Loading...
248 Jared Ln - Staff Report and Exhibits 2-14 PREPARED BY: SEAN MULLIN, AICP Associate Planner Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● 408-354-6874 www.losgatosca.gov TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLANNING COMMISSION REPORT MEETING DATE: 04/11/2018 ITEM NO: 4 DATE: APRIL 5, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-16-054. PROJECT LOCATION: 248 JARED LANE. PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: SAM PAN. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REMOVAL OF LARGE PROTECTED TREES ON VACANT PROPERTY ZONED HR-1. APN 532-34-071. DEEMED COMPLETE: MARCH 9, 2018 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: SEPTEMBER 9, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Zoning Designation: HR-1, Hillside Residential, minimum lot size 40,000 square feet; one to five acres for each dwelling unit Applicable Plans and Standards: Hillside Specific Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Parcel Size: 1.64 acres (71,814.6 square feet) Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning North Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 South Ming Quong Children’s Center Hillside Residential HR-1 East Residential Hillside Residential HR-1 West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:10 PAGE 2 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM CEQA: An Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were adopted in 2011 for a similar single-family development application. An Initial Study for the current application concluded that the project is within the scope of the previous project. The Initial Study found that the current project would not result in any new environmental impacts or result in a substantial increase to a previously identified significant environmental impact. All previously identified significant environmental impacts would continue to be mitigated through implementation of the measures included in the adopted MMRP from 2011. An Addendum has been prepared for the proposed application under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 (Exhibit 1). The decision-making body shall consider the Addendum with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to deciding on the project. No additional CEQA findings are required. FINDINGS:  As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for granting exceptions to the Least Restrictive Development Area; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; maximum retaining wall heights and lengths; and maximum cuts and fills.  As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines that other than the exceptions to the Least Restrictive Development Area; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; maximum retaining wall heights and lengths; and maximum cuts and fills, the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.  As required by the Hillside Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS:  As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is the remaining undeveloped lot of a two-lot subdivision which was approved by the Planning Commission on May 26, 1993. The property is located on the north side of Jared Lane, approximately 120 feet east of its intersection with Vista del Monte (Exhibit 2). The proposed building site is located at the highest point of the property. PAGE 3 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM The Planning Commission approved a previous project (S-09-063) in 2011 for a 3,916 square foot home with 2,450 square feet of below-grade square footage. The 2011 project’s building location and driveway were in a similar location on the site as the current project. The current project is being considered by the Planning Commission with a request for several exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G): • Development outside of the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA); • Driveway with slopes exceeding 15 percent; • Retaining walls with heights exceeding five feet and lengths exceeding 50 feet; and • Grading exceeding maximum allowable cut and fill depths. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Architecture and Site Application Approval of an Architecture and Site application is required for construction of a new single- family residence. B. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject property is a vacant lot located on the north side of Jared Lane, approximately 120 feet east of its intersection with Vista del Monte (Exhibit 2). The lot is 1.65 acres (71,814.6 square feet) with an average slope of 35.8 percent, extensive tree cover, and an ephemeral drainage along the southwest portion of the property. Due to these constraints, the 71,814.6- square foot property includes a limited LRDA of 6,056 square feet, which is located in the northern portion of the property at the highest elevations. Single-family hillside residential development is located to the north and east; the Ming Quong Children’s Center is located to the south; and low-density single-family residential development is located to the west. C. Zoning Compliance A single-family residence is permitted in the HR-1 zone. The proposed residence is in compliance with the allowable floor area for the property. Additionally, the proposed residence is in compliance with height, setback, building coverage, and on-site parking requirements. DISCUSSION: A. Architecture and Site Analysis The applicant is requesting approval for construction of a new 2,789 square-foot single-family residence. The residence would be constructed on three levels, with portions of the lower and PAGE 4 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM middle levels meeting the definition of below-grade square footage totaling 3,610 square feet. The residence would include an indoor swimming pool, a hot tub, and a below-grade attached garage. The maximum height of the proposed residence would be 24 feet, with a maximum low-to-high dimension of 34.87 feet, where 35 feet is allowed. The applicant proposes a Spanish style residence finished with a painted cement plaster exterior with sections of stone cladding; vinyl clad wood windows; and a mission tile roof (Exhibit 6). A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing. Floor Area Summary Floor Above Grade Square Footage Below-grade Square Footage Garage (Below-grade) Total Top level 2,560 0 0 2,560 Middle level 229 2,755 0 2,984 Lower level 0 382 473 855 Total 2,789 3,137 473 6,399 Story poles and netting have been placed on the site to aid in the review of the project. The poles and netting have been in place since March 9, 2018. The applicant has designed the residence to be set into the hillside to reduce the mass of the home. The proposed residence would appear as a single-story along the north (rear) elevation and as two stories from the east and south (front) elevations. The west elevation includes the face of the garage, which is located below grade but daylights to provide access from the west. Three levels of the residence would be visible from the west elevation, including the daylit portion of the below-grade garage. Massing at this elevation is heavily articulated, with portions of the residence set 17 and 31 feet east of the garage wall. The residence would take access from the north side of Jared Lane via a new driveway leading to the parking area and garage 38 feet above the roadway. The new driveway would require a series of retaining walls both uphill and downhill of the driveway (Exhibit 15, Sheets C2 and L- 4). Due to the constraints of the site, the applicant is requesting several exceptions to the HDS&G that are necessary for the project. The applicant has included a Letter of Justification addressing the following exceptions (Exhibit 7): • HDS&G standard that buildings be located within the LRDA (Section II.C). The project site has an average slope of 35.8 percent, extensive tree cover, and an ephemeral drainage along the southwest portion of the property. These constraints limit the LRDA to a 6,056-square foot area at the north side of the property (8.4 percent of the lot area). The applicant has sited the majority of the residence (62.8 percent) within the LRDA (Exhibit 15, Sheet AS-2); however, given the constraints of the site and PAGE 5 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM the shape of the LRDA, portions of the residence (37.2 percent) would be located outside of the LRDA. • HDS&G standard that driveways shall not exceed 15 percent slopes (Section III.C). Due to the steep nature of the property, the proposed driveway would have a maximum slope of 19.53 percent (Exhibit 15, Sheet C3). The applicant has sited the driveway to provide for the minimum slope. Consistent with the HDS&G, the Santa Clara County Fire Department has provided preliminary approval of the project, including the driveway slope. • HDS&G guideline that retaining walls should not be taller than five feet (Section VI.C). The retaining wall uphill of the driveway would have heights ranging from 0.42 to 2.5 feet. The two terraced retaining walls on the downhill side of the driveway would be separated by approximately six feet, providing an area for landscape screening between the two walls. The heights of the downhill retaining walls would range from 4.75 to five feet, and 0.33 to 14.16 feet. The maximum combined heights of the terraced walls would be approximately 21 feet. Given the steep slopes of the site, the retaining wall heights are necessary for the proposed driveway. The applicant proposes to construct the retaining walls using Allan Block, a building material with a natural textured surface. The proposed natural textured wall surface, terracing, and landscape screening will help reduce the visual impact of the walls. • HDS&G guideline that retaining walls should not run in a continuous direction for more than 50 feet (Section VI.C). The proposed retaining walls for the driveway have continuous lengths exceeding 50 feet. The steep nature of the site and the requirements to provide access with the shallowest slope possible, necessitate continuous retaining walls for construction of the driveway. The applicant has terraced the walls by approximately six feet to provide an area for landscape screening between the two walls. The walls would have a slight curve to follow the natural contours and a natural textured surface to help blend with the natural hillside. The applicant has included landscape plantings that will help screen the walls to mitigate their visual impact (Exhibit 15, Sheets L-3 & L-4). • HDS&G standards for maximum cut and fill depths (Section III.A). The intent of the HDS&G standard for grading depths is to ensure construction retains the existing landform and follows the natural contours of the site. Due to the physical characteristics of the site, the project requires an exception to these standards to allow for cuts and fills exceeding the limitations of the HDS&G for the construction of the PAGE 6 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM retaining walls that would support the driveway. As previously discussed, the applicant has sited the driveway to provide for the least slope possible and as a consequence, retaining walls are required to construct the driveway. A grading exception would also be required for site work related to drainage retention. Grading exceptions are summarized in the table below. Maximum Graded Cuts and Fills – HDS&G Maximum Cut Depths (feet) Maximum Fill Depths (feet) Allowed Proposed Allowed Proposed House Footprint 8* 24* 3 0 Driveway 4 15 3 16 Site Work 4 7 3 0 * – Excludes below-grade square footage Bold – requires exception to the HDS&G B. Design and Compatibility The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations regarding architecture and neighborhood compatibility (Exhibit 8). The Consulting Architect noted that the residence is large but does step with the slope of the site. Recognizing that the applicant has designed the residence with an objective of largely adhering to the HDS&G, the Architectural Consultant noted the upper story setbacks, small cantilevers, and material changes that break up most of the walls, and made no recommendations for changes based on the heavily wooded character of the site and the quality of the architectural design. The Architectural Consultant did note that the acceptability of the scale and design of the proposed residence is based on the way similar proposals in the hillside have been reviewed in the past in the context of guidelines for reducing the appearance of mass, bulk, and volume. C. Neighborhood Compatibility The immediate neighborhood is made up of single- and two-story single-family residences and includes a mix of architectural styles. Based on Town and County records, the surrounding residences range in size from 1,563 square feet to 4,365 square feet. The floor area ratios (FAR) range from 0.01 FAR to 0.41 FAR. Pursuant to the HDS&G, properties with an average slope greater than 30 percent are subject to a net lot reduction of 60 percent. After the slope reduction, the maximum allowed square footage is 5,600 square feet. The applicant is proposing a residence of 2,789 square feet on a 71,814-square foot parcel (0.04 FAR). The following Neighborhood Analysis table reflects current conditions of the immediate neighborhood: PAGE 7 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM The proposed residence would be the tenth largest home in the immediate neighborhood in terms of square footage and the twelfth largest in terms of FAR. D. Trees The applicant provided a report prepared by their arborist with their initial submittal. A series of peer reviews by the Town’s Consulting Arborist and addendums by the project arborist were completed. The project plans included with this report reflect the recommendations of the project arborist and Consulting Arborist. The evaluations of the project arborist and the Consulting Arborist are attached to this report and summarized below. Summary of Arborist Reviews Arborist Date Subject Exhibit Ian Geddes 8/18/2016 Original report. Exhibit 8 Walter Levison 5/17/2017 Peer review of original report. Exhibit 9 Ian Geddes 10/25/2017 Response to peer review, added additional trees. Exhibit 10 Ian Geddes 12/1/2017 Response to staff’s comments related to 5/17/17 peer review. Exhibit 11 Walter Levison 12/5/2017 Peer review of revised project plans and response of project arborist. Exhibit 12 Neighborhood Analysis Address House Gross Lot Area House FAR Stories Zoning 17201 Crescent Drive 3,546 38,768 0.10 1 HR-1 17231 Crescent Drive 2,608 39,563 0.08 1 HR-1 17200 Crescent Drive 3,170 42,000 0.09 2 HR-1 16861 Cypress Way 2,841 56,982 0.07 2 HR-1 16800 Cypress Way 4,365 44,867 0.11 1 HR-1 16706 Cypress Way 3,448 45,145 0.09 2 HR-1 253 Vista Del Monte 3,045 9,884 0.37 2 R-1:8 249 Vista Del Monte 3,580 10,000 0.41 2 R-1:8 245 Vista Del Monte 2,610 10,034 0.31 2 R-1:8 268 Jared Lane 3,672 113,691 0.04 2 HR-1 258 Jared Lane 1,563 189,486 0.01 1 HR-1 17511 Phillips Ave Ming Quong Children’s Center HR-1 17514 Phillips Ave 2,950 60,097 0.06 3 HR-2.5 248 Jared Lane (E) 0 71,814 0.00 0 HR-1 248 Jared Lane (N) 2,789 71,814 0.04 2 HR-1 PAGE 8 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM The tree inventory included in the arborist reports for the project includes 128 trees, of which 123 are considered protected trees by the Town Code. A number of trees to remain are not included in this inventory due to their distance from the proposed project. The arborist reports and project plans identify whether the trees included in the inventory would remain, be removed, or be impacted by construction and grading activities. A summary of the tree inventory is provided below. Summary of Tree Inventory Action Qty. Remain 37 Large Protected 4 Protected 33 Remain – impacted by project 29 Large Protected 2 Protected 27 Remove 57 Large Protected 3 Protected 54 Not protected 5 Total 128 Of the 128 trees in the inventory, 66 protected trees would remain, including six large protected trees (trees #16, 60, 85, 88, 100, and 101). The project arborist recommends removal of 57 protected trees (56 Coast Live Oaks and one Black Walnut), of which three are considered to be large protected trees (trees #20, 28, and 33), and the Consulting Arborist concurs with this recommendation. The condition of