Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Attachment 1 t & Exhibits 1-17
TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 PREPARED BY: APPLICATION NO.: LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNER APPLICANT: CONTACT PERSON: APPELLANT: ITEM NO: 3 Joel Paulson, Community Development Director 1Pau(u;losgatosca.gov Architecture and Site Application S-16-011 16362 Hilow Road (Located on the east side of Hilow Road south of Shannon Road) Valy Jalalian Valy Jalalian Shannon Susick APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 532-04-082. RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development Review Committee to approve the application. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential Zoning Designation: R-1:8 - Single -Family Residential, 8,000-square foot lot minimum General Plan; Residential Design Guidelines 11,779 square feet Applicable Plans & Standards: Parcel Size: Surrounding Area: I Existing Land Use North-i. Single -Family East 1-single-Family South Single -Family West I Single -Family General Plan Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Low Density Residential Zoning _rR1:8 Pre -zone R-1:8 Pre -zone R-1:8 1 Pre -zone R-1:8 Pre -zone ATTACHMENT 1 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2 16362 Hi low Road/S-16 -011 July 20, 2016 CEQA: FfNDINGS: CONS ID ERA TIONS: ACTION: EXHIBITS: The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. • • • As required , pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15303 : New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines. As required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. l . Location map 2. Required Findings and Considerations (one page) 3 . Conditions of Approval (nine pages) 4 . Project data sheet (one page) 5 . Originally submitted Project Description and Letter of Justification (three pages), received February 1, 2016 6 . Consulting Architect report (five pages), dated March 8, 2016 7 . Consulting Arborist report (43 pages), received March 7, 2016 8. May 3, 2016 Development Review Committee meeting minutes 9. May 17, 2016 Development Review Committee meeting minutes 10. June 7, 2016 Development Review Committee meeting minutes 11. Public comments 12. Letter from applicant's Geotechnical Engineer (two pages), dated April 22, 2016 13 . Responses from the applicant regarding two of the neighbors e- mails (six pages), received May 16 , 2016 14. Letter from the applicant (two pages), dated Ma y 27 , 2016 15. Appeal letter (four pages), received June 15, 2016 16. Letter from the applicant (15 pages), received July 13 , 2016 17 . Development Plans (10 sheets), received October 20, 2015 Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3 16362 Hilow Road/S-16-011 July 20, 2016 BACKGROUND: The existing 11 ,779-square foot site is currently v acant. The site previously contained an 1,056- square-foot single-story residence with an attached carport. Prior to annexation to the Town, the applicant received approval from the County to demolish the existing residence and the existing home and carport have been removed. The applicant is proposing to construct a new two-story residence with an attached garage. The application was approved by the Development Review Committee on June 7, 2016. The application approval was appealed on June 15, 2016. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The project site is located on the east side of Hi low Road south of Shannon Road (Exhibit l ). The property is surrounded by single-family residential uses . B. Architecture and Site Approval Architecture and Site approval is required for construction of a new residence. C. Zoning Compliance The proposed project complies with the floor area, height , and building coverage limitations . The proposed project complies with setback requirements and all required parking is being provided on-site. The zoning permits a single-family residence. ANALYSIS: A. Architecture and Site The applicant is proposing a 3,479-square foot two-story residence with a 932-square foot attached garage and an 1,800-square foot cellar. The project would have a maximum height of 26 feet. The proposed materials include: stucco and wood siding, stone veneer, and a composition shingle roof. A color and materials board will be available at the Planning Commission meeting and Exhibit 4 includes general project data. The Town 's Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations regarding architecture and neighborhood compatibility. The Consulting Architect 's comments are included in Exhibit 6. The Consulting Architect commented that the ten-foot ceiling heights increase the actual mass of the structure, while the setbacks of the second- floor walls from those of the first floor work to mitigate the visual perception of the mass. Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4 16362 Hilow Road/S-16-011 July 20, 2016 The consultant recommended considering a reduction in the ceiling height(s). The Consulting Architect recommended providing wood jambs and true divided-lights to the casement windows in order to be compatible with the forms, scale, and materials of the mix of traditional style homes in the established neighborhood. The following outlines the Consulting Architect 's recommendations with the applicant's response in italics. 1. Consider reducing the floor to ceiling heights. The applicant reduced the second floor plate height from 10 feet to 9 feet. 2. Provide separate wood jambs between the windows. The applicant modified the plans to comply with this recommendation. 3. Use true or simulated divided light windows in-lieu of the proposed surface mounted mullions. The applicant will us e simulated divided light windows. B. Nei ghborhood Compatibility Based on Town and County records, the residences in the immediate neighborhood range in size from 1,056 square feet to 3,584 square feet (not including garage). The FARs range from 0.09 to 0.30 . The applicant is proposing a 3,479-square foot home on a 11, 779 - square foot parcel (0.30 FAR). The maximum allowed home square footage for the lot is 3 ,483 square feet. The Neighborhood Analysis table on the next page reflects the current conditions in the immediate neighborhood. The table includes the gross lot area, all lots in the area would be subject to a slope reduction based on topography. The provided floor areas may include cellars . Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 5 16362 Hi low Road/S-16-011 July 20, 2016 ADDRESS House 16362 Hilow Road (E)* 1,056 16362 Hilow Road (P) 3,479 16 34 1 Hilow Road 1,380 16357 Hilow Road 2,106 16369 Hilow Road 1,056 16383 Hilow Road 2,339 16397 Hilow Road 3,330 16386 Hilow Road (E) 1,056 16386 Hilow Road (P)** 3 ,479 16374 Hilow Road 3,584 16350 Hilow Road 2,985 16338 Hilow Road 2,081 * Prior to demolition ** C urrently pending project C. Tree Impacts Garage 0 932 0 400 400 576 568 356 859 473 504 461 House House and garage Lot size FAR Stories 1,056 11,779 0.09 1 4,411 11,779 0.30 2 1,380 10,300 0.13 1 2,506 9 ,944 0 .21 1 1,456 11,318 0.09 1 2,915 11 , 786 0.20 1 3 ,898 11 , 757 0.28 1 1,412 11,779 0.09 l 4,338 11 ,779 0.30 2 4,057 11 ,779 0.30 1 3,489 11 ,779 0.25 2 2,542 9,921 0.21 1 The applicant is proposing to remove one of the six onsite trees . The plans were reviewed by the Town's consulting arborist on March 7 , 2016 (Exhibit 7). The tree being remo ved i s a 22-inch Redwood (Tree #6). The applicant received approval to remo ve Tree #5 and Tree #6 prior to annexation to the Town. However, the applicant is now only requ esting to remove Tree #6. The applicant is required to comply with the recommendations of the Consulting Arborist (Condition #6 of Exhibit 3) and the applicant will be required to provide canopy replacement per Town Code standards for the tree being removed. D . Environmental Review The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Qual ity Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. E. Deve lopment Review Committee The Development Review Committee (DRC) considered the item on May 3 , 2016 (Exhibit 8). Written public hearing notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30). Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6 16362 Hilow Road/S-16-011 July 20, 2016 The following neighbors spoke at the hearing: Mr. and Mrs. Wagner -16374 Hilow Road Jeanne Driedger -220 Tourney Loop Shannon Sussick -17670 Tourney Road The main issues that were raised by the neighbors included : height, size, and mass of the proposed residence. Staff continued the item to the May 17, 2016 DRC meeting so that the applicant could work with the neighbors to address the concerns that were raised. At the May 1 7, 2016 DRC hearing the neighbors listed above spoke as well as Perry Hariri (16386 Hilow Road). The main issues that were raised by the neighbors included: height, size, mass, cellar size, drainage concerns, loss of views, and neighborhood compatibility. Staff continued the item to the June 7, 2016 DRC meeting so that the applicant could continue to work with the neighbors to address the concerns that were raised. The applicant made the following changes to the proposed project prior to the June 7 , 2016 DRC Hearing: 1. Reduced the height by two feet from 28 feet to 26 feet 2. Agreed to build an eight-foot fence prior to beginning construction 3. Reduced the square footage of the cellar from 3,026 square feet to 1,800 square feet 4. Agreed to increase the sill height of the windows on the side elevations to five feet to mitigate privacy impacts 5. Agreed to remove only one tree instead of two 6. Changed overflow drainage to direct storm water to the front of the house 7. Agreed to relocate the proposed HVAC condenser At the June 7 , 2016 DRC hearing only the Wagners spoke at the hearing. The Wagners commented that there had been positive improvements to the project, that they prefer no trees along the northern property line, and that the construction should be carefully monitored . The DRC found that the application was complete and in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. The DRC included an additional conditi on (Condition #11 of Exhibit 3) to require two 48-inch box trees to be planted in the front of the proposed home . F. Appeal The application was appealed by Shannon Susick (Exhibit 15) based on neighborhood compatibility, concerns regarding the proposed cellar, and the size, mass, and scale of the proposed project among other issues outlined in Exhibit 15 . Planning Commission Staff Report - Page 7 16362 Hilow Road/S-16-011 July 20, 2016 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION: A. Conclusion The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant has modified the proposed plans in an effort to address the concerns that were raised during the DRC hearings and the proposed residence is similar in size and mass to the existing two- story home next door. B. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the DRC and approve the Architecture and Site application: I . Find that the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Exhibit 2); and 2. Make the finding that the project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); and 3. 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 4. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-011 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and development plans attached as Exhibit 17. Alternatively, the Commission may take one of the following actions: 1. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revisions; or 2. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 3 as deemed appropriate; or 3. Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for desired revisions; or 4. Grant the appeal and deny the Architecture and Site application. repared and Approved by: Joel Paulson, AICP Community Development Director JSP: cc: Valy Jalalian, 140 Clover Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Shannon Susick, 16407 Shady View Lane, Los Gatos CA 95032 N.',DEV PC REPO RTs120161Hilow 16362-appeak.doc (' 16362 Hilow Road EXHIBIT 1 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION-July 27, 20 16 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 16362 Hilow Road Architecture and Site Application S-16-011 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 532-04-082. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Valy Jalalian FINDINGS Required finding for CEQA: • The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines: • The project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-fami ly homes not in hillside residential areas. CONS ID ERA TIO NS Required 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 a ll made in reviewing this project. N :\D EV\FIN D IN GS\2 0 16\HILO W 16362 .DOCX EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION -July 27, 2016 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 16362 Hilow Road Architecture and Site Application S-16-01 1 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8 . APN 532-04-082. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Valy Jalalian TO THE SA TTSF ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. AP PROV AL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29 .20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterio r lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that wi ll not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check. 4. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subj ects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed , prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by Deborah E lli s , identified in the Arborist's report dated as received on March 7, 20 16, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compli ance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or wi ll be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. 7. TREE FENCING : Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Refer to tree fencing requirements and other protection measures identified in the Arborist Reports prepared by Deborah Ellis dated as received March 7, 2016, on file in the Community Development Department. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 8. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 9. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend , indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third EXHIBIT 3 party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney. 10. FENCING: An eight foot fence shall be installed pursuant to Town Code requirements prior to beginning construction on side and rear property lines where the adjacent neighbor consents to such installation. 11. TREE SCREENING: Two 48-inch box trees shall be planted in the front of the proposed home prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 12. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Divis ion 13. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit shall be required for the demolition of the existing single-family residence and a Building Permit for the construction of the new single- family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical , and plumbing work as necessary. 14. 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. 15. SIZE OF PLANS : Four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24" x 36", maximum size 30" x 42 ". 16. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS : Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District 's J # Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans to include 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. 17 . 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. 18. SHORfNG: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed four (4) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed Engineer and shall conform to Cal/OSHA regulations . 19. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land s urveyor 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 elevations c. Foundation comer locations 20. 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 possible future grab bars. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor . c. Primary entrance shall have a 36-inch wide door including a 5 'x 5' level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18- inch clearance at interior strike edge. d . Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 21 . TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: Required California Title 24 Energy Co mpliance Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 22. 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 Di strict (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. 23. 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 chimneys. 24. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof Assembly. 25. WILD LAND-URBAN INTERFACE : This project is located in a Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area and must comply with Section R327 of the 2013 California Residential Code. 26. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed landscape architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 27. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed landscape architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code section 51182. 28. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the architect or engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building 29. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SH EET: 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 ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at www.lo sgatosca.gov/b uild ing. 30. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a building permit: a. Community Development -Planning Division: Joel Paulson ( 408) 354-6879 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Ryan Fong (408) 395-5340 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 31. ADVISORY COMMENT: Code compliant light, venti lation, and egress is required from the Cellar. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS: Engin eering Division 32. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept clear of all job related 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 an encroachment 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-w ay according to this condition may result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 33. 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 approva ls shall be approved by the Town Engineer 34. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5 ,000 will require construction securit y. 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), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to re leasing any permit. 35. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Developer or his/her representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on-s ite 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 the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to , curb , gutter, sidewalk, driveway, and pavement shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti , etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provi sions. The Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 37. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street and /or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required. 38. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. 39. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of any permits. 40. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Developer shall install a new Town standard residential driveway approach. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos , names, graffiti , etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor's so le expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 41. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily remo ved utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.0 l 5(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 al ignment or design of these faci liti es. 42. WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer lateral s are televised b y Wes t Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused. A sanitary sewer clean-out is required for each property at the property line or location specify by the Town. 43. SIDEWALK IN-LIEU FEE: A sidewalk in-lieu fee is required prior to issuance of a building permit. The estimated fee per the current Town Fee Schedule is $5 ,408.00. This fee is based on 338 square feet of 4.5-foot wide sidewalk at $16/SF. The fee is subject to change every fiscal year. 44. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030. 45. 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. 46. 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 ha uled 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. 47. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p .m ., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays , construction, alteration or repair activities shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA. 48 . CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN : The Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the employee parking, materials storage area, concrete washout , and proposed outhouse locations. 49. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography . b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 50. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads , parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for th e duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p .m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town . Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 51. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities. 52. 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 sys tem 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 s urfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property lin e and/or right of way. 53 . 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 washed into the Town's storm drains. 54. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at a ll times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours . The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk an d/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment 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 faci liti es. The storing of goods and materials on the sidewalk and /or the street w ill not be allowed unless an encroachment 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: 55 . Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to , and recei ve from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. 56. Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system s hall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and in existing one-and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313 .2 as adopted and amended by LGTC 57 . Water Supply Requirements: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination ca used by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the ap plicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirement s of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capab le of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 58 . Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33 59. Address identification. New and ex isting buildings shall have appro ved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters . Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505 .1 60. Plans not approved. To prevent plan review and inspection delays , the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal.' N:\DE V\C O N DITIO NS \2 016\Hilowl 6362 .d ocx . -. -·· 16362 Hilow Road -PROJECT DATA EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/ CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITIED Zoning d istrict R-1:8 same - Land use Vacant New House - General Plan Designation Low density residential same - Lot size (sq. ft.) • gross lot area 11,779 same 8,000 sq. ft. minimum Exterior materials: • siding N/A Stucco, Wood, and - Ledgestone trim N /A Wood • - windows N /A Wood Clad • - • roofing N/A Composition Shingle - Building floor area: first floor N /A 2,157 -• • second floor N /A 1,32 2 - • garage N /A 932 - • cellar N/A 1,800 - Setbacks (ft.): front N/A 25' 2 5 feet minimum • • rear N /A 53 ' 20 feet minimum side N /A • 8' 8 feet minimum Maximum height (ft.) N /A 26' 30 feet max imum Building coverage (%) N /A 26% 40% maximum .EXHIB!I 4 Floor Area Ratio (sq. ft.) • house N/A 3,479 3,483 sq. ft. maximum • garage N/A 932 954 sq. ft . maximum Parking N/A 4 Two spaces minimum Tree Removals N/A 1 Canopy replacement Written description of proposed Project: APN: 532-04-082 Project Name: Jalalian Residence Address: 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos Ca 95032 ( RECEIVED Ft8 0 ·1 20 16 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANN ING DIVISION The scope of the project entails demolition of existing structure and building a new single family home. The existing structure i s 3 beds 1 bath 1,056 square feet of living area on 11, 779 square feet of land which was built in 1952. The current project is to design and buj Jd a new single family residence with 2 stori es, 4 beds 4 1/2 bath approximately 3,484 square feet ofliving area in first & second floor, 2856 square feet of ce.llar and 820 square feet of garage. Valy Jalalian EXHIB IT 5 Letter of Justification APN: 532-04-082 Project Name: Jalalian Residence Address: 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos Ca 95032 RECEIV ED FEB 0 1 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLAN~ING DIVISION -·- I am writing this letter of justification to obtain approval for demolition of existing single family home to build a new single family located at 16362 Hilow Rd L os Gatos. The analysis of existing home illustrates current infrastructure, foundations and living area available on the land is insufficient to meet our needs. We therefore need to be able to optimize use of the land by new development. By removing the existing structure, it wilJ allow us to expand and create additional Living area and garage. As is current stmcture does not support any reasonable expansion. V aly Jalalian r 16362 Hilow Rd Los Gatos, Ca 95032 5 Homes across the street in front of the subject property 16411 Hilow Rd 16397 16383 SQF 2534 3,330 2,339 Year Build 1951 1992 1951 Lot Size .26 .28 10,454 ("' RECEfVElD FEB 0 1 2016 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING DIVISION 16369 16357 1056 2,106 1954 1954 9,944 9148 -------------------------------------------HI LOW R 0---------------------------------------- 2 Homes on each side of the subject property at 16362 Hilow Road : 16338 Hilow Road 16350 16362 16374 16386 SQF 1,056 3,584 1056 2,985 2,081 Year Build 1954 1956 2016 2005 1955 Lot Siz e .27 .27 .27 .27 9,583 This Page Intentionally Left Blank i\farch 8, 20 16 Ms. Susie Pineda Community D evelopment Department Town of Los Gatos 11 0 E . i\f ain Street Los Gatos. C\ 95031 RE: 16362 Hilow Road Dear Susie: ( ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DE SIGN I re.viewe d the drawings, :111d reviewed the site context My comments and recommenda tion s are as foll ows: Neighborhood Context The site is located in an o ld er established neighborhood v.i th a mix o f traditional architectural styles. Photographs o f the site and nearby home s are sh own on the fo llowing p age. 700 LARKSPUR LANDI NG CIRC LE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 .EXHlBIT 6 TEL: 415 .331.3 79 5 CDGPL.\N @PACBELL.NET 16362 Elilow Road [)sign Review Comments March 8, 2016 Page 2 The site and existing house House nearby to the left Nearby:' Home Nearby Horne House immediately across Hilow Road House to the immediate right Nearby Horne Nearby Horne CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 16362 HHilow Road Dcsignt RcviewComments March 8, 2016 Pare 3 Issues and Recommendations The degree of finish of the submitted drawings is less than I normally receive so it is not always possible to judge whether the proposed details are adequate for the proposed architectural style of the home. However, the details shown on sheet ,�5 (i.e., brackets, eaves, columns and railing) all appear well done and authentic to the proposed style. If other details such as those for windows are as well done, I feel that the home would generally a good tit for the site. There are only a few issues as follows: ] . The 10 foot ceiling heights on both the first and second floors increases the mass of the structure, and the house may seem a bit large for its immediate neighborhood. It is difficult to rely on the accuracy of the rough streetscape context drawing (see below). The only two stork- house in the immediate neighborhood is the one immediately adjacent to the north. All other nearby homes are relatively small one story structures. However, there are some newer two story homes to the south outside of this site's immediate neighborhood. On the plus side, the setback of the second floor walls from the side and front lines of the first floor will assist in mitigating the visual bulk of the structure. Recommendation; Consider reducing the floor to ceiling heights. Proposed second floor eave height Proposed first floor eave height IL CANNON DESIGN GROUP 7011 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 16362 Eiilow Ruad 1'lesigu Elcview Comment,' March 8, 2016 Page 4 ^. The elevations show some windows arranged in groups of three. That is suitable to the proposed architectural style, but the separations shown between the windows does not appear typical, as drawn. Recommendation: Provide separating wood jambs between the windows (see diagram and photo below). The use of "surface mounted mullions" would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4 When windows are installed in groups of three - Provide separating wood jambs (See photo example) CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANFING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 1 6362 11 i Iow Road Design Review Comments March H, 2016 Pale s 3. Drawing notes on the elevations call for "rugczte umouuted anuLGory "which would not be consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.7.4 which calls for true or simulated divided liter. Recommendation: Use true or si nulatcd divided light windows in lieu of the proposed surface mounted mullions (see detail photos below). I� True Divided Lite Window Simulated Divided l itt Window Susie, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that l did not address. Sincerely. CANNON DESIGN GROUP Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 This Page Intentionally Left Blank Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,Ia7i Ce since 1984 ARBORIST REPORT Tree Inventory, Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Relative to Proposed Construction JALALIAN RESIDENCE 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos, California 95032 Prepared for: Susie Pineda Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department 110 E, Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 Prepared by: Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B, International Society of Arboriculture Certified Professional Horticulturist t#30022, American Society for Horticultural Science yk `V n et.1� MARCH 7, 2016 t1 Report History: This is my first report for this project. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahCpacbell.net http://www.decah.com. mama 7 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Servire, sn,ce 1984 Table of Contents TREE MAP 1 SUMMARY 2 The Project 2 The Trees and how the Project will affect them 2 RECOMMENDATIONS 3 INTRODUCTION Purpose & Use of Report 6 Plans Reviewed 6 METHODOLOGY 7 OBSERVATIONS 7 Site Conditions 7 APPENDIX 8 Table 3 Complete Tree Table 8 Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: 10 Tree Root Protection Distances 14 Los Gatos Tree Protection Requirements 15 Tree Photos 20 Assumptions & Limitations 22 Enclosures 24 References .24 Glossary 24 Cover photo: all six of the subject trees are labeled, with coast live oak #1 and coast redwood #2 in the backyard (background right) and redwoods #3 6 in the front yard. Redwoods #5 and 6 already have permits for removal and will be removed. All photos in this report were taken by 11 Ellis on March 3, 3016. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbertnet. http://www.clecah.corn. Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist TREE MAP 5X a • HILOW ROAD • Sam 'me . * fah yYmtl BOA ear: • 4mw.r frar Service since 1984 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah€ pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 1 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ._j'rri li e stn. r I NSa SUMMARY THE PROJECT A one-story, single-family home will be demolished and replaced with a two-story home with a basement. THE TREES AND HOW THE PROJECT WILL AFFECT THEM Four protected trees" are listed and described in this report, listed in the Summary Table below. Two additional trees already permitted for removal are included as supplemental information. ran Common Name rank lam. ' Expected Preservation!1' Suitability onstruction "• Impact Action Roaaon!Vaiu. $2,820 . [7,100` 1 2 coast live oak redwood 14 20,15 Fair/food Low 'Sous Fair (Low Save 3 redwood 10 Fair Fair/GoodModerate/ Moderate Debatable Species, Condition, Construction 960 4 redwood 47 Severe Debatable Construction 18,100 r 5 'redwood _ 18 Remove Tree removal permit obtained. 1-6 redwood 25 Remove Tree removal permit obtained_' A more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table 3 (the Complete Tree Table} beginning on page 8. The Complete Tree Table also provides recommended minimum root protection distances for those trees that will or may be saved, as well as other important information about individual trees. ' For the purpose of this report a protected tree is: all trees which have a (4) four -inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Exceptions are: fruit or nut trees that less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter or any of the following species that are less than 24 inches in diameter: black acacia (Acacia melanwxylon), tulip tree (Lirladendron tulipifera), tree -of- Heaven (Ailanthus a/tissima), Tasmanian blue gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus glabulus), Red River gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), other Eucalyptus species (E. spa) (Hillsides only), glossy privet (Ligustrum lucidurn) and andpalms (except Phoenix canariensis), fj PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http.//www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 2 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist RECOMMENDATIONS icrvic' s►me Pk 1) Existing trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on all site -based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used in this arborist report. 2) Do not remove or prune to remove more than 25% of the live branches of any protected tree until a valid tree removal permit has been obtained from the Town of Los Gatos. 3) Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #3 and 4 redwoods. Read about these two trees in the Notes Section of the Complete Tree Table in order to determine what to do with them (can they be saved or should they be removed)? A "Debatable" designation means that there is a problem with retaining that tree, such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor species for the site, or in poor condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too close to it. Additional action or decisions are necessary on the part of the tree owner, project architects or others involved in the project design and construction are necessary in order to resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved or removed. 4) Erect story posts to better assess the effect of constructionof the proposed house on the canopies of redwoods #3 and 9. If these trees remain construction clearance pruning will likely be necessary in order to avoid branch breakage. The general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance pruning in order to construct the house. 5) The basement wall excavation must not come closer than 12 feet from the nearest edge of the trunk of redwood #4, and as long as this remains the corner of the basement/house and the excavation does not extend beyond the corner. 6) For those trees that will be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions, included in this report on pages 15 through 19. A separate copy of the Directions is attached and must be incorporated into the final project plan set, Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. These Directions shall replace any tree protection notes, specifications or other directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans. 7) I have also included, as a separate attachment, Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications to supplement the tree protection requirements of the Town of Los Gatos. 8) I should review all site -based plans for this project. I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 6. Additional improvements on plans that were not reviewed or have been revised may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by Pa Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 3 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MiS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serrire sinrr 1984 the arborist should be full-size, to -scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or 1:10. 9) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over -excavation or work area beyond the improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 6xDBH2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 6xDBH or greater should be used. and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans! 10) Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripline of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees, This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site. 1 1 j Landscaping: a) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully or not at all - please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project. b) This site contains an oak that is native to the immediate area icoast live oak #1J. This tree species fares best with no irrigation during the normal dry months of the year. The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies of native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root loss due to construction, and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation. Native oak species are often killed due to inappropriate landscaping that is installed 2 See page 14 for an explanation of tree protection root distances, PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbelLnet. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 4 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since !«84 around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water -use plants. Large drought tolerant trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation, especially close to their trunks. California native oaks that are treated in this manner may contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots; often causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes, cars and people. It is important to landscape correctly around our native oaks; e.g. summer dry. I have attached a publication entitled Living among the Oaks, Keeping Native California Oaks Healthy 10 assist in best managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items 'b' and 'c' below. c) Around the native oaks: there shall be no planting or irrigation (including drip irrigation) within a minimum radius of 10 feet from the trunks of the oaks or the inner half of the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater. Farther is better. Within this 10-fool (or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the root collar of the trees. Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought -tolerant, summer -dry plant species, preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the native oaks. may be planted. Only summer -dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of the dripline of the tree or 20 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater. Such plants may be planted from no larger than 1-gallon cans in holes that are hand -dug manually with a shovel (no power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparsely (e.g. planted no closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants shall be mulched in the same manner previously described. The drip irrigation for these plants should preferably be abandoned after a 2 to 3 year establishment period. 12) General Tree Maintenance: a) The root cojlgrs and lower trunks of some of the trees were obscured from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering, Such portions of the tree should be uncovered and the tree re-evaluated by the arborist. b) Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work. Pre -construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 5 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scrricr siii,.E 1 984 INTRODUCTION PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project_ The purpose of the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site - - their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site. PLANS REVIEWED Table 2 I PLAN DATE 1 SHEET I REVIEWED l SHOULD REVIEW NOTES I Existing Site Topographic Map including existing tree trunk locations ` Proposed Site Layout 2/1/16 A-1 X Demolition X Construction Staging Grading/Drainage X Erosion Control Underground Utility X Site & Building Sections A-7 X Building Exterior Elevations 2/1/16 A-4 X Roof 2/1/16 A-5 X Shadow Study 2/1/16 A-6 X Construction Details that would affect trees (for example building foundations, pavement installation including sub -grade preparation, underground utility installation) X Landscape Planting X Irrigation Plan X Landscape & Irrigation Details X Other (Cellar Plan) 1/27/16 A-3 X _ PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 406-725-1357. decahpacbell.r+et http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 6 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist METHODOLOGY Sarin. since 1084 performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees from the ground on March 3, 3016. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were taken from: • American National Standard A-300 (Part 5) — 2012 for Tree Care Operations — Tree, Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management— Standard Practices (Management of Trees, & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development and Construction). • International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices • Managing Trees during Construction. 2008 • Tree inventories. 2013 The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree evaluation and written findings and recommendations for trees an construction sites prior, during and after site development. I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 4.5 feet above the ground (DBH), which is also the required trunk diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. DBH is used calculate tree protection distances and other tree -related factors. Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I estimated the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional notes for trees when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable) proposed use of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital camera. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by email if requested. OBSERVATIONS SITE CONDITIONS The existing site contains an old single -story house, driveway and a tile patio in the backyard. Site topography is mainly level. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to portly shaded, depending upon proximity to existing buildings and to other trees. Landscaping is minimal and consists of the six protected trees as well as a few smaller fruit trees of less than protected size. Most of the ground is covered with weeds and landscape maintenance negligible. Trees do not appear to be irrigated at this time, which is fine for drought tolerant coast live oak #1, but not good for high water requirement coast redwoods #2 = 4 L PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahCpacbell.net http://www.decoh_com_ Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 7 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 11)84 APPENDIX TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TABLE This Table is continued through page 9. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 10 to 14. Denotes tree species native to the area within the vicinity of the site. All other tree species are not native to the immediate area. Tree # Species S Common Trunk Diam. CONDITION Size Preservation Suitability ExpectedDISTANCES Construction Impact Action Reason Notes Value TREE ROOT PROTECTION Structure a x a x NI ax 1 Quereus agrifolia, coast live oak 14 75 50 30x30 Fair/Good Low Low Construction: trunk is 40 feet or 2.820 $7,100'r7 4 7 14 7 21 more from any demo or improvements shown on plan. Condition: trunk and Large diameter scaffold branch with swing attached 'sweeps into project site. Lower trunk and root collar obscured with rocks and debris — may be buried 18 inches or more. 2 , Sequoia sempervirens, coast redwood (redwood) 20,15 75 50 50x25 Fair Save • Construction: trunk 30 feet from any improvements shown on plan. Condition: 3-4 feet of included bark between trunks. Lower trunk obscured by suckers and debris. 3 redwood 10 60 60 40x16 Fair Moderate Debatable Species, Condition, Construction Construction: trunk 11 feet from 960 5 5 5 proposed house. This is rather close from a construction access standpoint. I think it is reasonable to remove the tree. Condition: canopy obstructed by overgrowing adjacent redwood #4 ust 6 feet away. Existing house downspout drainage disperses to PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 8 of 26 Tree Species Common Name Trunk Dia m. CONDITION 0 as 5 Size Preservation Suitability Expected Construction Action Impact Reason Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Notes Service singe 1984 TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES Value N o_ 1- O 4 redwood 5 redwood 47 60 70 80x30' Fair/Good the north and close to the trunks of redwoods #3, 4 and 5 — this probably provides these trees with extra water during the rainy season. So if this is changed by development, these trees may decline. Note that redwoods #3-6 have weed fabric placed on the ground around them (not a good idea for many reasons) but the fabric is torn in many places and there is much weed growth through it and on top of it, which is typical. Moderate/ Debatable Construction Construction trunk 8 feet from Severe corner of porch at proposed house. Preferably move porch so there is no soil disturbance closer than 12 feet from the trunk of this very large tree — including any excavation for the basement Condition: a really large redwood tree, although its vigor is not great — likely due to the drought. 1 6 redwood Remove Tree has permit for removal Remove ree has permit for removal �18,1001 12 24 47 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decchepacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 9 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .s'errire since 1954 EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS: 1) Tree Number (the number of the existing tree as shown on the Tree Map in this report, and also on the Site Map of the project plans). 2) Tree Name and Type: Species: The Genus and species of each tree, This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used. 3) Trunk DBH. Tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height" (measured at 4.5 feet above ground level). This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree -related calculations. It is also the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter is measured when possible, and estimated when it is not possible or safe to physically measure. 4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes. 5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare — like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrible either), There are two components to tree condition — vigor and structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to remove a tree from a site -- even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component: 100 is equivalent to Excellent (an -A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead. • Relative to the scope of work for this report, tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition. • The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opinion on the tree's Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 4 on the next page. This is based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below -ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Ratings such as "Fair/Good" and "Fair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work — and it would be worthwhile to keep the tree if this were done. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.corn. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road, March 7, 2016. Page 10 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service srner 084 Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation Excellent Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the site. These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure. Equivalent to academic grade 'A'. Good These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees equivalent to academic grade 'B'. Fair These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average" trees — not great but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes, Equivalent to academic grade 'C' Poor These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Equivalent to academic grade ' D'. None These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade 'F'. 6) Value: Tree monetary appraisal is based upon: (1) Cost of installation plus (2) its increase in value over a container -size tree if a larger size tree being appraised. This value is then adjusted according to: (a) Species (according to regional published species ratings), (b) Condition of the tree, and (c) Location of the tree (an average of the sub -categories of Site, Contribution and Placement). The methodology and calculations for the Trunk Formula Method are taken from two industry standard texts — The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004, published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture, The cross -sectional trunk diameter price presented in this text has been adjusted slightly downward to match the current actual average wholesale cost of a 24-inch box nursery tree in this area. Note that the values produced for this report PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net. http.