302 0.23 0.32 2
34 Fillmer 2,374 433 10,500 0.23 0.31 2
18 Fillmer (E) 992 476 8,400 0.12 0.32 1
18 Fillmer 2,708 552 8,400 0.32 0.32 2
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7
18 Fillmer Avenue/5-13-007
May 8, 2013
The proposed residence would be the largest home in the immediate neighborhood in
regards to both overall house square footage and FAR. The residential Design Guidelines
specify that residential development shall be similar in mass, bulk and scale to the
immediate neighborhood. Staff and the Consulting Architect find that the proposed two
story craftsman and detached garage is compatible and harmonious with the immediate
neighborhood in regards to bulk and mass. The project has accomplished this through
quality architectural design and site design. As discussed above the design has
incorporated features that accomplish minimizing the overall massing and bulk. The
proposed two-story home meets the Residential Design Guidelines.
C. Residential Design Guidelines
2.3 Form and Mass
2.3.1 Design two story houses in predominantly one story neighborhoods to blend with
the smaller homes.
The proposed two-story home has been designed to blend into the one and two story
neighborhood through the use of reducing second story square footage, proposed
setbacks and architectural detailing.
2.3.2 Avoid structures with height and bulk at front and side setback lines which are
significantly greater than those of the adjacent homes.
The proposed home will be 25 feet 6 inches tall where 30 feet is allowed. The second
story is setback from the first story on the rear and front elevations. A portion of the
second story is setback from the first story on the side setbacks. The proposed setbacks
provide viszral space between the adjacent properties.
2.3.3 Design home entries that are sympathetic to others in the neighborhood.
The two-story home incorporates a deep front porch and a low eave line at the front entry
which complements the surrounding home entries.
2.3.4 Use roof forms and pitches that are similar to other houses in the neighborhood.
The project's roofform and 4:12 pitch are similar to surrounding homes. The lower pitch
reduces the visual massing.
3.3.2 Height and bulk at front and side setbacks
For neighborhoods dominated by one story homes, an effort should be made to limit the
house to one story in height or to accommodate second floor space within the roof form
as is common in the Craftsman Style.
The proposed Craftsman Style home incorporates the second story floor space within the
roofform of the front elevation therefore reduces the bulk visible from the street.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 8
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
D. Demolition of Existin Residence
On February 27, 2013, the Los Gatos Historic Preservation Committee made the
appropriate findings and recommended approval of the request to demolish the existing
pre-1941 residence at 18 Fillmer Avenue. See Exhibit 6 and 7 for additional information
regarding the proposed demolition. The existing house was originally built in 1938. The
Committee approved the request to remove the property from the Town's Historic
Resources Inventory.
E. Tree Impacts
Most of the trees on this site are in poor condition. The applicant is proposing to remove
19 protected trees and 2 unprotected fruit trees. The applicant provided an Arborist
Report, Exhibit 9, for the proposed project and the Town's consulting arborist, Deborah
Ellis, prepared a peer review of the applicants report, Exhibit 10. Town Code supports
removal and replacement of these trees based on their size, location, species and health.
The applicant will be required to comply with construction mitigation measures for tree
protection. The applicant proposes planting screening hedges along the property lines as
well as planting replacement trees throughout the site in order to meet the canopy
replacement requirement to mitigate the removed trees. The applicant has discussed the
privacy screening with adjacent neighbors.
The applicant is retaining three (3) existing trees on the property. The two protected tree
that will remain are a London Plane located in the public right of way and a mature
Western Red Cedar located to the left of the proposed front porch. The third tree that will
be retained is a Bronze Loquat that is located in the back yard, however, this tree is not a
protected tree".
F. CEOA Determination
The proposed project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State
Environmental Guidelines as adopted by the Town because the project consists of a new
single-family residence.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 300 feet of the property. The
applicant had a meeting to share their plans with neighbors. Staff has received no public
comments at this time.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 9
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The proposed residence is well designed, and would add to the character of the existing
neighborhood. While the proposed residence is larger than those in the immediate
neighborhood in terms of square footage and FAR the proposed architecture and site
design minimize the bulk and mass to a level that is compatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The proposed residence conforms to the maacimum allowed FAR and the
design is consistent with the Town's Residential Design Guidelines. The Planning
Commission will need to evaluate the shed versus gable dormer feature on the front
elevation.
B. Recommendation
Based on the summary above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval. If the Planning
Commission concurs with staffls recommendation, it should:
1. Find that the proposed project is categorically exempt, pursuant to Section 15303 of
the California Environmental Quality Act as adopted by the Town (Exhibit 2); and
2. As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a
single-family residence (Exhibit 2); and
3. Make the required finding as required by the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit
2); and
4. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code
for granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
5. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.40.O15B(1) of the Town
Code for granting reduced setbacks; and
6. Approve Architecture & Site Application S-13-007 with conditions contained in
Exhibit 3.
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Approve the application with additional or modified conditions of approval; or
2. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
3. Deny the application.
Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 10
18 Fillmer Avenue/S-13-007
May 8, 2013
Prepared by:
Erin M. Walters
Associate Planner
TC:EW:ct
e
Approved by
odd Capurso
Acting Director of Community Development
cc: Tony Jeans, P.O. Box 1518, Los Gatos, CA 95031
Marc VonKaenel and Dan Feece, 262 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030
N:\DEV PC REPORTS 2013\Fillmerl8. 5-08-13.docx
18 Fillmer Avenue
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION — May 8, 2013
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
18 Fillmer Avenue
Architecture and Site Application 5-13-007
Requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 single-family residence and to construct
a new residence and detached garage with reduced side and rear yard setbacks on property
zoned R-1:8. APN 532-35-029
PROPERTY OWNER : Mark VonKaenel and Dan Feece
APPLICANT: Tony Jeans
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15303 of the State Environmental
Guidelines as adopted by the Town.
Required findings for demolition of a single-family residence:
As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single family
residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance. The Historic
Preservation Committee recommended approval of the demolition.
3. The properly owner does not desire to maintain the structure as it exists.
4. The economic utility of the structure is poor and the proposed design and site layout
cannot be accomplished without demolishing the existing house.
Compliance with Residential Design Guidelines:
The project was reviewed by staff and the Consulting Architect and determined to be in
compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines.
CONSIDERATIONS:
Required considerations when reviewing structures with reduced setbacks:
Pursuant with Section 29.40.O15.B(1) of the Town Code, the considerations in review of a
request for a new detached garage with reduced side setback were all considered in reviewing
this project. The existing garage is in a similar location to the proposed garage, there are other
detached garages with reduced setbacks in the neighborhood and the proposed detached garage
will be consistent with prior approvals and compatible with the neighborhood. The proposed
detached garage was determined to not have significance by the Historic Preservation
Committee.
EXHi" 2
Considerations in review of Architecture & 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. The house is an
appropriate size for the property and an appropriate architectural style for the neighborhood, will
fit into the streetscape, and be compatible with the homes on surrounding properties.
N:DEV FINDMGS 2013 Fillmerl8 [A&S].doc
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL — May 8, 2013
18 Fillmer Avenue
Architecture and Site Application 5-13-007
Requesting approval to demolish an existing pre-1941 single-family residence and to
construct a new residence and detached garage vith reduced side and rear yard setbacks
on property zoned R-1:8. APN 532-35-029.
PROPERTY OWNER: Mark VonKaenel and Dan Feece
APPLICANT: Tony Jeans
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Divisiori
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, Deign Review Committee or the Planning Commission
depending on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION OF APPROVAL: The Architecture and Site application will expire two
years from the date of approval unless the approval is used before expiration. Section
29.20.335 defines what constitutes the use of an approval granted under the Zoning
Ordinance.
3. STORY POLES: T'he story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture and Site application.
4. EXTERIOR SIDING: Wood shingles shall be utilized on all exterior wall surfaces of both
the house and detached garage.
5. GENERAL: All existing trees shown to remain on the plan, and required to be planted are
specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: All recommendations of the Town's Consulting Arborist
shall be followed throughout all phases of construction. Refer to the report prepared by
Deborah Ellis dated February 24, 2013, for details. Tree protection specifications shall be
printed on the construction plans.
7. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree removal Permit shall be issued for the trees to be
removed. Replacement trees shall be planted based on the Canopy Replacement Table in
the Tree Protection Ordinance prior to final inspection.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing 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. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel
posts driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Refer to
the arborist reports, dated January 31, 2013, and February 24, 2013 for details. Include a
tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans.
10. REPLACEMENT TREES: The applicant shall work with the Town Arborist and
Community Development staff to determine the most appropriate replacement trees for the
site prior to issuance of a building permit.
EXH1Bd' 3
11. RECYCLING: 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 type and weight of
material, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Towns demolition inspection.
12. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless first approved by the Planning Division. The outdoor lighting plan can
be reviewed during building plan check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be
approved by the Planning Division prior to installation.
13. TOWN INDEMNITI': 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,
indemnify, 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
14. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with
the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.'
Building Division
15. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the
existing single family residence and garage and a Building Permit for the construction of
the new single family residence and detached garage. Separate permits are required for
electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
16. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
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.
17. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36".
18. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: 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 Quality 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.
19. 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.
20. 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 elevation 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 Walls
21. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence 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.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor.
c. Primary entrance shall be a 36-inch wide door including a 5'x5' level landing, no
more than 1-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level with an 18-inch
clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
22. TTTLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
23. 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 above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
24. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA
Phase II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within
10-feet of Chimney.
25. FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
26. 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.los at osca.gov/buildin.
27. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) 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 San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at
w«v.los at osca_gov/buildin.
28. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development — Planning Division: Erin Walters (408) 354-6867
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Trang Tu-Nguyen (408) 354-5236
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.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
29. ADVISORY COMMENTS: This new single family residence must be designed and
built in compliance with the 2010 California Residential Code and the Mandatory
Measures of the 2010 California Green Building Standards Code.
TO THE SATFISFATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
30. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. All work shall conform to the
applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job
related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed into storm
drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and/or the street
will not be allowed unless a special permit .is issued. The developer'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 Town performing the required
maintenance at the developer's expense.
31. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approvals 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
approval shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
32. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: The public improvements shall require a Construction
Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the
responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary encroachment permits
from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and
Electric (PG&E), SBC, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department
of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town
Engineering Department prior to releasing of any permit.
33. DRIVEWAY: The driveway shall conform to existing pavement on Fillmer Avenue shall
be constructed such that existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
34. INDEMNITY AGREEMENT: The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the
Town for existing and proposed non-standard improvements within the Town right of way.
This agreement shall include all private improvements in the right of way including, but not
limited to decorative pavers, fencing, mailboxes, etc. The agreement must be completed
and accepted by the Town Attorney prior to the issuance of permits.
35. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The developer or his 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 rejection of work that went on without inspection.
36. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of developer'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. 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. Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering
Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
37. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction.
38. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the
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.
39. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
40. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply
approval for final alignment or design of these facilities.
41. SIDEWALK/CURB IN-LIEU FEE: A curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee of $7,740 shall be paid
prior to issuance of a building permit. This fee is based on a 60 LF of curb at $57/LF and
270-square feet of 4.5-foot wide sidewalk at $16/SF in accordance with Town policy.
42. AS-BUILT PLANS: After completion of the construction of all work, the original plans
shall have all changes (change orders and field changes) clearly marked. The "as-built"
plans shall again be signed and "wet-stamped" by the civil engineer who prepared the
plans, attesting to the changes. The original "as-built" plans shall be review and approved
the Engineering Inspector. A Mylar and AutoCAD disk of the approved "as-built" plans
shall be provided to the Town before the Faithful Performance Security or Occupancy
Permit is released. The AutoCAD file shall include only the following information and
shall conform to the layer naming convention: a) Building Outline, Layer: BLDG-
OUTLINE; b) Driveway, Layer: DRIVEWAY; c) Retaining Wall, Layer: RETAINING
WALL; d) Swimming Pool, Layer: SWIMMING-POOL; e) Tennis Court, Layer: TENNIS-
COURT; fl Property Line, Layer: PROPERTY-LINE; g) Contours, Layer:
NEWCONTOUR. All as-built digital files must be on the same coordinate basis as the
Town's survey control network and shall be submitted in AutoCAD version 2000 or
higher.
43. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from
the Town Engineer.
44. 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. 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.
45. 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.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering 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 developer/owner 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.
46. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or
reused. Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
47. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: . Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Administrative. The Town shall not incur
any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the
property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional
operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a
backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
48. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's): The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and 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 placed 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 orders.
49. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects must incorporate the following measures to the
maximum extent practicable:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas where feasible.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
50. 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 ABAG Manual of Standards for
Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, 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.
51. 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 dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or right of way.
52. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor and
home owner 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.
53. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. Superintendence of construction shall be diligently
performed by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours.
The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed
unless a special permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless a special permit is
issued. The developer'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 Town performing the required maintenance at the developer's expense.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
54. AUTOMATIC FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM REQUIRED: An approved automatic fire
sprinkler system is required for the new residence, hydraulically designed per National Fire
Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13D. A State of California licensed fire
protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to the Fire Department for review and approval, prior to beginning work.
55. PREMISE IDENTIFICATION: Approved addresses shall be placed on all new buildings
so they are clearly visible and legible from the right of way. Numbers shall be a minimum
of four inches high and shall contrast with their background.
N:DEV CONDITNS 2013 F'illmerl8 [A&S].doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
T.H.I.S.
DESIGN & DEVELOPMENT
Box 1518, Los 6atos, CA 95031
Fax: 408.354.1823 Tel: 408.354:1863
April 7th, 2013
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95032
Attn: Erin: Plnnning Department
New Home at 18 Fillmer Ave.
5-- / G1U 7
f 0 : 20i3
TOVUN OF LOS GATOS
Neighborhood Compatibility: PLAiVN1NG DIVISION
The surrounding neighborhood comprises a mixture of single and two story homes on similar
sized lots just over 8,000 square ft. House sizes range from older 2,000 square ft homes to
newer homes over 2,800 sq ft. The homes nre n few ranch style and trnditionnl with newer
homes craftsmnn ond cottage style homes incorporating both hipped & gnbled roofs. Roof
pitches vary from 4:12 to 12:12 and the heights of homes vnry from 20ft - 28 ft. Exterior
materials vnry from wood siding to stucco. Composition shingle roofs are predominant. At the
recommendation of the Town Consulting Architect we have reduced the 18" height from 27'3"
to 25'9". Taller homes [up to 30'] exist on the street, but not in the immedinte neighborhood.
Architecture:
We changed our original design and a Craftsman is now proposed for this property. The 4:12
pitch shingled roof, siding, stucco and shingle are all common for this architecture, but on the
recommendQtion of the Consulting Architect we are proposing shingle throughout. The large
front porch is consistent with this design. A shed dormer wns suggested in lieu of the front
gable, but we feel strongly that a gable is more consistent with the design of the rest of the
house and is more compatible with other homes on the street in their extensive use of gables.
Driveway, Grading & rainage: ,
The Grading nnd Drainage Plnn shows no grnding nnd there will be only minor excnvntion for a
crawlspace. There is no anticipated grade chnnge proposed - just providing continued drainage
to the street. The balnnce of the grnding is minimal and could be left on site without changing
the natural drainage pattern of the site. Dissipaters nnd spinsh-blocks will be used. The
driveway will be depressed a few inches below the property line fence so there will be no impact
on neighboring properties. The street is unimproved with no curb, gutter and sidewalk.
Trees and Landscaping:
Several Inrger trees exist [Acacia and Pine] on the lot, but none have any significance. We have
talked with mnny neighbors nnd plan to remove most of them. 24" box screening shrubs will be
placed olong the driveway, and further discussions with neighbors will determine the species.
Three 36" box specimen trees will be planted and three Property line screen trees. A small
amount of drought tolerant vegetation will be incorporated into the final project design.
Yours truly,
T.H.I.S. Design & Development
per: A. T. Jeans EXHIBtT - . 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
18, FILLMER`AVE. = PROJECT DATA
EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/
CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED
Zoning district R-1:8 same -
Lnnd use single family residence -
General Plan Designation low density residential same -
Lot size (sg. ft.) 8400 same 8,000 sq. ft. minimum
Exterior materials:
siding wood shingle -
trim painted wood -
windows wood casement -
roofing comp roof -
Building floor area:
first floor 1,050 1,550 -
second floor n/a 1,158 -
total 17oor area 1,050 2,708
garage 7,70 552
Setbacks (f1.):
front 25 25 feet minimum
rear 54 ft.-6 in to house 20 feet minimum
4 ft to detached garage
Icit side 8 ft to house 8 feet minimum
4 ft to detached garage
right side 18 ft- 1 in. 8 feet minimum
Maximum lteiglet (Jt.) 30 feet maximum
25 ft.-9 in. above grade
Buildi rg coverage (%) 31% 40% maximum
Floor Area Ratio (%)
house 2708 s.f. (32%) 2712 sq. ft. maximum
32.3%
garage 552 s.f. 760 sq. ft. maximum
Pnrking 2 same two spaces minimum
Tree Xe novals 22 trees (2 are nut/fruit) canopy replacement
N:DEV ERIN WIARCHITECTURE AND SITE FILLMERIB FILLMERIB-SFRDATA.DOC
EXHIBlT 5
Th is Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
t Consulting Engineers, Inc.
Structural Anaiysis & Design
7007 Realm Drive #B-3
San Jose, CA 95119
November 16, 2012
Mr. Tony Jeans
THIS Design and Construction
P.O. Box 1518
Los Gatos, Ca
Re: Sfructural Evaluation of
18 Fil(mer Ave
Los Gatos, CA
Dear Mr. Jeans:
tel 408-229-8155
fax 408-229-8157
At your request, we visited the residence referenced above on Novernber
15, 2012 for the purpose af performing a cursory review of its structural elements.._.
We were requested to evaluate its'present cond'ition and to develop an opinion as`to
the practicality of utiiizing the exisfing structure in a bui(ding renovation ancl upgrade
to current Code conformance. .
FINDINGS:
The subject building is a one-story wood-framed, single-family residence.
focated on a rectangular shaped lot. Adjacent to the house is a driveway`that leads
to a detached garage in the back. The building was apparently constructed in the
late 1930's.
The building has a raised floor wifh 2x10 joists at 16" on-center with one line '
of girder that runs left to right at:the center of the building. The roof is supported by
field trusses. spaced 2 feet on-center. Both floor and roof truss span' from front to
back. The exterior wafls are covered 6y wood sidings that are deteriorated ;and
water= damaged.
The inside plaster of the exterior walls show long cracks extending from: top
to bottom especiafly at the rear and sides of the house, 1Ne also observed fhat all
the ceiling finishes have wide cracks more than 1/8 of an inch spanning from wall to
wa(L There are aiso marks of waier leak on the ceilings baseci on the' s#ains_ in fhe
two rear bedroori s. Almost all of the interior walls have (ongitudinal -and diagonal
cracks with the walls adjacent to the brick fireplace having multip(e cracks wide'ttian
1/8".
We naticed thai tl e girder suppoi ing ttze fl or jois have su st ntially settled
going to the center of the building which might have caused the uneven level of the
ftoor with the fireplace as the lowest point. It was afso observed that the floor was
very bouncy. A11 of the rooms have multiple water stains on the floors. The laundry
room's entire floor has particularly rotted.
i o t' 3 H 1T 6
The building has a battered concrete foundation but there was no evidence
on the presence of anchor bolts in the mudsill. There are also signs of.dry-rot in fhe
rim at the rear of the house where a deteriorated wood deck is attached.
CONCLUSIONS:
The current structural condition of the building is seriousfy deficient
compared ta current sfandards and Codes. The wide and extensive cracks n the
walfs and ceilings were probabfy caused by the lack of lateral bracing system and
uneven sett(ement of the foundation. Furthermore, the floor has losf,it servicea6iCity
and has te bs repluced com letply. The ab ence of mudsil! anch bolis also pose
big risk on the structural integrity of the structure in future seismic events.
Based on the discussions above, it is concluded that to renovate and
upgrade this building to current Code conformance and to a quality consistent with
buildings in the area, reconstruction of the foundation and lateral bracing systems as
weli as framing improvements would be required. Other non-sfructuraJ .upgrades
would also need to be addressed. In our opinion, it does not seem reasonable fhat
the existing building be salvaged or utilized in the property improVements currently
being considered.
LIMITATIONS:
The information and opinions contained herein are based upon the limited
inuest gatic n descri ed at the beginnin; of this re.rt_ !n arranties a e exnressed
or implied regarding the existence of other unknown conditions nof specifically
addressed. Our work is in accordance with generally accepted engineering
standards and is not intended to be relied upon or transferred to individuals other
than the addressee: Should information or conditions become known which differ
from the discussion herein, they may alter the opinions or concfusions of the
undersigned. .
We trust the above discussion wil) be of help in evaluating the subject
building. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further assistance, please do
not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
RC Consulting Engineers, I
Jovie('al eng, P.E.
Project Engineer
ti
Q
No. C 46955
Exp, 09-30-13
9T IV11.
F OF C A-FO
3 of
Reviewe By:
z /
m
Romeo C. Cabalar, P.E.
Principal Consulting Engineer
18 F[LhtER AVG I'ovember'12
Front ar.d Right Elevations
s f ,^ ,, ': , ':.;, 3 ,
x ; : ' Ki, ,F _ :S..eix,y '
T " ,;r
e rg :
Y 4t 't« '
y . .'.
wrS _. .s ' E hFC ` \ . ' ,4'em'
P \ .- _' .,
j ' ' Ir S. y`
iAr ,'6;,.z , „. t
b.,'F .^+.
s_
f ai '.
i° .:
N. .-..,,, • :
1
t } -- -••..... - ..f -» ' --ri a:,'g"'{
y a !y
Fa,"v• .. -.-.. . R___ ,
r T'' f*-al.,
I , ` Ly, "
y.., , - ^ ,t °' ;
w ' ti1'.!
i +
E , .
T- _ } ' .,5 h
1
tir .
t .
v., -. .• :'-y'i_: - ?`'- ' . j ». '-
i.-+i
a
G ',
k wr ,e,,, .'
a .. . .. . , .. ,r_. .' 1:a , iE Yi
w:.._ "•,+k'
P,, "^ '''r" .. ••
r Y.
6+..:__.":`_. -'a+s.T-_r ws..:-. ..1. r.. , ... ..._
I 1.? -°F q jR f"
V' _ 4 ..
x. \ Y i,„ Jr
a - - ._r
t'
r.
r' ... _ . ' . _
R
Y .r
y., '"i'S., ` \ \` " 1--"A
4 " :. w. , v ,
qs ..; '`
a,- ----- { r', . r _
7 _
x,,. : -..`— .. - 5 .
lAi
a;' _
v ` r .
f ,' '
q- J
S , =
s..`<, , ', .> - -
s _ <.. • .,, ,
F„ ::`
r. ' _ '
µ':, . .-
a ' r,: `- ',T„d '
g as-`- . .. . ..^
s,
1H F[LMER AVE
Rear Elevation
a -
f ' .
Novertiber'12
i
Y"
a
F ; '.
t-: _ .
i A,ti
yX'
1
y
t
yt
t''` _' 4,
n+
i:, : x '.:' -it '
c' . - " /„ -'
4
Y. > ,
ILMER AVE November'12
fnterior and Garage
1 _ . -t
y '
f
1'. 9
M " :
q. . y;
yl . . , ,:` 1
t
3- . ° ;
y
F : • '- . . f'A
r k
r`.' - ;. j^ , "i,y . h "y,,,,
r .
s
r .:
e ;yq . F
ew : ^`.h
t .. ,`
F '
R •.