the trees proposed for removal is summarized below. Condition of Trees Proposed for Removal Condition Qty. Good 35 Fair to Good 16 Fair 2 Poor 4 Total 57 The proposed tree removals would meet one or more of the required findings for tree removal under Section 29310.0992 of the Town Code. The arborist reports and project plans identify 29 trees that are expected to be impacted by the project. It is the intent of the applicant to protect these trees, but if construction and grading activities result in the need to remove any PAGE 9 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM of the trees, the applicant will be required to obtain a Tree Removal Permit and carry out any required mitigation measures. Details of the tree inventory are included on Sheet C8 of the project plans (Exhibit 15). If the project is approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to and during construction. Planting of replacement trees and/or payment of in-lieu fees would be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to Town Code. Arborist recommendations for tree protection have been included in the Conditions of Approval to mitigate impacts to protected trees (Exhibit 4). These recommendations include provisions for arborist monitoring during construction to ensure proper implementation of protection measures. E. Creek Setbacks An ephemeral drainage course is located in the southwest portion of the property, well outside the project area. The applicant is proposing an 80-foot setback from the top of bank adjacent to the drainage course to the nearest area of work (retention pond #3) and a 170-foot setback to the residence. The proposed setback conforms to the Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams, which recommend a 20- to 25-foot setback from top of bank with an additional five feet of setback for parcels larger than 10,000 square feet. For the project’s 71,814-square foot parcel, the recommended setback for a proposed structure is 25 to 30 feet. F. Grading/Geotechnical Review Site grading includes maximum cut depths of 15 feet and fill depths of 16 feet, requiring approval of an exception to the HDS&G, as discussed above. As noted above, the average slope of the lot is 35.8 percent. The applicant submitted geologic investigations that were reviewed by the Town’s Geotechnical Consultant. Although the site has very steep slopes, the investigations concluded that development of the site is feasible from a geologic and geotechnical engineering viewpoint. Conditions of approval have been included requiring compliance with the geotechnical recommendations (Exhibit 4). G. Environmental Review An Initial Study, Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) were adopted in 2011 for a similar single-family development application (S-09-063 and ND-11-003). An Initial Study for the current project prepared by the Town’s Environmental Consultant EMC Planning Group concluded that the current project is within the scope of the previous project. The Initial Study found that the current project would not result in any new environmental impacts or result in a substantial increase to a previously identified significant environmental impact. All previously identified significant environmental impacts would continue to be mitigated through implementation of the measures included in PAGE 10 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM the adopted MMRP from 2011. An Addendum has been prepared for the proposed application under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 (Exhibit 1). The Planning Commission shall consider the Addendum with the adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration prior to deciding on the project. No additional CEQA findings are required. All environmental documents for the previous and current projects are available online at http://www.losgatosca.gov/2376/J. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Story poles and signage were installed on the site and written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property. As of the drafting of this report, no comments from the public have been received. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The proposed project would allow the applicant to construct a new single-family residence on a vacant lot. As proposed, the project would create a 2,789-square foot residence and 3,610- square feet of below-grade square footage, including a 473-square foot below-grade attached garage. Due to the site constraints, the applicant is requesting the following exceptions to the HDS&G: • Development outside of the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA); • Driveway with slopes exceeding 15 percent; • Retaining walls with heights exceeding five feet and lengths exceeding 50 feet; and • Grading exceeding maximum cut and fill depths. B. Recommendation Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 4). If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should: 1. Make the finding that due to the constraints of the site, exceptions to the Least Restrictive Development Area; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; maximum retaining wall heights and lengths; and maximum cuts and fills are appropriate, and the project is otherwise in compliance with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 3); 2. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 3); 3. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 3); and PAGE 11 OF 11 SUBJECT: 248 JARED LANE/S-16-054 APRIL 5, 2018 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - 04-11-18 - PC Report.docx 4/6/2018 12:33 PM 4. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-16-054 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 15. C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the applications. EXHIBITS: Previously received under separate cover: 1. Addendum to previously adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration Received with this Staff Report: 2. Location Map 3. Required Findings and Considerations (one page) 4. Recommended Conditions of Approval (16 pages) 5. Site Photos (five pages) 6. Color and Materials Sheet, received August 4, 2017 (one page) 7. Letter of Justification, received February 1, 2018 (15 pages) 8. Consulting Architect Report, dated May 15, 2017 (six pages) 9. Applicant’s Arborist Report by Ian Geddes, dated August 18, 2016 (29 pages) 10. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report by Walter Levison, dated May 5, 2017 (20 pages) 11. Applicant’s Arborist Addendum by Ian Geddes, dated October 25, 2017 (seven pages) 12. Applicant’s Arborist Addendum by Ian Geddes, dated December 1, 2017 (nine pages) 13. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report by Walter Levison, dated December 1, 2017 (19 pages) 14. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2018 15. Development Plans, received March 1, 2018 (33 sheets) Distribution: Sam Pan, 1901 Nobili Avenue, Santa Clara, CA 95051 This Page Intentionally Left Blank CYPRESS WY JARED LN PHILLI P S A VVISTA DEL MONTEVISTA DEL MARSPRING ST248 Jared Lane 0 0.250.125 Miles ° EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\Jared 248.docx PLANNING COMMISSION – April 11, 2018 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 248 Jared Lane Architecture and Site Application S-16-054 Requesting approval for construction of a new single-family residence and removal of large protected trees on vacant property zoned HR-1. APN 532-34-071. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Sam Pan FINDINGS Required Compliance with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G): ■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines with exceptions to the Least Restrictive Development Area; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; maximum retaining wall heights and lengths; and maximum cuts and fills. The vacant site lot is 1.65 acres (71,814.6 square feet) with an average slope of 35.8 percent, extensive tree cover, and an ephemeral drainage along the southwest portion of the property. Due to these constraints, the 71,814.6-square foot property includes a limited LRDA of 6,056 square feet, which is located in the northern portion of the property at the highest elevations. The applicant has sited the majority of the proposed residence within the LRDA (62.8 percent). Additionally, the driveway has been sited to provide the for minimum slope given the constraints of the site. The retaining walls adjacent to the driveway are required to construct the driveway, which would provide safe ingress and egress to the site. The applicant has provided compelling reasons and evidence to support the granting of exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan ■ The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a single-family residence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the Specific Plan. CONSIDERATIONS: 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. EXHIBIT 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank EXHIBIT 4 PLANNING COMMISSION – April 11, 2018 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Jared Lane Architecture and Site Application S-16-054 Requesting approval for construction of a new single-family residence and removal of large protected trees on vacant property zoned HR-1. APN 532-34-071. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Sam Pan TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planning Division 1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the scope of the changes. 2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. EXTERIOR COLOR: The individual exterior materials of the house, including the roof, shall not exceed a light reflectivity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation. 4. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s Office that requires all exterior materials to be maintained in conformance with the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 5. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. 6. 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 pe rmit. 7. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 8. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report once provided. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or will be addressed. 9. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing and other protection measures shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the construction plans. 10. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties. 11. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped. 12. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the requirements of the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. Submittal of a Landscape Documentation Package pursuant to WELO is required prior to issuance of a building permit. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted for review. A completed WELO Certificate of Completion is required prior to final inspection/certificate of occupancy. 13. *AIR QUALITY – MITIGATION MEASURE AQ-1: To limit the project’s construction-related dust, criteria air pollutants, and precursor emissions, the following air district Basic Construction Mitigation Measures shall be implemented: a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day. b. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, or other loose material off-site shall be covered. c. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. d. All vehicle speeds on unpaved roads shall be limited to 15 mph. e. All roadways, driveways, and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. f. Idling times shall be minimized either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the maximum idling time to 5 minutes (as required by the California airborne toxics control measure Title 13, Section 2485 of California Code of Regulations [CCR]). Clear signage shall be provided for construction workers at all access points. g. All construction equipment shall be maintained and properly tuned in accordance with manufacturer’s specifications. All equipment shall be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition prior to operation. h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the Lead Agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action within 48 hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to ensure compliance with applicable regulations. 14. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-1: Focused surveys shall be conducted at the appropriate time of the year in the oak woodland habitat, within 30 feet of any proposed development, for the three special-status plant species having potential to occur in this habitat: Loma Prieta hoita (Hoita strobilina; blooms May through July), western leatherwood (Dirca occidentalis; blooms January through April), and most beautiful jewel-flower (Streptanthus albidus ssp. peramoenus; blooms April th rough September). 15. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-2: If the project would result in significant impacts on any special-status plant species, the project applicant shall develop a Special-Status Plant Species Mitigation and Monitoring Plan, i dentifying measures that allow for avoidance of the impact, minimization of the impact, and/or compensation or restoration of any residual impacts at a minimum “replacement: loss” ratio of 1:1. The Mitigation and Monitoring Plan shall discuss: a. The designated location of areas on the site to restore lost plant populations. There appears to be sufficient habitat located in on-site open space areas to accommodate on-site restoration. Appropriate habitat shall be created on suitable soils. b. Description of the propagation and planting techniques to be employed in the restoration effort. Perennial plants to be impacted by site grading should be salvaged and raised in a greenhouse for eventual transplanting within the restoration areas. Where feasible, annual plants shall be established through direct seeding practices and/or transplanting container-grown plants into existing suitable habitat. c. The timetable for implementation of the restoration plan, with appropriate benchmarks for restoration activities, as determined by a qualified biologist and to the satisfaction of the Town. d. The monitoring plan and specific performance criteria for achieving the “replacement: loss” ratio of 1:1. e. Remedial measures to be performed in the event that initial r estoration measures are unsuccessful in meeting the specific performance criteria. f. Site maintenance activities to follow restoration activities. g. This plan shall also provide a monitoring schedule and funding source(s), and establish success criteria for all proposed restoration sites. 16. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-3: If tree removal, pruning, or grubbing activities are necessary, such activities should be conducted between September 1 and January 31 outside of the breeding season to avoid impacts to nesting birds. 17. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-4: If project construction begins during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31), preconstruction surveys shall be conducted within the project footprint and a 300-foot buffer, by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to equipment or material staging, pruning/grubbing or surface-disturbing activities. If no active nests are found, no further mitigation is necessary. 18. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-5: If active nests, i.e. nests with eggs or young birds present, are found, non-disturbance buffers shall be established at a distance sufficient to minimize disturbance based on the nest location, topography, cover, the nesting pair’s tolerance to disturbance and the type/duration of potential disturbance. No work shall occur within the non-disturbance buffers until the young have fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 19. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-6: If active nests are found within 300 feet of the project area, a qualified biologist shall be on site to monitor the nests for signs of nest disturbance. If it is determined that construction activity is resulting in nest disturbance, work shall cease immediately until the young ha ve fledged, as determined by a qualified biologist. 20. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-7: Preconstruction surveys shall be conducted to identify suitable bat roosting habitat including rock outcroppings, snags, rotten stumps, decadent trees with broken limbs, exfoliating bark, cavities, etc. Sensitive habitat areas and roost sites shall be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. If no suitable roost sites or evidence of bat roosting are identified, no further minimization measures are necessary. 21. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-8: If suitable roosting habitat is identified, the following measures shall be conducted: a. A qualified biologist shall survey suitable roost sites immediately prior to the removal or grading of rock outcroppings, debris piles, man-made structures, etc. b. Removal of suitable tree roost sites shall be conducted by first removing limbs smaller than 3 inches in diameter and peeling away loose bark. The tree should then be left overnight to allow any bats using the tree/snag to find another roost during their nocturnal activity period. c. A qualified biologist shall survey the trees/snags a second time the following morning prior to felling and removal. d. Trees should be removed between September 1 and February 1 durin g the bat non-breeding season to avoid disturbance to maternal colonies or individuals. 22. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-9: The applicant shall comply with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Ordinance, and a tree removal permit shall be obtained from the Town for the removal of any trees that qualify as protected trees. 23. *BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE BIO-10: The applicant shall comply with the recommendations in the arborist report, third-party summary, and two supplement reports prepared for the proposed project by Ian Geddes on August 18, 2016; October 25, 2017; and December 1, 2017; and by Walter Levison on May 17, 2017 and December 5, 2017. This includes implementation of specific recommendations for reducing construction impacts to retained trees. 24. *CULTURAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE CR-1: In the event that archaeological traces are encountered, all construction within a 50-meter radius of the find shall be halted, the Community Development Director shall be notifie d, and an archaeologist shall be retained to examine the find and make appropriate recommendations. 25. *CULTURAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE CR-2: If human remains are discovered, the Santa Clara County Coroner shall be notified. The Coroner will determine whether or not the remains are Native American. If the Coroner determines that the remains are not subject to his authority, he will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, who shall attempt to identify descendants of the deceased Native Americans. 26. *CULTURAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE CR-3: If the Community Development Director finds that the archaeological find is not a significant resource, work will resume only after the submittal of a preliminary archaeological report and after provision s for reburial and ongoing monitoring are accepted. Provisions for identifying descendants of a deceased Native American and for reburial will follow the protocol set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5(e). If the site is found to be a significant archaeological site, a mitigation program shall be prepared and submitted to the Community Development Director for consideration and approval, in conformance with the protocol set forth in Public Resources Code Section 21083.2. 27. *CULTURAL RESOURCES – MITIGATION MEASURE CR-4: A final report shall be prepared when a find is determined to be significant archaeological site, and/or when Native American remains are found on the site. The final report shall include background information on the completed work, a description and list of identified resources, the disposition and curation of these resources, any testing, other recovered information, and conclusions. 28. GEOLOGY AND SOILS – MITIGATION MEASURE GEO-1: The recommendations of the UPP geotechnical report (dated November 14, 2016) shall be incorporated in the final construction plans for the proposed project. These recommendations address site preparation, earthwork operations, drainage, retaining wall design, erosion control, and foundation design. 29. STREAMBED ALTERATION AGREEMENT: The applicant shall comply with all measures required by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed Alteration Agreement. 30. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 31. 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 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. 32. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 33. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Building Permit is required for the construction of the new single- family residence with basement. A separate Building Permit is required for the construction of any new retaining walls or additional structures that are not connected to the primary structure. 34. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos as of January 1, 2017, are the 2016 California Building Standards Code, California Code of Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12. 35. 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. 36. SIZE OF PLANS: Submit four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”. 37. DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town. 38. 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. 39. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations. 40. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or land surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the Soils Report, and that the building pad elevations and on -site retaining wall locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered Civil Engineer for the following items: a. Building pad elevation b. Finish floor elevation c. Foundation corner locations d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations 41. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet. 42. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61: a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future. b. All passage doors shall be at least 32 inch doors on the accessible floor level. c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36 inch wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing, no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18 inch clearance at interior strike edge. d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance. 43. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope of this project may require the installation of a sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025. Please provide information on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12 inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole. 44. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase II approved appliance or gas appliance per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of chimneys. 45. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof assemblies. 46. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High Fire Area and must comply with Section R327 of the 2013 California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182. 47. 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. 48. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 49. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 50. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspect ion 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. 51. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building. 52. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a Building Permit: a. Community Development – Planning Division: Jennifer Armer at (408) 399-5706 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at (408) 354-5236 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010 d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000 TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS: Engineering Division 53. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right -of-way shall be kept clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall not be washed 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 Owner, Applicant and/or 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 issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner, Applicant and/or Developer's expense. 54. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer. 55. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right -of-way will require a Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction security. It is the responsibility of the 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 (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any permit. 56. PRIVATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY (INDEMNITY AGREEMENT): The property owner shall enter into an agreement with the Town for all existing and proposed private improvements within the Town’s right-of-way. The Owner shall be solely responsible for maintaining the improvements in a good and safe condition at all times and shall indemnify the Town of Los Gatos. The agreement must be completed and accepted by the Director of Parks and Public Works, and subsequently recorded by the Town Clerk at the Santa Clara County Office of the Clerk-Recorder, prior to the issuance of any permits. 57. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work pertaining to on -site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without inspection. 58. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner, Applicant and/or 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: curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, etc., shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Developer shall request a walk- through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 59. 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. 60. 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. 61. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any permits. 62. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans. 63. PARKING: Any proposed parking restriction must be approved by The Town of Los Gatos, Community Development Department. 64. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right- of-way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the Town. 65. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any post-project traffic or parking counts, or other studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant. 66. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading Ordinance). The grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wal l location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). ). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant/Developer’s soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 67. ILLEGAL GRADING: Per the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule, applications for work unlawfully completed shall be charged double the current fee. As a result, the required grading permit fees associated with an application for grading proposed will be charged accordingly. 68. GRADING ACTIVITY RESTRICTIONS: Upon receipt of a grading permit, any and all grading activities and operations shall not commence until after the rainy season, as defined by Town Code of the Town of Los Gatos, Sec. 12.10.020, (October 15-April 15), has ended. 69. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section III of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All development shall be in compliance with Section II of the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. 70. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Jered Lane shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 71. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 72. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for the following items: a. Retaining wall: top of wall elevations and locations. b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes. 73. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E. Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan review process. 74. PAD CERTIFICATION: A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation placement. 75. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be signed and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 76. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and grading shall be inspected by the Applicant’s soils engineer prior to placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the construction observation and testing shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the Applicant’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release of any occupancy permit is granted. 77. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological recommendations contained in the Geotechnical Study Report by Upp Geotechnical, dated August 3, 2009, and any subsequently required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Applicant. 78. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A maximum of two (2) weeks is allowed between clearing of an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season. Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before installation of the final landscaping, shall be included. Interim erosion control method shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences, fiber rolls (with locations and details), erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams, retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream water quality during winter months. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 79. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner, Applicant and/or Developer is responsible for ensuring that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 80. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines underground, as required by Town Code Section 27.50.015(b). All new utility services shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television service. The Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final alignment or design of these facilities. 81. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation. The Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of th e utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation. 82. 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. 83. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses. 84. FISH AND GAME REQUIREMENTS: A “1603” permit shall be obtained for the California Department of Fish and Game for proposed improvements in or near riparian areas within their jurisdiction. A copy of the permit shall be provided to the Parks and Public Works Department before any permits are issued/final or prior to the recordation of any maps. 85. SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT (SCVWD): Prior to start of any work along or within Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) right-of-way/easement, the Developer shall submit construction plans to SCVWD for review and approval and obtain necessary encroachment permits for the proposed work. A copy of approved encroachment permit is required to be submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to Grading Permit issuance. 86. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the Developer shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a traffic control plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off of the project site. This may include, but is not limited to provisions for the Developer/Owner to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand and other loose debris. 87. 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. 88. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the Applicant shall submit a construction management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, site security fencing, employee parking, materials storage area(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. 89. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate 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. 90. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) times daily, or apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas, and staging areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets shall be cleaned by street sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a day. Watering associated with on -site construction activity shall take place between the hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one (1) late-afternoon watering to minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public streets soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed twenty-five (25) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered. 91. UNLAWFUL DISCHARGES: It is unlawful to discharge any wastewater, or cause hazardous domestic waste materials to be deposited in such a manner or location as to constitute a threatened discharge, into storm drains, gutters, creeks or the San Francisco Bay. Unlawful discharges to storm drains include, but are not limited to: discharges from toilets, sinks, industrial processes, cooling systems, boilers, fabric cleaning, equipment cleaning or vehicle cleaning. 92. 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. 93. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate “NO DUMPING - Flows to Bay” NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit. These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to be used they shall be placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way. No improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream or down slope property. 94. DETAILING OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FACILITIES: Prior to the issuance of any permits, all pertinent details of any and all proposed stormwater management facilities, including, but not limited to, ditches, swales, pipes, bubble-ups, dry wells, outfalls, infiltration trenches, detention basins and energy dissipaters, shall be provided on submitted plans, reviewed by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department, and approved for implementation. 95. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN NOTES: The following note shall be added to the storm water management plan: “The biotreatment soil mix used in all stormwater treatment landscapes shall comply with the specifications in Attachment L of the MR P. Proof of compliance shall be submitted by the Contractor to the Town of Los Gatos a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site using the Biotreatment Soil Mix Supplier Certification Statement.” 96. STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN CERTIFICATION: Certification from the biotreatment soils provider is required and shall be given to Engineering Division Inspection staff a minimum of thirty (30) days prior to delivery of the material to the job site. Additionally deliver tags from the soil mix shall also be provided to Engineering Division Inspection staff. Sample Certification can be found here: http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/nd_wp.shtml?zoom_highlight=BIOTREATMENT+SOIL. 97. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. The 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-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/o r the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense. 98. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right -of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town’s storm drains. 99. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT: 100. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water -based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2016 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 101. FIRE DEPARTMENT (ENGINE) DRIVEWAY TURNAROUND REQUIRED: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Maximum grade in any direction shall be a maximum of 5%. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D -1. CFC Sec. 503. see 7/11/2017 e-mail in file from SDFM Staiger approving proposed turnaround 102. FIRE APPARATUS (ENGINE) ACCESS DRIVEWAY REQUIRED: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet with a one - foot unpaved shoulder on each side, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15”. Installations shall conform to the Fire Department Standard Details Specifications D -1 and CFC Section 503. see 7/11/2017 e-mail in file from SDFM Staiger approving proposed turnaround 103. CONSTRUCTION SITE FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification S1-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33. 104. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated Wildland- Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. 105. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION. New and existing buildings shall have approved address numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background. Where required by the fire code official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high with a minimum stroke width of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to ident ify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1 106. EMERGENCY GATE/ACCESS GATE REQUIREMENTS: Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. Gates across the emergency access roadways shall be equipped with an approved access devices. If the gates are operated electrically, an approved Knox key switch shall be installed; if they are operated manually, then an approved Knox padlock shall be installed. Gates providing access from a road to a driveway or other roadway shall be at least 30 feet from the road being exited. CFC Sec. 503.6 and 506 107. TIMING OF INSTALLATION. When fire apparatus access roads or a water supply for fire protection is required to be installed, such protection shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and during the time of construction except when approved alternative methods of protection are provided. Temporary street signs shall be installed at each street intersection when construction of new roadways allows passage by vehicles in accordance with Section 505.2. Construction document s. Construction documents for proposed fire apparatus access, location of fire lanes, security gates across fire apparatus access and construction documents and hydraulic calculations for fire hydrant systems shall be submitted to the fire department for review and approval prior to construction. CFC Sec. 501.3, 501.4 108. Please provide information from San Jose Water Company indicating their involvement with water supply to this site when documentation is available. Identify if the new fire hydrant will be private or public as provided by the Utility. N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2018\Jared Lane, 248 - PC COA.docx A B C This Page Intentionally Left Blank This Page Intentionally Left Blank - Justifications to Hillside Development standard and guidelines September 11th, 2017 (Edited on Jan. 9th, 2018) Att: Sean Mullin, Associate Planner Re: Justifications to the items listed below A. Justification to building outside LRDA and More; B. Justification to driveway slope more than 15%; C. Justification to Cut & Fill; D. Justification to Height of Retaining Walls; E. Justification to trees impacted by grading A. Justification to building outside LRDA and More 1. Site constraints: RECEIVED FEB O 1 2018 TOWN OF LOS GATOS PLAN N lNG DIVISION The 1.65 gross acre vacant lot is located in the Hillside Area and subject to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDSG). The site average sloe is 35.8% but most other area contains much higher slope. Jared Lane bounds the property's southern property line; a right-of-way easement bounds the property to the east. An intermittent channel crosses the property in the southwest corner; a culvert is located along the eastern property line (EXHIBIT A). Given the Mother Nature setting of this lot having steep slopes, large number of trees, intermittent stream, and roadways, the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) is difficult to come by. The property is surrounded by several detached single-family residences to the west, north, and east; the Ming Quong Children's Center is located to the south. Apparently, this lot would be a last developable land as long as design is in conformance with the Town's HDSG. Although the amount of contiguous buildable area on this parcel is quite limited, there is merely one (1) area could be qualified, which is located at the top center of the site at the north parcel boundary (Exhibit B); thus that limited area is considered the project LRDA and designed it for a house to be built on. It's permissible that access to the LRDA can be via a developed road or driveway outside the LRDA. 2. Size of LRDA: The chosen LRDA is half circular in shape which further constrains potential development. Slope of this area is about 30% with little vegetation to be removed. Calculated area is 6056 sf (Exhibit B) comparable to a traditional subdivision house lot on the flat land but due to required 20' setback the remaining lot for house footprint is merely 3293 square feet an area very limited for developing a reasonable hill-side residence. The applicant requests an exception for portion of the building from the HDS&G standard to locate buildings within the LRDA. It is about 346 square feet or about 10.5% of house footprint falling outside LRDA; other amenities such as house outdoor deck, entry balcony, and stairs all necessary building appendix to the house with which about 26.8% of footprint or 886 square feet area is outside the LRDA (both on -- ·E X H I B I T A · 2 ,4 8 J A R ·E D L A N E ' Page 1 ~ -- EXHIBIT 7 Justifications to Hillside Development standard and guidelines EXHIBIT C). It's applicant responsibility that developments outside LRDA shall result in minimal grading, tree removal and changes to the natural landscape. Granting the exception as such, this house will have a reasonable size and deliver fairly functional floor plans as proposed. 3. Size of proposed house: The size of proposed house is fairly comparable amid several adjacent residences built between year of 1950 and 2013 and they are zoned HR-1 same as the proposed house. Floor area ratio (FAR) of this house is calculated at 5%, which it is an average FAR in seven (7) neighborhood residences zoned HR-1 for details see EXHIBIT E. This low FAR percentage leads to a development of keeping as much natural environment as it can be to meet those suggestions listed in the HDSG. Two (2) levels of cellar arranged directly below one (1) level above grade. 2-car garage (855 square feet) is tucked at very bottom, a sub-cellar area; floor above the sub- cellar area is about 2984 square feet in which merely 229 square feet is considered living area/basement and the remaining 2755 square feet is deemed as a cellar; floor above this basement is 100% daylight floor area constituting 2560 square feet. In terms of numeric area this house has 2789 square feet of living area as per defination of the Town zoning code. The size of the proposed including garage is 3,644 square feet, which it is indeed very compatible size within the vicinity of lots zoned as HR-1. Additionally, the size of house is approximately ranked as 5th largest one in the neighborhood amid 9 single-family residences, See EXHIBIT E. Since the LRDA is an unique shape the footprint of house is almost identical to it and the proposed house could be snuggly fitted in the LRDA without any single area protruding outside the LRDA provided that the setback constraint 20'-0 did not exist. Additionally, the proposed house footprint could be located within lower LRDA (EXHIBIT B) if the creek bed did not exist. 4. Architectural design Cannon Design Group, CDC the City retained peer architect has concluded review on the proposed house delineated on his letter dated on May 15th, 2017 . Basically letter indicates that this proposed house is well designed with substantial articulation and well utilized materials and details appropriate to the selected architectural style (Spanish). Privacy issue to the north property really does not exist. Variations about upper level ext.erior walls facing the south indeed meet Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. Upper story wall setbacks, small cantilevers and application of different materials indeed break up a linear wall treatment in the woodland. To the west neighbors, the impact of high retaining walls is again mitigated with planting strip planted In front of selected block wall topped with spilt-rail wire-mesh railing a rural look yet a protective guard as safety measure deemed by Building Official. House design will in spite of involving conventional materials they shall include safe features to Reduce chance for fire and a fire spread which might result in a wildfire. Additionally, 'Green building' shall be incorporated In the house design to maximize the use of renewable energy resources; conserve energy and water; reduce the consumption of nonrenewable resources that improve air quality as stipulated in the Appendix B of HDSG . . E X H I B I T A 2 4 8 J A R E O 1L A N E Page 2 --~ ~ Justifications to Hillside Development standard and guidelines B. Justification to driveway slope more than 15% (HDSG the maximum slope of driveway is 15%) C. Justification to Standard Quantity of Earth Cut & Fill (HDSG grading minimize cut & fill per table) D. Justification to Standard Height of Retaining Wall (HDSG retaining wall blend with nature Topography, not run in straight direction higher than SO') Justifications in summary to B, C, & D as listed above The lot has an average slope of approximately 36%. The site has two areas that would qualify as the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) as defined by the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Standards and Guidelines). One of the LRDA is located within the creek bed, which prohibit any development within this LRDA. The proposed house is sited within the only viable LRDA of the lot locate near the northerly boundary. A 200 foot long driveway serving the house is proposed from Jared Lane. The design of this driveway must meet the emergency access standards of the Santa Clara County Fire Department (Fire Department). The Fire Department standards applicable to the proposed driveway are driveway slope shall not exceed 15%, inside edge radius of driveway shall not be less than 42 feet, and an emergency turnaround with maximum 5% cross slope for driveway exceeding 150 feet. Driveway design that does not conform to these requirements will require a submittal of a variance to be approved by the Fire Department. Because of these requirements, the building design incorporates a lower level garage that is approximately 20 feet below existing ground to allow a driveway profile slope of 20% maximum, and an emergency turnaround area with cross slope of less than 5%. The house site requires cut of approximately 24 feet. A meeting with Doug Harding, Deputy Fire Marshal, was held on Thursday, February 2, 2017, to discuss driveway design. Two driveway alternatives were presented at that meeting. Alternative A included a turnaround area approximately 170 feet from the house and the Alternative B with a turnaround area approximately 20 feet from the house with driveway slope of 20% maximum. Doug indicated that the Fire Department would not support Alternative A due to the distance from the turnaround to the house and would consider Alternative B with a variance for driveway slope. A second meeting was held on July 10, 2011, with Tracy Staiger, Senior Deputy Fire Marshal, and Fardean Amadkani, Deputy Fire Marshal, to present the finalized driveway design and to submit the driveway slope variance. On July 11, 2017, the Fire Department approved the final driveway design with the slope variance. The proposed driveway approved by the Fire Department requires earthwork cut of up to 15 feet and fill of up to 16 feet. These values exceed the Standard and Guidelines of 4 feet . - E X :H I . B i T A 2 4 8 J A R E D L A N E Page3 I Justifications to Hillside Development standard and guidelines cut and 3 feet fill. The site constraints and the Fire Department standards prohibit the design of a longer driveway to minimize cut and fill and meet 15% maximum slope. The driveway approved by the Fire Department can be designed to meet the 15% slope. However, it will result in an additional 8 feet of cut for the house and