//www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 !Allow Rood. March 7, 2016. Page 1 l of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service Nina 1084 are meant for reference only and may not reflect the true value of the tree that could be calculated by a thorough and more detailed analysis of each individual tree. a) Caveats regarding tree values: The values in this report have not been subjected to a"reasonableness test" which compares the value of trees and landscaping to the total value of the property. The values in the report were calculated quickly and are intended to be approximate and for reference only. Research on tree and landscape values has shown that landscaping can contribute up to 20% of the total property value. In some cases however, tree appraisals have produced tree values that exceed the value of the entire property. Performing a reasonableness test screens for this error. For certain trees in this report I have decreased or increased tree values when I felt that the calculated values were too high or too low. b) The Trunk Formula Method is used for trees that are too large for practical replacement with a similar size nursery container -grown tree. This method applies to trees with trunk diameters that are larger than 8-inches, measured at 12 inches above the ground. For the purpose of this report, all trees with trunk diameters of 8 inches or greater measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. c) The Replacement Cost Method is used for smaller trees with trunk diameters up to 4-inches in diameter measured at 12 inches above the ground. This is generally equivalent to a 48-inch box -size tree. The replacement cost for such a tree shall be the average wholesale cost of the tree multiplied by two to include transportation to the site, planting and other costs. This price is then adjusted (usually downward) based upon the Condition ratings percentages for the appraised tree. For the purpose of this report, all trees with trunk diameters of 7 inches or less measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method. The following cost basis is used (based upon the average of wholesale tree prices from Boething Treeland Nursery, Portola Valley and Valley Crest Tree Nursery, Sunol, 2/29/2016): Trunk DBH Replacement tree size Replacement Tree Wholesale Cost x 2 (for installation, etc.1 <1" to 1" 15 gallon $47.50 x 2 = $95 2-3" 24" box $182.50 x 2 = $365 4-5" 36" box $475 x 2 = $950 6-7" 48" box $950 x 2 = $1900 d) Tree values for tree protection bonds: Prior to commencing work, the tree -regulating authority may require that the contractor furnish a bond equal to some portion of the total appraised value of the trees on the site based upon the values presented in the Arborist Report. Bond money will be returned to the contractor upon the completion of the project with deductions or additional fines imposed based upon tree protection compliance and the final condition of the trees. Tree values are often used to establish a benchmark amount to fine the contractor if non- compliance with the Tree Protection Specifications or other negligence causes a subject tree to be removed or unnecessarily damaged. The full value amount should be charged to the contractor if a tree is damaged to the degree that it must be removed. A portion of the value of the tree PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070_ 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 kilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 12 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service .eint( 7084 plus any necessary remediation costs, as determined by the tree owner, should be charged to the contractor if the tree is damaged but does not have to be removed. 7) Action (Disposition): a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures. b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or any combination of these factors. c) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table. Examples are: • The tree is shown to be saved (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved. • Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis. • Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the owner's own preferences. • Species: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site. • Uncertain construction impact • Other (as explained for the individual tree) 8) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to: • Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and It is not worthwhile to try and save the tree) • Condition (e.g. poor tree condition — either vigor, structure or both) • Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping) • Owner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree) • Species (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site) • Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficiently mitigated) 9) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net, http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016_ Page 13 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scrrue .sinter I9S4 10) Tree Protection Distances: a) Root Protection: see page 14 for a detailed explanation, b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection. c) 1 have increased a few of the calculated tree protection distances for certain individual trees based upon my professional judgment and relative to site constraints. For example the minimum root protection distance I will list for any tree is 5 feet. TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such cis an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an individual tree to effect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree -- there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any soil disturbance should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of the trunk, This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories). bBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of o construction project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the trunk. For example, using the 3X bBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inch bBH tree. For trees with multiple trunks, an adjusted bBH is often calculated using 100% of the largest trunk plus 50% of the remaining smaller trunks. Such distances are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. I will generally not recommend a root protection distance of less than 5 feet for any tree, even very small trees. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xbBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 6 to 18 X DBH is the minimum distance which is recommended in the ANSI (American National Standard) 4300 (Part 5)-2012 Management of Trees cf Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, d Construction, and also in the companion publication from the International Society of Arboriculture, Rest Management Practices, Managing Trees During Construction, 2008. When the 6 to 18 x bBH distance cannot be met, "appropriate mitigation or determination that the work will not impact tree health and stability shall be performed", according to the ANSI Standard_ ANSI A300 (Part 8) - 2013 Root Management, states: "When roots are damaged within 6 times the trunk diameter (DBH) mitigation shall be recommended." For practical purposes I use the 6 x bBH distance cis the minimal distance acceptable (in most circumstances) in order to maintain good tree health and structural stability, The 6 x DBH distance or greater should definitely be used when there are soil disturbances on more than one side of the trunk. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 14 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Servzcr since /084 OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age and the particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are same guidelines that are often used in Me arboricultural industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees d Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many budding sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPfiZ distance recommended for many of the trees -- therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 6X DBH. LOS GATOS TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS LOS GATOS TOWN CODE Chapter 29 — ZONING REGULATIONS Article I. — IN GENERAL Division 2. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction. (a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: (1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no 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. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type ID: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. (3) Duration of Type I, II, ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. (4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8,5 x 11-inch sign stating: "Warning —Tree Protection Zone -this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbeli.net. http://www.decah.co Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page i 5 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,4'emut, . ttwe 1984 (b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions. (1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. (2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. (3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. (4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. (5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible, (6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. (7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered, (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance. All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices —Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management —Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified. (1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e.g. cable TV/fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.). (2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)-Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no other alternative is available, is prohibited. (3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry trees {Mores alba) or Other species approved by the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating where pruning is proposed. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 decahC pacbell net. http://www.decah,com. Arborist Report for i6362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 16 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist 1'errice vice. PrX4 (4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in diameter (12.5" in circumference) without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, Il, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority. Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authority of the Town under Division 29 of Title 29 (Zoning_Requlations) Title 26 (Public Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to require trees and other plants to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this division and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The more protective requirements shall prevail. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement. All officers and employees of the Town shall report violations of this division to the Director of Community Development. Whenever an Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1,30,015 of the Town Code determines that a violation of this code has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.020 of the Town Code Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation. Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement —Remedies for violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the Town for violation of this division. (1) Tree removals in absence of or in anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the absence of or prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the Director may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the subject property. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s)_ The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arbor+st Report for 16362 Hrlow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 17 of 2c, Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service sm.,. 1'i,i 9 or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (2) Pending development applications. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied. If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Directors discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29,10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Pubic Works. (3) Projects under construction_ a. If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading, demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction, inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. b. The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree removal. landscaping, construction or other business in the Town shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (4) Civil penalties. Notwithstanding section 29.20.950 relating to criminal penalty, any person found to have violated section 29.10.0965 shall be liable to pay the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a. through d. a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town, a court may assess against any person who commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this division a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation. b. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed, or the replacement value of each such tree, whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the Town and deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund. Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 l-lilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 18 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .14rrice .rime 1084 utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the Species and Group Classification Guide published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. c. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five year written maintenance agreement with the Town. d. The cost of enforcing this division. which shall include all costs, staff time, and attorneys' fees. (5) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. (6) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this division in which the Town prevails, the court shall award to the Town all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, Il, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1030. Fees. The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution, prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule shall accompany the removal or pruning permit application submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1035. Severability. If any provision of this division or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this division which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this division are declared to be severable. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1040. Notices. All notices required under this division shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code. Sec, 29.10.1045. Appeals. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 29.20.260 of the Town Code. All appeals shall comply with the public noticing provisions of section 29.20.450 of the Town Code. (Ord. No. 2114. §§ I, 11, 8-4-03) PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell.net http:dfwww.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 19 of 26 TREE PHOTOS Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scruc' sink 1984 Left photo; coast live oak #1 and coast redwood #2 in the southeast corner of the site, viewed form the north. Right photo: coast live oak #1 and coast redwood #2 viewed from the west. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070_ 406-725-1357. decah@pacbell_net. http.//www.decah.corn. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 20 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service singe 1984 Coast redwoods #3 — 6, viewed from the west, from Hilow Front yard, coast redwoods #3 — 6, viewed from Road. Trees #5 and 6 are already permitted for removal. the north. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 21 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scrrire since 1984 ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS 1. Tree locations were provided by an unknown party and are shown on the Tree Man on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a reduced partial copy of the Site Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field. 2. A Level 2 Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described in this report was performed on March 3, 2016 for the purpose of this report. This is a brief visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as extensive digging, boring or removing samples. The tree is viewed by walking all around it, unless this is not possible. This type of evaluation is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. An assessment of tree risk was not performed during the evaluation. 3. Some trees had their root collars and or lower trunks covered with soil, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I conducted my tree evaluation. If these trees may remain, the obstructions should be removed and 1 should re-examine these previously covered areas. 4. I did the best I could at estimating construction impacts to trees based upon the plans, but this is difficult to accomplish with certainty. I do not have knowledge about the construction methods that will be used on this project and how the site will be staged for construction - these factors can increase or decrease the effect of construction on trees. How heavy equipment will move on the site is another factor we are unaware of - even though trees may not be located close to improvements, they may be located within equipment travel or staging areas. It is possible therefore, that more trees will need to be removed than are presently listed for removal in this report. On the other hand I may have overestimated construction impact in some cases - so that some trees that are listed for removal may not end up having to be removed after all. 5. Any Information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my investigation in this case and the preparation of this report are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no responsibility for legal matters in character nor do 1 render any opinion as to the quality of any title. 6. The Information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of inspection. 7. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report. 8. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand. 9. This report and the ratings or values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported. 10. This report has been prepared in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting Arborists. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah€'pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 22 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Scretre since 1'I 4 11. My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future. 12. I take no responsibility for any defects in any tree's structure. No free described in this report has been climbed and examined from above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root collar excavations and evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated. 13. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable. 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. Deborah Ellis, MS. Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305 I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified PC Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road, March 7, 2016. Page 23 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .l Cf'6 I.'P Brine fl84 ENCLOSURES: • Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions to be included in the final project plan set) • Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications. D. Ellis, September 2, 2015. • Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing) • Keeping Native Calif. Oaks Healthy. Hagen. June 1990. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tree Notes #7. REFERENCES: • American National Standard A300 apart 5)-2012 for Tree Care Operations -Tree, Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management - Standard Practices: o (Part 5) - 2012 - Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, & Construction. o (Part 8) - 2013. Root Management. o (Part 9) - 2011. Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Structure Assessment. • Best Management Practices, International Society of Arboriculture: a Managing Trees during Construction 2008 a Tree inventories. 2013. • The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture. • Species Classification & Group Assignment. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2004. GLOSSARY 1. Dribline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree protection zone". 2. Included bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the trunk, or two or more trunks, often appearing as a seam. In contrast, a normal attachment will have a ridge of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members. An included bark branch or trunk attachment is weaker than a normal attachment. As branches or trunks with included bark grow, they expand in diameter, squeezing the bark along the seam. This may kill some portion of the included bark. When this occurs, a wound response is initiated. LPO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah€ pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 24 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist ,Yervi a since 1084 As a consequence, cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such defects can often be completely removed when a tree is young (e.g. the offending members equal or Tess than 2 inches in diameter). Older, larger cuts (such as 6 inches in diameter or more) could cause decay to spread into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to thin one member (usually the smaller member) by 25% to slow its growth and ultimate size. 3. Project Arborist. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board -Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures, and being available to assist with tree -related issues that come up during the project. 4. Qualified Consulting Arborist: 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. 5. Qualified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for at least 5 years, 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 understand and 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- 9411 • ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid_ (Covers tree care methodology). • ANSI Z133.1 Safetv Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. Ibid. (Covers safety). 6. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar (junction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole -tree health and stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the large roots close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance - recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the root system that is responsible for whole -tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound. 7. Root rot disease is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot) ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem. Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to frequent irrigation during our normally rain -free months, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is often worsened in fine - PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pecbell.net. http:/fwww,decah.corn. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road. March 7, 2016. Page 25 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Berme .un.e 10S-1 textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast -draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our native plants. 8. Scaffold_branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches of the tree. 9. Suckers are secondary upright shoots arising from the roots or root collar (junction between roots and trunk) of a tree, or below the graft union. On a grafted tree the suckers (originating from the stock which includes the roots), are often not the same plant species as the scion (the grafted, desirable aboveground part). Suckers can be a nuisance in landscape situations. In nature however, suckers can serve to keep a tree alive after fire or mechanical damage that kills or removes the aboveground part of the tree. 10. Summer Dry: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils. Therefore it is important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment underneath native oaks is non -compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood, leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar ()unction of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting, until they are "established") and also during droughts that occur during the normal rainy season PO Box 3714. 