F ' _ ' ` .. ~ . '' ' ,,,n l
P - , +.° - . . '''
a...' z, .;
k
w'.,
F- ,"-.' ; ` '` *i;,b $j ,'°;. .r '. , ;^ y;- r.+j
3 r r , .. " : z . '
y . • _ r ' . . ns.:., -
r, , '+V"' e..
3, ,,'+
x, ', "
1 . .. ' .Y b:. H Y5 I ' ".5 ' YX
w5 t t t' d" ... ... s ,
3 ,°• n r
c-E
r i Y f p: ;*-'"` '
K ° +.i _. .i d4 `
y Yi c-' '` .. p4 .,a± ¢
1
Y`}l *-' F f ' :; •aw. 9' \ 4:^iit '
W. f 'i'YY -Y''` H"' F.y ., , . i; t . .'d
t , i ICs.ra1F.,_...I:; xttJ...vl: _ ..*. 7k 'u.EA . _ .
4 ' _ '
R "3. . jh_. h ' ..,a
k l _ r . t
kt-. ^•lyl: 5 `".' x "'
t r ^T.,
Y„ +J .,. . " 7 a'
g T Jr . ' .. .
F," „ _ .. - :#
yF .•'"'` _. - .
s
w.*+ea'9:j,.,. - _ __' -._..s..•3
W;yi'P`F : T,'. . _ -- __. `--'_ i`_
6 _ : ..
i.
y ' F:. „"`s '_ ._ € .-^' ,;
i'.
x '
ri-: ,. ` "",.s .:
1 -'a `,
a , .
r r
i ... .., . . r' "
l'
s.....
A ..
i_
x»— ~ _____ - —
This Page
Intentionally
I.eft Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 ast Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6872
SUMMARY MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR FEBRUARY 27, 2013, HELD IN THE
LOS GATOS ADULT RECREATION CENTER, 208 E. MAIN STREET, ROOM 208, LOS
GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4:00 P.M. by Chair Kathryn Janoff.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Bob Cowan, Kathryn Janoff, Tom O'Donnell, Len Pacheco
Members Absent: Kendra Burch
Staff Present: Suzanne Avila, Senior Planner
Others present: Tony Jeans, Florian Barth, Bernard Fix
VERBAL COMMUNICATIONS - None
ITEM 1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of January 23, 2013
Kathryn Janoff clarifed that her comment was that there was a lack of findings (page 2). Tom
O'Donnell made a motion to approve the minutes of January 23, 2013, with that clarification.
The motion was seconded by Len Pacheco and passed unanimously.
Minutes of February 12, 2013
Bob Cowan clarified that his comment on 115 N. Santa Cruz Avenue was that he wanted to reach
a conclusion on the matter that evening. Tom O'Donnell made a motion to approve the minutes
as amended. The motion was seconded by Len Pacheco and passed unanimously.
ITEM 2 ELECTION OF VICE-CHAIR
Bob Cotivan made a motion to elect Tom O'Donnell as Vice-Chair. The motion vas seconded by
Len Pacheco and passed unanimously.
ITEM 3 18 FILLMER AVENUE
Tony Jeans was present for this item.
EXHfBiT 7
Historic Preservation Committee
February 27, 2013
Page 2 of S
Tony Jeans commented that the plans for the replacement structure are being revised to a
Craftsman style with the second story set into the roof.
Bob Cotivan commented that the Committee vas supportive of demolition based on the condition
of the structure. He asked if the Building Official had reviewed the structural report.
Kathryn Janoff commented that she spent some time at the library researching to see if there was
any information on the property, and had not found anything indicating that the property had any
historic persons or events associated with it.
Bob Cowan commented that there was sufficient information on the structural integrity of the
house. He made a motion to recommend approval of the demolition of the structure, making the
required findings that the building is not associated with any events of historic significance, there
are no distinctive characteristics, and the structural report supports the proposed demolition. The
motion was seconded by Tom O'Donnell and passed unanimously.
ITEM 4 17265 VEDGEWOOD AV nTU — The applicant vas not present, so the item
was delayed to the end of the meeting.
ITEM SA 303 UNIVERSITY AV I'UE
Florian Barth as present for this item representing Fox Creek Fund.
Florian Barth commented that the intent is to preserve the building and to add to its life through
replacement of siding as needed and replacement of the windows. The new windows will be
replicas of the existing historic windows, the only difference being they will be double paned
rather than single pane windows. Everything will be retained and/or updated. There are some
aluminum frame windows on the rear of the building that will be replaced with the same window
style that is on the front elevation facing University Avenue.
Bob Cotivan commented that he is delighted with the proposal. The only issue he has is the use of
wrought iron for the staircase railings. Florian Bartlz said he is open to suggestions on the type
of hand rail.
Len Pacheco commented that wood railings would be more appropriate. He commented that it is
great that the building is being redone. He asked about the existing sliders on the rear. Florian
Barth said the slider will be replaced with French doors with horizontal lites. All of the windo vs
and doors vill be wood framed.
Historic Preservation Committee
February 27, 2013
Page 3 of S
Len Pacheco asked about the glass door. Florian Barth clarified that all windows and doors will
be replaced with the same style as the openings on the front elevation.
Len Pacheco commented that the original windows that are one-over-one should be replaced
with like-style windows.
Bob Cotivan commented that the stairs are concrete and he does not see how a wood railing could
be attached.
Len Pacheco commented that a railing could possibly be attached to the stone caps. A simple
style would be best. The balcony could have a simple wood railing.
Bob Cotivan commented that the window sills may need to be milled separately. The sills need to
be heavy.
Committee consensus was that the concept can be approved and the details of the railings for the
front steps and balcony should be reviewed once a concept is decided on. Staff will forward the
details to the Committee for review.
IT M SB 256 BACHMAN AVENUE
Bob Cowan recused himself from this item as he lives vithin 500 feet of the property.
Bernard Fix was present for this item.
Bernard Fix commented that his wife inherited the house from her parents.
Len Pacheco asked if the upstairs unit can continue to be accessed by the outside staircase, and if
the unit has not been occupied for a period of time, whether that changes the occupancy (Is it still
a legal two-unit building and is the exterior stair access still allowed?).
Len Pacheco commented that the replacement siding should be identical to the original siding.
Bernard Fix clarified that the base around the house, and the siding on the corners, has been
replaced.
Len Pacheco commented that there are companies that can replicate siding, such as Beaver
Lumber in Hollister.
II .. •
I
Historic Preservation Committee
February 27, 2013
Page 4 of
Kathryn Janoff commented that the new siding is different than the oriainal; it is slightly
narro ver.
Tom 0'Donnell commented that the Committee needs the answers to the questions on the stairs
and siding replacement before taking an action.
The Committee a reed to hold a special meeting to address this item, pending clarification on the
above issues.
y
Bernard Fix commented that the doors have a lot of glass and that they e:cperienced a break-in.
He asked if it would be appropriate to replace with new° doors that have less glass.
Tom O'Donnell suggested consulting vith someone, such as an architect, ho kno vs the Tow71
and the applicable rules.
ITEM 4 17265 «'EDG WOOD AV NUE
Bob Cotit an commented that this particular house does not have historic significance. Tom
O'Donnell a reed.
Len Pacheco commented that the structural report vas not complete, although the house does
appear to be in poor condition.
Kathryn Janoff expressed a concern about approving something vith inadequate support. Len
Pacheco concurred, stating that he would like to treat all applicants fairly.
Kathfyn Janoff commented that she did some research and was not able to find any information
on the property.
Tom O'Donnell commented that the photos document that the house is in poor condition. It does
not appear that there is anythinQ vorth saving.
Bob Cox-an made a motion to remove the property from the To vn's Historic Resources
Inventory based on the physical evidence (photographs) and the lack of information showing any
historic value. The motion •as seconded by Tom O'Donnell and passed unanimously.
Historic Preservation Committee
February 27, 2013
Page S of S
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting vas adjourned at 5:15 pm. The next regular meeting is scheduled for March 27,
2013, at 4:00 p.m.
Prepared by:
7 1-
Suzanne Avila, AICP
Senior Planner
Approved by:
athryn Janoff
Chair
N:1DEV HISTORIC PRESERVATIOM,F{PCminutes12017 F{PCminu[es0.2713.doc
Tlzis Page
Intentionc lly
Left Blank
CANNON
DESICN
GROUP
April ?., 2013
Ms. Erin tUilters
Communiry Development Departmenc
Town of Los Gacos
110 E. Main $treet
Los Gatos, C:.A 95031
RE: 18 Fillmer Avenue
ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URf3AN DESIGN
i ECEI ED
s - l3 -a %
2 2013
TOWN OF LOS GAiO
PLANNWG D6VI ION
Dear Erin:
I review d the dra vings, aiid visited die sice. My co nments and recommendarions are as follu vs:
Neighborhood Context
7he site is located on a street of relari ely small scale homes. l Sost are one-story in height or wich onlv parti:il second
stories> expressed by small dormers on the front elevatiwis. One nearby house has a larger second Aoar vith the sp:uc
largely embedded in the rouf at the front of the house and t:iller side yard end valls. Photos of the sice and surroundin
nzigliborhood are shown on the follow-ing page.
i00 LARKSPUR LA(v'DI:VG CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LAKhSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL: "-15.331.3-9
CDGPL:N@PACI3FLLNET
ii1'I L7 O
Iti t iilm r.\cenuc
Drsikni Itc ic t:c mmctit>
pnl 2, 2013 P:;e 2
C:1\ti0 DESIGN GROUP i00 L IRKSPUR LA VDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
i
ne immec _., ,<, iVearby house t; i„ _, i,
t
v ; u:
18 f illmcr ,\ccnuc
Uesi;n Rc ic c (:umntcnts
pril 2. 2(11.1 Pa;r 3
issues and Concerns
The ch:llenge is to design to currenc home owner needs vithin the contest of the sm.ller nearby homes. There will be a
alue judgement here, but my view is that the proposed house can be a bit bigger han the others nearby so long as he
Fillmer Avenue mass and design is developed with sympachy to the size and scale of che neighborhood. In he case of this
design, most of the estra floor space is positioned to the rear oE the house, and vill not materially impact the streetscape.
The main issues, in my judgment, are the following:
1. The floor to ceiling heights are relatively large on both the first and second floor. These heights vould not be out
of place on man}• sites, and would probably not be perceptible in many neighborhoods. In this neighborhood, howe•er,
thev are likelv to be more noticeable.
2. The second Aoor front-facin gable dormer is well proportioned o the house, and rypical of he archi ec ural style.
However, in this neighborhood, I believe that ic would tend to inake che front elevation seem visually taller than most of
the nearby homes.
3. The use of large amouncs of stucco wall surfaces on rhe side and rear elevations is not rypical of che archicectural
sn le, and cheapens the overall look of the house. It is also inconsistent vith the Town's Residential Design Guidelines:
3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
Buildi ig rrussirzg, roofPitd es, m tteriaG, u iridow types and proportions, de>ign features (e.g., roo, fdornten), r ad
ot{er arc{itecta ral fe ttures shou/l be coruiste zt wit6i t{ie traclitiorzs of tfie selecte l style.
Carry wall materials. tuir dnw types ared arc/ritecta r tl details arorirtd all cides nf the l ouse. Avnid side rzrtd rear
elevations th rt are n:arke lly di•rent frorn the, front elev rtion.
C-1NNON DE51GN GROUP '00 LARKSPUK L.ANDI\G CIhCLE . SUITE 199 . L;\RKSPUR . CA . 94939
The proposed house is well designed for che mosc part, and while it is larger than some of the nearby homes, its overall
buildiuK fourprint is not rnarked(y different than t6usr nearby (s e secund floor plan scr in air phoro belo v).