driveway construction, and up to 14.16 feet tall retaining wall along the north property line. To minimize grading and tree rem.oval due to earthwork tiered retaining walls of up to 13 feet high and 180 feet long are proposed along the edges of the driveway. To minimize the walls potential visual impact, colored and fractured wall finish, such as Allan Block and Key Stone retaining wall systems, are proposed for the wall exposed surface. Heavy landscaping is also proposed along the wall to further reduce the potential visual impactP. Proposed height of the double meandering walls along the driveway have portion going higher than standard of 8'-0, that is 14'-0 high stretching out 15' in length with remaining 85' being 8' to 13' high (See EXHIBIT C). In order to build a block wall higher than normal it shall be a systemized one to go through manufacturer's engineering based upon the geotechnical report (See EXHIBIT D) Where a photo showing a similar wall, engineered and erected higher than 14'. As far as con- struction technique and additional structural elements are involved to build non-standard-height block retaining wall click www.allenblock.com to view details in the "Commercial installation manual for Allen Block Retaining Walls". E. JustlflcaHon to E plus Hs landscape arrangement Todd Kalbfeld has been able to walk entire site and assess the enHre arborlst report. The home and adjacent deck has been cleverly set to conform with existing slope by creating a multi level outdoor deck, making a more Interesting outdoor entertaining space, only medium sized drought tolerant shrubs are needed to screen the remaining 5' height distance from existing grade, for details refer to L-2. , The driveway has been clearly designed to go through the undesirable tree specimen canopies and go thrn the part of the existing open. unwooded space on the property. Only slight pruning may be needed. but no damage will be assessed while grading the site to the remaining Oak Tree Hammock The retaining wall needed for holding driveway to residence Is proposes as gravffy or 'Allen Block or Key Stone Wall System' this style is perfect as, It will be the least Impact on tree roots. These Gravffy Wall Systems require no extensive footings, and use a Geo-Grid system to hold wall. And, this wall being fill, will decrease the need for excessive cut, and also can be a reservoir for spells of other soll excavation. After all Texture and color of block wall may be blended naturally well against surrounding environments. Combinations of Native and Drought tolerant shrubs and small trees have been specified to help camouflage the new retaining wall. These species have proven much success for many years with litHe to no maintenance. All of them require very lltHe summer Irrigation once they are established. Todd also had the opportunffy to design front and rear yard landscaping for the Sandra Hughes property located at 249 Vista Del Monte. a property easterly to the proposed. Because of this, other two properties along this street (245 & 253 Vista Del Monte) wlll not see the proposed residence at all, due to the mass of existing Oak Hammock. Further. being sensitive to even a risk of seeing wall through trunks at the edge of their properties, the new landscape screen proposed will disguise the proposed retaining wall. completing E. X H I B I T A 2 4 8 J A R E D L A N E Page4 Justifications to Hillside Development standard and guidelines the privacy needed for all neighbors. Subsequent to this page several types of planting and species of trees are Illustrated In color. EX H I 8 IT A 248 JAR E D LAN E Page 5 /"··-• I r-·----I'-. / ~--, .. , .. ,__ (!f l ! -----,..._______ -/' '\.. 1 ' I '·-ZONE HR-1 / --------, / i --, ) 0 '·· 1 : i : 1 / ZONEHR·l· '-:,--.._ / / : I ,I : TOWN OF LOS GATOS I , .,_ ,/ ·-,--,. /5;;;;' / / f / _ r--11 / ~ PLANN I NG DIVISION i ,:._ ______ ; I ~ -' ' L _ ____L____ ---4-. t=.._r-r-' J 'f , w · ,/ ,/ -------'--~1 ~ y-·-:2 ____ :~----------· I I ~ ,t ,, ----i t__ ~ /<.~~ -------------,r------1 I f ;/ ,rrar I"" I -~ ·-;;,~t''/ I -~ I I ll L? , // ! ~-'-:.~Y:~ · -· A ~ ·-----, .. , ______ /,-/ '! L.r~--r::s:-:-u=s~J~;;--:--,LO:;c;T=,"oce, ~; ! z~~,~--·-, ~ / <;/ / ZONE HR-/ ! / "------. / : _) I \ ,' ' / -----( I l:: .. --'---------H=~·-I , , . '-'AN!IP LANI!! ( .C,' ft ) / l__ , I ",... /,• ---r--. --r---~~ ~ : ' .. ,,,.,...,~ i fv) (lr1 \ ! j,._..-----------· . Lr-1 Lr CJ @ \ -__ _J_._ .. -----·--------:..-;;;.;-;.~--- \ (Prl:OPEllTI' INACCSS18Lf) ~ ---~ ----, \ D ZONE HR-1 u _.,.-·' . ..-------,-------·-----,---------· / "-----_,,.,...-/_,,... __ .,,-@ · i I ! --------MING QUONG ____,,..,...--_,,...,,,,.-· • _,,...,,,,. i ZONE HR-1 i : D : f-------------------·1 (CHILDREN'S CENTER) __ .,..-· _ __,,.../ : ~ '1° ~ ! ! . _.,.. _,,.. I ~ , , I @ : /. ___,,..-· ,..-\ : j ! I j • ZONE HR-1 L.:j __ ........ \ / ( L.---"' I : j : ~,. ---·-" \ ; / I ! , ! --~;,,--~ \ \ / ): /-;=.--~-~----L i ! ~-:_-_-=_-:_-:_=.-:_-:__,....~--~" ~\.\\ _____ .,,,,.-_/''.,,--';;:.>·' /: ..,,.c,..,:~.,. j !\ r , '-·-.. .... .... ..~ : ·-" ( <::::::-</ i . '0 ' ,, -. (' !J ' 1 --~ I i ----------J i I :.f , , I , : ,• i i ; / \ ( : ........ J : : ' ~----L--! \ \ LJ / (.Q -~--, I ~_j ( (S f! ~---~~j ~ \ r·-"' ) / ·-\...-------Y . '---.. J/ RECEIVED FEB · 01 2018 ------- .. NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSES ·, ', LOCATION ADDRESS Z~NE LOT AREA LIV'G AREA GARAGE TOTAL FLR AREA YEAR BUILT FAR 1 248 JARED HR•1 71,874 SF 2,789 SF 855 Sfc&ELow GrtADl!l 2 789 SF T.B.B, 2018 4% 2 268 JARED HR•l 113 692 SF 3 672 SF 934 SF 4 602SF 2013 4% 3 16861 CYPRESS WAY HR-1 ·57 064 SF 2 841 SF 878 SF 3 719 SF 1991 7% 4 17500 PHILIPS HR•l 54 481 SF 2 340 SF 527 SF 2 867 SF 1977 5% 5 17121-17511 PH!WPS HR-1 373 309 SF 14 895 SF 0 SF 14 895 SF 1966 4% 8 17231 CRESCENT HR-1 39 563 SF 2 608 SF 672 SF 3 280 SF 1958 8% 7 258 JARED HR-1 189 486 SF 1 563 SF 480 SF 2 043 SF 1950 1% 8 249 VISTA DEL MONTE R-1 ·8 10 000 SF 3 580 SF 504 SF 4 084 SF 1961 41% OJ 245 VISTA roe:, MnNTI= D-1.:8 1n MA C:J:: ? c1n c:i:: AO~ C:J:: 'I nQ':I c;i:: 1cw;n 31% ® 253 VISTA DEL MONTE R·l:8 9,884 SF 3,045 SF 600 SF 3,645 SF 1960 37% EXHIBIT E This Page Intentionally Left Blank May 15, 2017 Mr. Sean Mullin Community Development Department Town of Los Gatos 110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 248 Jared Lane Dear Sean: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the drawings and evaluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows: NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The site is a large hillside parcel with smaller parcels containing single family homes to the west and a larger parcel with an existing home located about 150 feet to the north. The parcel is heavily wooded as shown on the aerial photo below and the photographs of the site shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 TEL : 415.33 '1.3 795 CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET EXHIBIT 8 V 1e1'< to site from up pe, Jared La ne 248 Jared Lane Design Review Comments May 15, 2017 Page 3 House immediately above the site: Entry on upper Jared Lane CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 • LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 Mr. Pan 8/18/16 Pagt: 2 Trees at Risk of Adverse Impacts There are 113 trees at risk of adverse impacts related to development activities, they lncludr: 106 Const Lh·e Oak (Quercus agrifi,/ia), 5 Plum (Pru,ms spp.), 1 California Bay Tree (Umbe/lularia califim,it'a); and 1 Black Walnut (Juglans /,indsii). 62 trees are requested for tcrnovnl and the remaining ~1 trees rtgutre tree protection and preservation dforts in. some form or another. • TREES REQUESTED FOR REMOVAL-SUMMARY • I TREES#: l, la-9, 20, 22-59, 61-64, 66-72, i9, nnd 95~ · • TREE PROTECTION ZONE REQUIREMENTS-SUMMARY• n:~:~E~J-;;:p~ TYr~;mm -l'lUJNE l~~~~~S . j fRlrn# ·1 ~8~9! l 10-19, 21, 73-78, 80-10-16, 60, 65, 110·16, 60, 85, and '-----·-. l ::~ ~!;.~,1~6-100, !~~' 101 and 1100 RP.quired Proicd Arborist On-Site Monitoring • Pr1::-1nslallation meeting with fom:ing couiractor to i<lentify and locate TPZ locations. oTrees #88-91, 10-19, 21, 73•78, 80-94, 96-1001 and 102-110 • Grading, excavation, and/or lnmchin g t1ctivitics where g,racle chang.~s exceed 4" within the drip line of nny protcctc<l tree. o Trcts #10-16, 60, 85, and 100 • Monthly TPZ complianc e inspections . ft Any pruning activities especially those that exceed the pruning specifli:;1tiom; provided h~rein o Trees #10-16. 60, 65, 100, 101, and 102 • Final compliance report. The total number of required visits hy the pr ·:i<;-ct Arborist varies from project to project~ there arc generally a minimum of three visits mmlle by the projccl Arborist: I) TPZ fo11cc/~,up pre~ installation 1111::edng. 2) monitonng of nny proros r;d grade changes greater than 4" within th e drip line ofany protected tree. and 3) a final compliance inspection . • tAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES . I _J Mr. Pan 8/18/16 Pnge 3 Should the project duration exc~ed 30 days. monthly visits are n:qufrcd adding lo th~ total num~r of \'isits made by the project Arborist. A<fiusling esluh/ished TPZ radii mid-prt?i<!cl reqmres on-site numiwri11.e. and approval hy 1he project A.rhnrbil. Protected Tree Information See the attached tree inventory for specific tree characteristics. Pruning H.eguirements and Specifications There are a number of prote1.:ted trees being retained that \\ill impede development activities due to !ow hanging limbs and must be pruned prior to any grading and/or excavation. Moreover, uecs #60 and 65 are located on the adjacent property and each requires a significant amount of pruning but not so much as to exceed acceptable parameters. I recommend getting written ~nnission from the appropriate property owner prior to conducting any pruning operations on these two trees. The following trees should be pruned in a manner desi:ribcd as raise canopies and reduce end-weights to gain clearance, and remove select whole scaffold stems at branch uuachments when necessary : fl Trees #10-16, cm, 85, 100, 101, and 102 All tree pruning activities shall be performed prior to beginning devefopmem activities by a licensed and insured tree contractor adhering to ANSI A300 Pruning Standards and Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning-published and endorsed by the Intenmlional Society of Arb('lriculture (© ISA}; thl! 11se ,?{spikes amlior gaffs whLm pruning is stric'tly prohibirecl. RAISE (a.k.a. crown lifting)-The selective removal of lower growing or low hanging limbs to guin vertical clearance. Do not remove living stems> 4'' in diameter withm1t the approval ofth~ project Arborist. • Trees #10-16, 609 85, aod 100 REDUCE END~WEIGHT (a .k.a. redute lateral spread)-Cut the offending stemlsJ hack to a lateral that is t;; the diameter or more of the parent stem and capahle of maintaining apicu1 dominance. Remove no more than 25 percent of the Jiving tissue from :he offending stem . Thi;: goal is to gain horizontal clearance and to reduce the structural and torsional stresses related to ht!avy over-extended or over-grown wtd hori7.ontally oriented stems. Remove all existing deadwood and stubs and!or damaged branches per occurrence. Do not cut hack into living stems that arc >4" in diameter without tht! approval of the project A rhorist. • Trees #10-161 60, 85, IOO, 101, and 102 0 IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES . Mr. Pan 8/J 8/16 Pag~4 Root Pruaiug Ri.'Oi pruning may pm,·,;: neces sary m1<l if sci the following guidelines shnll be adhered to v. i tb the pr~jecl Arhorisl un sitt> to monitor Wl1rl ,. • Pruning root,; 2" in di.unctcr or greater requir~5 th~ use of a con1merdul grad<! 15 amp reciprocating sn·.v with at k:~.st 3 new unust:d wood cutting blades available while on-site . • Cleanly s~~vcr the root withN1t ripping or tearing the root tissue. It is preferable tl"1 cul bock to h lateral rnot mu,;b like ,vhic:n rl.!ducing the length of a stem or branch. Bact ery opernrf:'d rec:iprocating smn <~(less than 15 wnps and u:;t•J blade.r; will not he uilt.)Wt'd I v.rill smpend activities 11mil such time the pr-oper equipment is 0 11 site. o 3 new unused Arborist hand saws wilt al so b~ allowed i.e. Furu11.)1 M Tri-Edge Bl ade Fland Saw. o Trees #W-16. 60, 85, and 100 Gra ding, Excavatio.n nnJ T n ~nchjng A largt! amount i.'f soi! thru1Jghout this parcel will be excavated and/or graded wid will rn.:ed to be stored andlor removed from the sill!. /\ctivities related to excavating the retaining wall foundutions us well as ;rading activities for the driv~way nn<l hotist, pose tbi: large~t threat to tri:-.e health and cl)ndition. Mort sp(,cifica!ly , direct in1pacts from equipment and/or pe1·sonncl. ripp[ng and temfog rnots with h .iv y cqujpm .. ·:rit, and soil uccumulatini; at the bases uf the irees wi II cause immediate and lo ng term har m and must be avoidet.l . Properly wrapping trees with straw wattle to a hdght of :it !east 6' hHs proven in my experience 10 be the most effective method fo r protecting trees where tree protection fencing is not the best option. Grading, cx,'.aVation and trenching activities shall be monitor~d by me when th ose activities occur within th .. • driplincs of the following trees; • Trees #10 -16 , 60. 85r a nd lOO Should th e installation or underground utilities not revi:!wccl by me 11:, orthe du~ of this report be r~quired within the ,irip lim.: ofany protected tree mentioned herein, all trenching shall be dtme using directional hming, air~spad~ exc avation or by hand ta king e:xtrnme caution to avoid damage to the root s tructure . • IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES . Mr. Pan 8/18/16 Page 5 Type I Tree Protection Zone A fenced area erected around a tn."e or group of trees prior to beginning any demolition. grading. or construction activities to protect the roots and soil from Cl>mpaction. and to keep the tree trunk and hranches clear from damage by construction. equipment, or personnel activities. A typical TPZ consists of a six foot high fence minimum (preferably chained link) that is securely installed in the ground and around the tree with a radius equal to or as close as possible 1t1 the tree's drip line:!. A sign stating, °'Tree Protection Zone-No Entry" is placed in clear vieVv on the Jenee visible from all points of ingress and egress and left in place for the duration of the construction phase. Mulch to a depth of si.x inches is placed within the TPZ to further protect the trees' critical root zone and soil---do not cover the base of the tmnk with the mulch. Storage of construction materials within the TPZ is strictly prohibited, and physical entry is limited to designated personnel (one or two people prcferabl>·). The removal of any tree protection fencing authori?.ed only after an on-site inspection by the Town Arborist. Tvpc HI Tree Protection Zone Alternate form oftn.:e protection by wrnpping the tre~ when suflicicnt room for a Type I TPZ is unavailable, more specifically: wooden slats at least one inch thick arc bound securely, edge to cdgt:. around the trunk. A single layer or more of orange plastic construction fencing is wrapped and secured around the outside of the wooden slats. No portion of the tree wrap is to be affixed directly tl') the tree with nails, lag bolts. spikes, etc. The purpose of this type of tree protection is to prot~t the trunk from damage by direct impacts of equipment. vehicles, tools. etc. and nailini the wrap directly to ihe tree will cause the exact type of damage we are trying to avoid. Straw wattle ma,• also he used a':i a tree \\Tap by coiling the wattle around the trunk to a minimum height of 6 foc.:t abo\•e grade. A single layer or more of orange plastic construction fencing is Lhcn wrapped and secured around the srraw wattle. The removal of any tree protection fencing authorized only after an on-site inspection by the Town Arborist. ~ IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES Mr. Pan 8/18/16 Page 6 Conclusion Jt is my pmfc:,sional ~pinio.11 tlrnt th ~ prnj~et as designed all ows for the protectk,n and preservation of as many protected trees as possible. Furlhermore. should the tn .. •c protection and preservation recommendations discussed throughout this report be clearly expl<iined to and understood by all ptrscmnd rcspim~ible fbr applying the practical nspec: of this pr(~cct. th t~re is every reason to believe that every pl'otectcd trc~ b1:ing retained \\·ill survive dl!vclopment activities maintaining their current le ve l of structurnl and physiological wdl~being. I have enjoyed th e opportunity to become involved with your tree related pn~j~ct anJ kiok forward to assisting you in bringing it to its succes:;fu l conclusion . Si~~~ David A. Laczko ISA CcrJtied Arhorist PN-#l233A ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Member-American Stickty of Consulting Arborists Allathmcnts; T~e lnvc nlof!