5arataga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decahepacbell net. http;//www.decah.com. Arborist Report for 16362 Hilow Road, March 7. 2016. Page 26 of 26 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Serrixe since J' S- RECOMMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL TREE PROTECTION SPECIFICATIONS September 2, 2015 To supplement the requirements of the governing City or County in charge of your development project DEALING WITH TREE ROOTS: 1) Any soil disturbance within the tree protection zone and/or the tree dnpline (whichever is greater) should be done with great care as follows: 2) If grading (cut or fill) will occur, then hand or air -spade excavate of a root observation and root cutting trench at the edge of soil disturbance near a protected tree(s): this trench must be air spade or hand dug to the depth of the excavation at the edge of the soil disturbance. Roots that roots that must be removed within the soil disturbance area shall be exposed and cut cleanly within this trench The excavation of this trench must not cause the soil disturbance to come any closer to the tree than is necessary for construction of the improvement. The trench must be at least 12 inches wide. Within the trench, cut exposed roots that need to be removed cleanly with sharp pruning tools as specified. The Project Arborist should be present to inspect the exposed roots after the trench has been dug and also to observe, supervise and assist with the root cutting. If the arborist is not present then leave cut root pieces close to the trees from which they were cut, for the arborist to check at a later time. 3) After roots that must be removed have been cut within the above trench, heavy equipment may be used to continue sail work beyond the trench, but the equipment must not contact the roots that have been cut at the edge of the trench, or any soil or roots on the tree -side of the trench. 4) If the excavation of the above root observation and cutting trench and cutting of roots prior to sod disturbance is not possible, then the Project Arborist should be notified beforehand and alternate methods agreed upon. 5) Underground Utility Trench excavations: must be dug by handair spade or by mechanically tunneling under roots within the area underneath the dripline of trees or within the fenced -off TPZ for that tree. Trench cuts should be kept moist by spraying with water and covered until backfilled. 6) When mechanical tunneling (boring) is substituted for open trenching, maintain the following depths per trunk DBH in Table 4.0 below. The nearest edge of the excavation for launching and recovery pits should be located at least the 6xDBH distance from the edge of the trunk of the tree. Less root damage will occur if the tunnel is located directly underneath the trunk versus to the side of the trunk. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 decah@pacbell.net. fittp://www.decch.cam Pogeiofc. Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Service since 1984 7) Table 4.0 DEPTH OP TUNNELLING 0 0 Tree Diameter (DBFH) 9' Or Lass Measured At 6' 10-14" Measured At 54' 15-19" Measured At 54' More Than 19' Measured At 54' Depth of Tunnel Depth of Tunneling 2.5' 3.0 3.5* 8) Root cutting tools: a) The following root uncovering and cutting tools are mandatory: i) Round -blade shovel ii) Large mattock iii) Tree pruning saws designed for root cutting iv) Pruning loppers with minimum 1-inch diameter cutting capacity 9) The following tools are recommended: a) Hand mattock b) Hand trowel shovel c) Recipro-saw with wood cutting blades (especially pruning blades — have several new blades on hand) d) Concrete circular saw (rock or root cutting saw, e.g. Stihl TS-400 with a 12-inch blade. preferably carbon or diamond -tipped — start with a new blade and have extra blades on hand). e) Chain saw (for large roots, e.g. over 4 inches in diameter start with a new chain and have extra chains on hand) f) Professional root cutting equipment such as a DOSCOTM or VermeerTM root cutting machine may be used for cutting roots over long linear distances, if pre -approved by the Project Arborist. 10) Cutting the roots: Roots that are 2 inches or greater in diameter that must be removed or are damaged must be cleanly cut. Roots smaller than 2 inches in diameter are encouraged to be cut. Roots larger than 4 inches in diameter should not be cut without the Project Arborist's approval. Leave existing roots in place when possible (e.g. routing pipes underneath if this is acceptable). When roots must be cut use appropriate root cutting tools, as specified above. Tools must be sharp and in good condition. Cut roots at a right angle when possible. Cut roots back to branch roots growing in a direction away from the work area when possible. Without cutting closer to the tree trunk, create a gap of 3 to 6 inches between a section of root that will remain next to a section or root that will be removed. This will reduce the possibility of damaging the cut end of the root to remain. When roots are cut back to a trench wall, cut them flush with the face of the wall. Do not break, tear or chop rots. Do not use a backhoe or other equipment that rips, tears, or pulls roots. Place all cut roots in a pile near the tree where they were cut so that the Project Arborist can review and document. 11) Covering exposed andlor cut roots and keeping them moist until backfill or otherpermanent soil covering is in place: Areas of soil disturbance with tree roots (even if roots are not visible) PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357decah®paebeil.net http://www.decah.com. Pags2of6 Deborah Ellis, 1itiS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist _1errace Dance 1984 should be sprayed with water on at least a daily basis if necessary in order to keep the exposed soil and roots as moist as possible. On warm days several sprayings may be necessary. This wetting down should continue until permanent covering is placed on the exposed soil surface or trenches are backfilled. Mulch material placed on level areas will keep those areas moister much longer than if the soil is left bare Trench walls should be sprayed with water and covered with 2 layers of natural (not synthetic) burlap (two or more layers are preferable), discarded carpeting, old sheets or blankets, cardboard sections, organic mulch held in place with plywood or other materials that will perform the same function and are safe for tree roots. 12) For basement or underground garage excavations: use soil nailing and shotcrete construction to avoid over -excavation beyond the actual improvement wall. 13) Structure demolition: structures should be collapsed inward andlor away from adjacent trees. Demolition equipment must sit outside tree protection zones. 14) Pavement removal: This may be done with a backhoe if done carefully so as not to damage the trunk of the tree, and to disturb the roots of the tree as little as possible. If the backhoe, excavator or heavy equipment bucket or other soil removing device is working within 6 feet of the trunk of the tree, then the trunk must have 3/4-inch thick plywood placed in front of it, or the trunk must be wrapped with straw wattle. The backhoe or other equipment must sit on existing pavement or outside the T PZ and work backwards. Alternatively, pavement may be broken into manageable pieces (e.g. by hand with jackhammer) and hand placed onto a loader. Where roots larger than 2 inches in diameter have grown into the existing base course material, use the existing material as the new material and do not remove and replace it. Any roots that are exposed or damaged must be appropriately cut. covered and kept moist as described previously. TREE REMOVAL 1) Trees to be removed must be removed without damaging trees that will remain. The tree removal method for each tree shall be agreed upon in writing by the project arborist prior to any tree removal. 2) Trees to be felled must fall away from the tree protection zone of trees to remain. 3) Trees to be pulled out: If roots are entwined with trees to remain, the Project Arborist my require that the large roots close to the trunk of the tree to be removed be severed close to the trunk before the tree is extracted from the soil, or grinding the stump below ground, to avoid damage to the roots of trees to remain. 4) if tree canopies are knit together (branches from more than one tree intermingle with each other) then the demo contractor may NOT remove these trees — they must instead be removed by a qualified tree service that will cut the trees down carefully in order to avoid damage to adjacent trees and any understory that is to remain. 5) ff trees to be removed are far away from trees that will remain, the demo contractor may remove these trees by pulling or pushing them over as long as roots or aboveground portions of nearby remaining trees will not be damaged. Alternatively grind the stumps of trees to be removed to 12 inches below grade, again if this grinding will not be near trees that will remain. If trees to be removed are close to trees that will remain then do not push or pull over the tree or PO Box 3714, Saratoga, Cry 95070. 408-725-1357 decah@pacbell net. htip://www.decah.con. Page 3 of . Deborah Ellis. MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist Smirk since 1984 grind the stump, but rather cut the trunk to a stump that is as flush with the ground as possible. The method of tree removal should be agreed upon at the site on a tree by tree basis between the Project Arborist and contractor prior to any tree removals, DAMAGE TO TREES 1) Any damage or injury to trees shall be reported within 6-hours to the In the event of injury, the following mitigation and damage control measures shall apply: a) Root injury: Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be performed by a Qualified Tree Service or the Project Arborist within two days. b) Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five days, If leaves are heat scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the Project Arborist within 6 hours. 2) Fines for damage to trees' $100 per inch of width (e.g. for bark scraping of trunk or branches), as measured by the project arborist. Other damage: the full or partial value of the tree (as per Trunk Formula Method, Replacement Cost Method or Cost of Repair Method], as determined by the Project Arborist. For soil compaction (e.g. tree protection fencing was removed and vehicles were parked in the TPZ — the Project Arborist will require water jet irrigation, radial trench mulching, regular mulching and/or other treatments. PROJECT ARBORIST INVOLVEMENT 1) Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation: The Project Arborist must supervise any work within the tree protection zone, or when roots or branches of the tree are encountered or are expected to be encountered — whether or not these are within or above the Tree Protection Zone, The Project Arborist will inspect the site for tree protection specification compliance at least monthly from prior to demolition until immediately after construction is completed. The resultant Tree Protection Inspection Report should be submitted to the Project Manager for distribution as soon as possible after each tree protection inspection. The Tree Protection Inspection Report shall include status of the following: a) Inspector name and contact information b) Date and time of inspection: c) Date of last inspection d) Reason for inspection e) Weather (approximate temperature, any rainfall, etc.) f) Current demolition or construction work on site g) Additional demolition or construction work completed since last inspection h) Tree protection fencing status (including tree protection signage) i) Mulching status (if required) j) Tree work done within last inspection period (pruning, irrigation, etc.) k) Grading, trenching, excavations, cut or exposed roots, root recutting and protection 1) Other ' Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9"' Edition Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers. International Society of Arboriculture.. 2000. PO Box 3714. Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 decahr9pacbell.net, http://www.decah.com. Page .1 of 6 Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist }'err icx since 1984 2) The following Project Arborist site inspections are mandatory and must be documented as per the items listed in Tree Protection Inspections & Documentation, item 6.a. above:. a) Tree Protection Fencing. The Owner shall be in receipt of a written statement from the Project Arborist verifying that the Project Arborist has conducted a field inspection of the trees and that the protective tree fencing is in place prior to issuance of a demolition., grading or building permit, unless otherwise approved by the Owner. b) Pre -Construction Meeting. Prior to commencement of demolition or construction, the Project Arborist shall conduct a pre-demolition/construction meeting to discuss tree protection with the site superintendent, grading equipment operators and the Owner's representatives. c) Inspections of Rough Grading or Trenching. The Project Arborist shall perform inspections weekly during the course of grading adjacent to the Tree Protection Zone to ensure trees will not be injured by compaction, but or fill, drainage and trenching, and if required, inspect tree wells, drains and special paving. The contractor shall provide the Project Arborist at least 4 days' notice in advance of such activity. d) Monthly General Tree Protection Inspections: The Project Arborist shall perform monthly inspections to monitor changing site and tree condition. These inspections should preferably be unannounced. The Owner shall be in receipt of the inspection report as per item 6.a. above. See Detail #2, the Monthly Tree Protection Inspection Report template, on Plan Sheet TP-1.0, Special Tree Protection Instruction Sheet. e) Special Activity within the Tree Protection Zone. Work within this area requires the direct onsite supervision of the Project Arborist. Such areas must be noted on the project plans. f) Landscape Architect Inspection: the Owner may call for the project Landscape Architect to perform an onsite inspection of all plant stock, quality of the materials and planting and that the irrigation is functioning consistent with the approved construction plans. The Owner shall be in receipt of written verification of Landscape Architect approval prior to scheduling the final inspection, unless otherwise approved. g) Upon completion of the project the project arbonst should inspect all trees and write a "Final" Tree Protection Inspection Report including any recommendations for further management of the trees given the degree of compliance to the tree protection specifications, construction damage inflicted upon the trees, and current tree condition. This final inspection report should include a plan for continued arborist monitoring of all or some of the trees on or adjacent to the construction site, based upon the above. Such a monitoring plan may span weeks, months or years after the completion of construction. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decch@pacbell.net, http://www.decoh,com. Page 5 of Deborah Ellis, MS Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist .Service .riUrr 1934 REFERENCES 1) American National Standard A300 (Part 5)-2012 for Tree Care Operations — Tree, Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management — Standard Practices: a) (Part 1) — 2001 - Pruning b) (Part 5) — 2012 -- Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, & Construction. c) (Part 6) — 2005 - Transplanting d) (Part 8) — 2013. Root Management. e) (Part 9) — 2011. Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Structure Assessment, 2) Arboriculture — integrated Management of Landscape Trees, Shrubs & Vines, 4'h edition. Harris et al. Prentice Hall 2004. 3) Best Management Practices, International Society of Arboriculture: a) Managing Trees during Construction. 2008 b) Tree Inventories. 2013. c) Tree Pruning. 2008. 4) The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture. 5) Species Classification & Group Assignment, Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2004. 6) Trees & Development. Matheny et al. International Society of Arboriculture. 1998. 7) Tree Technical Manual. Standards & Specifications. City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto Municipal Code, Chapter 8,10030, Dave Dodder, June 2001 (First edition). Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment. Available online at: http!/www.cityofpalcalto.orglcivica'filebank/blobdload,asp?61oblD=6436 PO Box 3714, Saratoga, Cal 95070. 408-725-1357 decchepacbell net, http://www.decah.com Page 6of6 WARNING TREE PROTECTION ZONE This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Los Gatos Town Code 29.10.1025 This Page Intentionally Left Blank LOS GATOS TOWN CODE Chapter 29 -ZONING REGULATIONS Article I. -IN GENERAL Division 2. TREE PROTECTION Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction. (a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following: (1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing , mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no 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. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II : Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. (3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing . Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed . Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. (4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8 .5 x 11-inch sign stating: 'Warni ng-Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". (b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions: (1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materi als or other materials , equipment cleaning , or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. (2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation , grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. (3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. (4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. (5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. (6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved . The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. (7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. (Ord . No. 2114 , §§ I , 11 , 8-4-03) Page 1of4 Sec. 29 .10.1010. Pruning and maintenance. All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard Practices , (Pruning) and any special condit ions as determined by the Director. For developments , which require a tree preservation report , a certified or consult ing arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees , including pruning , cabling and any other work if specified . (1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including prun ing, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e .g. cable TV/fiber optic trenching , gas, wate r, sewer trench , etc.). (2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance w ith the current version of the American Nat ional Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)-Pruning , Section 5.9 Utility Pruning . Using sp ikes or gaffs when prun ing , except where no other alternative is available , is prohib ited. (3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period , affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obta ining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry trees (Moru s alba) or other species approved by the Town A rborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs ind icating where prun ing is proposed . (4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in diameter (12.5" in circumference) without first obta ining a perm it pursuant to this div is ion. (Ord . No . 2114 , §§I , II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority. Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authority of the Town under Division 29 of T itle 29 (Zoning Regulations). T itle 26 (Public Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to requ ire trees and other plants to be identified , reta ined , protected , and/or planted as conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between prov isions of th is division and conditions of any permit or other approval granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. The more protective requirements shall prevail. (Ord . No . 2114 , §§ I, II , 8-4-0 3) Sec. 29 .10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement. All officers and employees of the Town shall report violat ions of th is division to the Director of Commun ity Development. Whenever an Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1.30 .015 of the Town Code determines that a violation of th is code has occurred , the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.020 of t he Town Code Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred , the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to i ssue an administrati ve citation to any person responsible for the violation. (Ord . No . 2114 , §§ I, 11 , 8-4-03) Page 2 of4 Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement-Remedies for violation. In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law, the following remedies shall be available to the Town for violation of this division: (1) Tree removals in absence of or in anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the absence of or prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the Director may be imposed as a condition of any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the subject property. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that requ ired in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town . For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (2) Pending development applications. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied . If an application has been deemed complete, it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally w ith a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division . If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. (3) Projects under construction . a . If a violation occurs during construction, the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grading . demolition, and/or building permit(s) (including construction , inspection , and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the applicant(s) or both, and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally w ith a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10 .0985 of this division . If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works. b . The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, landscaping, construction or other business in the Town shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (4) Civil penalties. Notwithstanding section 29.20 .950 relating to criminal penalty, any oerson found to have violated section 29.10.0965 shall be liable to pay the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a . through d. Page 3 of4 a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town , a court may assess against any person who commits , allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of th is division a c ivil penalty in an amount not to exce ed five thousand dollars per violation . b. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree , the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed. or the replacement value of each such tree. wh ichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the Town and deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund . Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determined utilizing the most recent edit ion of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the Species and Group Classification Gu ide published by the vyestern Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture . c. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation . the trees shall be permanently mainta ined in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five year written ma intenance agreement with the Town . d. The cost of enforcing this division , which shall include all costs, staff t ime , and attorneys ' fees . (5) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate , enjo in , or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation. (6) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this divis ion in which the Town prevails, the court shall award to the Town all costs of invest igation and preparat ion for trial , the costs of trial , reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action, and reasonable attorney fees . (Ord . No. 2114, §§ I , II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29 .10.1030. Fees. The fee , as adopted by Town Resolution , prescribed therefore in the mun icipal fee schedule shall accompany the removal or pruning permit application subm itted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division . (Ord . No. 2114 , §§ I , 11 , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1035. Severability. If any provision of this divis ion or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be inva lid by a court of competent jurisdiction. such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this divis ion which can be given effect without the inva lid provision or appl ication , and to this end the provisions of this division are declared to be severable. (Ord . No. 211 4 , §§I, II , 8-4-03) Sec. 29.10.1040. Notices. All notices required under this divis ion shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code . Sec. 29 .10.1045. Appeals. Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with the procedures set forth in section 29.20 .260 of the Town Code . All appeals shall comply w ith the public noticing provisions of sect ion 29.20 .450 of the Town Code . (Ord . No. 2114 , §§I, II , 8-4-03) Page 4 of 4 aw WIPT eIt r+M rwrrerrg4r A TREE NOTES CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY AND FIRE PROTECTION Pete Wilson Richard A. Wilson Governor Director State of California NUMBER: 7 Douglas Wheeler Secretary for Resources The Resources Agency JUNE 1990 Keeping Native California Oaks Healthy Bruce W. Hagen Urban Forester, Resource Management, P. O. Box 670, Santa Rosa, CA 95402.0670 Oak trees in the residential landscape are often seriously damaged or killed during the construction and/or landscaping phase of development. Decline and early death may also stem from inappropriate landscaping and irrigation practices. Damage often takes years to become evident, and by the time the tree shows signs of decline it is usually too late to help. Oaks and Summer Water Once established, native'oaks require little or no supplemental irrigation. In fact, they do best in non -irrigated soils. This is because oak roots, particularly those originating at the base of the trunk (root crown), are susceptible to root -disease fungi when exposed to prolonged moisture during the summer (Figure 1). These fungi are normally inactive in dry soil, but proliferate under the warm, moist conditions created when frequent summer water is applied. (Other species of trees are less susceptible to these fungi because they have evolved where summer soil moisture is high.) Oaks weakened by the Toss of roots or root function are particularly susceptible to root pathogens and other pests. Frequent summer irrigation, particularly near the root crown, is likely to cause root decay which, over time, may destroy the roots, killing the tree or causing a hazardous situation. Therefore, irrigation for lawns, ground covers or other ornamental vegetation should be avoided or, at the very least, kept well away from the trunk. The common notion that younger oaks can adapt to frequent irrigation is incorrect. Young or newly planted oaks in irrigated situations often show signs of decline after 15 to 20 years. Oak Roots The roots of mature oaks grow predominantly within the upper three feet of soil. Most of the roots responsible for the uptake of water and minerals are concentrated within 18 inches of the surface. Few roots grow deeper than three feet. Although the roots typically radiate well beyond the periphery of foliage (drip line), much of the active root system is within the drip line (Figure 1). Roots are sensitive to environmental change (soil compaction, grade change, increased moisture, paving). Oak roots like those of most trees, are associated with beneficial fungi that resist pathogens in the soil and aid in the absorption of water and minerals. These fungi are easily killed by changes in soil conditions. Common Problems That Occur During Construction and Landscaping Life -supporting roots are frequently severed during construction or damaged by other construction practices that change the existing soil environment. The frequent irrigation of lawns and ornamental vegetation commonly planted under oaks after construction. leads to decay and progressive root loss. The net effect is reduced water and mineral uptake. This typically causes die -back and decline over one to many years. Few people associate this decline with construction or landscaping because the symptoms often develop gradually. Most of these trees will die or fall prematurely unless prompt remedial action is taken. Activities That Damage Roots and Disturb the Soil Environment Grade change. This involves either the addition or removal of soil within the drip line. Excavation can sever roots, while the addition of fill soil may suffocate them. Fill soils can also impede water infiltration and sail drainage, leading to drought conditions or waterlogging. Trenching. Trenches dug for utility or irrigation lines within or across the drip tine cut essential roots. This impairs the tree's ability to obtain water and essential elements, which may cause death, die -back, or gradual decline. It can also impede drainage and root development. Pavement. Impermeable soil coverings such as asphalt or concrete restrict the amount of air, water, and minerals available to the roots. This impairs root growth and function, and can ultimately lead to their death. Soil compaction. Frequent traffic, both human and livestock, and the operation and parking of heavy vehicles within the drip line, squeeze soil particles together, thus eliminating much of the natural air space. This reduces the infiltration and storage of water and air, inhibiting root growth and the uptake of water and minerals. Drainage changes. Grade changes that cause water to collect around a tree. especially near the trunk, are harmful. Likewise, a. grade change that diverts a source of water that the tree depends on may cause drought stress. Soil contamination. Avoid storing and discarding harmful chemicals or materials such as, herbicides, petroleum products, building materials, or waste water near oaks. Herbicides. It is best to avoid using systemic or soil 1 Width or Spread of Leaves Roots stead 58 feet or Bore Bernd The Drip line K. ri'lo■ Pf d.* Csl,laealt Otte Ng U y Root Loss. The degree to which oaks tolerate root loss depends on species, age. health. climate, soil depth. soil structure, and soil moisture. In general. the damage caused by a 15 to 30 percent loss of roots is negligible to moderate, respectively. A root loss in excess of 50% is considered to be harmful. A single three foot deep trench at the drip line along one side of a tree will remove approximately 15 percent of the roots. A similar trench made midway between the drip -line and the trunk will sever approximately 30 percent of the roots. Trenches made within 10' of large oaks are usually very damaging, MIN1IJI PROTECTION ZONE FIGU active herbicides under landscape trees. If herbicides are to be used within the root zone follow label recommendations. Preventing Problems Avoid injuring the roots or altering the soil where they grow, particularly within the drip line. Keep this area undisturbed and free of water -demanding ornamental vegetation such as lawns, ground covers, and shrubs like rhododendrons, azaleas, and camellias. Do not remove the leaf mulch unless there is a fire hazard. This organic material conserves water. provides nutrients as it decays, improves soil structure. decreases soil pH, and reduces soil temperature extremes. If turf is present beneath oaks, discontinue watering within the drip zone. If this is impractical, plug, alter or redirect sprinklers to prevent water from hitting the trunk or wetting the soil within 10 feet of the tree's trunk. Although not necessary, you may wish to remove the dying turf. In either case, cover the exposed soil surface or turf with 2 to 4 inches of organic mulch. SOIL PATHOGEN DANGER ZONE ilo Water, No Plants E 1. Appropriate Landscaping. If ornamental vegetation must be planted under old, established oaks. minimize its use. Keep the area within the drip zone relatively open. Use plants as accents rather than as ground covers. Extensive landscaping will disturb much of the root system and compete for available water and minerals. Select plants that tolerate shade and drought. and plant no closer than 10 feet to the trunk (Figure 1). Avoid all planting under declining oaks. Trees that have sustained construction damage will require several years to recover before landscaping, Watering. As a general rule, native oaks should not be irrigated. One exception, however, is during drought years. If the winter is unusually dry, supplemental watering in the spring can complement natural rainfall. Water the soil from halfway between the trunk and the drip line to 10-15 feet beyond, allowing water to penetrate the soil to a depth of 18 to 24 inches. It may be necessary to water for 4 to 6 hours to get water to this depth. Keep water at least 10' away from the trunk. The length of time will vary based on the rate of water flow, method of irrigation (soaker hose, sprinkler, etc.), area covered, rate of water penetration, and topography. You ., ( IC atM Caiitonda 0 Health may have to experiment a little to get go<;>d water penetration. To check the depth of penetration. dig a small hole in the irrigated area several hours after watering. If the soil is moist at the desired level, the watering time is adequate. Insufficient watering is marked by dry soil, while excessiv.e watering is indicated by standing water. Addi.tional watering can be applied 1-2 times during especially dry summers. Another exception for the occasional watering of oaks is where extensive use of pavement causes natural precipitation .to run off rather than penetrate the soil around the trees, causing drought stress .. One further reason to irrigate native oaks. is to reduce water stress following moderate to severe root lo~s. Plant drought iolerant landscape plants in the fall and winter to ensure their survival. If rain is lacking, water these plants twice a week for several weeks. Use a drip system or slow runni ng hose to wet the toot ball and 4 ~6 inches of surrounding soil. Thereafter, water twice a month until the rain starts. The following season. waler 2-3 times during the summer. Wetting the S9il to a depth and radius of 12 incles around the plant. By the third season, most of the plants should be weU established, requiring no further watering. If turf is to be maintained under an oak, apply the least amount of water which will keep it reasonably green . Mulching. Keep the soil surface beneath oaks mulched with 2-4 inches of natural leaf litter, wood chips. or gravel. Be careful not to place the mulch directly against the trunk. Organic mulch will improve soil structure and provide minerals upon decay. A void the use of impervious plastic tarping which reduces the availability of air and water to the roo~. Fertilizing. Healthy, mature oaks growing under natural conditions do not normally requite added fertilizer. However. oaks in landscaped areas where the leaf litter is regularly removed. will benefit from nitrogen fertilization. Young oaks can be fertilized to encourage rapid growth. The ideal time to fenilize is in the sprillg. Fertilizer is best applied by broadcasting over the tree's root zone. If rain is lacking, lightly water the minerals into the soil, avoiding the area within 10• of the trunk. Use fertilizers high in nitrogen (N) such as calcium nitrate, ammonia sulf.ate, ammonia nitrate or urea. Complete fertilizers containing nitrogen (N), phosphorous (P) and potassium (K) are more expensive and generally unwarranted. Pruning. NEVER TOP OAKS. DO NOT LEA VE STUBS. DO NOT MAKE FLUSH CUTS. PROTECT THE BRANCH COLLAR. Try to tetain natural shape. Avoid excessive pruning, remove no more than I 0-20% of the foliage in any one year. Except for the remo\tal of weak. hazardous. diseased, damaged or dead branches, mature oaks normally require tittle pruning. Some trees can benefit from light thinning to open the foliage canopy to more sunlight or to lighten heavy branches. Avoid pruning in the spring and early fall. Pruning large trees is dangerous and difficul~ it is best le.ft to professionals. Consult an arborist. preferably someone certified by the Western Chapter of the: International Socieiy of Arboriculture. Correcting Soil Problems Fills • The flared bases (root crowns) and trllDks of trees buried during construction should be exposed by careful excavation down to the original soil grAldt and out to sever.al feet. Moist soil in contact with the bark of the trunk usually leads to decay. Slope the soil away from the tree so that water does not collect n.ear the trunk and try to provide some drainag~. A retaining wall may be needed to keep soil away from the root crown and trunk. You can tell that th.e soil level around your oak has been raised if the trunk does not flare out as it enters the soil . CDmpaction -Soil compaction displaces much of the natural air space in the soil, reducing the amount of air (oxygen) available to the roots. Oxygen is critical for the uptake of the water and minerals necessary for tree growth and survival. Oaks growing in compacted .soil may benefit from increasi~B the availability of oxygen to the roots. The best way to do this is to eliminate or. curtail activities around the tree which cause compaction , followed by the addition of several inches of organic mulch to the ,drip zone. This will gradually improve soil structure and. aeration. while helping to prevent funher compaction. Avoid placing mulch direcily against the trunk. Several methods may be used to temporarily improve soil aeration. One method involves drilling holes 1·3 inches wide, 12 inches deep, and 1-3 feet apart around the tree out to the drip line. Holes may be filled with coarse sand or pea gravel or left open. It may be necessary to repeat every two to three years. Another method involves the injection of air under pressure into holes to fracture and lift the hardened soil. allowing air penetration. Holes can also be made by injecting water under high pr.essure via a hollow tube into the soiJ. ~e water jet loosens and expels soil particles as it is inserted into the ground. Pavement. Where practical, remove as11halt and concrete pavement within. the drip line and replace with permeable materials like organic mulch. gravel, brick. or stone set in sand. Inspecting Your Tree for Health and Hazard Potential Signs of Advanced Decline or Decay 'i Thin, sparse foliage 'I Poor growth 'I Yellow, undersized leaves 'I Dead branches and .limbs in the upper canopy 'i WDted, brown leaves during.spring and summer 'i Many short shoots growing on trunk and branches 'i Mushrooms at tree base or on the roots in the (all or early winter 'i Conks -shelf-like mushrooms on trunk 'i Cavit ies in trunk Pate White, fan shaped mats of fungus under the bark at the soil line. Soft, punky wood Wet, oozing areas on the bark Proper health and hazard inspection is difficult to do. It requires training, experience, and sometimes elaborate procedures to be reliable. A thorough tree inspection may involve exposing the large, supporting roots originating at the base of the trunk (root crown). This requires the careful removal of soil from a distance of 2 - 3 feet around the root crown to a depth of 12-18 inches or to the original grade if fill soil has been placed around the tree. Soil excavation and root -crown inspection are best done by a consulting arborist. Oaks with extensively decayed roots should be removed for safety; those in the early stages of decay can be treated. Carefully expose infected roots and remove diseased portions. Cut the bark back until healthy wood is found. Dispose of all diseased roots and bark. Allow the exposed roots to dry for several months. You may wish to construct a retaining wall around the perimeter of the excavation to keep the soil away from the exposed roots. Try to provide drainage to keep rainwater from collecting in the well. The soil can be replaced before winter. Otherwise, the roots can be left exposed. Although this is not a cure, it will slow the progress of the disease -producing organisms. prolonging the life of the tree. For this treatment to be helpful, all further watering near the trunk must be stopped. Successful Development Around Oaks Successful development around oaks depends on careful planning and construction. For this is happen, everyone involved in the development process must recognize that tree health suffers when roots are destroyed or soil conditions are altered. When oaks die, property values drop and removal costs are incurred. Prudent development can ensure a more attractive and more valuable setting. Further Reading Bornstein, Carol. Landscaping Under Established Native Oaks - Do and Don'ts, Santa Barbara Botanic Gardens. information Bulletin #5. (808) 682-4726. Caprile, Janet L. Guidelines for Landscaping Around Old Oaks. University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa County. (415) 646-5250. Caprile, Janet L. Guidelines for Development Around Old Oaks. University of California Cooperative Extension, Contra Costa County. (415) 646-5250. Coate, Barrie D. 1983. Planting Under Old Oaks, Fremontia 11 (3):26 - 28, October. Gross, Robert, and Robert H. Schmidt. 1989. Irrigating Native California Oaks. University of California iteeriffii « *.. C*Iitonaia Oka H.* tb Cooperative Extension, Oak Information Project Publication Number 1. U. C. Hopland Field Station, Hopland, California. (707) 744-1431. Johnson, Sharon G. 1989. Living Among the Oaks - A Management Guide for Landowners. University of California Cooperative Extension. (415) 642-2360. Available from University of California Integrated Hardwood Range Management Program, 145 Mulford Hall, U. C. Berkely, CA 94720. Hagen, Bruce W. 1989. Tree Roots - Major Considerations for the Developer. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Tree Notes, Number: 2, (707) 576-2360. Hardesty, Nancy. 1983. Oak Woodland Preservation and Land Planning, 855 Oak Grove Avenue, Suite 205, Menlo Park, California, 94025, (415) 326-4268. Harris, Richard W. 1983, Arboriculture - Care of Trees, Shrubs, and Vines in the Landscaping. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey. Perry, Bob. 1981. Trees and Shrubs for Dry California Landscapes. Landscape Design Publication, Pomona, California. Sanborn, Sherburn. 1989. Protecting Trees From Construction Impacts. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, Tree Notes, Number; 1, (707) 576-2360. 1983. Success List of Watering Conserving Plants. Saratoga Horticultural Foundation, 15185 Murphy Avenue, San Martin, California, 95406. (408) 779-2022. 1986. Water Conserving Plants and Landscapes for the Bay Area. East Bay Municipal Utility District, P. 0. Box 937, Alamo, California, 94507. (415) 820-2436. Care of Native Oaks. 1989. California Oak Foundation. 909 12th Street. Suite 125, Sacramento, California, 95814. Other Resources: Western Chapter International Society America, Certification Committee, P. O. Box 424, St. Helena, CA 94574. (707) 963-7578, for lists of Certified Arborists. University of California Cooperative Extension, Natural Resources Program, 163 Mulford. Hall. Berkeley, California, 94720. (415) 642-2360. b 'Senlaarct= l t,1 ey to nd `O src htgp [atone {+?tl.:r►XS-2�7 L 5. Public hearing closed. TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR MAY 3, 2016 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 10:03 a.m. by Chair Machado. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Tracy Staiger, Fire Department Michael Machado, Building Official Ryan Do, Assistant Engineer PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1: 16362 HiIow Road Architecture and Site Application S-16-011 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1:8. APN 532-04-082. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Valy Jalalian PROJECT PLANNER: Susie Pineda 1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing. 2. Staff gave report on proposed project. 3. Applicant was introduced and explained that the following revisions were made: • The house will be moved 10 feet back from the street. • The second floor windows will be raised to address privacy concerns. • An eight -foot privacy fence will be built before the start of construction. • The applicant determined an acceptable haul route for the excavation. 4. Members of the public were present. Bill and Debra Wagner suggested to move the house back an additional 10 feet. They were also concerned about the height of the house. The additional property line trees are not necessary or desirable. They feel an eight -foot privacy fence would be adequate. Jeanne Driedger preferred if the house were kept more towards the street, rather than constructing a massive house. Shannon Susick commented that the application should be forwarded to the Planning Commission because the proposed house is massive and the area is mostly single -story homes. EXHIBIT 8 DRC Minutes May 3, 201 6 Page 2 6 . Jo el Paulson moved to continue the public hearing of 16362 Hilow Road to May 17, 2016. 7. Ry an Do seconded, motion passed unanimously. OTHER BUSINESS NONE ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10:3 5 a.m. The next regularl y scheduled meeting of the Development Review Committee is the following Tuesday. ~,_d.,..~~..._,{_,,-- icllil\1 Machado, Buiidil1g0fficial N :\DEY\DR C\Min 20 16\5-3-16 Mins.doc ( TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR MAY 17, 2016 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALlFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at I 0:00 a.m . by Chair Paulson. ATTENDANCE Members Present: Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner Tracy Staiger, Fire Department Joel Paulson, Community De velopm ent Director Ryan Do, Assistant Engineer PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1: 16362 Hilow Road (Continuedfi'om May 3, 2016) Architecture and Site Application S-16-0 t 1 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 532-04-082 . PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Valy Jalalian PROJECT PLANNER: Joel Paulson I. Chair Paulson opened the public hearing . 2. Staff gave report on proposed project. 3 . Applicant was introduced . 4. Members of the public were present: Bill Wagner expressed concerns regarding the proposed height and size of the building. Debora Wagn e r expressed concerns regarding the size of the borne and cellar and asked that the size be reduced . Shannon Susick commented that the home should be a single-story and expressed concerns regarding the loss of views , mass and scale, neighborhood compatibility, and impacts t o the existing redwood trees. Additionally, she noted that the two-story home next door is screened by existing landscaping. Jeann e Driedger expressed concerns regarding water issues and the mass and scale of the proposed home . Peny Hariri expressed a concern about the cellar size. 5 . Public hearing closed. 6. Joel Paulson moved to continue the matter to June 7, 2016. 7 . Ryan Do seco nded, motion passed unanimously. EXHIBIT 9 This Page Intentionally Left Blank TOWN OF LOS GATOS 110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6874 SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR JUNE 7, 2016 HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA. The meeting was called to order at 10:02 a.m . by Chair Machado . ATTENDANCE Members Present: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director Julie Linney, Fire Department Michael Machado, Building Official Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer Ryan Do, Assistant Engineer Sally Zarnowitz, Planning Manager Tracy Staiger, Fire Department PUBLIC HEARINGS ITEM 1: 16362 Hilow Road (ContinuedfromMay 17, 2016) Architecture and Site Application S-16-011 Requesting approval to construct a new single-family residence on property zoned R-1 :8. APN 532-04-082. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Valy Jalalian PROJECT PLANNER: Joel Paulson 1. Chair Machado opened the public hearing. 2. Staff gave report on proposed project. 3. App licant was introduced and explained that the following revisions were made: • The overall maximum height was lowered by two feet to 26 feet. • The cellar area was reduced by 1300 square feet. • The Grading Plan was reviewed by the Civil Engineer to ensure positive drainage. 4 . Members of the public were present. 5. 6. Bill and Debra Wagner expressed that there were positive improvements in the project. They prefer if there were no trees along the north property line and hope that construction will be carefully monitored. Public hearing closed. Tracy Staiger moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presented with the following findings and considerations: EXHIBIT 1 0 DRC Minutes June 7, 2016 Page 2 Required finding for CEQA: FINDINGS The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. Required Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines: The project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not in hillside residential areas. CONSIDERATIONS Required 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. 7 . Ryan Do seconded, motion passed unanimously. 