IB l illmrr:cnuc
llrsi m Rc icv Cummcnts
pnl 2. 2013 l';c 4
Gable dormer increases
9'-1" floor-to-ceiling
height increases
overail height
10'-1" floor-to-ceiling
height increases
overall height
Front elevaCion issues
Gable dormer incre
visual height of second
m„
I . :T -
ul ! ` _ _
I,u
t u' I `
a_.
a
s
f". .. =1
l/ /1 ;
Stucco wall surfaces cheapens look of the house
and is inconsistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2
Same comment on rear and left side elevations
Side elevation issues
CANNON UESIGN GROUP i00 LARKSPUR LANDING GRCLE . SUITE 199 . L;iRKSPUR . CA . 94939
1R Fillm•r.lccnuc
llrsik t ficric c Ci,tntncnt>
pril 2, 2(1 t:j l'a;c 5
Recommendations
i. Reducc the ftour-to-c iling hcights.
2. Utilize a shed dormer on the front elevation rather chan the proposed gable dormer.
Utilize shed dormer instead
of gable dormer to reduce
visuai heiaht of second floor
3. Utilize shingles on all exterior wall surfaces.
Utilize shed dormer instead
of gable dormer to reduce
visual height of second floor
Reduce 9'-1"
floor-to-ceiling
height
Not shown on
thrs diagram
Reduce 10'-1 "
floor-to-ceiling
height
Not shown on
ihis diagram
Erin, please lec me know if y-ou ha•e any specific quescions or need any other specific issues addressed.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
President
CANNO! DESIGN GROUP 700 L.\RKSPUR LANDIIG CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . L,\RKSPUR . CA . J4939
Utilize shingles on all wall surfaces
Tree Inventory and Arborist's Report
18 Fillmer Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared for:
Tony Jeans
and
T.H.I.S. Design
January 31, 2013
Prepared By:
Richard Gessner
Registered Consulting Arborist RO #496
Board Certified MasterArborist WE-4341B
Certified Tree Risk Assessor #904
Monarch 1Consulting Arborists LLC
P.O. Box 1070
Felton, CA 95018
831. 331. 8982
OCopyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2013.
F#1$" r
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Table of Contents
Summary...........................................................................................1
Introduction......................................................................................1
Background...................................................................................................1
Assignment....................................................................................................1
Limits of the assignment .............................................................................. y
Purpose and use of the report .....................................................................1
Observations....................................................................................2
Analysis............................................................................................2
Discussion........................................................................................3
TreeInventorY ................................................................................................3
ConditionRating ............................................................................................4
Suitability for Preservation ...........................................................................5
ImpactLevel ...................................................................................................6
TreeProtection ..............................................................................................7
CriticalRoot Zone .........................................................................................8
Conclusion......................................................................................10
Recommendations.........................................................................10
Bibliography...................................................................................12
Glossaryof Terms ..........................................................................13
Appendix A: Tree Table ..................................................................15
Appendix B: Tree Inventory Map ...................................................17
Appendix C: Photographs .............................................................18
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
J
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 FillmerAvenue, Los Gatos, CA95030 January 31, 2013
Ci: Approaching the site from the west ...................................................18
C2: Western red cedar number 531 ...........................................................19
C3; Western red cedar number 532 ...........................................................20
C4: Aleppo pines 535 and 536 ....................................................................2i
C5: Silver acacia number 537 ....................................................................22
C6: Black acacia number 534 ....................................................................23
C7: Monterey pine number 533 ..................................................................24
C8: Privet numbers 547, 549, and 550 .......................................................25
Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines ......................................26
Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist ................................26
Tree Protection Zones and Fencing ..........................................................26
Monitoring....................................................................................................26
Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone ..........................................26
RoofPruning ...............................................................................................26
Boringor Tunneling ....................................................................................27
Timing...........................................................................................................27
Tree Pruning and Removal Operations .....................................................27
Tree Protection Signs .................................................................................27
Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ..............................................28
E1: English ...................................................................................................28
E2: Spanish ..................................................................................................29
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions ..............30
Certification of Performance .........................................................31
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Summary
The property located at 18 Fillmer Avenue in Los Gatos has 25 trees comprised of 17 different
species considered protected by the Town of Los Gatos. Fifteen trees are in good overall
condition, four fair, and six poor. Seventeen trees are poorly suited for preservation and the
proposed development project will highly impact fifteen trees. Trees that are to be retained
during the development project can be protected by installing tree protection fencing. Many of
the trees are volunteers growing around the perimeter of the property and all the trees should be
evaluated for removal if necessary.
Introduction
Background
I was asked by Tony Jeans of T.H.I.S. Design to provide a tree inventory and arborist's report for
the proposed project at 18 Fillmer Avenue. I agreed to assess the trees and provide a report with
my findings and recommendations.
Assignment
Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area. The
assessment is to include the species, size, condition (health and structure), suitability for
preservation, and impact that the project will have on the trees.
Provide tree protection zone distances and critical root zone distances along with requirements
for preservation during pre-construction, construction, and post construction care.
Limits of the assignment
The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on
January 22, 2013.
No construction, grading and drainage, or civil plans were provided, only the conceptual
architectural design.
No aerial inspections, root collar excavations, or load tests were performed and no decay
detection devices were used.
No tree risk assessments were performed.
Purpose and use of the report
The report is intended to identify all the trees within the development area that could be affected
by the project and document their current condition. The report is to be used as a reference for
protecting the trees to be retained and help guide decisions for removal.
Richard Gessner -. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
J
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Filimer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Observations
January 31, 2013
The property is located on the south side of Fillmer Avenue in Los Gatos and contains two
structures, the home and garage. There are four mature trees growing throughout the site, one
Monterey pine Pinus radiata, two western red cedar Thuja plicata, one black acacia Acacia
melanoxylon, and one silver acacia Acacia dealbata. The other trees are mostly small
ornamentals or volunteers that have grown around the perimeter of the properiy with the majority
being privet Ligustrum lucidum. See "Appendix A: Tree Table" for tree detail
a :
Analysis
o. ::
No biological or environmental testing was performed for this assignment.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 2
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
The photo below is of the driveway entrance with western red cedar number 532 on the
left and Monterey pine number 533 to the right.
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Discussion
Tree inventory
January 31, 2013
The tree inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos. The Town of Los Gatos
protects all trees with a trunk diameter greater than (4) four inches at (36) thirty six inches above
grade on vacant or underdeveloped lots.
Trunk diameters were measured with a Pro TapeTM Diameter Tape, made by Spencer Products
Company, USA or a Biltmore stick and heights were measured using a Nikon Forestry SSO laser
range finder. All crown radii were measured by walking off the distance from the base of the
tree to the outer most leaf area estimated on my average foot per step, which is roughly two feet.
The site contains 25 trees greater than four inches in diameter at 3 above grade and 18 different
species (Appendix A and B). All trees have aluminum number tags affixed to them for on-site
identification.
The chart below show the species and their quantity inventoried.
Species
London plane (Platanus `x' acerFolia)
western red cedar (Thuja plicata)
Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)
back acacia (Acacia melanoxylon)
Aleppo pine (Pinus halapensis)
silver acacia (Acacia dealbata)
Englsih walnut (Juglans regia)
Liquidambar (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Chinese pistache (Pistachia chinensis)
Douglas-fir (Psudotsuga menziesii)
Almond (Prunus dulcis)
Japanese maple (Acer palmatum)
purple leaf plum (Prunus cerasifera)
bronze loquat (Eriobotrya japonica)
Toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)
Privet (Ligustrum lucidum)
Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia)
Plum (Prunus sp.)
Number
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
0 1 2 3 4 5
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Condition Rating
January 31, 2013
Tree condition is based on a scale of good, fair, and poor and is calculated using the analysis of
condition factors provided in the Cnride for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition, 2000.
A tree's condition percentage is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five
aspects: Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. Each aspect is rated using the
following point scale:
4= No apparent problems
3= Minor problems
2= Major problems
1= Extreme problems
Tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches are rated on both health and structure whereas twigs and
foliage are based solely on health (ISA, 2000). The points are totaled for each tree and converted
to a percentage.
The following scale defines the condition rating from the "condition" percentages:
Good = 90%-100%
Fair = 75%-89%
Poor = > 74%
Many of the trees that are considered to be in good condition are young volunteers that have not
developed health or structural problems yet. For example most of the privet are considered to be
in good condition.
The chart below show the number of trees and their relative condition.
Condition
Good
Fai r
Poor
Number of Trees
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC 3monarcharborist.com 4
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
0 3 6 9 12 15
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Suitability for Preservation
January 31, 2013
A tree's suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species
characteristics, and longevity using a scale of good, fair, or poor. The following list defines the
rating scale:
Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity.
Fair = Trees with moderate health or structural defects that can be mitigated through treatment.
Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and will
continue to decline, or longevity and locations are undesirable for the future site use.
Because many of the trees are volunteers and are located around the perimeter of the property I
considered them poorly suited for preservation. Although some trees may be in good overall
condition like Aleppo pines 535 and 536 I considered them poorly suited for the future use of the
site. Many trees like the pines, privets, and Douglas-fir are boundary trees and will become
either a nuisance or hazardous to the neighboring properties if left to grow (Appendix C).
The large Monterey pine number 533 is at the corner of the driveway, along the property
boundary. Although this tree is large I do not think it is suitable to any new site use.
Cedar number 532 is also a large specimen but the multiple stem structure is undesirable and can
lead to large stem failure. I also believe this tree is not suitable for preservation.
The chart below show the number of trees and their relative suitability.
Suitability for Preservation
Good
Fai r
Poor
20
Number of Trees
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
0 4 8 12 16
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Impact Level
January 31, 2013
Impact level defines how a tree may be influenced by construction activity and proximity to the
tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating:
Low = The construction activity will have little impact on the tree.
Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be
taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems.
High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other
actions must be taken for the tree to remain.
I arrived at the construction impact ratings based on the site sketch that was provided to me with
the conceptual footprint of the buildings and driveways. Trees that will be highly impacted
should be removed and those that can be preserved or are desirable to retain should be protected.
Some trees may only be moderately influenced by the development but may not suitable to be
retained. Future site use and landscape design should help determine which trees can be retained
and incorparated into the future use of the site.
Any driveway construction would require the removal of roots from the two largest trees, red
cedar number 532 and Monterey pine number 533. Removal of roots close to the main stems of
these trees could predispose them to failure in the future.
The chart below show the number of trees that will be influenced by the proposed
project.
Impact Rating
High
Moderate
Low
Number of Trees
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC 3monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
0 3 6 9 12 15
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Tree Protection
January 31, 2013
Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots, stem, or scaffold branches
from heavy equipment (Appendix D). Two zones of protection need to be determined to protect
the trees health and structure, which are the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and the Critical Root
Zone (CRZ).
The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to
minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species
tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny and Clark, 1998). The
species tolerance will be defined as good, moderate, or poor, and the age will be identified as
young, mature, or over-mature. Once these parameters are determined, the radial distances from
the trunk that should be protected is calculated using the established table. As a general rule for
the site I would base the TPZ on a distance of one foot per inch trunk diameter. Most of the trees
are moderately tolerant of construction influences and only the cedar and Monterey pine are
mature.
Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be
accomplished by wrapping the main stems with straw wattle (Figure 2). The wattle will create a
porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath.
Drip Line
TPZ
Drip Line
traw Wattle
Figure 1: The image above depicts
Figure 2: The image above depicts
the drip line, CRZ and TPZ.
wrapping the trunk with straw
wattle.
Images OCopyright - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2013.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC 3monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
Wrap trunks with straw wattle up to 6 feet
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Filimer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Critical Root Zone
January 31, 2013
The critical root zone (CRZ) is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located
that provide stability and uptake of water and nutrients required for the tree's survival. The CRZ
is the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching or root cutting can occur and will be
defined by the trunk diameter as a distance of three times the DBH in feet, and preferably, five
times (Smiley, Fraedrich and Hendrickson, 2007). For example if the tree is two feet in diameter,
the minimum CRZ distance would be six feet from the stem on one side of the tree.