- s,1 .: ,\f~p ,·•fo,-es TPlMap I rrz M11p 11 Tl'Z t n,~!?rnm Tl'Z Ill Diagrarr. 14 Pictures @) IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES . Picture #1 • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC Pic1u,e #2 (I IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC . Picture #3 0 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE , INC . Picture #4 • I.AJ,J GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. I picture #5 0 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. Picture #6 (9 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC. Picture #7 • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE , INC . Picture #8 • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC . Picture #9 • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE . INC. Picture #10 {\9 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC Picture# 11 0 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE , INC . Picture #12 ~ !AN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC . Picture #13 • IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, INC , Picture #14 0 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE , INC . This Page Intentionally Left Blank '~ n'.~t~!;J~~iJ~Pr Nt\. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Table of Contents 1.0 Summary _________________________________ 3 1.0 (a) Written Summary 3 1.0 (b) Tree Replacement Calculation Matrix 8 2.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence Map 16 3.0 Author's Qualifications 18 4.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 19 5.0 Certification 20 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Ccnsulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Waller Lellison 2017 All Rig,ts Reserved 2 of 20 Version: 5/17/2017 ,lh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST '1\. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / !SA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net 1.0 Summary The contract town arborist (CTA) was retained by Staff to prepare a summary-type arborist report based on the current-proposed single family residence project at 248 Jared Lane, referring to both the plan set received by planning Staff on 4/18/2017, and a third-party arborist report document dated 8/18/16 by Ian Geddes & Associates Arboriculture Consulting of Saratoga, California (IG} that was based on an earlier 2016 iteration of the plan set. The CTA's assignment was to: 1. Analyze tree impacts related to proposed grading and construction. 2. Assess the adequacy of the third party arborist report by IG. 3. Assess the potential for retaining oaks 35, 36, 37, 70, 71, 72, and 79. 4. Prepare a matrix showing canopy replacement value for each of 63 trees currently shown on the applicant's plan sheets as proposed to be removed. 5. (The CTA is also including a tree protection map markup, after discussions with the Town planner associated with this site). 1.0 (a) Written Summary 1. Ian Geddes Arborist Report: The third party arborist report submitted by the applicant was based on an older iteration of the site plan (dated 5/26/2016), and is therefore not accurate in terms of assessing the current proposed grading and drainage plan outlay which was received by Town Staff on 4/18/2017. For example, the current proposed plan set involves the addition of a (previously not proposed) rock riprap swale and retention pond which extends westward and northward from the original project area, extending tree impacts far into the forest where trees have not yet been tagged or assessed in any report (refer to the applicant's latest grading and drainage plan, lower left hand quadrant of the sheet). It is suggested that Staff have the applicant retain IG to completely update their report to account for unassessed trees within 20 feet of the new swale and pond areas, as well as all impacts to all trees related to work shown on the most current iteration of the proposed grading and drainage plan sheet C2. It is further suggested that the IG report be updated to contain numeric tree condition ratings. For example the CT A's arborist reports use a tree evaluation system which includes a numeric health rating (vigor), a numeric structural rating, and a numeric overall condition rating based on the first two ratings for each tree. Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, Amertcan Society of Consulting Arbortsts and Member of the International Society of Arbortculture © Walter Levi son 2017 All Rights Reserved 3of20 Version: 5117/2017 ~J~ lY~!~~r,N!-~jg~~ A,_ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net SIDE NOTE ON TREE ROOT PROTECTION STANDARDS: The applicant's arborist report (and the applicant's plan) will need to include accurate protective fencing routes that conform to industry standard offsets from trees. For example, some Bay Area municipal departments have used a standard of 1.0 foot of radial offset per each single inch of tree trunk diameter measured at 4.5 feet above grade, between all proposed new work and the trunks of trees. This results in a 20 foot radius offset between new construction or trenching and the trunk of a 20 inch diameter tree. In some cases such as for tree specimens in "good" overall condition that are species known to exhibit good relative tolerance to construction work such as soil cuts and soil fills, and where an impact will occur on only one side of a tree's root system , the offset calculation may be reduced down to as much as (0.50 feet X trunk diameter inches) as a radial offset distance between proposed work on one side of the tree, and its trunk edge 1 . 2. Proposed Riprap Swale & Retention Pond: Trees #94, 96, and #97 were not previously shown as being impacted, but are now to be damaged by proposed riprap swale installation along the area just north of the Jared Lane roadway. At least twenty to thirty additional trees also require numeric tagging, arborist assessment and inclusion in the third party arborist report and on the various plan sheets. These trees are located along the east and west sides of both the proposed riprap swale and the proposed retention pond which are shown on the applicant's current sheet C2 grading and drainage plan. Many of these trees may be negatively impacted by the proposed work. These impacts are not currently accounted for in any report or on any sheet. It is suggested that the third party arborist report and the applicant's plan sheets all account for trees within 20 feet of the current proposed riprap swale and retention pond, and any associated grading proposed for the areas surrounding the pond. All trees to be added will need to be tagged with numeric tags and shown by trunk plot dot and tag number on the applicant's submittal sheets. 3. Proposed Storm Drain System: Oaks #35, 36, 37, 70, 71, and #79 appear to be retainable, pending applicant realignment of the proposed storm drain trench system to offset the trenches at least 15 or more linear feet from the trunk edges of these seven trees. Town Staff and the CTA concur that this may be a viable may to proceed, assuming that the storm drain system could be tightlined against the south side of the proposed residence instead of along its current proposed alignment (see applicant's grading and drainage sheet C2). This would lower the removal total to 56 trees, and lower the canopy replacement fees to $44,500. It is suggested that Staff have the applicant realign the proposed storm drain system to avoid trenching within 15 feet of these seven trees. 1 Matheny and Clark. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. International Society of Arboriculture. Cham ai n, IL, USA. Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 4of20 Version: 5117/2017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 8. Utility Trenching: The applicant has not shown proposed utility trenching, except for sanitary sewer alignment. Unknown trench alignments at this time include such items as, but not limited to: a. Irrigation piping. b. Fire water. C. Drinking water. d. CATV. e. Electric. f. Gas. g. Other? The impacts of these items on existing tree root systems at this site are not known at the time of writing. 9. Irrigation Plan Trenching: .~~. cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net The applicant has not submitted an irrigation trenching plan at the time of writing. Landscape and irrigation plan work often causes severe damage to tree root zones, since hard PVC type irrigation pipes are typically trenched in 12 to 18 inches below existing pre-project surface grades, often severing the entire root systems of trees (see the CT A's side note above on page 13 of this report regarding tree root growth patterns). To avoid this potential problem, it is suggested that Staff require the applicant to avoid all irrigation pipe trenching within 20 to 30 feet of any tree being retained. Note that native oaks typically prefer dry summer type soil moisture regimes, which means that there is no irrigation required to be set around any native oak tree being retained. 10. Landscape Plan: The applicant has not submitted a landscape plan at the time of writing. For areas with native oak forest such as this site, there may be no need to install additional trees except in areas scraped for mass grading, residence surround, etc. Note that new trees that achieve large canopy size, if installed within approximately 25 to 30 feet of native oaks, may be detrimental to the oaks in terms of blocking natural sunlight exposure over time which the oaks need in order to maintain long term health and vigor. Native coast live oaks prefer full (all-day) sunlight exposure. Site Address : 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arbori sts and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Lev ison 2017 All Rights Reserved 7 of20 Version: 5/17/2017 ,J; ?~t~r.N!-1:i!~~ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 11. Protective Fencing: I ~ ~i~ .... ,-, .... ._w;c·•.:.._,,,. ,,.,, .... ..__,.,,. cell (415) 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net Correctly-scaled fencing protection for trees to be retained is currently not shown to scale on applicant drawings. The tree removal plan shows small CAD conventions for fencing as narrow diameter circles around trees to be retained. The CTA has shown protective chain link fencing to more accurate scale on a marked up drawing in this report below in section 2.0. Refer to this marked up sheet as a reference of suggested additional tree assessment needs, suggested plan adjustments, and suggested tree protection fence routing. 12. Removals/Fees Per Current Proposed Plan: 63 trees to be removed per applicant. $50,250 in canopy replacement fees. Three trees in this grouping, #20, 28, and #33 are "large protected trees" per the Town ordinance definition. The following matrix 1.0(b} contains canopy replacement values for the proposed 63 removal trees (fulfillment of item #4 above}. Note that each required replacement tree not actually replaced on site is equivalent to a $250 mitigation fee payable to the Town. The replacement rate noted below is based on table 3-1 of the Town of Los Gatos Tree Ordinance "tree canopy replacement standard". 1.0 (b) Tree Replacement Calculation Matrix The tree replacement matrix below does not include the 40 to 45 additional trees discussed above in the written summary that are expected to be impacted to some degree (and possibly killed) by proposed work shown on the applicant's grading and drainage plan sheet C2. The below matrix only includes trees currently proposed by the applicant to be removed as of the plan set received by the Town on 4/18/2017: Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 1 1 Black walnut No ~· -~· 2 1a Plum No 3 2 Plum No 80120 Sito Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture <O Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Replacement Size Tree Lost 3 24" box ···-·---- 3 24" box 3 24" box Version: 5/17/2017 ,Jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 4 3 Plum No 5 4 Plum No 6 5 Coast live oak No 7 6 Coast live oak No 8 7 Coast live oak No 9 8 Coast live oak No 10 9 Coast live oak No 11 20 Coast live oak Yes 12 21 Coast live oak No 13 22 Coast live oak No 9of 20 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of ArbOriculture @ Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 3 0 6 3 3 3 2 4 3 3 .~ .. cell (415) 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24" box (dead) 24"box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box Version: 5/1712017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 44 53 Coast live oak No 45 54 Coast live oak No 46 55 Coast live oak No 47 56 Coast live oak No 48 57 Coast live oak No 49 58 Coast live oak No 50 59 Coast live oak No 51 61 Coast live oak No 52 62 Coast live oak No 53 63 Coast live oak No 13of20 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 '~ .. t~. cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24"box 24" box 24" box Version: 5/17/2017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Replacement Rate Per Canopy Number Tree (LPT)? Lost I~ ~t~ .. ~ .... ~ ......... . ................. --... cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree Total mitigation required if all 63 trees were to be removed: 201 plantings of 24" box, or payment of 201 X $250 = $50,250. Note: trees #20, #28, and #33 being removed are "large protected trees" per Town ordinance. Total mitigation if seven (7) removal trees #35, 36, 37, 70, 71, 72, 79 were to be retained Instead of removed, per Town Planning Staff, lowering the total removal to 56 trees: 178 plantings of 24" box, or payment of 178 X $250 = $44,500. 2017 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent= $250 per each required 24" box mitigation tree planting not installed on the site. Stte Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 15of20 Version: 5/17/2017 ~jh \,Valter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ~?1. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net 3.0 Author's Qualifications • Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and various governmental and non-governmental entities. • Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California Community Development Department/ Planning Division 2015-present • Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California) • Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board) 2001-2006 • ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 • ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000 • Associate Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99 • Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California Planning and Community Development Department 5/99-present • ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 • Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993 • B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990 Chancellor's Award • Tropical Forest Ecology Research, Xujiaba Forest Reserve, Yunnan Province, China 9/89-12/89 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registerad Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 18of20 Version: 5/17/2017 -- - I - TREE# COMMON NAME GENUS/SPECES DBH 1 Black Walnut Jug/ans hindsii 8.5" la Plum Prunus spp. 6" 2 Plum Prunusspp. 8" 3 Plum Prunusspp. 9" 4 Plum Prunusspp. 