8 . Appeal rights were cited. OTHER BUSINESS NONE ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 10: 17 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review Committee is the following Tuesday. ~-~.4Xn\Jri~~ MiCh~el Machado , Building Official N :\DEV\DRC\Min2016\6-7-16 Mins.doc April 28, 2016 Development Review Committee Town of Los Gatos 110 East Main St. Los Gatos CA 95030 We have lived at 16374 Hilow Road for over 20 years, adjacent to 16362 Hilow Road (APN 532-04-082) for which Architecture and Site Application 5-16-01 1 is scheduled to be heard by the Development Review Committee on May 3. We have reviewed the plans on file in the Community Development Department and are generally quite pleased that this residence is finally being reconstructed. Over the last two decades, we have invested significantly in improving and maintaining our property and it is great to see that this neighboring property will finally become an asset, not a detriment, to the neighborhood. However there are a number of concerns that we would like addressed at the DRC meeting, in order to mitigate negative impacts on the neighborhood. The proposed house is very large and very tall for the neighborhood. It is substantially larger and taller than the existing residences in the immediate neighborhood, which, except for one neighbor, remain single -story houses. Based upon the recently installed story poles, the proposed house appears to be almost 15 feet taller than our house. See the photo below which was taken looking north across our front yard. EXHIBIT 1 1 We request that the DRC include the following requirements in any approval of this application : • Increase the front yard setback by at least 10 feet, moving the house further away from the street to reduce the visual impact from our front yard and to northbound drivers on Hilow Road. This change may also help protect the mature redwood trees over 60 years old that must remain. • Reduce floor to ceiling heights on all levels to no more than 9 feet. • Require that the developer construct an 8-foot high privacy fence along our common property line at his cost. The fence should be installed prior to any other construction to help mitigate construction-related impacts and provide security. Grant a variance that the 8-foot fence height be allowed to within 15 feet from the street right-of-way line similar to the existing fence. • Require the exterior lights and second-story windows be designed to not shine into our master bedroom located at the northerly rear comer of our house. We are also concerned about the size and depth of the proposed basement. The basement finish floor is approximately 12 feet below existing grade and excavation for foundations and proposed sub-drains are shown on the plans extending as much is 15 feet below grade. These excavations will probably be within 6 feet from our property line and approximately 15 feet from our conventional stem-wall foundation. In the Hilow Road area, groundwater levels have historically been very shallow and confined above an impervious layer. Other residences on Hilow Road that have attempted to construct basements have experienced problems. The attached letter from a long time resident of Hilow Road summarizes some of those issues. During construction of one of the houses described in this letter, groundwater was continuously pumped into the street for months. In the last few years we have also experienced increased cracking around doors and windows of our house, which is most likely related to ground movement due to clay soils and lowered groundwater levels due to the drought. We request that the following conditions be included in any DRC approval: • Prior to issuance of a building permit, require excavation and shoring to be designed by registered civil engineer experienced with shoring systems. Require weekly monitoring of shoring systems within 20 feet of adjacent properties to detect any differential movement such that damage to adjacent properties can be checked early. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, require additional analysis of the short-term and long-term effects of the deep sub-drains and pumping of surface runoff and groundwater to the proposed pit in the backyard. Consider effects upon adjacent foundations, trees and vegetation. Require that the basement be fully waterproofed, and that deep sub- drains around the exterior of the basement and long-term groundwater pumping are not included in the project. • Prior to issuance of a building permit, require submittal of a truck haul route plan showing how removal of as much as 1500 cubic yards of excavated material will be handled with minimum impact to the neighborhood and to local traffic. " Bill and Debbie Wagner 16374 Hilow Road Los Gatos, CA 95032 RE : 16425 Hilow Road, Los Gatos Dear Bill and Debbie, Donna S. Brewster P.O. Box 1475 Pinecrest, CA 95364 I understand the new house to be constructed next door to yours may be built with a basement Since our house down the street from you has two houses, both with basements, side by side to the south of it, I wanted to let you know of a couple of issues we have noticed since those two houses were built approximately ten years ago . We have lived on the street since 1990, so we understand the water table under our house is very high, even in the summer. When we built the house, we worked with a soil engineer to ensure our foundation was appropriate for the soil type and amount of underground water. After the two houses to our south were built with basements, we began to notice the soil in our own backyard was much drier than it had been over the years we had lived in tbe house. This has required us to do significantly more watering, especially deep watering of our trees, to make sure they didn't die from lack of water. During the drought years, this has been especially pronounced. Apparently, the pumps and drains installed to keep the basements dry have drained the water away from our property, leaving it much drier. There also seems to be some sort of dehumidifier installed in at least one of the houses that runs periodically. It is quite loud and sounds like an airplane motor. There doesn't seem to be a schedule for this dehumidifier/ fan to run, but I have heard it clearly in my backyard off and on for the past ten years. Please let me know if you need any additional detail. Best regards, Donna Brewster And last but not least: • Require and enforce strict compliance with the Town 's construction work hou r requirements . During demolition in the last month, there have already been three mornings when noisy construction operations began as earty as 7 AM. Please contact us if you ha ve any questions. Sincerely Bill and Debbie Wagner 16374 Hilow Road , Los Gatos 95032 Joel Paulson From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Mr. Pau1son, J DRIEDGER <jddriedger@gmail.com> Thursday, May 12, 2016 3:27 PM Joel Paulson; ssusick@comcast.net 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos, CA Our concern is the proposed house on 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos, Ca. This property shares approximately twenty-two feet with our back property line. We have owned this property at 163 59 Shady View Lane for over forty years and are aware of the water issues on our adjoining properties. The UPP Geotechnology report, dated 22 April, 2016 states the tests were done in December, 2015, prior to the effects of El Nino, or a normal rain year. The report states they drilled 14 .5 feet before finding water. On May 5th Mr. Valy JalaJian visited my property and we discussed his proposed construction. My neighbors Jim and Missy Fox attended the meeting and the subsequent walk over to and around the property on Hilow with Mr. Jalalian. At the time of our visit to 16362 Hi low Road, there was standing water in the overflow tank on the North East side of the property. This tank is a mystery as to its original purpose, but does show some of the water concerns. The two tanks in the back portion of the property suggest previous water issues with 16362 Hilow Road. Neighborhood homes with basements have had issues with excess water needing to be drained from them. In the four plus decades we have Jived behind this property there has been excess water at the back of the properties . At one time the original owners had a pond in the yard which attracted frogs, which were quite vocal , as well as mosquitoes. Our property has had movement due to drought and then rain in the back area. We have also dug down a couple of feet and found water during the winter of 2014, a drought year. All of that information is to inform you of a history of water in the underground area which could easily represent problems for the proposed 3000 square foot basement, as well as drainage from the surrounding properties . Other concerns expressed to Mr Jalalian are the possible harvesting of the Redwood tree he plans to have removed. Harvest the wood rather than have it chopped into bark bits. The original houses in this area were built with Redwood 2 x 4s, it would be great to give back and not waste this fine tree. The size of the house does not fit the neighborhood in a land to house ratio which brings up the concern of sale- ability. Look into the Los Gatos Times on a weekly basis and see that most of the houses in the price range and size have far more property with them. Why would anyone want to pay the same price for less privacy, less property, less cohesiveness with neighbors? There is no escape route for anyone in the basement in case of an Earthquake or fire . The only exit/entrance is through the central stairway. This is a danger which the plans have not addressed . We would like to see the plans remove the si z e of the basement to less than half of the current plans, and that size be placed in the front part of the house where the drainage would be managed to the street and not take, nor deposit, from the back of the lot. 1 Thank you for considering this when looking at the proposal. Jeanne Driedger Peter Dudley 16359 Shady View Lane Los Gatos, CA 95032 2 -r Joel Paulson From: Shannon Susick <ssusick@comca st.net > Friday, May 13, 2016 1:49 PM Sent: To: Joel Paulson Subject: 16362 Hilow Road Attachments: hilowl j pg; hilow2 .jpg; hilow3jpg; hilow4jpg Good Morning, Please deny the proposed application S-16-011 that is for new residential construction for the address captioned above or continue the application to be reviewed in a full hearing by the Planning Commission . 1 . The proposed application does not conform to the immediate neighborhood and will impact views, privacy, infrastructure of the town and schools due to the mass & scale of the above and below grade construction (please see attached photos .) a. The homes in the surrounding block are all single level homes, except the neighbor to the left at 16350 Hilow, which due to reduced height and architecture, established trees & landscaping has minimal visib ility from the street or neighboring homes. (hilow3) b. The number of proposed bedrooms and overall Gross Living Area is out of proportion with the surrounding neighborhood . c. The height, despite conforming to the 30 ft. ma ximum will destroy any views for homes to the east on Hi Low and to the west for homes on Shady View Lane . d . The requested tree removal will void this site of any established trees and buffer and destroy the habitat for resident screech and Great Horned Owls and other wildlife 2. The cellar is massive and effectively doubles the size of the living space, whether included in the Floor Area Ratio or not; allowing for multiple families to reside in an area zoned Single Family Residential. a. The General Plan (Resolution 2002-167) states "the use of basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in-lieu of above ground visible mass Policy LP 2.1)"; in-lieu of NOT in addition to-see la above. b . The construction of the proposed cellar with engineering that will purportedly resolve well known water table issues in this neighborhood will adversely impact the surrounding neighbors with potential damage and destruction to establ is hed tree roots and landscaping in addition to the time and noise obsolescence during the construction period. While ma x imum restrictions and guidelines may have been adhered to with this application, they are ma ximums. The impact is excessive and needs to be addressed by reducing the height of the dwelling, increasing the setbacks, removing the cellar or the 2nd above grade story, reducing the combined above and below grade living space , bedrooms, review of tree removal and new studies on the geology and water t ables. The size and scope of this project application necessitates a full hearing before the Planning Commission . Thank you for your time, Shannon Sustck {qos} 316-9559 'art S , 3 aC! $ ' s1`�' t h R 4• f if7.0 6Y ti Jf. _ar_. _. fie. -'� • f71 _-��- _ This Page Intentionally Left Blank Joel Paulson From: Sent: To: Subject: Dear Joel (Planning Director), ' I (' Whitney Halladay <whitney.halladay@gmail.com > Sunday, May 15, 2016 6:47 PM Joel Paulson; Jason Halladay Hilow House construction -16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos We are writing you in regard to the proposed house construction at J 6362 Hilow Road . My husband and I live 3 houses from this project and are in favor of this project moving forward. We believe this will be a wonderful addition to our street and like the design of this house. Please keep thi s email on record of our support for this proj ect. Kind regards , Whitney and Ja son Halladay (residents of 16400 Hilo w Road , LG) ( ( Development Review Committee 17 May 2016 Council Chambers RE : APN 532-04-082 110 E Main Street Los Gatos 16362 HILOW RD Joel Paulson, Planning Director Thank you for your time in reviewing and communicating with interested parties with Regard to the development of this property. We continue to express concern with the Excess ive si ze of this project. The 3000sq foot basement constitutes another dwelling . It basically allows for two homes to be built on a single property, which basically ignores the dwelling to land size ratios. This is not an issue to be taken lightly as it will change the neighborhood going forward. Once the extensive basement is approved there is no recourse . Please review other properties on this street that had basements approved . The highly problematic property at 16439 Hi low, which was built improperly causing water to run down the gutters for 11/2 year before the town addressed the issue, only has a 1000sq foot basement. This property has already fallen in value 6% since it sold in 2008. People are becoming more energy conscious, not wanting to maintain & provide energy for such a large SINGLE home. To allow such a large structure this opens the door to having basically a duplex on a single property for multiple family dwellings. A developer can still make enough money for a SINGLE family home without the added expense of building a basement. We ask you to consider the effects of such an excessive structure. Many people walking by have commented on how large and close to the street the proposed house is. When the project goes forward please include the previously discussed issues : 1.8" Privacy fence to be built on our North side at the developers cost with no additional trees to be planted on that side 2. Air conditi oning unit to be positioned on the North side of the proposed property 3. He ight to be lowered an additional Yi foot from ex isti ng plans 4. If Basement is allowed, shoring and pumping is closely monitored by the Town Bill and Debora Wagner-16374 Hilow Rd. Los Gatos PUBLIC RECORD • Single -Family Home • 5 Bedrooms • 4 full Bathrooms • 4,233 sqft • Lot size: 10,650 sgft. ▪ Built in 2007 • 16439 Hilow Rd is a house in Los Gatos, CA 95032. This 4,233 square foot house sits on a 10,669 square foot lot and features 5 bedrooms and 4 bathrooms. This property was built in 2007 and last sold for $2,887,500. Based on Redfin's Los Gatos data, we estimate the home's value is now $2,713,972, which is 6.0% less than when it was last sold. Comparable nearby homes include 16465 Hilow Rd, 16741 Lorna St, and 139 Longmeadow Dr. Nearby schools include Hillbrook School, Blossom Hill Elementary School and Louise Van Meter Elementary School. Redfin Estimate for 16439 1oww Rd $2,713,972-Redfin Estimate —$173,528-since last sold on 02/22/08 Public Records for 16439 Hilow Road Taxable Value Land $1,964,800 Add itions $1,021,200 Total $2 ,986,000 Taxes (2014) $30,764 Basic Info Beds 5 Baths 4 Floors 2 Yea r Bu ilt 2007 Year Renovated 2007 '. Style Singl.e Family Residential • Fi nished Sq . Ft. 4,233 Unfinished Sq . Ft. 1,047 Total Sq. Ft. 5,280 Lot Size 10,669 16397 Hilow Rd, Los G• s, CA 95032 - 5 beds 4 baths home (let' `'s - realtor.con 17 Page 5 of 8 Request Details Property Details Overview 16397 Hilow Rd is a Single family located in East Los Gatos, CA, in Santa Clara county. The median price for this area is 1689000. The 2 assigned schools for this property are located in Los Gatos Union Elementary School District. There are currently 2,217 similar properties for sale within 10-mile radius, ranging from $1,399,900 - $5,900,000. 3 Directions Key Facts • Single family • Year built 2012 • Price/Sq Ft $762 Schools 10Blossom Hill Elementary School, 10Raymond J. Fisher Middle School Public Records • Beds' 5 • Rooms 10 • House size 3,330 sq ft • Stories' 1 • Lot size 0.27 acres • Garage: Garage • Heating: Forced Air • Cooling: Unknown • Construction. Wood Frame • Year built: 2012 • Year renovated 2012 • Property type Single family • Style: Other • Date updated.01/13/2016 • Units: 1 Schools & Neighborhood Schools Assigned Schools Score* School 1 J Blossom Hill Elementary School Las Gatos Union Elementary School District 10 Raymond J Fisher Middle School Los Gatos Union Elementary School District n Aei T ..r. n+no r A roil. c/11/7171/ 16397 Hilow Rd, Los Gatos, ,.. \ 95032 -5 beds 4 baths home details· ··~altar .com® Page 4of8 Gl 1 /1 19 Share 1 ' ""'1 T -,....,_,._ __ ~A ()Cf\') '111 /")f\1 t; UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY Engineering Geology • Geotechnical Engineering Mr. Valy Jalalian 140 Clover Way Los Gatos, CA 95032 a division of C2EARTH, INC. 22 April 2016 Document Id. 15185C-01 L l Serial No. 17578 SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL GEOTECHNICAL INFORMATION PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL REDEVELOPMENT JALALIAN PROPERTY 16362 HILOW ROAD LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Jalalian: As you requested, we are providing the following supplemental geotechnical information regarding the proposed residential development of your property at 16362 Hilow Road in Los Gatos, California. We previously conducted a geologic and geotechnical study for the project, and presented the results of that study in our report dated 3 February 2016 (Document Id. 15185C-01 R1). We understand that concerns have been raised regarding the proposed construction with respect to groundwater levels. During our study, we encountered stabilized groundwater beneath the property at a depth of about 14%2 feet. The proposed residence will have a basement and we do not anticipate that the basement excavation will extend to this depth. Our observations of the stabilized groundwater levels were made during the rainy season. It is likely that groundwater levels will be lower during the dry season. Because the groundwater levels fluctuate and are expected to be deeper than the proposed basement excavation, it is unlikely that temporary pumping will be necessary. In the event that pumping is needed, it is our professional opinion that the risk of ground surface settlement in the site vicinity due to subsidence will be negligible, provided that the pumping does not lower the groundwater by more than a couple feet below the stabilized groundwater levels we observed. For the long-term constructed condition, the basement retaining walls are being designed as fully waterproofed retaining walls capable of withstanding hydrostatic pressures from elevated groundwater. No backdrain system is planned behind the walls, and no pumping will be performed. Therefore, the groundwater level will be permitted to seasonally fluctuate naturally, and the residence will impart no effect on the surrounding groundwater. Given the above, in our professional opinion, there is a negligible risk that natural groundwater fluctuations or pumping associated with construction of the proposed improvements would adversely affect the site vicinity or adjacent parcels. EXHIBIT 1 2 Copyright — C2Earth, Irsr. 400 f 54: i to) II F& 1 i0324 0) ib'M' C'arrrJen ANT Stah., .i5OOB I C2i§e2EI-, cmml Project Name: Jalalian 22 April 2016 Document Id. 15185C-01L1 Page 2 of 2 UPP GEOTECHNOLOGY a dwision of C2EARTH, INC. We appreciate the opportunity to assist you with this project. If you have any questions, please contact us. Sincerely yours, OfE58IQr,_ Upp Geotechnology�� N. R�c� a diyjsion of C2Earth, Inc. , ca `y 4_, � �# �rvj.�o�CH�rGP��P Christopher R. Hundemer, Principal Craig N. Reid, Principal � of c�+t�+�°�` Certified Engineering Geologist 2314 Certified Engineering Geologist 2471 Certified Hydrogeologist 882 11-1I5 DOCUMENT HAS Registered Geotechnical Engineer 3060 8E4N DIGIIAIIY SIGNED Distribution: Addressee (3 picked up and via e-mail to valy rnancosys.com) This document is protected under Federal Copyright Laws- Unauthorized use or copying of this document by anyone other than the chow(s) is strictly prohibited. Contact C2Earth, Inc. for 'APPLICATION TO USE." Copyright - C2Earth, Inc. 408 666 13436 tol p 66E; 6624 cif 750 Can dtt i +',ve Suite A Campbell CA 95008 I C2@C2Farth corn I wv,uwr C2Earlh Cam (' Response to Shannon Susick email May 13, 2016 for 16362 Hilow rd. 1. The proposed application does not conform to the immediate ne ighborhood and will impact views, privacy, infrastructure of the town and schools due to the mass & scale of the above and below grade construction (please see attached photos.) a. The homes in the surrounding block are all single level homes, except the neighbor to the left at 16350 Hilow, which due to reduced height and architecture, established trees & landscaping has minimal visibility from the street or neighboring homes. (hilow3) There is no data that supports this assertion, and the information provided is inaccurate. The APN map included in the plan submitted on Friday shows many two story homes on Hi/ow, and in the surrounding neighborhood. Some of these homes are over 4,200 square feet, but reflect an average square footage of greater than 3,000 square feet. The neighbor to the left at 16350 Hi/ow is not the only 2 two story home in the neighborhood, but it is one of the 9 homes on Hi/ow with a height greater than the proposed application. b. The number of proposed bedrooms and overall Gross Living Area is out of proportion with the surrounding neighborhood . The number of bedrooms is comparable to most two story homes with over 3000 square feet in the neighborhood. There are 13 two story homes in Shady View lane ranging from 4,362 square feet to 3000 square feet. There 6 out of 13 are 5 bedrooms and 4 out of 13 are 4 bedrooms and rest is 3 bedrooms. There are 9 two story homes in Hi/ow Rd ranging from 5,600 square feet to 3000 square feet. 3 out of 9 are 5 bedrooms and reaming 6 are 4 bed rooms. c . The height, despite conforming to the 30 ft. maximum will destroy any views for homes to the east on Hilow and to the west for homes on Shady View Lane . The height of the proposed property is 26 11 feet which is lower than the height of the neighbor to the left at 16350 Hi/ow. In fact, over 40% of homes on Shady View Lane are both two story residential homes and are equal or greater in height. The APN map included in the plan submitted on Friday identifies the two story homes on Shady View Lane. Copy of map is included EXHIBIT 1 3 d. The requested tree removal will void this site of any established trees and buffer and destroy the habitat for resident screech and Great Horned Owls and other wildlife The removal of the redwood tree has been given thoughtful consideration. Out of the 6 redwood trees currently on the property, only one redwood tree is intended to be removed. The removal, therefore, will not deplete the residence of established trees. The redwood tree that will be removed has been continually cut from the top by PG&E, and only half of the tree currently remains. Additionally, the redwood tree is directly above the sewer line where the clean outs are on both sides of the tree; further growth will eventually damage and block the sewer line if left unaddressed. Furthermore, if the tree is not removed, it will inevitably be on the path of the new underground PG&E electrical service. If these issues were not pressing, we would have loved to have kept the redwood tree. The arborist that was consulted also recommended that the tree be removed. 2 . The cellar is massive and effectively doubles the size of the living space , whether included in the Floor Area Ratio o r not; allowi ng for multiple families to res ide in an area zoned Single Family Residential. a. The General Plan (Re sol ution 2002-167) states "the use of basements and cellars to provide hidden square footage in-lieu of above ground visible mass Pol i cy LP 2.1)"; in- lieu of NOT in addition to-see la above. No comment. b . The construction of the proposed cellar with eng ineering that will purportedly resolve well known water table issues in this neighborhood will adversely impact the surrounding neighbors with potential damage and destruction to established tree roots and landscaping in addition to the time and noise obsolescence during the construction period. I refer to professional opinion of UPP Geotechnology reported April 22, 2016 in document ID 15185C-01L1 Serial No. 17578. 