Encroachment into the critical root zone should be avoided and protection measures will need to
be implemented to help prevent damage within the CRZ. It may be possible to bridge with
mulch or 4 x 4 timbers and plywood or trench plate to create a working platform inside the CRZ.
Preferred
Critical Root Zone (CRZ) = 5 times the
trunk diameter for California oak trees.
Figure 3: The image above depicts the preferred Critical Root Zone distance.
Image OCopyright - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2013.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC?monarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Bridging with mulch
January 31, 2013
Because the cedar is close to the proposed construction and on the property boundary the CRZ
and the TPZ may be the same distance in these instances. It may be impractical to fence off the
TPZ near the construction because there will be limited room to work in the vicinity of the tree.
Placing mulch and plywood or steel road plates over the CRZ/TPZ will create a work platform
that can be used to help protect the roots from compaction.
steel trench plate or 3/4
inch plywood /
Figure 4: The image above depicts bridging for a work platform under the trees.
Image OCopyright - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2013.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickQmonarcharborist.com
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
4x4 timbers or railroad ties.
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Conclusion
January 31, 2013
The property located at 18 Fillmer Avenue has 25 trees comprised of 17 different species which
are considered protected by the Town of Los Gatos ordinance. Fifteen trees are in good overall
condition, four fair, and six poor. Seventeen trees are poorly suited for preservation because they
are either not suitable for the future use of the site or have structural conditions that are
undesirable. The proposed development project will highly impact fifteen trees which will need
to be removed and the remaining ten trees can be protected by placing fencing at either the
critical root zone distance of five times the trunk diameter or the tree protection zone of one foot
per inch of trunk diameter. Many of trees are volunteers growing around the perimeter of the
property and all the trees should be evaluated for removal if necessary.
Recommendations
Priority 1
Protect trees to be retained.
Wrap the trunks with straw wattle.
Place tree protection fencing at a minimum radius of lone foot per inch trunk diameter.
Place tree protection signs on the fencing (Appendix E).
Have a meeting with construction personnel about the tree protection guidelines.
Protect trees 531, 547, 548, 549, 550 and 530 as a group by fencing of the entire northeast corner
of the property.
Priority 2
Obtain a tree removal permit from the Town of Los Gatos prior to any tree removal and then
remove all undesirable trees on site.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 10
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Post Construction
Plant only trees or shrubs with compatible watering requirements and look for drought tolerant
landscape material. Plant compatible trees and shrubs within the same irrigation zones
hydrozones) to help minimize water use and reduce plant pest problems.
Use bubbler or drip type irrigation where possible and install controllers that use climate
conditions to calibrate watering times and use (these are called ET controllers or Smart
controllers).
Do not install or trench for permanent irrigation within the tree protection zones. Install
temporary irrigation along the surface and burry under 2-4 inches of mulch where necessary.
Water plants more frequently for shorter periods of time to help reduce run-off and over
watering.
Establish a comprehensive plant health care system with your landscape contractor or
professional tree care company.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 11
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
S
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Bibliography
ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print.
ISA. Glossary ofArboricultural Terms. Champaign: International Society ofArboriculture, 2011.
Print.
Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of
trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture,
1998. Print.
Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tree Risk Management. 2nd ed.
Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 12
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 FillmerAvenue, Los Gatos, CA95030 January 31, 2013
Glossary of Terms
Aerial inspections: Assessment of the crown of a tree by climbing within the crown or by the
use of an elevating work platform, often to examine a particular defect, e.g. cavity or hollow.
Biltmore stick: A graduated rule used by timber estimators in determining tree diameters.
Critical root zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where the majority of roots are located and
that provide stability as well as uptake water and minerals. CRZ determination is sometimes
based on the drip line or multiple of DBH, but because root growth is often asymmetric due to
site conditions, on-site investigation is preferred.
Crown: Upper part of a tree, measured from the lowest branch, including all the branches and
foliage.
Decay detection devices: Several types of devices can be employed to help detect internal decay
including but not limited to: Resistance micro drilling, sonic tomography and ground penetrating
radar.
Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries,
growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength.
Diameter at breast height (DB: Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United
States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal,
9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European
Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture.
Load Testing: Hand pull, static pull test, and measured dynamic test that use deformation or
deflection to detect weakness in the structure and assess the load required to initiate the failure
process.
Main Stem: Woody structure bearing foliage and buds that give rise to other branches or stems.
Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or
any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches.
Mulch: Material that is spread or sometimes sprayed on the soil surface to reduce weed growth,
To retain soil moisture and moderate temperature extremes, to reduce compaction from
pedestrian or vehicle traffic or to prevent damage from lawn maintenance equipment, to reduce
erosion or soil splattering onto adjacent surfaces, to improve soil quality through its eventual
decomposition, and/or to improve aesthetic appearance of the landscape. Mulch can be
composed of chipped, ground, or shredded organic material such as bark, wood, or recycled
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 13
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
ti
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
paper; unmodified organic material such as seed hulls; organic fiber blankets or mats; or
inorganic material such as plastic sheeting.
Root Collar Excavation: Process of removing soil to expose and assess the root collar (root
crown) of a tree.
Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or
structure of a tree.
Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made
cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25
feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials,
and have an average weight of 35 pounds.
Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or
restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during
construction or development.
Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely
it is, and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine
the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees.
Trunk: The stem of a tree, bole or stem. Woody structure bearing foliage and buds that give rise
to other branches or stems.
Volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial
property. Unlike trees that are brought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring
up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by
people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and
attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private
grounds.
This Glossary of terms was adapted from the Glossary ofArboricultural Terms (ISA, 2011).
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 14
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 FillmerAvenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Appendix A: Tree Table
Species Number Diameter Height (ft) Crown Condition Suitability Impact Disposition
at 3 ft. Spread
r)
London 530 12 25 8 Good Good Low Retain
plane
Platanus `x'
acerfolia
western red 531 18 50 10 Good Good Moderate Retain
cedar Thuja
plicata
western red 532 16, 14, 9, 45 15 Fair Fair High Remove
cedar Thuja 5, 15
plicata
Monterey 533 37 45 20 Fair Poor High Remove
pine Pinus
radiata
back acacia 534 8, 13, 9, 5, 35 25 Fair Poor High Remove
Acacia 6
melanoxylon
Aleppo pine 535 19 30 8 Good Poor Moderate Remove or
Pinus Retain
halapensis
Aleppo pine 536 12 30 8 Good Poor Moderate Remove or
Pinus Retain
halapensis
silver acacia 537 22 35 20 Fair Poor High Remove
Acacia
dealbata
Englsih 538 8 10 8 Poor Poor High Remove
walnut
Juglans
regia
Liquidambar 539 5 12 6 Good Fair High Remove
Liquidambar
styraciflua
Chinese 540 6 12 6 Good Fair High Remove
pistache
Pistachia
chinensis
Douglas-fir 541 4 15 4 Good Poor High Remove
Psudotsuga
menziesii
Almond 542 8 8 6 Poor Poor High Remove
Prunus
dulcis
Japanese 543 5 15 6 Good Fair Moderate Remove or
maple Acer Retain
palmatum
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 15
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
r
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Aven os Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
m_____.__.._ _.___.---._.___.__..._... ,---..________._ .____,....----_____ ._..._--_--___-_._._.--.--____.___ _.----_ ___.9
Species Number Diameter Height (ft) Crown Condition Suitability Impact Disposition
at 3 ft. Spread
r) _ _ __
purple leaf 544 8 10 5 Poor Poor
plum Prunus
cerasifera
bronze 545 10 15 8 Good Fair
loquat
Eriobotrya
japonica
Toyon 546 8 10 6 Poor Poor
Heteromeles
arbutifolia
Privet 547 9 20 6 Good Poor
Ligusfrum
lucidum
Chinese elm 548 7 30 8 Good Fair
U/mus
parvifolia
Privet 549 6 20 6 Good Poor
Ligusfrum
lucidum
Privet 550 8 20 6 Good Poor
Ligustrum
lucidum
Aleppo pine 551 5 25 8 Poor Poor
Pinus
halapensis
Privet 552 6 15 6 Good Poor
Ligustrum
lucidum
Privet 553 5 15 6 Good Poor
Ligustrum
lucidum
Plum 554 6 10 4 Poor Poor
Prunus sp.
High Remove
Moderate Remove or
Retain
High Remove
Moderate Remove or
Retain
Moderate Remove or
Retain
Moderate Remove or
Retain
Moderate Remove or
Retain
High Remove
High Remove
High Remove
High Remove
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 16
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Aven bs Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Appendix B: Tree Inventory Map
5.5
F`
C
FR
q F . 396. SI ¢ ve
95.` 9-0 /
39G, 98 d w396. 29
K `
l 6' g9 396. BI /`
pYV 0 . 396 1 ` '
N
fEJ.qRp
r
0P
6 5\/
530
r /
N,/6 396 5
r I
396.56
i ; \`QO 1',ff 396.
z ; 4 0
so
c6R 1', `
i 7 \
3ye v 398. 29
t6
e yo se
544
n.
t !
i
00 ;
q7 23/
397.26 ¢/
0°%#551 ¢/
rLb j9]. 37 / +
I
f i
2 i
534 ° ;'
h/
39 % ,9 /
5p
fJ i ^`9j 3a `
139].5]%
o
39 %
3 l
38 E
39B Oy L 09 r
53
v 9j B.
27
39].9 (
B n7 7T N
9e `
fF
BF3,`T`9).97 .
m
97
7C\
ii
Ef s
7 397. 90 39
fj, R
7R .39].65 C.#5 S"x^
L ^\ C rC7' Yl ((/ /
P RT `1d 1'.J91 ll_•l rl..
v .. t-yg``3v3y)
09• `' 9 9'
f
554
N .
r9:... #541
0` .
597.6
9
3g6' B3
9j '
l/ V
9
I
531
i
i.
i i /
39 35
O
ti
V
0
39j6g ' Map is not to scale. Base
map provide by Westfall
Engineers, Inc.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 17
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 .
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenu, os Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
a
s '
k.
r:,,,,,.,,,,.'
The photo above is of the Monterey pine number 533 as you approach the property.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickQmonarcharborist.com 18
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
Appendix C: Photographs
C1: Approaching the site from the west
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer AvenuC, os Gatos, CA 95030
C2: Western red cedar number 531
The photo above is of the entire
western red cedar number 531 taken
from the driveway.
r .,
f .
A
I
1 * •_: .
f! ^;'_"
A+11 0
1 aX L . .. 1. .
r
j. : . . ,
t .
a.
i
w;
v
The photo above is of western red
cedar number 531 taken from the
driveway. The stem is very close to
the existing structure.
January 31, 2013
r k ,,
F ,
R
Y
q.
n
4 q '.,. .
j
e'"<<[^" ..M3`.
x k
f
N
4
F'^.; '
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickCa3monarcharborist.com 19
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fiilmer Avenu, os Gatos, CA 95030
C3: Western red cedar number 532
k-*.
3 \
a $ . fi , '.i t
t t
r ' ,_
y``
i ,,,, ^ ` ..
a
r +` .
M: . '•.y
r'F ' .'
y% ;.-
C'..
f' ,
n f A ,y p,t
q • 4
b S ,f
1 • ;dF,w ,1.
F•
xY
Z .i nC vE , µ R
1 ., ?'r'. •$
r `.
i ... -'.a'
w ' .
y ' t
v
S . ''"4 1, . .
i
f
j
1 ,
s
4
January 31, 2013
P
N
H
r . ., .
C.
II I I .. ' #
r .. . qyy f l
r' '
YR•Ff 4wi ' _LT .
A
fi . . ' 4yr-.
24 , £4 .x . . ,.- ;
y,.. . . . . . . .
P . . . . - . h ,
4.16:. = ,.:-'. ..1"-. .._ . . . '
The photo above is of western red cedar number 532 and its multiple stems.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC 3monarcharborist.com 20
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenu, os Gatos, CA 95030
C4: Aleppo pines 535 and 536
5,,
aj.kwE p+. '....
i
r.