8" 5 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 11.5" 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 18" 7 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" 8 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 9 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5" 10 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 13" 11 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 10" 12 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 14" 13 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 11" 14 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10.5" 15 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 17.5" 16 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 27" 17 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 17" 18 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 19 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 20 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 29" 21 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 22 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 23 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 18" 24 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8" 25 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10.5" 26 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 27 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 10.5" 28 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 87.5" 29 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8.5" 30 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 31 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 32 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 5.5" 33 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 28" 34 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 16.5" CANOPY CONDITION 20' Good 10' Good 10' Good 25' Good 20' Dead 45' Fair to Good -Fair to Good 7' Good 10' Good 5' Poor 25' Fair to Good 25' Fair to Good 45' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 25' Fair to Good 40' Fair to Good 45' Good 20' Good 25' Fair to Good 30' Good 15' Good 10' Fair to Good 25' Good 25' Fair to Good 30' Good 25' Good 30' Good 10' Good 15' Good 10' Good 20' Good 10' Fair to Good 30' Good 35' Good Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A . SUITAB.IUTY High High High High NA Moderate Moderate High High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High High Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate High High High High High High High Moderate High High I I I 1 INTENSITY IOLERANCE PRESCRIPTION 1 Poor Remove 1 Moderate Remove 1 Moderate Remove 1 Moderate Remove NA NA Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Remove 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove I I I I - ~- ~~ ----- TREE# COMMON NAME GENUS/SPECIES DBH 70 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 11.5" 71 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolio 8" 72 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 73 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 14" 74 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifofla 7.5" 75 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 76 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9.5" 77 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 10.5" 78 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 79 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 80 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 21.5" 81 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 82 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 83 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7 .5" 84 California Bay Tree Umbeffuloria californica 11" 85 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 38" 86 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 87 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10.5" 88 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 38" 89 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 4 .5" 90 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" 91 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolio 12" 92 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8" 93 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 94 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolio 12" 95 Plum Prunus spp. 8" 96 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 15.5" 97 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 4.5" 98 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 12.5" 99 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 100 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 25" 101 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 32" 102 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 17.5" 103 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifofia 10" 104 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" CANOPY. CON.DIT.ION 30' Good 15' Good 10' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 10' Good 20' Good 20' Good 10' Good 20' Good 30' Good 15' Good 10' Good 20' Good 15' Good 80' Poor 5' Fair to Good 10' Fair to Good 60' Fair to Good 5' Good 5' Poor 40' Good iO' Good 20' Good 40' Good 10' Dead 30' Good S' Fair to Good 25' Fair to Good 10' Fair to Good 60' Good 80' Good 40' Good 10' Good 7' Good Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A SUITABILITY High High Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High High High High High High High High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low High High High High NA High Moderate High High High High High High High -- INTENSITY TOLERANCE PRESCRIPTION 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Remove 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Moderate Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ NA NA Remove 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Prune/Monitor 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ TREE INVENTORY NOTES DBH-Diameter at breast height measured at 54" above grade unless otherwise indicated. CANOPY-Diameter of the canopy spread, from tip to tip of the longest stems. CONDITION-Ground based visual assessment of structural and physiolocical well-being (Good, Fair, Poor). SUITABILITY-Determining a particular specimen's intrinsic value to be preservered based upon structural and physiological well-being, tolerance to withstand impacts, tree age and expected longevity, species invasiveness (High, Moderate, Low). INTENSITY-Determining the level of adverse impact upon a particular specimen (1 thru 5: 1 = high, 5 = Low). TOLERANCE-Determining the relative tolerance for a particual specimen's ability to withstand adverse impacts (Good, Moderate, Poor). PRESCRIPTION-fate of a particular specimen: Protect and preserve, monitor activities, or remove. Tree Replacement Values (will vary based upon vendor): 15 gallon = $360.00; 24" boxed = $550.00; 36" boxed = $1550.00 Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A This Page Intentionally Left Blank Mr. Pan Pagc2 12/1/17 2.e) Trees #106-1 IO, and 112 arc depicted in Picture #14 of the original Arb01ist report. I understand they shall inherit the standards of prolt:ction as describoo fm trees# I 0-16, 60. 85, and 100 on page 4 of the original Arborist report. 2.h) It is 111y understanding that underground utiliti.es are routed below the driveway and therefore nullify the necessity to remove trees. 2.i) I discussed with Mr. Kalbfcld his irrigation installation plan and it is my professional opinion that instatlation activities as well as the use of the in-igation system will impose no adverse effect upon the long-tenn health and condition of the native oaks. 2.j) 1 reviewed Mr. Kalbfcld's Landscape Screening Plan. sheet L-3 dated September 2014, and it is my professional opinion that all Genera/species of plants, shrubs. trees, et al., chosen by Mr. Kalhfold are appropriate for planting near native Oaks due to being native and/or their low water requirements. 2.k) Type I and Type U Tree Protection Zone materials, design, and duration are discussed in the original Arborist rcpo11 on page 5, and the protected trees requiring TPZ installation are s_ummarized on page 2 of the same report. Also discussed on page 2 is the requirement for a TPZ pre-installation meeting with the fencing contractor to identify and locate the T.PZ locations. It is my professional opinion that the standards set forth in the original report and subsequent addendum letters adhere to The Code of the Town of Los Gatos--Sec. 29.10. JOOS. -Protection of trees during construction. Please do not hesitate to contact me directly should you or the Town require any additional tree related discussions. Sincerely, M{~r4 David A. 'taczko 1SA Certified Arborist #1233A JSA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Member-American Society of Consulting Arbonsts Attachments: Arborist Response Comments f) IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES. - I - I : ----·---~ - TREE# COMMON NAME GENUS/SPECIES DBH 1 .. Black Walnut Jug/ans hindsii 8.5" la Plum Prunus spp. 6" 2 Plum Prunus spp. 8" 3 Plum Prunusspp. 9" 4 Plum Prunus spp. 8'' 5 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 11.5" 6 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 18" 7 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" 8 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7 .5" 9 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5" 10 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 13" 11 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 12 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 14" 13 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 11" 14 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 10.5" 15 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 17.5" 16 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 27" 17 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 17" 18 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 19 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 20 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 29" 21 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 22 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 23 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 18" 24 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8" 25 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 10.5" 26 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 27 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifol/a 10.5" 28 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 87.5" 29 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8 .5" 30 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 31 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 32 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 5.5" 33 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 28" 34 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 16.5" CANOPY CONDJTION 20' Good 10' Good 10' Good 25' Good 20' Dead 45' Fair to Good -Fair to Good 7' Good 10' Good 5' Poor 25' Fair to Good 25' Fair to Good 45' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 25' Fairto Good. 40' Fair to Good 45' Good 20' Good 25' Fair to Good 30' Good 15' Good 10' Fair to Good 25' Good 25' Fair to Good 30' Good 25' Good 30' Good 10' Good 15' Good 10' Good 20' Good 10' Fair to Good 30' Good 35' Good Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A SUITABILITY High High High High NA Moderate Moderate High High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate Moderate High High Moderate High High Moderate High Moderate High High High High High High High Moderate High High " INTENS .ITY . TOLERANCE PRESCRIPTION 1 Poor Remove 1 Moderate Remove 1 Moderate Remove 1 Moderate Remove NA NA Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Remove 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove --- I I ~ --·. -- TREE# COMMON NAME GENUS/SPEOES DBH 70 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 11.5" 71 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8" 72 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 73 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 14" 74 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 75 Coast live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 76 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9.5" 77 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10.5" 78 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 79 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 80 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 21.5" 81 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 82 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 83 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7.5" 84 California Bay Tree Umbel/ularia californica 11" 85 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 38" 86 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 7" 87 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10.5" 88 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 38" 89 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolla 4.5" 90 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" 91 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolla 12" 92 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 8" 93 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 94 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 12" 95 Plum Prunus spp. 8" 96 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 15.5" 97 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 4.5" 98 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 12.5" 99 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 9" 100 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 25" 101 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifo/ia 32" 102 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 17.5" 103 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 10" 104 Coast Live Oak Quercus agrifolia 6" CANOPY CONDITION 30' Good 15' Good 10' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 20' Fair to Good 10' Good 20' Good 20' Good 10' Good 20' Good 30' Good 15' Good 10' Good 20' Good 15' Good 80' Poor 5' Fair to Good 10' Fair to Good 60' Fair to Good 5' Good 5' Poor 40' Good 10' Good 20' Good 40' Good 10' Dead 30' Good 5' Fair to Good 25' Fair to Good 10' Fair to Good 60' Good 80' Good 40' Good 10' Good 7' Good Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A SUITABILITY High High Moderate Moderate Moderate High High High High High High High High High High Low Moderate Moderate Moderate High Low High High High High NA High Moderate High High High High High High High ~ INTENSITY TOLERANCE PRESCRIPTION 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Remove 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 1 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Remove 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Moderate Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 4 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type I TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ NA NA Remove 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 3 Good Prune/Monitor 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ 2 Good Install Type Iii TPZ 2 Good Install Type Ill TPZ TREE INVENTORY NOTES DBH-Diameter at breast height measured at 54" above grade unless otherwise indicated. CANOPY-Diameter of the canopy spread, from tip to tip of the longest stems. CONDITION-Ground based visual assessment of structural and physiolocical well-being (Good, Fair, Poor). SUITABILITY-Determining a particular specimen's intrinsic value to be preservered based upon structural and physiological well-being, tolerance to withstand impacts, tree age and expected longevity, species invasiveness (High, Moderate, Low). INTENSITY-Determining the level of adverse impact upon a particular specimen (1 thru 5: 1 = high, 5 = Low). TOLERANCE-Determining the relative tolerance for a particual specimen's ability to withstand adverse impacts (Good, Moderate, Poor). PRESCRIPTION-fate of a particular specimen: Protect and preserve, monitor activities, or remove. Tree Replacement Values (will vary based upon vendor): 15 gallon = $360.00; 24" boxed = $550.00; 36" boxed = $1550 .00 Pan Report-10/25/17 D. Laczko PN-#1233A This Page Intentionally Left Blank ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST it~. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net 1.0 Assignment The contract town arborist {CTA} was retained by Staff to prepare a summary-type arborist report based on the current-proposed single family residence project at 248 Jared Lane, referring to both the plan set received by planning Staff on 4/18/2017, and a third-party arborist report document dated 8/18/16 by Ian Geddes & Associates Arboriculture Consulting of Saratoga, California {IG) that was based on an earlier 2016 iteration of the plan set. The CT A's assignment was to : 1. Analyze tree impacts related to proposed grading and construction. 