0 RI H011 PM 425-M-52 ROS 638/3 PCL.B INOS F P 1 Cl'E°' /PCL,A 11 • `t , ! .7 •.w v: N iy 8i.�i ii w riw \\ `. pl9 16416 16405 /4396 13 _ 47� �q' e 13 'a •ue W. LA CHIQUITA eS 16475 16406 16724 16306 R- WI I 75 75 1 71 I 1 44 .1 45 1 46 'I 12 1 to _ 7°,e! S441 —I____17—___ 1 --- 18 19 I 79 71 L-f (Ji 1 e. lit I r .a 0f. '91JC0 10 UN TY 6 A S S E1S S O R IS A N T A I---C L AIR A"J° 7 I 6 1 5 1 4 1 3 I 2 9 8 I 7 j 6 1 S 1.66 7750 77.50 s 4 E B 16376 45565 77 50 1 7750 ITRACT NQ G18 Cur 7750 do 0.07 4023 1630 IA Net Colt I 2 \'Z z LOT JI Y19,675sf Net C Q 10 ,44 4' '� AVE 15370 10366 76300 16340 76336 16186 4316 71 I 75 71 1 to I 75 75 1 75 I 4e.51 I I I I I I I 48 49 j1I I V �i�1 1iII 52 • 55 54 rig SS PIN 1 117.27 1___—Imo__� 22 I8 7 I 24 6 75 74 2s 27 I •125 PGL0,x3A 5 SFj__ — _ r--_lt I�;iii i ` I 1 TJ PTN. 29 I I 1 p ti ' r5 75 77 n is 77 7 �• 44 9' 1649I 144/! 16409 l4997 IBMR9 n5361 10373 16355 75337 163f9 163fr /1586 E. LA CHIQUITA TR, N9 583— THOMAS 6ION HOMESITES AVE. s KFN d41t A4444 '6396 AY96I g 0 TRACT10NQ 6191344 16304 16.5.8 d69f0 16932. / C 1 1i 75 5161 7T - 7l 75 I 71 75 75 75 1 7s 75 1 71 75 4i69 1 / I I I I +'P1 M i'7 1 z ! 79 24 j P 27 28 31 1 14 r1 19 1 U to 1 9 1 8 1 7 1 6 5 1 4 3 1 4 1 114:77 I 190 75 75 75 75 75 75 77' 7T 53.1-3 1 751.67 7 1 1110 1 11 g T an \ '6. 69 '5 . ' 6°s° +` 1 12 moo Net ql Ca1yr1 -1 _ I 0_ 1 Wi674 1 9510 0 1444 P4 44 11 75 71 Y i18:6a 4x LOT 1 8,011ef :S 9.46 AC. PLAN 89 Ei� a 63 5 F L 2"14.67 62 61 60 6-;, mn5 i11a95 32.54. 42-52 75 79 s6.+4 26.57 75.23 �I 4e 15477 16465 1645 HILOW 10 •TB 16406 0441 I.I %s p 4 47 I ii 74 2 16439 "64r 1914e • 164 76 13 76 S • 74 re 14 76 5 75 75 107 76563 1e561 •367 76541 TRACT Hs 616 ROAD BooK 532 PACE 4 P.M. 875—M-23 6400 16366 J614 76e67 16360 16331 1650 T5 79 4 19 16 17 16 19 20 75 95 75 75 75 12.17 8 E1 21 tic C.L4. 18272995 5 c/ °tl 01/. NIP 105 LAWRENCE E. STONE - ASSESSOR [466Alel map k1 essewenent plrpwn Bd2. Campied wider R k T. Cod6, See 327. E11451115 Rd Yaw 2015-2916 � fwa gOES � N sN,6-D/ frzgtc„,) OFFICE O F 18 t55 19 T9 { 155 20 24 L 75! Or COUNTY ASSESSOR 5 , t1... t 14 's 13 ; 12 , PI ` !4 •� 1 r 6o 77.01 I 70.26 41.41 8 SAN TA CLARA TRACT P40. 791 40-11-33 ., fr,,.ff -•-ter; - -• 11 �' �0 t 9fl�—Bii ... _7 , f1 i ~' ,.SL n f $; I 1 A I I — MI j .j A I —f I COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 50 f76 fr Q7 In 22 23 ii 36 i r Ir�'�i i i /✓ i 8 '147.29 4 29 I I I I f I ^c 2T 21 9 24 25 26 ; 27 1 28 i 29 30 i 3i i 32 i 33 i 35 f aa.u_a_ so,io�ea.i, caie I, u.i esn i r,7.ix 146.30 �o i-om r;sS /3 ttAio s roefr tio i i 2 1 16117 532 PAGE 3 1 Nei u 50 0 Ie LANE o -4 P z Q z z w r -bwo mac ry 7aN LAWRENCE E. STONE — ASSESSOR adld7d mot lar tprprmNt promo ad1. Compllod mow . & T. Cad5 Sec 377. ENI,NORD KM YNor 2015-2015 r. r . Response to Mrs. J Driedg;er's email May 12, 2016 16362 Hilow Rd application At the time of our visit to 16362 Hilow Road, there was standing water in the overflow tank on the North East side of the property. Thi s tank is a mystery as to its original purpose, but does show some of the water concerns. The two tan.ks in the b ack portion of the property suggest previous water iss ues with 16362 Hilow Road. Neighborhood homes with basements have had issues with excess water needing to be drained from them. T hi s is no t a mystery; thi s is a solid bucket a corrugated bl ac k pi pe 18" (w) X 24 " (H) detenti on basin left fro m previou s stru cture. Th e roof down -spo ut was co nnected via 4" drain p ipe to thi s so lid bu c ket 20 ' away fro m fo und at ion of the ho use. Wh en th e hou se was dem o li shed th e bu cket was no t re mo ved and th erefo re co ll ec tin g wa te r fr om las t s to m1. Sin ce thi s was a so lid bucke t 2- 4 ·· of rain wa ter was visib le du1i ng thei r vis it . In the four plus decades we have lived behind this property there has been excess water at the back of the properties. At one time the original owners had a pond in the yard which attracted frogs, which were quite vocal , as well as mosquitoes. Our property has had movement due to drought and then rain in the back area. We have also dug down a couple of feet and found water during the winter of 2014, a drought year. All of that information is to inform you of a history of water in the underground area which could easily represent problems for the proposed 3000 s quare foot basement, as well as drainage from the surrounding properties. I refer to professional opinion of UPP Geotechnology reported April 22, 2016 in document ID 15185C-01L1 Serial No. 17578; attached is a copy of the report. Other concerns expressed to Mr. Jalalian are the possible harvesting of the Redwood tree he plans to have remov ed . Harvest the wood rather than have it chopped into bark bits. The original houses in this area were built with Redwood 2 x 4s, it would be great to give back and not waste this fine tree. I am completely in favor of harvesting of the Redwoo d trees . 1 f I d ec ide d to re move th e tree I would d efi nit e ly look int o harves tin g it. The size of the house does not fit the neighborhood in a land to house ratio which brings up the concern of sale-ability. Look into the Los Gatos Times on a weekly basis and see that most of the houses in the price range and si ze have far more property with them. Why would anyone want to pay the same price for less privacy, les s property, less cohesiveness with neighbors? More than 40% homes in the neighborhood are two story homes. The size of the house is compatible in size and land with two story homes in neighborhood of equal land. The land to house ratio is defined as floor area ratio set by town of Los Gatos which is different size for each land. We have followed the same guidelines. There is no escape route for anyone in the basement in case of an Earthquake or fire. The only exit/entrance is through the central stairway. This is a danger which the plans have not addressed. It has been addressed in the plan. The plan shows the stair case in the cellar. We would like to see the plans remove the size of the basement to less than half of the current plans and that size be placed in the front part of the house where the drainage would be managed to the street and not take, nor deposit, from the back of the lot. Neither the size of cellar nor the location within the site has any bearing on drainage. No Underground water will be pumped out. See UPP Geotechnology report. Town of Los Gatos code does not allow drainage to the street. We have drainage plan that has been approved by public work engineering department. ( Joel Paulson May 27 , 2016 Town of Los Gatos Planning Department 110 E. Main St. Los Gatos, Californ ia 95031 Joel, Enclosed is our submittal of the 16362 Hi low Rd Architecture and Site application S-16 -011. Included in this submittal is: • 1 full-sized sets of the Architecture and Site, grading and drainage plan • Notes from the meeting with neighbors In addition to the above, below are changes made to the plan : •Reduced the height to 26' and pitch to 4 :12 •Removed half of the cellar with new square footage of 1800 square feet. • Removed tree numbers 6. Please let us know if you have any questions. Sincerely, Valy Jalalian EXHIBIT 1 4 (, In attendance: Notes from meeting regrad ing 16362 Hilow Road Coldwell Banker Office Monday May 23, 2016 6:30 pm Valy Jalalian, Developer, Project Manager Daryl Fazekas, Architect Mike Brown, Realtor William and Debbie Wagner, neighbor Jim Fox (representing Jeanne Driedger), neighbor 1 . Bill and Debbie Wagner expressed their concerns about the size and scope of the project. Including the large cellar size which might attract a multiple family dwelling situation . 2. Jim reiterated Jeanne's concerns regarding the water table and possible drainage issues into her property from the back. 3. Valy presented to the group the new edits made to the plans including a 1300 sq. ft. reduction in the cellar. The removed cellar area is on the Southwest side of the home. Also the height of the project has been reduced to 26.5 ft. at the highest point. 4 . Mike addressed Debbie's concerns about the neighborhood and possible multi-family dwellings explaining the unlikely scenario of this ever happening in this location . 5 . Daryl and Valy addressed the water concerns showing how the water will flow in the back yard drywell and any over flow will be handled with a back flow preventer which will take any access water to the front. 6. All parties seemed satisfied with the proposed changes and noted the project is ready to move forward. Notes: Shannon Susick and Jeanne Dridger both sent email communication that they were not able to attend the meeting . Following the meeting Valy also spoke to other neighbor Mr. & Mrs. Hariri about reduction in cellar. They were pleased with our decision since this was their only concern . They said they will be in our next meeting & will support us . TOWN OF LOS GATOS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE PLEASE TYPE or PRINT NEATLY 1, the undersigned, do hereby appeal a decision of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE as follows: DATE OF DECISION: PROJECT/APPLICATION: LOCATION: S Oil I Rio. i Io v gal LIST REASONS WHY THE APPEAL SHOULD BE GRANTED: jUISi. $iG kll+� �11c� /NI TOWN �� t1LO (If more space is needed, attach additional sheets-) IMPORTANT: 1. APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN (10) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF MAILING OF WRITTEN NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION. 2- THE APPEAL SHALL BE SET FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WHICH THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PERMIT, MORE THAN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY HEAR THE MATTER ANEW AND RENDER A NEW DECISION IN THE MATTER. 3. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, OF THE APPEAL DATE. 4. CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER TO DETERMINE WHAT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED TO BE SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. RETURN APPEAL FORM+,TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMEN PRINT NAME S4I I?4'4i(. SIGNATURE DATE I ADDRESS //r 0/ vrrk i .L PHONE L!!S jit fJ! S, �b(7�i ***************************************************************************************** OFFICE USE ONLY DATE OF PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING: COMMISSION ACTION: 1. DATE: 2. DATE: 3. DATE: PLAPPEAL $ 181.00 Residential PLAPPEAL $ 725.00 Commercial PLAPPEAL $ 74.00 Tree Appeals Nr'.[5EV.FORMS` Planning,20 15- 16 Fotms`.Appcal CDD-DRC.docx EXB-II31T ADDRESS STORIES TOWN / COUNTY BASEMENT GLA BED/BATH SITE YEAR BUILT/REMODEL 16300 H ILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1680 SF 3 B/2 BA 9490 SF 1952 16386 SHANNON 1 TOWN NO 1 72 3 SF 4 B/2 .1 BA 7519 SF 1953 16338 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 2081 SF 4 B/2 .0 BA 9891 SF 1955/1990 16350 HILOW 2 COUNTY UNKNOWN 2985 SF 4 B/3 .1 BA 11779 SF 2005 16362 HILOW*** 1 COUNTY NO 1056 SF 3 B/1 BA 12300 SF 1952 16374 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 3584 SF 5 B/3 BA 11775 SF 1956 16386 HILOW*** 1 COUNTY NO 1056 SF 3 B/1 BA 11850 SF 1954 16400 HILOW *** 1 COUNTY NO 2200 SF 3 B/2 BA 11850 SF 1959 16414 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 2579 SF 3 B/3 .1 BA 12300 SF 1953 16428 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO 3099 SF 4 B/3 BA 12750 SF 1988 16 425 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO 3068 SF 4 B/3 .1 BA 10875 SF 1992 16411 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 2534 SF 3 B/2 .1 BA 11400 SF 1950/1990 ) 16397 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 3330 SF 5 B/3 .1 BA 11700 SF 2012 16383 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 2339 SF 4B/2BA 12300 SF 1951 16369 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1056 SF 3 B/1 BA 10626 SF 1951 16357 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 2106 SF 4 B/1.1 BA 9906 SF 1954 16341 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1380 SF 3 B/1.1 BA 9438 SF 1954 16341 SHADY VIEW 2 COUNTY NO 2232 SF 3 B/2 .1 BA 8723 SF 1953 16419 SHADY VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 1480 SF 3 B/1.1 BA 8 760 SF 1953 16407 SHADY VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 1462 SF 3 B/2 BA 8640 SF 1952 16395 SHADY VIEW 2 COUNTY NO 4206 SF 4 B/4.1 BA 8400 SF 2005 16383 SHAD Y VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 2141 SF 3 B/3 BA 8220 SF 1953/2005 16371 SHADY VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 1300 SF 3 B/1 BA 8379 SF 1953 16359 SHAD Y VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 1285 SF 3 B/1.1 BA 8901 SF 1953 16347 SHADY VIEW 2 COUNTY NO 2577 SF 3 B/3 BA 8820 SF 1969/1995 16337 SHADY VIEW 1 COUNTY NO 2836 SF 4 B/3 .1 BA 8563 SF 2006 16370 SHANNON RD 2 COUNTY NO 3957 SF 5 B/4.1 BA 8120 SF 1952/2008 16442 HILOW 2 TOWN? NO *** UNKNOWN 11357 SF 2015 16456 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO 3487 SF 5 B/4.0 BA 11524 SF 1956/1980 16466 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1455 SF 2 B/1.1 BA 11524 SF 1956 16478 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1368 SF 4 B/2 .0 BA 11524 SF 1956 16496 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO 2747 SF 4 B/3.0 BA 11109 SF 1991 16530 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO 4081 SF 4 B/3.1 BA 13549 SF 2010 16505 HILOW 2 COUNTY NO *** 2 B/1.0 BA 20592 SF 1950 16491 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 1152 SF 2 B/1.0 BA 13224 SF 1951 16477 HILOW 1 COUNTY NO 960SF 2 B/1.0 BA 10725 SF 1951 16465 HILOW 2 COUNTY PTL 3316 SF 4 B/3.1 BA 10661 SF 2004 . ' (,.-( Wednesday, June 15, 2016 Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department 110 E Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Re : Project/ Appl ication S-16-011 16362 Hilow Road Appeal of the Deci sio n of the Development Review Committee Please find the following reasons why the app roval decision made by the DRC on 6/7 /2016 is being appealed with a request for a full hearing by the Plann in g Commiss ion . l. The architecture and si te pl ans by the developer for this parcel do not conform to the neighborhood and are a misuse of the cellar/basement policy by the Town of Los Gatos a. Please see the attached document gathered from public records (1 st American Real Estate/Rea lque st) regarding the subject street from Shannon Road to Topping with the following data : i. 37 homes are included (including a portion of Shady View Lane that backs to the impactful project) l. Of these 37 homes 13 homes are 2 stories; the remainder are 1 story; approximately 70% are single story. 2. In the direct area surrounding 1632 Hilow Road (from 16300-16341), 17 homes, there are only 3 2 story homes; approximately 16%. 3. Public records are not entirely correct or updated for several of the parcels, but it is believed that 3 of the 37 have partial basements. ii . The cellar policy for the Town of Lo s Gatos per the General Plan states that cellars are to be encouraged "in lieu of visible mass " not in addition to. 1 . While the developer reduced the cellar portion of the plans; it is still significant in terms of square footage (1800 SF) and the location at the northern portion of the site with excavation wil l undoubtedly destroy protected, established Redwood Trees that provide the only remaining foliage on the site. 2. The 1800 SF of cellar space is greater than many of the dwellings on the impacted streets (see attached). 14 homes have le ss than 1800 sf of Gross Living Area (GLA); approximately 38%. iii. The plans have been reviewed multiple times by the DRC, with minor adjustments made t o height, but none to the side setbacks and with no major reduction of bulk and mas s above grade. iv. The "cellar" area includes bedroom(s), bathrooms, living area and potential kitchen and other space encourages multiple families and generations with additional impact on the Town's infrastructure and se rvice s. Schools, due to lac k of authority by the Town are not included in this appeal. 2. The Town's residential design guidelines are maximums; not minimum requirements. a. Section 1.4 of the r esi dential design guidelines states the community expectations which this application does not meet; i. "Homes will respect the scale and character of their immediate neighborhoods ." b. General Design Principles (p .11_} state: i. Design to blend into the neighborhood rather than stand out ii. Relate a structure's size and bulk to those in the immediate neighborhood iii. Design structures to be energy and water efficient and which take maximum advantage of renewable energy resources 1. With over 3400 SF above grade, plus a 900 sf garage and with 1800 SF below grade this project will be one of the largest in the immediate neighborhood, standing out, not in relation to the neighborhood and with impact on water, electricity & other resources. c. While the above captioned application is within the basic guidelines, the mass and bulk above grade are not within the overall appeal and character of the Neighborhood. i. The developer and architect referenced at one of the DRC meetings that there are numerous homes on this street and Shady View Lane that have floor areas comparable or larger, however it must be noted that the majority of these except one (16442 Hi low Rd) were built prior to 2015 and with oversight by the county not the Town. 1. County requirements are minimal and allow construction to the setbacks with no design guidelines as demonstrated by homes on both Hi Low and Shady View Lane. 3. The Town, staff and Planning Commission must look at each project individually, however it is imperative that each application be also be viewed as part of the entire neighborhood and the Town; we are a built out town with the exception of a few larger parcels-the stress on our infrastructure and destruction of views, privacy, open space can NOT be emphasized enough. a. There are two other parcels on the subject portion of Hi Low and on the same side of the street that are slated for development including a current application at 16386 Hi Low road (S-16 -038) and 16400 Hilow (no application yet}. b. Precedence is often cited by developers and residents; in this application there are numerous parcels that will be affected by this decision. c. The cumulative effect of building to the maximums allowed on these 3 parcels combined will adversely impact the neighbors in terms of privacy, views and solar access (1.4 of RDG; community expectations .} 4 . The Town and staff are under no obligation to maximize a developer's bottom line or en sure that any project is profitable for them . The Town and staff must protect the residents and safeguard the guidelines, General Plan and all policies. 5. A recommendation for this developer would be to reduce the project to conform with the immediate neighborhood and neighbor's homes by a. Removing the 2 nd floor and keeping a single story home with cellar to minimize the impact on neighbor's views and privacy b. Remove the cellar to minimize the impact on the neighbors during construction and likely destruction of the established trees c. Increase the setbacks on all sides and reduce the overall impact, bulk and mass; reduce the number of bedrooms and bathrooms. 6. A full review and presentation is needed by the Planning Commission to ensure that this application complies with all policies, guidelines and protects the character of our Town, the immediate neighborhood and does not create precedence for bulk and mass and loss of views, privacy and trees . 03 Grant Road - Suite 200 Mountain Vrew, California 94040-3270 voice 650.327 2672 - fax 650 688 8333 www bwslaw cam July 13, 2016 Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Planning Division 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 Douglas 'W. Dal Cie(o ddalcielo@bwslaw.com Re: Project Description: APN: 532-04-082 Project Name: Valy Jalallan Project Address: 16362 Hilow Road, Los Gatos, CA 95032 Dear Commission: The scope of the project entails building a new single family home. The previously existing structure, now demolished and removed, was 3 bedrooms, 1 bath, 1,056 square feet of living space on an 11,779 square foot lot built in 1952. The original project was to design and build a new single family residence with 2 stories, 4 beds, 4-1/2 baths, approximately 3,484 square feet of primary living space with a 2,856 square foot cellar and 820 square foot garage. Due to the reasons explained below, the current project has been reduced in size and now consists of a 2 story, 4 bedrooms, 4-1/2 baths, approximately 3,479 square feet of primary living space, an 1800 square foot cellar and a 932 square foot garage. COMPATIBILITY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD: House to the right of our parcel: 16350 Hilow Road: — Two story home with approximately 3,000 square feet surrounded by mature trees which impair the views of all immediate neighbors House to the left or our parcel: 16374 Hilow Road: — Single story home with 3,584 square feet SIT 1 6 Los Angeles -Inland Empire - Mann County - Oakland - Orange County - Palm Desert - San Francisco - Silicon Valley - Ventura County Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Planning Division July 13, 2016 Page 2 Five houses across the street facing our parcel: 16383 Hilow Road: 16397 Hilow Road: 16411 Hilow Road: 16369 Hilow Road: 16357 Hilow Road: — Single story home with 2,339 square feet — Single story home with 3,330 square feet — Single story home with 2,534 square feet — Single story home with 1,056 square feet — Single story home with 2,106 square feet Attached as Exhibit A is a chart depicting the square footage data relating to these homes. There are 27 homes on Hilow Road of which 9 are two stories with an average of 3,700 square feet; several of which contain cellars. There are 30 homes on Shady View Lane of which 13 are two stories with an average of 3,200 square feet. PROACTIVE CHANGES WERE MADE BEFORE FIRST DRC MEETING: • Plan was modified to conform to the Town's Consulting Architect's Report, completed by Larry Cannon • Conformance to Consulting Arborist's Report, completed by Deborah Ellis • First change was to reduce the height approximately 2 feet to match the next door neighbor's 2nd story • 2nd change was to reduce the 2nd floor height from 10' to 9' per staff to be compatible with 2nd floor 9' height of next door neighbor • Changed plan to maintain 14' clearance from the redwood tree to excavate for foundation • Agreed to excavation by hand in proximity to the redwood tree pursuant to arborist's recommendation AFTER FIRST DRC MEETING WITH NEIGHBORS TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS: • Responded to Analysis of short-term and long-term effects of sub -drains and pumping of surface runoffs of ground water pursuant to retained expert UPP Geotechnology Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Planning Division July 13, 2016 Page 3 • Further reduced the height from 28' to 27' with reduction in pitch • Agreed to build 8-foot high good neighbor fence before construction begins • Agreed to design excavation and shoring plan for the cellar • Agreed to the planting of additional trees to be placed in front of the house • Agreed additional trees to be placed at rear of the house • Agreed additional trees to be placed in right side of the house ▪ Agreed for the neighbor's privacy to raise all side windows in 2nd floor to 5' • Agreed to harvest the removed redwood trees AFTER SECOND DRC MEETING WITH NEIGHBORS TO ADDRESS THEIR CONCERNS: Second meeting was held at Co!dwell banker's office and hosted by Michael Brown, real estate agent A Reduced the height further from 27' to 26' and pitch to 4:12, now lower than the height of next door neighbor m Reduced the size of the cellar by more than 1,200 square feet with new square footage of 1,800 ▪ Agreed to remove only one tree instead of two although two were permitted by arborist for removal ® Agreed to redirect any overflow of storm water to the front of the house • Agreed to relocation of HVAC system NOTE: The existing story poles have not been changed to reflect the new reduced height of 26'. As you know, our permit has been issued with all applicable agencies signing off. The concessions have been proactive, significant, and time consuming. We have worked diligently with all immediate neighbors to address their concerns. Please see attached as Exhibit B photos which depict the approximate view and impact from the Planning Commission Town of Los Gatos Planning Division July 13, 2016 Page 4 appellant's lot. Our personal opinion based upon discussions with appellant is her concern about the proposed new house (renderings attached as Exhibit C) which is one lot to the East of appellant's home. In other words, appellant has no genuine concern about Mr. Jalalian's home but rather believes that she is laying the foundation to object to the home proposed to be built one lot to the East of her home. Everyone knows that the fair market value of each neighbor's home increases as each newer, larger home is built in the neighborhood. Please let us know if you have any questions. Very truly yours, DOUGLAS W. DAL CIELO DWD:hcl Attachments MP #4846-4814-5204 v1 r 'EXJfI'BI'I' 5\ 5 Homes across the street in front of the subject property at: 16362 Hilow Rd Los Gatos, CA 95032 16411 Hilow Rd FAR: 2,534 Lot Size: 11,325 Build: 1951 16397Hilow Rd 16383 Hilow Rd 3,330 12,196 1992 2,339 10,454 1951 16369 Hilow Rd 1,056 9,944 1954 Homes on each side of the subject property at: 16362 Hj low Rd Los Gatos, CA 95032 16357Hilow Rd 2,106 9,148 1954 16386 Hilow Road 16374Hilow Rd 16362 Hilow Rd 16350 Hilow Rd 16338 Hilow Rd FAR: 3,479 Lot Size: 11, 761 Build : 1954 3,584 11,761 1956 3,479 11,761 2016 2,985 11,761 2005 2,081 9,583 1955 TX'1 BIT'B r ( Tx3-(IBIr c (· 16386 Hilow Road proposed front elevation: 16386 Hilow Road proposed rear elevation: Existing examples of architectural style of the proposed home : ( This Page Intentionally Left Blank wv w54 p,R UAr to.R4�t 4r 1 s tT6Y T=Ti'r xTi, Em d 3L"•+T. • I I , , I �* I 4♦ � H I JR I •�r., JT �— rT._—I•-'__1___J - -. .. v_L --L _a_LT� ri n lr r. I 41 I eY e� 7 e it 41 I . -0 �B r A I ! � g I E, In -Nlo14ll, l,Neans 111sAli; Es' V r _ 4.l 'I MO?,„ (c) -rp-tery 134.9 Joal? 6','Q7 cje •J tgil nth' I, R i i=1y y i°e.Lr_...a YOUTH SCIENCE RV3TITLTE L P'6 ae;8-6a 1111' p'6a•(1+ 4,1t61 .04402 pu#[a• .