T . • i 1
t !
N*
i:fi` .
1
k Ti. if F .
i".
E
H.°, e-, .'
v
J,„
c
ti+, _
i. % t
r
u4 `
y h L
h.' , r
y r :
a.;t s .,+
r „
s i: il,,r .
January 31, 2013
m '
M" .• , ' - . `^
r _ . .c-., ..,
th".t . 1 .
r ...
Y'ri'r.+> "rr'
u,:'' -
A
w,F-.. —i ' " . .v
aU. .
s , r''i. ',+•'
I +I , . 'iW .
k ; ''
J( y ' • `
i,. 1 'k ' .M ys - yY'• A,.,
y
t. _
Y . .Y d l M1 _ 13 t'
I .%..
4
The photo above is of the two Aleppo pines along the southeastern property boundary.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickQmonarcharborist.com 21
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, os Gatos, CA 95030
s}.# .
t ,. '
h- . .
1 A_
E .,
Y t
p _
1
t` ;,;;
w '
l . : :.
Trt,
P6 > - . .,.
3 .Y ,
y
T
7
p J
F - .,:
R '' ,. v., w, `
ylr .,:
c.
L '
r,.x .-
N- f. ry •'
x
f•=''^. ' ..
fl
s k
tt ( t t: _. u'
r ' . . . ;
j ,+
v 4` ' '
MI
i,t f1
r '
4' , ':,
i
4 : ' '. _. . i . . ,+
t :.
4 ..:, t -
fii . r " ;„+
tw}' , '
Y ... . ..., '. '
r il ' hy, ,, ', i'.a"3".
T
G. .
d .~
J .F("y .,.g. . - wia " . . ; '.+ t ,
SM !, .— .F.-4 f,.__'' '._ _ .__ xu . -. _ . _ . ... ' _ _ 1 S
The photo above is of silver acacia number 537 growing over the existing garage.
3 fa, k ti ;.;"' " ' . , ,"`.y d
1` t;K ' tGA "''
i ;
1i!
1
i1r1
w
F.S y y` !!` rr 1it
r.y. p t. .. ' p r ,
1 '1 ?,.; ' < 1 /1R,/ `,\,
a /
y
x V.. . +:.
P' ` '' , % s y`
a+'j : `•, ' <
A M -it >
r ,- a `' v
s • ' /',,
y' !s 'i ;, "
ts'_ _..
a i -'i
M"
3 + 4 t' #y ; , s"".:"
nM l:,z+j; r''t'j
Y ,'„c' , —__
January 31, 2013
y
e,. T,.'
i
r— ..«., .*'?:,
R"J f't.G
The photo above is of the main stem along the property boundary.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickC 3monarcharborist.com 22
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
C5: Silver acacia number 537
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, s Gatos, CA 95030
C6: Black acacia number 534
y1 t •'`
r r r
ji'`, rt`
i ` *
e
ti 2' . b
A
a' ' x ,,,
a' ,
y
w4 _
r , '
b, .
4 ,
w .
i _
1' .
r 4 '
fI
1 I
f y+
r yr. r t
I' : • --
M.v%,N ' :::.
l . .
K; a f ..' . * .
r ,' '
r *
i'
r„ :: i . P ;
F ",r f ;
y*,.; , :
r ;s e' } f ,Y.;: " ,
if , . trr ` * ` '
f :,., ,. >,
Sr }, : ,
r'. ~` 4 .
y
r
f',{ ;;' ''• -;
k t s "-. w •
p ,-`
r••H_Y•.
January 31, 2013
a
p
i
d ' fY' '
f , ~
k.' , . " ..
i j`" °° :r
r 'd ...
r ,.-. .''
i , . ;"i '
d. :
y rFF y '
y .
a i, _ '
y• •'
R'!!"_»"''e C .'::6' ." -: .
r 'Fc ;' a '. PF' r
i. .
i - f " i
v. ''-
1
p.. F.",'d 4. .. 4 -
y
J.. + '(- ,-r h
q .i ;
r ' .' y , . . , _. -. i 1" '., .
t, , ` 4 ,.
The photo above is of the black acacia stems growing along the western property
boundary.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 23
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, os Gatos, CA 95030
C7: Monterey pine number 533
January 31, 2013
1 ,
s
y
n . '- ,.
k : y
i.1 A [ +. 4
r
r! h" t}: .
i
i+
1
q
r ;.%'
h''!`
r yc
a
s'. i..` ,
i,y
n.
w
µ
The photo above is of the Monterey pine next to the driveway with a large lateral limb
growing over the neighboring property to the west.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rickQmonarcharborist.com 24
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, os Gatos, CA 95030
C8: Privet numbers 547, 549, and 550
f -' f c sk t { . , ,.
f '
k . • . , .q
A
r, 'ti, , e '4. ' i .y
l - . '
1
y"
n
y /
J Py` ' ' N, ` li.s 1 ,/'
3 2 - '
t. w . . ,
3_ i
L t ;'Y'f : i& i' 1, . .
F i'
t . :
f _ ', . kT ` #I+S ~ 1;. '''•
fi'+•. ` r j: ,
r ` * 'e,,,. - r f ,, ,
Q "e'r, ' 1 a ' +
f .
Y
3 r . "=. *s• i c'i
r
r.,
The photo above is of the volunteer privet trees growing along the eastern property
boundary.
January 31, 2013
k.
y
r,
r
f
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 25
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines
Tree protection locations should be marked before any contractor arrives.
Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist
January 31, 2013
Prior to beginning work, all contractors involved with the project should attend a pre
construction meeting with the project arborist to review the tree protection guidelines. Access
routes, storage areas, and work procedures will be discussed.
Tree Protection Zones and Fencing
Tree protection fencing should be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or
materials on site. Fencing should be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on
eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced
no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be
maintained throughout the conshuction process until final inspection.
Monitoring
Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots
should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be
documented.
The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after
construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be
noted.
Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone
No storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil will be allowed within the Tree
Protection Zone. Spoils from the trenching shall not be placed within the tree protection zone
either temporarily or permanently. Construction personnel and equipment shall be routed outside
the tree protection zones.
Root Pruning
When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with
loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should
be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project
arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within
one hour.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 26
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Boring or Tunneling
January 31, 2013
Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone.
Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch
in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade or similar air or
water excavation tool, Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the
main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep.
Timing
If the construction is to occur during the summer months supplemental watering treatments
should be applied to help ensure survival during and after construction.
Tree Pruning and Removal Operations
All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 or
C-27 California Contractors License. Tree pruning should be according to ANSI A-300A
pruning standards or ISA Best Management Practices and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety
standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction
walk through.
Tree Protection Signs
All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the
fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited. Text on the signs should be
in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist,com 27
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
0
1
v
O
o
x /°-
1 1!/
O
0
D
c0 cn
on
O7
C
7
D
0
r
n
W
W
W
J
N
n
O7
a
s
0
0
N
NIN
r r i nZeeotecto one
This Fence Shall not be moved without
approval. Only authorized personnei
may enter this area!
Project Arborist
m
m
tG
N
Q.
m
c
F
rF
in
v
m
ca
T
c
0
y
i:
W
O
n
C
D
cp
0
w0
z
w
NO
W
i m
o Q
X
1
N
1
r
l! _
D a'
s
o
c
D
a'
0
r
n
w
W
W
J
N
C
O7
n
0
0
0
N
ona e r o rete o
Esta cerca no sera removida sin
a robacion. Solo ersonal autorizadopp
entrara en esta area!
Project Arborist
N
N
o
N
v
N
t0
j
1
Cm
0
w
0
n
n
D
0w
0
w
c
w
w
1
NO
1
W
T.H.I.S. Design - 18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030 January 31, 2013
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or
ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or
evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
All properiy is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or
other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot
be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences,
mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual
arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and
the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or
surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants
on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference.
Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition 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 structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the
future.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 30
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
T.H.I.S. Design -18 Filimer Avenue, Los Gatos, CA 95030
Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:
January3l, 2013
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and
have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the
attached report and Terms of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own;
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared
according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices;
That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated
within the report.
That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the
attainment of stipulated results, or the occunence of any other subsequent events;
I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist with the American Society of
Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of
Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master
Arborist and a Certified Tree Risk Assessor. I have been involved with the practice of
Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998.
Richard J. Gessner ° l ''/ 'i'"``
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4341 B
ISA - PNW Certified Tree Risk Assessor #904
Copyright
Copyright 2013, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by
the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without
the express, written permission of the author.
Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -(831) 331-8982 - rick monarcharborist.com 31
P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018
Deborah Eliis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
erc icc• sirtce 198<1
Erin Walters +
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department d+
1 10 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031 f 4 20 3
February 24, 2013 7 OWN QF .OS GATOS
PLANNIlVG DiViSlON
18 Fillmore Avenue - Review of January 31, 2013 Arborist Report by Richard
Gessner, and Construction Plan Sheets dated January 13, 21 and 22, 2013
The followin lan sheets were reviewed:
PLAN DATE
SHOULD
SHEET NOTES
REVIEW
Existing Site Topographic Map 1/15/13 1
includin existin tree trunk locations
Construction Sta in
Demolition X
Pro osed Site La out 1/13/13 C1
Gradin /Draina e 1/13/13 C2
Underground Utility X Joint trench from gas shown on C1 Site
Plan.
Site & Buildin Sections
Erosion Control
Buildin Exterior Elevations 1/22/13 A3
Roof 1 /21 /13 A2
Shadow Stud 1/13/13 C3
Construction Detaiis that would affect
trees (for example building foundations,
pavement installation including sub- X
grade preparation, underground utility
installation
Landsca e Plantin X
Irri ation Plan X
Landsca e& Irri ation Details X
The proposed Site Map reviewed for this report is included on the next page as the Tree Map. For
background information on this project, please refer to Richard Gessner's January 31, 2013 arborist
report.
All trees will be removed except for the following:
530 London plane (12" trunk diameter), also a City Street tree
531 western red cedar (18") this tree is a"maybe" as far as actually saving it, due to the
existing and proposed house location.
545 bronze loauat (5") not a protected tree.
Terms highlighted at their first occurrence in this report are explained in the Glossary on page 8.
PO Box 3714, Sarntoga, CA 95070. 408-725-]357. decnhC pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Page 1 of 8
iE i 1i 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
S'crr i esinc 19 Y
PO Bax 37f, Snratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decnh@pacbell.net. http://www.dzcuh.com.
Page 2 of 8
SITE MAP / TREE MAP
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Serz iie siiice 19 5-F
The Previous Arborist Report:
The January 31, 2013 arborist report by Richard Gesssner is a fine report, and I agree with his
recommendations to save or remove various trees. Although there is no proposed site plan in the
report, Richard does list an impact to trees which in most cases seems to match the impact I would
estimate from the construction plan sheets that I have reviewed.
As Things Stand Now:
The construction plan sheets that I reviewed show more of the existing trees to be retained that it will
be possible or practical to save. I have therefore annotated the Tree Map on the previous page to
show which trees will be saved or removed. I have also considered tree impacts that are not
included on the Site Plan, but are present on the Grading & Drainage Plan, such as drainage swales,
which will cause additional trees to be removed.
Most of the trees on this site are not in good condition. The site is unkempt and many of the trees
have not been cared for well. Several of the trees are weedy volunteers that were not planted.
Most of the trees are within or are located too close to proposed construction to save. It is not worth
redesigning construction in order to try to save these trees. Removal of these trees combined with
new and more appropriate landscaping will greatly improve the functionality and aesthetics of this
site.