2. Assess the adequacy of the third party arborist report by IG. 3. Assess the potential for retaining oaks 35, 36, 37, 70, 71, 72, and 79. 4. Prepare a matrix showing canopy replacement value for each of 63 trees shown on the applicant's plan sheets as proposed to be removed. 5. (The CTA originally included a tree protection map markup, after discussions with the Town planner associated with this site). The CTA was later retained by Town Planning Staff to update this entire Contract Town Arborist report, including the CT A's color-coded tree protection map, based on revised plans received by Staff which included: 1. An updated tree disposition sheet by IG, dated 10/25/2017 that included fifteen new trees #113 through #127. 2. An updated grading/drainage/utility plan sheet C2 (no revision date indicated on sheet}, revised by the applicant team and received by Town Staff on 12/5/2017. 2.0 Summary by the CTA 1. Ian Geddes Arborist Report Update 10/25/2017: The third party arborist report with tree color-coded tree disposition sheet submitted by the applicant, revision date 10/25/2017, was based on an older iteration of the grading and drainage plan sheet C2 from 2016, and is therefore not accurate in terms of assessing the current proposed grading and drainage plan outlay which was received by Town Staff on 12/5/2017 . The CTA therefore whited-out the utility and storm drain routing as shown on the IG color-coded sheet, and marked up a new tree protection and tree location map with various color coding, including the following information based on the new 12/5/2017 applicant version of the grading and drainage sheet C2 {see the CTA's revised color-coded tree location and protection map attached to the end of this report}: • Gas line is now shown as a heavy black line running east-west between trees #121 and #122. • Sanitary sewer line is now shown running north-south just west of tree #119, and entering the proposed driveway footprint. • Water line is now shown running north-south between trees #15 and #16, and entering the proposed new driveway footprint. • Storm drain lines are now shown as magenta lines wrapping around the proposed residence footprint, and entering the proposed new driveway footprint. • Retention ponds and associated piping are shown as a magenta massing along Jared Lane, just west of the driveway approach. • Root protection zone chain link fence protection perimeters, omitted from the IG report map, are now included on the CTA's updated map, and include roughly 1,700 to 1,900 linear feet of chain link fencing {indicated by red dashed lines), plus fence "armoring" along the uphill sides of Site Address: 248 Jared Lane . Los Gatos , CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International SOciety of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 AD Rights Reserved 3 of 18 Version: 12/5/2017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST &\. ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net range from approximately 500 feet to 510 feet ASL. There is no way to mitigate damage to lateral woody tree roots that is expected to occur as a result of this deep excavation type retaining wall work, unless the wall were to be completely eliminated or moved southward to avoid the deep cuts. The CTA suggests that the Town work with the applicant to reduce proposed driveway width and reduce the lateral extension of proposed deep excavation footing type retaining walls, in order to provide better offset distances between proposed site work and oak trees being retained. This will allow us to specify larger perimeter chain link root protection zone fencing around trees being retained, and increase likelihood of oak survival over the long term. AUTHOR'S SIDE NOTE ON ROOT GROWTH: The problem with the excavation of proposed driveway retaining wall cuts is that trees extend lateral woody roots and fine absorbing root mass laterally outward in what appears somewhat like the bottom of a wine glass, extending outward from the tree trunk in all directions, mainly between grade elevation and 24 inches below grade elevation (approximately) to as much as two to three times the canopy dripline radius or much more in cases where canopy spread is restricted 2 • This means that a very large percentage of a tree's root system can be completely destroyed, simply by trenching in a pipe or by excavating downward 24 inches below the surface. The upshot of this is that the proposed retaining wall cuts proposed for the area along the north side of the driveway effectively nullify any tree root preservation benefit of installing "pervious pavers" in that area, since roots extending from trees #10 through #16, for example, will be completely destroyed along the north side of the retaining wall cut. The proposed pervious pavers may or may not provide other unrelated site benefits unknown to the CTA. 4. Retention Ponds: The proposed new plan for retention pond creation, and associated piping connected to the ponds, involves grading in the driveway approach area between Jared Lane and the west edge of the proposed new driveway approach skirt. It is expected that trees #92, 93, 94, 96, 97, and #99 may be significantly to severely affected by the work. 5. Utility Pipe Trenching and Storm Drain Pipe Trenching: 5.1 Electrical conduit routes are not known as of the date of writing . Impacts to trees: unknown. 5.2 Gas trench alignment is now shown as a route running east-west through trees #121 and #122, which may severely impact the root systems of these two trees. Realignment of the route is suggested, though it is not clear how the gas pipe would reach the tie-in point with the PG&E main line if it were to be adjusted to avoid trees being retained. One possible route might be to align the gas pipe roughly 15 to 20 feet south of tree #123. 5.3 Water pipe trenching is now set to occur in a north-south trajectory between trees #15 and #16 to be retained. These two oaks are very large specimens. It might be more appropriate to route the water line such that it is aligned west of tree #119 near the sanitary sewer route. Tree #119 is a smaller diameter specimen, and will be more tolerant of root loss during trenching, which means the location of the pipe alignment could be in relatively close proximity to the trunk (e.g. 10 feet from trunk, etc.) without necessarily killing the tree. The system now ties into the driveway footprint to minimize tree removal. 2 Harris et. al. 2004. Arboriculture 4th Edition: Integrated Management of Landscape Trees , Shrubs, and Vines. Prentice Hall. New Jersey, USA. Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member , American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 5of 18 Version: 12/512017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ~~- ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net 8. Protective Fencing & Canopy Driplines: For some unknown reason, the IG report dated 10/25/2017 shows only "type Ill" tree protection (i.e. straw wattles wrapped around tree trunks) for almost all of the trees being retained, which is substandard practice on sites that will be built through the rainy period, and very unusual for a project of this size and scope that involves extensive earth moving for storm drainage retention pond creation, etc. Below is a summary of the required Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance-indicated tree protection types that are indicated for various tree situations:3 • Type I fencing is chain link fencing around a canopy dripline or further from the trunk as defined by an arborist. This type of fencing is appropriate for the 248 Jared site, but is curiously not noted on the tree disposition sheet by IG dated 10/25/2017. In the IG report tree inventory spreadsheet, only four (4) trees #88, 89, 90 , and #91 are prescribed (Rx) for this type of protective fencing . ·Type Ill trunk buffer protection" as described below, if used alone as is indicated in the IG arborist report tree inventory prescription column, would be completely substandard in relation to the tree protection per the Town of Los Gatos ordinance requirements and per arboriculture industry standard Best Management Practices (BMP), as the below-ground root systems of the trees would be completely vulnerable to destruction by site work if not fenced off completely. • Type II fencing is chain link fencing along a street planter strip, and is not appropriate for the Jared site. • Type Ill protection is orange plastic snow fencing wrapped as padding around the lower trunk, and clad on the outside with vertically oriented boards affixed using duct tape. This type of tree protection is noted in the IG report tree data table as the prescribed Rx tree protection for all of the trees to be retained at the 248 Jared site, except for those four trees noted above. Again, if used alone without any root protection fencing at the trees' canopy driplines, this type of protection on a site where mass grading will occur is of far less value than fencing as a tree protection method. It is not clear why the IG report indicates use of type Ill buffer padding only, without use of type I fencing protection at the canopy driplines to preserve lateral woody roots extending at great distance outward from the trees. One reason to avoid use of straw wattle trunk wrap padding (suggested as the method of tree protection in the IG arborist report letter) is that they do not work as long term protection for sites that are to be built through the winter months, since rain water will thoroughly soak the straw, resulting in tree bark wetting and death from fungal infections, etc. due to excessively wet straw held tightly against the trunk bark. For this reason, the use of Town of Los Gatos standard orange plastic wrapping with wood board armoring clad around the outside of the plastic is the BMP for trunk protection for site construction in winter months, as it tends to provide protection while drying out far more easily and thoroughly than straw wattles. As an ASCA registered consulting arborist, Ian Geddes (who assumedly reviewed and approved of this report written by one of his employees, and submitted on his letterhead) should specify use of more robust tree protection measures on the Jared site, in order to be in compliance with both the arboriculture industry standards and the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance standards of tree protection which are legally-binding conditions of approval. 3 See Town of Los Gatos Tree Ordinance, 2015 revision, page 13, section 29.10.1005. Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 7of 18 Version : 1215'2017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 I ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3 172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? I 5 4 Plum I No I 6 5 Coast live oak No -· 7 6 Coast live oak No 8 7 Coast live oak No I I 9 8 I Coast live oak I No 10 9 Coast live oak No 11 20 Coast live oak Yes 12 22 Coast live oak No 13 23 Coast live oak No 14 24 Coast live oak No 10 of 18 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arbo lists and Member of the International Society of Arboliculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lo st 0 I 6 I 3 3 3 2 4 3 4 4 ~\. cell (415) 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree (dead} 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box I 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box Ve rsion : 12/5/2 01 7 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 15 25 Coast live oak No 16 26 Coast live oak No 17 27 Coast live oak No 18 28 Coast live oak Yes 19 29 Coast live oak No 20 30 Coast live oak No 21 31 Coast live oak No 22 32 Coast live oak No 23 33 Coast live oak Yes 24 34 Coast live oak No 11 of18 Site Address : 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Con sulting Arbori sts and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture I{) Waller Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 A~ ~1-~ ,._" .. ~,ws .. •• .... .................................. cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box Version: 12/5/2017 '> ~t!~~r,N~~,Yj~2~ ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 35 45 Coast live oak No 36 46 Coast live oak No 37 47 Coast live oak No 38 48 Coast live oak No 39 49 Coast live oak No 40 50 Coast live oak No 41 51 Coast live oak No 42 52 Coast live oak No 43 53 Coast live oak No 44 54 Coast live oak No 13of 18 Site Address : 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Mermer of the International Society of Arboriculture © Watter Levison 2017 Al Rig,ts Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 3 2 4 3 2 4 4 2 3 3 J.i\. cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24" box 24"box 24" box 24"box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box Version: 12/5/2017 ,Jh Walter Levison rl CONSUL TING ARB ORI ST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT)? 45 55 Coast live oak No 46 56 Coast live oak No 47 57 Coast live oak No ---· ··--··- 48 58 Coast live oak No 49 59 Coast live oak No 50 61 Coast live oak No 51 62 Coast live oak No 52 63 Coast live oak No 53 64 Coast live oak No 54 66 Coast live oak No 14 of 18 Site Address : 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture rs> Watter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 3 3 3 3 3 3 4 4 4 4 I~ At~ ··-·""''·:CS--·-·· cell (415) 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24 "box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24 " box 24" box 24" box Version: 12/5/2017 ~]h Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist#401 / 1SA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist#WC-3172 Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Number Tree (LPT}? 55 67 Coast live oak No 56 68 Coast live oak No 57 69 Coast live oak No 58 70 Coast live oak No 59 71 Coast live oak No 60 72 Coast live oak No 61 79 Coast live oak No 62 95 Plum No 63 116 Coast live oak No . 15of18 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane. Los Gatos, CA Registered Member. American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved Replacement Rate Per Canopy Lost 3 3 3 4 3 3 3 .. 0 3 ,£\. cell (415} 203-0990 I drtree@sbcglobal.net Replacement Size Tree 24"box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box 24" box (dead) 24" box Version: 12/512017 ~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING ARBORIST ,~ .~~1 ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified/ ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 cell (415) 203-0990 / drtree@sbcglobal.net Line Number Tree Tag Common Name Large Protected Replacement Rate Per Canopy Replacement Size Tree Number Tree (LPT)? Lost Total mitigation required if all 63 trees were to be removed: 201 plantings of 24" box, or payment of 201 X $250 = $50,250. Note: trees #20, #28, and #33 being removed are "large protected trees" per Town ordinance. 2017 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent= $250 per each required 24" box mitigation tree planting not Installed on the site. 4.0 Author's Qualifications • Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and various governmental and non-governmental entities. • Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California Community Development Department/ Planning Division 201 5-present • Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California) • Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board) 2001-2006 • ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 • ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000 • Associate Consulting Arborist Barrie D. Coate and Associates 4/99-8/99 • Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California Planning and Community Development Department 5/99-present • ISA Certified Arborist #WC-3172 • Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993 Site Address: 248 Jared Lane, Los Gatos, CA Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture © Walter Levison 2017 All Rights Reserved 16 of 18 Version: 12/5/2017 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 6, 2018 NONE EXHIBIT 14 This Page Intentionally Left Blank