(PTblr 62r4.9,5)4741A [ .34b6 NLx (o.a�l9) n*1. gsa M.% obi -I- YL (o.l4'6) !4o �ofb� Noa7CP 52,71 heir' ril.mely a D Lrbli(� h 4aJ oC� 4541'0/I014A 4•043011 ,;d 6,/14 p.j$-lA-t,Jt, / 19J 532 eau, AMOK i ij guvs . f'5�msrw par C&co ,.iYd r d. rR ll+',1 Savrgr.4v4P PA�emuorn At.1111, Nn1-13444 Teadv L e a. ,P enealr:m. new solgle 144:4 residence Ie4.A9Arp4 e)d1 NileR Rust same -Sex )ir os..: aanrs );r:e rd Seri Se♦:nA &MO R-1st same CAM .. k tinily rt0FM,ea G..•e•fTdn Drrrt.M.P 7P+ It ay rraidrnlal ssne L '*. f 1111 11 4Yo 11,779 1.000 sq E n. n im am R..144.r194w44e•. 1 1.0%440 fL 1". a s feu Mnr ]Irl S 44.441 Roar 132i - S „I,- I aid n S Cans, 9)1g - Se lm a. 6P.1: y 'R'I i' g;nn 4V 1 94041 ST 23 Fry mere. S mr 20 T et.,Artwn S side e• II,Pr mlrlm... 3 u•A4 1 sleer minlmure V. 0rlM4 OPl 1,61' SO F.I mi,tnq• 04A1/xIN 3M: IP4 ....1.....r1nr, Arm Ape f%1 � TkrriA, ,I pY e>•'. : •1.4.amr S 140.4 (O,i.151)31r) 3413 sq. IL m„Mum S [.4 11l9)2 95419 E,u*leeuee P1rpnR 4 r.n q,ecd Ei♦rwlRe ...e Remewl4 e•ncFy rrolmm ng Se ..... er remelt - () U' Wdr� ftt}F fE� ti q•(o ft-`{ (LL-h 0 Poop«�pdh Try 0 vo,...43 1Cdrlfyd badTbfloR—. 1r•164H1- Mo., IJ0.D 7 4„41R pie'S�GUFI "� 2 e2 P-( jwylr��r>a�r% y2JCs -17 46, t�IJU hl.d•?j • Pet-4 64' 1h'f1 F,I(/• 12' 71Qe7`ri i .766, e,Y 1,77 ea 'roan Ai • Uri RC1[.L+6® Jti1R ITIe•d-7 • h i-' Cud 64tz4,10re- 4- val. pi ICI Fe,R f p.ve ¢ �kdnJA.TI6IJ Fop- pAtErtiesiT rJo G'v04cra- 1104 (1.' -1n •21v0 &F''Fa1t'4- a. 1.1 k • 1-0-0jR 5 +uro, M1 d'"(:P(2y3•1ev for- gempdal. -re-' f71-1-1,-1 HHVI61DN9 fv •ry, Ira ,IW C/i .7,In,1U Daryl Fazekas Architecture, Structural, Energy 15621 Loma Vista Ave. 1.0s Gatos, CA 95032 Dary1Fazokase gem ai LcOm 408 395 9400 171 s)mswne c.PEGIP•O 14d DATE yrl, )11, is ease �411.a�.rE wa• •MEET 1314 •FEET■ 1w C<F4.1 —_t 440 4- ;L)o�m rL U S Nrn ur I,ra111b orrrcc • IL • J Q .imPik, riwormi 41I1r0v./ r- ,., lb•vr. ' a$4 la at, 7 4J*v.-'43,,, 1 p • L.,'+*+r •n x.a^r q94.' 4141 6 1-. -/ •I.44 P1Go F wd,3e, -.k trb°I to.s.1 v L..+7 IAl4 r 1'1 'a', V A 4 �I e I .e,^ -4.1 v '7f u1, 44s - , 'AtY ti4n9, . 414 v, few- Aft. . // ,.4.k' - : ,.RSt.•, a.. !l�tp: a4h4 ,la - (t„,11s) , 10 1r4.6 % . o1 b- I ¢ ,05t K 11199= Y- 5kM m+r.•h ^raTal,, 11Yra s .1.1.1 s 1+1a.. 4 i1}oo = ti F1'Jhfi Ger'IIS p1J4)6 o-vp-o i ../Trz t'r tt al. V vltG1 ofa. dG4zofly 1-16r1 rlc I1.ki I.t • err ppot-c- I t WM, Daryl Fazekas Architect 15621 Lama Vista Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 408.395.9400 Llatylfazeit.igGmail torn, `) ito ltp. 4i i4'1,I(p r )4•I.4,L.L-1d6h-I j kite G� I/4, u tE 1.4'1. 4 (p APPRLIVIM pi -op pt-b I (, 4 (a ti H l 1440 (2- 2 lua P, 2 1 -.11==os.... • t r kr--I 'Tv J 16'4140 {4-p 6, -4- 1' 4. *4-•' hi Pt..11.1 1,1Pt1 Le, Jr. -I b>ril gam-idt, 1 Y. 4' -....,. _ r P7^-11. le" • 0 0 _ IL 4 t !AY 14- 1 1 loi GI-C, 01G'[...0 fAz-o• 0Pri44.Plt PUPA) \ /26 -,91--I2 Alqa 5'241 tip VI 1,1 I Cere 1-1\111-tv ftp.t.-39 v16, 11 or? lc E. ".0 I co Ks v..4o1-1.- ( 44" tz40,10(r k" 4.11 " 114,0 r 'Orr Ho.12.11. d.pa.-ra viri•ivotAR-v 0. I 6JI r61„6„, irmeL,r, 4?"6, v-h6leta eo,P- Daryl Fazekas Architect 15621 Lorna Vista Ave Los. Gatos CA95032 408.395.9400 Dactil.a7elsNOVGIciail corn 4-1 • 40,1e- elea SCAM VA..° ,1, 14, 2__,_ c.7, clot/ I tp 24 It4-1 ca-r-16,E APPIIVMD I42412'14R-0 v,/ r2-17 Dap .111. 1.11161210 I: ormwir.rvurnaEn A-;2 41,10 11•t4 l,} 4r,t 4r b,1'1., *J 1yv HT[A ti Wrry c,i DIAL • T yToLed ¢Y b,1.' - itm h58.4 $Cs hh'i. er Lo..v 4I1.1dwie0 pi', pep LIVVIT �K 12 Ga(+�rCL Waev 111H as bk.( Wir�VsaJ U/a4 ii � FiI,EvIATIPhJ • Err c.,.rr7 r-1 .01g0.a v•wv 4FAM (1/Ir 4 vbev v-h t+va+a1 111 Eis b41,7 LePawrli C •'f to PJ RGE W W.av t l WC. --r q'yr Woo', w,N o.�s IA)/ h+11u�o-�g[7 v,Jtpe.p 1,16,141" wlrJ(i.�t% 4.1 q1,3 GYs wa;a— •n/a• 5 { L P PC" M 1LA L kT -4I Wavp fr11,-11 a/a�i II1[1111[111 vJeav 17.oR 66. 31r,4 Ia'i(, 5G9 iS ./51,5 &cs' F 171.-3T e-I NA--T:v' J •hltiULo-{� C,14.41 P L 1 WeaO WINDa at} 1 -r Woop Ytz1I 1 v .6 rj 1ie,1,ldls <m✓F 8ea W,l. tLA'91..I I,J[r LopPa4°Iri'1.1F+ 09.4144 YS E � OL-6lcefl olJ Daryl Fazekas Architect 15621 Loma Vista. Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 408.395.9400 DarvlPa2Ek, Gmaitoo iL•lr6UTANI Eis b41,7 LePawrli C •'f to PJ RGE W W.av t l WC. --r q'yr Woo', w,N o.�s IA)/ h+11u�o-�g[7 v,Jtpe.p 1,16,141" wlrJ(i.�t% 4.1 q1,3 GYs wa;a— •n/a• 5 { L P PC" M 1LA L kT -4I Wavp fr11,-11 a/a�i II1[1111[111 vJeav 17.oR 66. 31r,4 Ia'i(, 5G9 iS ./51,5 &cs' F 171.-3T e-I NA--T:v' J •hltiULo-{� C,14.41 P L 1 WeaO WINDa at} 1 -r Woop Ytz1I 1 v .6 rj 1ie,1,ldls <m✓F 8ea W,l. tLA'91..I I,J[r LopPa4°Iri'1.1F+ 09.4144 YS E � OL-6lcefl olJ Daryl Fazekas Architect 15621 Loma Vista. Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 408.395.9400 DarvlPa2Ek, Gmaitoo iL•lr6UTANI CANLI{.AL COMMENTS! I Ai china -tonal Consultant review is required Masse submit a PUF copy of plans to p 1 +e`.rtoss.ak c., I•cw and provide a J po a of S2,200. You will twelve copies of the consultant architects emniments once they are available. 2 iibonst Consultant review is required. Please submit a PDF copy of plates to spiitedaQinsesatosta„gov and provide a deposit of 5.2.200. You will receive copies of Ihu cmrsuhing arhodsi comments once they are available. Height pubs shall be installed prior to advernsiu_ for public hearing (policy is enclosed). • pursuant to the aduptoJ fee schedule, in the nest ,u1,11410ml processing services by the Town are required due to changes, modifications, additions, more, omissions, or discrepancies ..rased by the applemin ul bi4har agents or ropreeen1a1ives, the applicant shall pay an additional lee as derenmewd by ds Director of Community Development to covet the actual halal. 5 Pursuant to the Mopled lie schedule. it Ih,: requested inlurnation from any of the Tech Review Stalin now sub : i de l will un 100 days or this meeting, the applicant will be required In pay a fee of 11201 of the current application nee at the time the requested information is -submitted Any resubmirhd after one year will be processed as a new an/Airmen, whju:l to new revs'_ lr Parswnt to the adopted fee schedule, if atter three meetings, any additional review is e required by the Technical Review Committee and/or ORC, there will he an additional fee based en time and material cost. (.)fMA.F-1' CONDITIONS I APPROVAL: This application shalt be completed in aecurtance with all of the conditions of approval listed below nand in substantial oemplianee with the plans approved and tatted AS received by the 'fawn on , 2015. Any changes or modifications to the approved planes shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Development Ices iew Cnmminee, the Planning Commission. or Town Gaelic/I, depending on the scope oldie changes. 2. EXPIRATION! The approval will expire two years farm the approval date pursuant la Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING. Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed lie/tires that will r101 retleel or encroach onto adjacent properties_ No flood lights shell be used unless it can be demonstrated that They arc needed For safety or security. The Lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check. 4. GENERAL. All existing trees shown on the plan and trees acquired to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval. of this plan, and must remain on the site. 5, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. b ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS. The developer shall implement, al their cost, all recommendations made by , identified in the Arlorisf's report, dated as received , 2015, on file In the Community Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will he addressed, These recommendatiota must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to isswisioc of a building permit where applis ruble,, 7. TREE FENCING. Protective tree fencing shall be pixel at the drip line of existing trees prier to issuamz of demolition and budding permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree Intimation fencing plan with the construction plans prior to the issuance of budding plans. li. EXTERIOR COLON.: The exterior -colors of the house shah! not exceed a light reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. 9. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to Ihc issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shalt he recorded by the applicnnt with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires all exterior colors to be maintained in conformance with the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. I ti. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that any applir:aut who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, ewI,vmW,errr.,I .„mt. MCA 2* Gar G•u 1J YIN) as' L. FL kr 2x l'1' vk' JA-f 9-00 410 ',;a dlifiG' itYbt 4-7' rn4 so- 4-14, r -1 'ii, IL.IIR .i,1'1, 'il•It� l f a0 fLoo �IrtJ 112 idi NP.r 411-61*3,r0rJ b 43 J G1-046.-1 �4a-Y poop i I 1 It Icp*74.? FhGHL(¢— ril6,7 cif-islerprymii•d GreJJ611-1617 (aap.ari (s • Daryl Fazekas, Architect • 15621 Loma Vista Ave Lus Gatos CA 95tk32 408 395 9400 DaryllaaekaslCmail,corn I ea .7 4, ResNc.t; )A La L'IaN.' M.. eman rka 1J �IIt.Ov./ IMP I�.w'"� rr€VIEl13rf9 El 8 16 'AA' FIRE DEPARTMENT SAN-[A CLARA COUNTY 147001kinchesna bµt., Les Gams CA 1.6032 lril�t 1406r 378-4010 •140r113'78 9.1!F hoot • wow scr lit c,,; rrr_.a 16 63T6 DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS "r""1NP Common) 04: Construction SI1e fire Safety; All construction cake., must rornply with applicable provisions of the C'FC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Spent twin sl 7. Provide appropriate notations on subservient plan submittals, as appmprratc le tile project. CliC Chp. 33 C ummcnl 0.5i Address identification. New and ex1sbng buildings shall have approved address nnntbees, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plalnlp legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property, These numbers shall contrast nub their background. Where required by the hie code official, address numbers shall be provided facilitate ierner enc response. Address numbers sha11 be Arabic veil lueattons to in additional approved emergency P{ numbers or alphabe[seal letters Numbers shall be a minimum of rt inches OM b rem)high wd,a nomrrrune stroke width of 0.5 inch 1127 nos). Where access is by means of a private road and the bolding cannot by viewed from the pubbc way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall Le maintained. C(C Sec, SUS Plans nut approved. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams la be reproduced nnlo the future plan submittal. tq ma. sm..* YIY AS t r.A o rik➢ ❑ ❑ eiseW+scr SFR VOW nee v-b Yea 'elation eau 74460 ay,rwsnwrcr SFR- vr� rMxttvrerrepMll ltoidvnlrol U"velepmrni new 62/11/2016 r Ne Structure rote* 6362 tiituw Rd Lo5Cmus rar,rsaamrtrtar reovc1R.1�n rr�cS aura lire now• rrrr 2250 SfrM, II I 1500 g,geened es the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection [rebid yarri,rs scorn ar,wc,raMy and nrla,w�nrnebq!Canrrl"r Lvr:c.nr�Lfn'AWu, Lye eause. Lw r;rlmervo•rl .,ayra+ rr ryrasa !larding Doug 4'7 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA CCOOHNTY 1.17ar1 Wert. er P.%1 ton.,. __ Idls t411'.si3 /1-001 f1+140A. it h'n:'1. xsld ory epnrw 16 0376 DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS """" Revised o1 a proposed new 7,740 sq uarc-luul two -stud' •rrn}',ic Irunify residence with hascincr it sand attached garage. Cunuarent 01 Review of this Developmental proposal is limited la acceptability of bile aces and star supply as they pertain to lite department operations, and shall nut be construed a a substitute for formal plan review 1D determine compliance twillr adopted model [Ude , 1'riur to performing any work the applicant shall nuke application to, and receive from, the Building De utmenl all applicably construction permits. Comment 02: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic res,d - t+ l 1 ac .prenklcr system hall bo installed in one and two-family dwellings as follows: In; all a se iel.'- and two-family dwellings and in existing one -anti lit o•tanriiy dwellings when additions are u,,,dc that sacraria Llie building ora'a ter mute than 3,600 square hrl kscephun: A rmNbme addiliae Es, an existing building that do i nut total more than 1,000 square fort of building area NOTE: The riot, ot+,trpam(s) andany contractor (Om suhcontr•actcrls) arc responsible fur consul ling with the cosy purveyor of record in order to determine if any motif cation or upgrade of the u, istinl; water servile is requrrri A S tat• ui Caklurnia licensed (C-16) f or Pre..eclioo Contractor shall Skblml plans, calculations, a coreplcled permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their wok. CRC Sur. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LCTC Comment 03- Water Supply Requirements: Potable watersupplies shall be protected from contamination caused try lire protection water supplies. LI is the responsibility ul tire applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the seater purveyor supplying the site 01 such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based aim protection systems, and/ or fin suppression eater supply systems car storage containers that maybe physically connected in any manner to an appllancv capable of causing rertlaminatiun of the potable water supply of lire purveyor or record. Final approval of the systems) under consideration willatot be granted by this office until comp?lance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as (rating been met by theapphcantls!. 2410 CFC Sec, 99J,3S and Health and Safely Cude 131142 Cr, two fonArs ego WA ❑ Q o SFIR berm 2 say • 7141re1 Reodential Devetopnn-+n NME 91 PMRCI SFR 2250 IVFE rear �v0 I eau- alalian 02l ILf 2tl16 1 v 2 TEAM., nrrmsmw New 5lrl1um 16362 Hllow Rrl L0sCalos r 110/d !AL inn lnau ( Suer 150a rs Orgsurcd as. lice Santa Clara Com11y Ccl114 Fire Prorenr in Dwrrirrt Wes SLrac Clem ww,l act Iheentolooi,„titu01041, ayerlrhal.w Ahoy, Les N.00q LwGano a M"na.>.,,.. 0nasbv0 , Hurling Isvug, tea 1' KCI! &I 1. ) vpH"slpo..J a7TJv1 I-1I4nv✓ 4Jtupt` sl lr,e} lie �,I't,IC/ Daryl Fazekas Architecture, Structural, Energy 15621 Lonna Vista Ave. Las Cates, CA 95032 Daryli'nzeko1 h gm ai 1.cnm 408 395 9400 �Gslrt�L 11y`f af7Et c.e. 0 4 DRAWN Pere 10,1 ,le,e II 1 ■an4. ®10 LI1tA� ■MIST 47116 '7 I�� GT19 1J OF tVo • 90b4 t 64' f-p 4,48. tu" r1P1' I lJlJ 72.17.111C1 EitaDriEritir r4 .1..), 1,e G. 'YIP 1111.) 410464-- j' ,,,.,. .. ....3 \ I M. 25 I, CHP.00174 . nf747,..--Za.10' \47:111.1.24:>”ft ' ...' .. r . „.,—•—•,,,, -' Ve-.7—.4.?,,,___, r.C,,,r .9 em \ '... AV :. \ N ; ,". , ,„/ -7---"-T7-V, '7,--,i... • [1.4:':....,,,\,..‘," z_. I .. L •1::::L.,, . I , ! ...\\! . 1 , 1\03' . i , ,''' f; --74' & ..--:"'-' . v ' . .. ; ..... ..., il r.., I t Th. • ; '1 r° Nj li .1.1 26 ‘3Ny.N ! 3.5' c 0 11A)47 ‘ LI GOV 41% """7 ,r. ,74 • 71 41tPiF,... tt.ol 6 CT 0.6-1-1-`7 015 IL�- 7 1140,9 IR Pr 14 rn R-19 (WI t rgo•el WM0./ 't- (.1tc Rtve:1 ) *31/.5, - beAl tipc,99,1v iLa IL_G L_11 flL .1, LiFIL tko 00. ILI 9 4.4 c5ii+v 01.41 W- her' fzi 9 , fo..1111 tritt 1-1" ‘16-61 I Ol•--.1 1-4 Daryl F azek as Architecture, Structural, Energy 15621 Loma Vista Ave. Los -Cato,, CA 95032 Dary1Fazekase grnaii.com 408 395 9400 1......±,t.-1ANJ 4, 47-req-1' A-2661100 APP11.0.131, RIV14144 el 5 6, NJ A2 ''111rVIC NOUS. V') ABBREVIATIONS 1 OFECevnav DEsc-R4enon AB . AGGREGATE BASE UP LIP DE GUTTER AC ! ASPHALT CONCRETE LP LOW POINT AD I AREA DRAIN MON MONUMENT 9C BACK or CuRe (N) NEW BFL BACKFLOW PREV"NTOR DG ORIGINAL GROUND OW BOTTOM or WALL P8 PULL BOX Cho CURB AND CUTTER PCEV PEAL VAULT ..CA CENTERLINE 2.P/L PROPERTY LINE CL5W CENTERLINE SWALE PP POSER POLE GO CLEMOUT PPP PLASTIC P-'3EF0RATED PIPE CP CONTROL PUN! PSE PLIBL6C SEWAGE EASEMENT OM 01BVEWAY PVC POLYVINYL DURKE DI MCP INLET R/W RICH' Of WAY DTL DETA3L RCP RE71FORGED GONCREIE MPE ELCT ELECTRIC SD STORM DRAIN EP ma Or PAVEMENT ELEVAlwi SOW STORM DRAIN MANHOLE EUC EUCALYPTUS TREE Sill STANDARD (E)EX EXISTING SS SANITARY 3VF3R FF FINISH FLOOR 55M1.1 SANITARY 5E110 MANHOLE FC FINISH GRADE SW SIDEWALK FH FIRE HYDRANT IC TOP OF CURB FL FLCVAJNE TF TOP 00 FOUNDATION FNC FENCE TOSTO 00GP CF 20 GRATE FOC FACE GE CURB FP TOP Cr PAVEMENT GB GRADE BREAK TW TOP OF WALL GUY GUY TARE (ITN TYPICAL HP HIGH PONT VCP VERIFIED CLAY PIPE DP D11C11E IRON PIPE W. Wtl1E LINE S1RVE INV INVERT WA WALKWAY JP JOINT POLE YAW WATER METER .e JJNCRON Box (u3KXTY) 1.N WA.RF VALVE EXISTING LEGEND PR0POSFD C E JT— ® SLY • SSCD 0 3* ®GUM 102.23 a Li ✓V- X a 0E5CRIPTIDN PROPERTY LINE FILL AREA OMIT CUT AREA LIMIT CONTOUR WATER LINE STORM DRAM PIPE (SOLID) SANITARY SEWER PIPE SUNBEAM PIPE {PERFORATED) OVERHEAD UTILITIES WITH POLE GAS UNE ELECTRIC LINE (UNDERGROUND) ,.DINT TRENCH STREET LICHT VAULT SANITARY SEINER CLEANik)T SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE STORM DRAIN MANHOLE ELECTROLIER WATER METER TREE MA TRUNK fi WDODEJ4 FENCE SPOT ELi0ATION TREE PROTECTION FENCE 5' TALL CHAIN LINK SWALE DIRECTION OF FLOW IN PIPE AREA DRAIN/ INLET OVERLAND RELEASE PATH GitAD)NG DIRECTION (E) TREE TO BE REMOVE DOWN -SPOUT PCP -UP EMITTER GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME 16362 HILOW RD., LOS GATOS, CA APN: 532-04-082 EARTHWORK TABLE LOCATION AREA OF GRADING AVERAGE FINISH GRADE AVERAGE t1:1 GRADE MIRIAD;E FILL DEPTH Fru, Ian GMT (Cr GARAGE E51 355.3 358.0 0.32 10 0 BASEMENT PAO 2.461 345 5 255 3 -12 e3 0 _ 112E BASEmeNt L4FITWELL 334 3A.T3 1582 -1091 1 'QS SUB TOTAL, Mil G - - fa 4112 DHNE3AY 551 35e.f 357,7 9.47 10 9 06110 139 350_S 3534.5 0.10 1 9 SITE Sze 33e.5 355,5. 0.15. B 9 SUB TOTAL. SITE 15 0 TOTAL (EXPORT, 675 CY 25. 1144 NOTE: I. EARTHWORK QUANTITIES ON THIS TABLE ARE FOR INFORMATION ONLY. CONTRACTORS ARE TO PERFORM THEIR OWN QUANTITY TAKE OFFS. SOP YOLY S•, y,4sv: PROJECT SITE LOCATION MAP I N.T.S. SHEET INDEX: c-I C-2 C-3 COVER SHEET/ NOTES GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN DETAILS/ CROSS SECTIONS BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BEARING N 19'40'05' E OF THE CENTERLINE OF HI1OW RD. AS SHOWN UPON CERTAIN TRACT NO, Gib, RECORDED IN BOCK 28 OF MAPS, AT PAGES 9 AND 9, WAS TAKEN AS BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR ALL BEARINGS SHOWN HEREON, REFERENCE() TOWN OF LOS GATOS BENCHMARK: BOA, f LG39 EL: 36023' (NAM) 08) NOTE: GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLANS SHALL BE REMEDIED AND APPROVED BY THE PROJECT G0OTECHNICAL ENGWEE{K. DRAINAGE NOTES 1. Surface water shall be directed away from Oil buildings into drainage swales. gutters, storm drain inlets and dralnuge systams- 2. On site storm drain lines shall consist of solid PVC-SDR35 minimum or better. 3. Storm drain inlets shall be precast concrete, Christy U23 type or equivalent, NOTICE TO CONTRACTORS CONTRACTOR TO NOTIFY U.S.A. (UNDERGR0UN0 SERNCF ALERT) AT 000-227-2600 A IAINIMUM OF 2 WORKING DAYS BEFORE RECINNINC UNDER- GROUND WORK FUR VERIFICATION OF THE LOCATION AND DEPTH OF UNDERGROUND UTILITIES. -P ;F, ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 11.111111111.31111.1 1534 CAROB LANE Las *3r(33. CA 94074 108 (550) 941-5055 FAR ts60) 941- V5S E-MAIL SMP1NCYa3E1250 YAHDC.COM OWNER; CDPYRIGNT © 2014 51.P £NGNEERS CI'r1L £NGWEERS CO <wo t1l' W2 8 0� 0 Qu_oQ OJc‘t Q CA 0 fZ W d Z 0w(cl?„1 cc 0 co 0 w CO a 3eAs1c.,s Tate: 1/22/2016 Salk NTS Prepared OF S.P. Checked by S.R. Job I 215132 1 OF 3 C-1 a5„C Eu� d fr n {N) SSCO i r REUSED tUPGRADED Jr NEEDEC I TO'BE- —V1�-5E SERVILE ---- A I uw3s.36' L� IS D4N 357.57 W S 70'19'55" E 157.06' EARN WALE 4112 — _—r------ - -- SC 356.5 5%� I FG 35&5 5}.1 EG SSR3 -�--SP---..--1--;-SIII---..--CI In -- -"R 7S ` -CLEAN DV )>ml W W �p= 1f- 6' Mtf = so - M UC41f 5L1 100 31 398.25 '` 1Y� k 1 6' AD 1G 31517 N6 346.5 105 348.25 )'U11PWE11 1C 348.17 NV Ye PIA." 358.5 NV 6'e PVC 345.4 NV PIWPWELL 3414 4 PERFORMED 915011491 0 IX WTIH LLEN4031 Al CORNERS (01P) 1ST FF 360.0 BASEMENT 348.5 BASEMENT PAD 345.5 54 _JT-- Jr GARAGE lz I4E414AS & SIC MEIER {N P051) 0-1 t m } FC 355.5 51 FG 358.5 51 -----T7--_S 70°19'S5" E 157A6'—-- --__----_------ — EARTH SWALE O IX EAICArs Raw' OOWN-SPOJIS CONREC1ED PO 10. SWAIE CI08 12 8145 ORANACE MEM 16 It 3932 # LOCANINS ARE coxceP RA. WW1' VA ROOF PLAN RA0l1LDw PIILVERI01 PCP -UP Eames 471 I swim, GRAVE1. PM 26' 06' 0 3 DEEP PER SEINE 110E7 TO 357.15 64v r PVC (N) 35E,5 NV EAt1 (OK $07TOY) J 3550 GRAPHIC 0 0 5 70 SCALE 041 40 JA SMP 1t ENGINEERS CIVIL ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS 1534 CAROB LpryE .A15 ALTOS, CA 94074 1EL (E50) 941-5055 FAX: (650) 941-5755 E-MAIL SOPENGMEE030 741100.COIA GW5€R: 03P701014I 0 7014 SLAP ENGINEERS. CIVIL ENGINEERS aWW 01 CM CO ooN Q 0 0- CPC _J 4 Z Z CC Q B 0 0 CJ Rerisiamx Oats: I/22/2016 Seale: 1`=10. Prepared by S.P. Chec1 0 by S.R. 171' 215132 Sheet 2 0 C-2 PIPE MATCHING 512E Or SD POPE 45' CONNECT:NI PIPE MATCHING SZE OF SO PIPE War ET.EVATI0N pEIT-PLAN •1" LONNECI014 ELEVATION VIEW STORM DRAIN CLEANOUT DETAIL N.T.S. 4` MAX. FLOW DEPTH VEGETALGN/ PLANTS 4••. DEEP GRASS EARTH SWALE DETAIL N.T.S. FG PER PLAN 4" PERFORATED SUDORAIN OR 6" PVC FROM LICIIIWCLL INLETS j 13 SLOPE PER PLAN FLOATING DEVICE MOUNTED ON INLET, CONNECTED TO ALARM (ACTIVATION SIGNAL) FLOATING DEVICE MOUNTED ON INLET, CONNECTED TO PUMP (ACTIVATION SIGNAL) 7G PER PLAN 45' COUPLING DOWNSPOUTS. 4" STD ROUND DR SQUARE PLASTIC PREFABRICATED HEAD DRAIN CLEANOUT FINISH ® LOCATION TO CONFIRM TO IfORDSCAPE LANDSCAPE OR WALKWAY MIN, 1.5' COVER 4" PVC CO MIN. 1% TO INLET ROOF DOWN —SPOUT CONNECTION N.T.S. 370 31f0 350 340 NOS POLYOLEFIN POP-UP DRAINAGE EMITTER 'MTH 'U, V. INHIBITOR. OR APPROVED EQUAL. NOS 1/4 BEND DRAIN ELBOW OR APPROVED EQUAL OMPACTED TOPSOIL —_DRUCHEO STONE DRY WELL POP—UP DRAINAGE EMITTER N.T.S.. PROVIDE ACCESS LADDER IF NEEDED SOLID COVER WITH SAFETY LACK 2"0 PVC PIPE PUMP OUTLET ■ TO INLET/ BUBBLER DRIVEWAY 4.70 374 360 350 340 4" MINIMUM RAIN PIPE �-- BACKFLOW PREVENTOR FOR PUMP OUTLET LOCATION PER PLAN INV (EN) PER PLAN ALARM? SHALL BE ACTIVATED IF WATER LEVEL REACHES TO THIS ELEVATION, INSTALL ALARM TO INFORM RESIDENCE IF PUMP FAILS TO ACTIVATE AND WATER LEVEL IS EXCEEDING DEPTH OF FLOW, — PUMP SHALL START PUMPING WHEN WATER LEVEL REACHES TO THIS ELEVATION -SOME (OR ROUND 36" DIA. HEAVY DUTY PIPE) PUMP INSTALLATION PER MANUFACTURE SPECIFICATIONS INV (PUMPWELL) PER PLAN ELEVATION VIEW PUMPWELL DETAIL FOR BASEMENT SUBDRAIN/ LIGHTWELL INLETS N.T.S. PUMP NOTES: 1. HARD WIRE THE PUMPS TO PREVENT ANY UNPLUGGING. 2. PUMPS TO BE CONNECTED TO BACKUP GENERATORS 0R BATTERIES TO PREVENT F1 0001NG IN CASE OF BLACKOUT, 3 PROVIDE BACK FLOW PREVENTOR VALVE FOR PUMP CUTLET. 4. PROVIDE RESERVE PUMP FOR EACH PUMP WELL. 5. PROVIDE FLOATING DEVICE, CONNECTED TO SOUND/ LIGHT ALARM, TO NOTIFY RESIDENTS OF POSSIBLE RISE OF WATER IN PUMPWELL FF 350,0 0ASCMENT 346 PAP 3455 SECTION A -A SCALE H/V: 1"-10' SECTION B-B SCALE H/V: FOUNDATION SHALLOW GRAVEL BASIN f 14 W K.3' DEEP f PER cm7hl1 05 353,1i BACKWATER VALVE EX .357.74 350 340 SANITARY SEWER BACKFLOW PREVENTOR DETAIL N.T.S. TG PER PLAN TOP PER PLAN BOTTOM PER PLAN 21 3 4" X 23 1 4" CONC. V24 DRAIN BOX W 18" X 19 1/2" GRATE TG (SEE PLAN) 12" NATIVE BACKFILL LENGTH PER PLAN REMOVABLE CAP DETENTION BASIN N.T.S. ORIGINAL GROUND DRAIN ROCK PEA SIZE CLEAN (NC FINES) 6" DRAIN ROCK ON TOP or FILTER FABRIC INV INLET PER PLAN (OPEN BOTTOM) FILTER FABRIC ENCLOSE ALL ROCK SURFACES PROVIDE 12" OVERLAP AT SEAMS 0'0 PERFORATED PVC SNIP ENGINEERS CI V1L ENGINEERS LAND SURVEYORS ilTegaiNganiNCESISMI 1534 CAROB LANE 305 ALTOS. CA 5.4024 TES (650) 041-5055 r3k: (650) 941-13755 E-MAID, EMPENGINEERSS YA4IO2.C7N 9'NNF_R: COPYRIGHT © 2014 SNP ENGINEERS CIV1i ENGINEERS cn z W O0 cv LLLL�0 W N LC ince) Z_ QC`�2 Q ZZ= crco 0 o C� T DETAILS / CROSS SECTIONS Revisions Date, 1/22/2016 Scale, AS NOTED Prepared ay S.P. Checketl 654 S.R. Job IM 215132 Sheet: 30F 3 6. PROVIDE TWO SEPARATE SYSTEM AND PUMP WELLS FOR: a) SU00RAIN AND 6) LIC4TWELL AREA DRAINS_