Initiall the owner and architect had planned on savina two larae Aleppo piaes (#535 a d
536) alona the east perimeter. A discussion with the east neighbors however, revealed that these
pines (although they provide good screening between the properties) are quite problematic for
them, and they would rather have these trees removed. New more practical screening (like screen
shrubs that can be shear-pruned to a tall narrow form) can then be planted along the perimeter
instead. From a construction standpoint it would also have been difficult to work around piae
535, since this tree's trunk will only be 9 feet from the edge of the proposed house.
A drainage swale runs along the eastern perimeter of the property. This drainage swale will cause
the removal of all trees in its vicinity, including westers red cedar #530, unless the swale is
eliminated for a distance on either side of this tree. The remaining portion of the drainage swale will
cause the removal of trees adjacent to #530 (trees #54z — 550).
At the south end of the lot the same drainaae swale alona the eastern perimeter will cause the
removal of trees #543. 546 arid 553. The proposed garage is also too close to trees #546, 552
and 553 which are also shown to be saved on the proposed site plan. Even if it were possible to
save these trees, it would not be a good idea to have vegetation blocking access around the
garage and between the fence along the property line.
Alona the west perimeter of the property a second drainaqe swale will cause the removal of trees
534 53Z aad 551. These trees are mostly weedy volunteer trees of low value, but they do
provide some screening between properties. This brings up an important point — drainage swales
and trees (or tall growing screen shrubs) do not work well together. Are drainage swales really
needed along the entire east and west perimeters of the site? This will greatly limit vegetative
screening options between adjacent properties.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4d8-725-].357. decnhC pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Page 3 of 8
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Seri r e incc 19 t'-
Additional information on Trees #530 and 531 (which are close to proposed constructionl:
530 London plane (12"): The nearest joint trench (centerline at 7.5 feet from the trunk) and some
grading in the front yard. The actual distance of the excavation for this trench to the trunk of the
tree will probably between 5 and 6 feet. The tree should tolerate this excavation if otherwise it is will
fenced off from other construction and construction activities. There should be no soil disturbance
within a minimum of 5 feet from the trunk of this tree, and that includes surface grading.
531 western red cedar (18"): it is going to be difficult to save this tree but why not give it a try. Right
now the base of the trunk of the tree slightly less than 12 inches from the outside of the foundation
see photo below at rightJ. The new house wall will be 5 feet from the trunk (if the tree trunk is
accurately located on the plans).
PO Box 3714, Sarntogt, CA g5070. 408-725-135%. decah@pacbell,net. http://www.decnh.com.
Page 4 of 8
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consuiting Arborist & Horticulturist
S n ice sir,ce 1981
The drainaae swale alonq the eastern perimeter must stop within a distance of 7 feet on either side
of the tree. If the entire drainage swale must remain then the tree must be removed.
Accuratel survey the location of the new house and erect story posts adjacent to the tree to see if
it is reallv practical and possible to save this tree. Some clearance pruning will be necessary in order
to demo the existing house and construction of the new house. This pruning is best done while story
posts are in place. The pruning must be done by a qualified tree service and under the supervision
of the project consulting arborist (a qualified consulting arborist, for example Richard Gessner.
Minimal pruning should be done in order to preserve the canopy an overall aesthetics of the tree,
which is the reason this tree is being saved in the first place. If the canopy has to be severely
altered, perhaps it is best to remove the tree.
If after considerinqpruninc requirements it still seems reasonable to save this tree, then the trunk of
the tree should be wrapped with straw wattle from the qround up to the lowest branches. This
wrapping must take place prior to demo and the trunk will remain wrapped until house construction
is complete. During demo of the house, the house must be pulled carefully away from the tree (the
house is collapsed inward upon itself). House debris is pulled carefully away from the tree.
After the house is qone two lavers of 1-inch thick plvwood over 6 inches of wood chip mulch should
be placed on the around underneath the canopv of the tree between the proposed new house
and the straw wattle around the tree. This plywood and mulch remain in place until house
construction is complete. The project arborist must be on site when the house foundation is
excavated. All excavation within a 7-foot radius from the trunk must be dug by hand, and any roots
to be removed must be cut cleanly by hand with appropriate root cutting tools. The project arborist
should cut these roots and also opine on the extent of root damage and whether or not the tree
should be removed due to the root damage.
Landscaqinq after house construction no paved pathways are shown: I do not see anv new
pavement proposed between the tree and the house althouqh this is a likelv location for such an
improvement in the future. In order to maintain the health and stability of this tree, no hard
pavement should be installed around it. I recommend spreading a 4-inch depth of coarse wood
and/or bark chip mulch around the tree, between the house and the tree trunk and for a minimum
radius of 7 feet. This will cushion the soil relative to foot traffic, reduce muddy conditions and benefit
the roots and overall health of this tree.
PO Box 3714, Sarntaga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Pnge 5 of 8
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Sart i- since 19-F
Other:
The Tree Protection Guidelines in Richard Gessner's report are fine; in addition I have included the
TOWN OF LOS GATOS STANDARD TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS below.
Note that the following is excerpfied from Division 2(Tree ProtectionJ of the Los Gatos Town Code
and does not constitute the complete Division 2 text. The owner/applicant is responsible for
implementing all perfinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection.
Sec. 29.io.i000 New Property Development
I l) The final approved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building permit set of
development plans and printed on a sheets titled: Tree Preservation Instruction (Sheet T-1, T-2,
etc. . These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition, utility, landscape,
irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
3.b.) The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However, the
plans do not constitute abproval 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 definition.
3.e.) Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit,
the applicant or contractor shall submit to the building department a written statement verifying
that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees in
accordance with the Tree Preservation Report.
3.q An applicant with a qroposed development which requires underaround utilities shall avoid
the installation of said utilities within the dripline of existinq trees whenever possible. In the event
that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring, air-spade excavation
or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the
dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist.
Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees During Construction
a) Protective tree fencina shall specify the followina:
1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch
diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2)
feet at no more than 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. Tvpe 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. Tvpe 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.
PO Box 3714, Sarntoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahC pach ell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Page 6 of 8
Deborah Eilis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Strz ir sir ce 1931
3) Duration of Type I, II, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or
construction begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first
obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence.
4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 1 1-inch sign stating:
Warning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty
according to Town Code 29.10.1025".
b) All persons, shall comply with the followincLprecautions:
1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree
protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or
vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any
storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline
shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction.
2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless
approved by the director.
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the
dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected
tree
4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project
site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be
present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be
preserved.
7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected
tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered.
Section 29.10.1010 Prunin and Maintenance
All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management
Practices - Tree Pruning, established by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any
special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which require a tree
preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities
involving protected trees including cabling, and fertilizing it specified.
PO Box 3714, Snratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Page 7 of 8
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
ticrri c sincc t'ab'
Glossary
1. Arborist, Qualified Consulting: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified
Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that
has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required.
2. Protected tree (in Los Gatos) as defined in the Los Gatos Town Code Division 2 Tree Protection, Section
29 10 0960 12/3/2010 the Scope of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any
trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required.
Town Street trees of any size are protected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exempt.
3. Tree Service, Qualified: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level
of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist, in a supervisory position on the job site
during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of California Contractor's license
for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability
Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must adhere to the most current of the following
arboricultural industry tree care standards:
Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129,
Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-941 1
ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).
ANSI Z133. 1 Safeiy Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. Ibid. (Covers safety)
x,**,**#*,,**x
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that
this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again.
Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
L L a
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B
PO Box 3iI4, 5aratoga, CA 95070. 40E3- 725-1357, decnh@pncbell.net. http://www.decah.cam.
Page 8 of 8
PROPOSED RESIDENCE at 18 FILLMER AVENUE
by
T.H.I.S. DESIGN
1 l.,. `- ; _ -- - ".
o ! [ .. ~
u. t ifv r .y . .
a
tin ` l
1 ' fi
Streetscape - aio y F nme a e, looking Sou[h
StfB2tSC8p8 - Along Fillmer Ave, looking North
1
z r 5.- 4 :yGE• . . . .
I
18 Fillmer Ave
i :t :2
H
t~ r - -.
S ii,., ,.'I _` -.-_
r ' 1j: :, _ . _ -
rt- t ,.,` 4 . _...
1 ' y;,. ,ti-, - ,,,t _
Y - . -r -- , v. _
i;.--- iT_
1 '. .._t,
V _ . _ -.'.
y _
L T.'. —— -:.— :- -.._. ... . _ ` _ . ` _ _ "
r — __ _.._ .. ,-_.. 2_ _" . ' - __ . -:.-'-__ . 'a . _ . ."' ._ " . ' _ ' _'
y_ _— «. —._ . - .._ ' _ _ _
L --
e'__ -^ -s _— ._._. . '-- -
c- — . . _:..''....._ — ,,,.-.- . ,-----•---•-- .. _- . ,
r .
TABLE OFCONTENTS
1. T1 TITLE PAGE / RENDERING / STREETSCAPE
2. CO TOPOGFAPHIC MAP
3. C1 SITE AND LANDSCAPE PLAN
4. C2 GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN
5. C3 SHADOW STUDV
6. A1 PROPOSED MAIN AND UPPER FLOOR PLAN
7. A2 PROPOSED ROOFPLAN
8. A3 FRONT AND LEFT RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS
9. A3.1 ALTERNATE FRONT AND LEFT RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS
10. A4 REAR AND RIGHT FENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS
11. A4.1 ALTERNATE REAR AND RIGHT RENDERINGS AND ELEVATIONS
12. AS GARAGE PLAN AND ELEVATIONS
1 ---•T---- • , . ,r - •- -- ... -
y; . . ` ;
3 <
II T-T_ . : .J II; , - a-1 .. . . . i +
Ij . . . .-. - l - ,
I ¢ _.. ,-
1 - i i . . 't
1 i ;. T T i; ; . . i , ,' _' ; .
t , ., i
s
J, .k'- ' ' ---- -- ' _-- -- ._. - -- _ {
k —: - , , l'' ..r
y 'v ...^ Y 1 t^' ',
A' I e-i r Y '!'1 T" ` ' . y' Y le ' 1.' ' Y _ `'' . I ,. 1-
R@f1d01'Itlg - from M tchell Ave; looking South. ' ' '' •
J '~ I
Q
W
A.
i
N
0 0U
Z WF
Z =
Q
pJ., W
W
m N
V
ij
5
i'E3
vL Ci. i i:7
nn l vi!'v J ..a•. .CrFf l i'il: .. ,. ...
SITE PLAN
scale: 7/8" = 1'
LOT DATA
Address 18 Fillmer Ave, Los Gatos, 95030
APN 532-35-029
Lot Area 8400 sf = A
Zoning R-t-B
Setbacks Reauired Actual
Front 25' 25'
Sides 8' 8' 0", 14' 8"
Rear 15' 54' 6"
Mau Height 30' 25' 9"
FAR Allowable Formula Aetual
Site Coverage 3360 sf aap r.ux 2364 sf (28 %)
Garage FAR 964.3 sf -.n-sres•.o
House FAR 2712 Sf = as 1n-s ns•.z 2702 sf
Existina Areas Action Area
House demolish 7050 st
Detached Garage demolish 770 sf
Driveway remove 1251 sf
Paths remove 127 5(
Deck demolish 350 sf
Pr000sed Areas Alloweble Actual
House FAR
Main Floor 7550 sf
Upper Floor 1158 sf
Total 2712 sf 2708 sf
IMPERVIOUS
COVERAGE ExistinglDemo Pr000sed
Driveway 1251 sf 0 sf (on property)
Paths 127 sf 0 sf (on property)
House 1050 sf 2088 51
Deck 350 sf 0 sf
Geracte/Shed 770 sf 517 sf
TOTAL 3548 5( 2605 sf = 31 % of lot
Permeable Pavers
Driveway 2196 sf
Walkways 776 sf
x '
I:....._ __ _
I Y
H,... . -._
o"
o
o
w ,-
I; o ,
PROPOSED GRADING and DRAINAGE PLAN
scale: 1/B" = 1'
LOT DATA
Address
APN
Lot Area
Zoning
Cutand FlII
Cut
Fill
18 Fillmer Avenue, Los Gatos, 95030
53235-029
0400 sf
R-1-8
none
none
IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Use splash blocks to dissipate /absorb runoff.
2. Direct roof runoff to away from house.
3. Walkways to be of permeable materials.
FILLMER AVE
6.5
A/C
DS(Downspouq
7.25
I
c
392
4
I
E
3
E
I `
I
398
I
O398.43
SHADOWS - DECEMBER 21 ST, 9 AM
ncale: 1/20' = t'
SHADOWS - MARCH/SEPTEMBER 27 ST, 9 AM
acale: 1/20" = i'
SHADOWS • JUNE 21ST, 9 AM
9tele: 1/YO" = 1,
SHAOOWS - DECEMBER 27 ST, 12 PM
scale: 1/20" = t'
SHADOWS - MARCH/SEPTEMBER 21ST, 12 PM
scale: 1/20" = 7'
SHADOWS - JUNE 21ST, 12 PM
ecele: 7/20" = 7'
SHADOWS • DECEMBER 21ST, 3 PM
6C810: 1/20" = 1'
SHADOWS - MARCH/SEPTEMBER 21 ST, 3 PM
acale: 1/40" = 1'
SHADOWS - JUNE 21ST, 3 PM
ecale: 1/20" = 1'
J U E,
i
s - ,9 —
p 1
5' 1 1/2' . 9' 10 I l2" . .t' . . 16` - .
3
4
5
3'5 2
6
I
A C
o, :: PROPOSED MAIN FLOOR PLAN
ScelO: 7/4" = t'
E
1J
2
5
2
3
4
5
e s , _
I
g
ii
7
s s
V" D'
i.
i
A C E
P R O P O S E D U P P E R F LO O R P LA N HOUSEFAR PROPOSED ALLOWABLE
scale: 1/4" = 1'
MAIN FIOOR 1550 sf
2 x 6@ 16" o.c. framing w/ 6 x10 headers throughout, UNO UPPER FLOOR 7158 sf
TOTAL AREA (FAR) 2708 sf 2712 sf
2 x 4@ 16" o.c. framing w/4 x12 headers
E
s
k
2,
i,-
l
23' 6 t!2
I
I
9
I
I ze s,iz,.
O
PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
s e e:,4" -,
O
O
O
O
C E
O O i
t -i: --s.
I •.
t-'.1-rI ,,._
1 _
i 4 :.1 :,. ; -.Y,-_'' jrj -:;,,^ ,1.. -
J ' ' ' r i i - „ ., . . .-.
ii i :t.;. _ '`a
FRONT RENDERING
1 _
I
f
A`f '5-----.--_ T.._.._._ , _ \
I..' s`r•
s --.,. '
I
T „- ` #! -"
a.I.i.= l.;'7. 2s' „
t II
s7C(' tu' (C6
v
J .- rtyr"''
a+--'- - . :_.'''..mtlF
1 :.1
Z' _. _
1 -- _ — Ai l -..
l! ..
i 1. -
T - ; a i l , -. -' - ` _.
i-Z l 1 . L . ! F •t R 'L C tiF -'.f. `7'.
i y}. '
y t"f - t •- ' '..:.._--.
t
1
i
j .-
1 i--j .. ..
J I }r- i
i -
t ' !
Ir- ,-
1 ':1 I ' 1, ' .
i—+ _ -?_
r ': :, t
i . i`j i
r ; i i ! # }- '. _I .l-1 ! .
j:- _._r-- —
r z
y„- s-- - ._
r
i;'.
i> I Lc ri j.,, .
1 . . . .
i1 _ _
3
a..+ . : - _ 9
T . w . ,"w1
J ' .
LEFT RENDERING
ELEVATION NOTES:
1. Crattsmen style euterior
2. Upper Floor Siding: Ceder shingles, pre-treated (dipped) with clear
sealar.
3. Lower Floor: Stucco: 7/8" (3-coat) smooth (hand) trowel Olive-cobred
stucco.
4. Dual-glazed wood windows and doors throughout. Color shown is
Ivory.
5. Class "A" composition roof shown, 4:12.
6. Approved galvanized metal gutters and downspouts (w/pmlective coatlng)
throughout. 5" Ogee "M'style gutter shown, painted to match exterior trim
7. Painted wood trim all around - color shown is Ivory
y_
1—, y - --- - --- - - - - -- ---- -------- -- - - - - - -
m
i
y-{ j
j
I nn i =
I I'' i -- --- ---- -- _ -- - -- -- -- - ,,, ---
r,,,,i
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
6 8 8: ,8 -,,
j > i,L lli —JIi e
III J.
e a
I
i
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION
scale: 1/8" = 1'
a: _ ..._-..-._....r
ii: . . . . . . .
f/ -
i .,,. .\
j 'i-..^ ,::a .
r '
1 i , '
1, ,--- ,.
i., .
1 j.i ii'
i[;-?:.... .II II '; :.
t:
FRONT RENDERING
C= ;_`.
d-.
a
t ;' _ _
S
4..`_` --" . L . . ,.
i-
ss,; __ .
lxw+.`1
f "'_.,'- "`"'
S .•.
wl,.
Y ,
x•: ...
T' . yj- ' .
Y ^_ _"_""_"•- .•a -
1 I
3 '_ _ '
t --
1 , - _ _-_ -- - i . . _-
r -::-.
a._ ._ ......_..-_-• __.L . .>.. :: .Y L . , , t._.. .._ .. < _r.._.L -
i _ . . _
I I I* c 1:,.
T ,
a ' i ,
i , y,, u u
i.-..
f , ' !„-'----r', i+'+ir;'"'•
i fi i G ._
1 .1.1: c. 1 1 1t ii1,
1,. _. .::
i:_....- - -- r . _ . _--_ -- _ -
au 1 1 _, --=
I ri y . !+.j'. .
r:Rl .1''t3 `. ^.:fllti .I N!hYdlYfl"^'._-. _
i'`
1. . ..._'
9
r . . ;
T . ,-
1
n---- r _ y
I.: :
t,
J . .
E. :—
3'--' -
t.
z tutt_'
1''
LEFT RENDERING
e-- q u
I—
m =--_ ------------ ---- ------- - --- --------- ------ ---- - -- _ --- -- - ;_
I
i IILJl— i
l_
ELEVATION NOTES:
t. Crattsman syle exterior
2. Upper Floor Siding: Ceder shinqles, pre-treated (dipped) with clear
sealer.
3. Lower Floor: Stucco 7/8' (3-coat) smooth (hand) trowel Olive-colored
StUCco
4 Dual-glazed wood windows and doors throughout Color shown is
Ivory.
5. Class A' composition roof shown 4 12
6. Approved galvamzed metal gutlers and downspouts (w/proteclive coanng)
tivoughout. 5" Ogee "K"style gufler shown, painted to match euterior irim
7. Painted wood irim all around - color shown is Ivory
r ni
a,,:
i,i,i,._ i il°' ' i
q ,
I — -
Ir= - LJI = i I Il'
m'Lu' '!
iri iiirn - --- — ---------- --- ------------- _ _ L L.IILI I 1 '_I I _ _ I '' _ _ '., llW l I
PROPOSED FRONT ELEVATION
S e a:,a _,
PROPOSED LEFT ELEVATION
8 e e:,a _,
Ff
t._
REAR RENDERING
ELEVATION NOTES:
le r/'t 1 Yi,.4" ,„ t _
1`. '-- Tw .i.l ' '.._;
a . i
F ' ._
TI"1.... . I"j. . . _ _ . 1 .r 1 -' '' I .
t I - ` —
1
r
I , rY. ....-.
r • • '
j ', '-- , . . l i i1 f-.
Y . . . I1 _. .. . . . .... . 4- ,
1
i u
1 t _.. . ,
t •. `,
ti. .
a . 1- 'j" :
y 'TZf'
i.
Yt^' . .. ' - . . - .
1' r r-,' --:r :, ' -.u.. .:
1 'j ' i I .' ; . a"
F 1' i44 ._I 1 •" .ik _
y.'-.._ - _ .,- y_---'. i =+- — t .
1 --
I - - - - - -
m
a —__
ii, I '
c-
RIGHT RENDERING
1. Craftsman style eMenor
2. Upper Floor Siding: Ceder shingles, pre-treated (dipped) with clear
sealer.
3. Lower Floor. Stucco: 7/8" (3-coat) smooth (hand) trowel olive-colored
stucco.
4. Dual-glazed wood windows and doors throughout. Color shown is
Ivory.
5. Class "A" composition roof shown, 4:12.
6. Approved galvanized met21 guners and downspouts (wiprotective coating)
lhroughouL 5" Ogee "K"style gufler shown, painted to match euterior trim
7. Painted wood trim all around - color shown is Ivory
lll[_ _
4 -= - -- - 1, ','{
m
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION
a e:,8" ,
PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION
scale: 1/8" = 1'
i f
REAR RENDERING RIGHT RENDERING
ELEVATION NOTES:
V'Gam.. _ ' 7 - .
T '- . f fi:1: _ - -.,-;
T
r ', !._•; c__..
r .:,...__
I:' I:.. - ` *
Ti-
rr# ' l
iT1 7 -
4
i..,l :
t 1 '.,,
t. - .... _. M 'K rr
r' ,.. . ,
Y i , i:"1. ,. u: !:f u yr
9 ,
i
1 " . _ ... _- . 'y --_.'--. - ._.. -. ._-" '
r k ' r ,•
1? ,;. ji ' ':i: .. Ii ..,
I
4 ' 1' t {'
lj--1 l 1 !, {% --.--- . A1l, , ;_ • _ .
i,. . . _ _..
1
T.:.__. ---
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6
7.
Crattsman sryle exterior
Upper Floor Siding: Ceder shingles, pre-treated (dipped) with clear
sealer.
Lowar Floor: Stucco: 7/8" (3-coat) smooth (hand) trowel olive-colored
stucw.
Dual-glazed wood windows antl doors throughout. Color shown is
Ivory.
Class "A" composition roof shown, 4:12.
Approved galvanized metal guners and downspouts (w/protective coating)
throughout. 5" Ogee "IC'sryle gutter shown, painted to match eMerior trim
Painted wood trim all around - color shown is Ivory
I -- ------------------------ --- _ _. -- -- ---- ---- -- ---- ----- -------- --- -" " — = F , ,
a-- - ; + N 1 ; -- --- - -- ---- --- ; _ BB,, t - , ,,
m
j ' ' . — — ' — ' ° u I
I - - J ;
II. _I . -9l}1 6 I
i. I I !
l_Lb.E_ I l_J . __ __. _ _ - _. _I ,_ IL_.L _ . _ ____ _ _ . _ . . .
PROPOSED REAR ELEVATION :: PROPOSED RIGHT ELEVATION
S e e:,8 , 8 e e:,8" -,
Tr'T.r
r'j''„ 1."rr,-'+-i
i +.v r•- .4r'rtT"
Tr=:
e._ :
I ' ''I .
T
r'A r; ' I
yi 7...ti.. /-
t _
T
kfm,.
i ; .... u..... _
J -' '
fT,1..T.r- . .. , _ . . ' :
T*"4-..,:N 4?.r*-'.-T...
T',
T'
1` r ,
r'
I !
r ' ' . - .
I
Tr..__.,_ _"'„
T ti. I . .""`.
L ..
L__ _ . . ,. . _.. ... - _
s .u, '`
1
9.. 8 Q, Z 9..
k_
lWo k=hoo I
i
I
s - ,_ 1
1
PcROPOSED GARAGE
6:12
t,l,-ri',7''-rr rr r--r-r'r-r
r . i.: .
4-.
PROPOSED GARAGE FRONT ELEVATION soa e:a^=
PROPOSED GARAGE LEFT ELEVATION soe e: a^ = t
PROPOSED GARAGE RIGHT ELEVATION sca e:a^=t