17505 High St- Staff Report and Exhibits 1-10
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: 04/25/2018 ITEM NO: 4
DATE: APRIL 19, 2018 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-17-025. PROJECT LOCATION:
17505 HIGH STREET. PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: MICHAEL SULLIVAN. REQUESTING APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITION GREATER THAN 100 SQUARE FEET TO AN EXISTING SECOND STORY, TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS REQUIRING A GRADING PERMIT ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-1. APN 532-23-037. DEEMED COMPLETE: APRIL 10, 2018 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: OCTOBER 10, 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 & Standards: Hillside Specific Plan; Hillside Development Standards and
Guidelines
Parcel Size: 0.795 acres (34,645 square feet)
PAGE 2 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
Surrounding Area:
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation of
the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
FINDINGS:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines for granting exceptions to
height; maximum fill depths; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; and development outside
the Least Restrictive Development Area.
As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines that other than the
exceptions to height; maximum fill depths; driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; and
development outside the Least Restrictive Development Area; the project complies with the
Hillside Development Standards & 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 site is located on the north side of High Street (Exhibit 1). The subject property is
approximately 0.795 acres (34,645 square feet), developed with an existing 1,731-square foot
residence and an attached 563-square foot carport.
The project is being considered by the Planning Commission because the proposed modifications
to the existing home would exceed the maximum height above grade, 18 feet, allowed for visible
Existing Land Use General Plan Land Use Designation Zoning
North Single-family Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
South Single-family Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
East Single-family Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
West Single-family Residential Hillside Residential HR-1
PAGE 3 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
homes in the hillside areas, and the maximum height of a building’s tallest elevation measured
from the lowest point to the highest point, 28 feet, for visible homes in the hillside areas.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Architecture and Site Application
Approval of an Architecture and Site application is required for exceptions to the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G) and for site improvements requiring a
grading permit.
B. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is 0.795 acres (34,645 square feet), located on the north side of High
Street, and is developed with an existing two-story single-family residence (Exhibit 1). The lot
descends approximately 90 feet from the roadway with an average slope of 40 percent and
extensive tree cover. Due to these constraints, the property includes limited Least Restrictive
Development Areas (LRDA) located in two locations: adjacent to the residence; and downslope
of the residence (Exhibit 1, Sheet C-1). Single-family hillside residential development surrounds
the property.
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, setbacks, building coverage, and on-site parking
requirements of the HR-1 zone.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant is requesting approval for modifications to the existing residence and
construction of a 2,229 square-foot addition with 41 square feet of below-grade square
footage. The proposed modifications and addition to the residence would produce a
contemporary home in both form and materials. Exterior finishes would include stucco;
cementitious siding panels; dark anodized aluminum windows and doors; pitched standing
seam metal roof; and a flat membrane roof (Exhibit 4). All exterior materials would have an
LRV less than 30. A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing.
Much of the existing residence would remain, except for a 64-square foot second-story
section, which would be removed from the northwest elevation. The applicant proposes to
remove the existing A-frame roof and introduce a shed roof, reducing the maximum height of
PAGE 4 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
the existing portion of the residence by approximately seven and one-half feet, from 37.5 feet
to 29.9 feet. The removed footprint and reduction in height would eliminate a significant
portion of the existing mass of the home. The existing carport would be enclosed and
expanded, resulting in a 729-square foot garage with wood sectional doors. The existing deck
on the northwest elevation would be rebuilt and extended into the area of the removed house
footprint. The deck would be surrounded with a tempered-glass guard rail. The existing
exterior stairs leading from the deck on the northeast elevation would be replaced with steel
stairs, utilizing the existing support posts and finished with a cable rail guard rail.
The proposed addition would be concentrated on the eastern side of the existing residence,
taking advantage of an existing flat portion of the property. The proposed addition would be
two stories with a maximum height of 23.67 feet. A 41-square foot portion of the first-floor
addition would be built into the hillside and considered below-grade square footage. The roof
of the addition would consist of two low-pitched shed roof areas in opposing directions and a
limited flat roof section. The addition would include a new formalized entry area on the
southeast elevation, accessible via a new pathway leading from a proposed parking area on
High Street. A new 70-square foot balcony would be located on the north side of the addition,
enclosed with a tempered-glass guard rail.
Floor Area Summary
Floor Existing
Square
Footage
Demolished
Square
Footage
Addition
Square
Footage
Addition - Below
Grade Square
Footage
Total
(gross)
First Floor 576 0 972 41 1,589
Second Floor 1,155 (64) 1,091 0 2,182
Carport/Garage 563 166 0 729
Total (gross) 2,294 (64) 2,229 41 4,500
Garage credit (400)
Below-grade square footage, not countable toward floor area (41)
Total Countable Floor Area 4,059
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 April 10, 2018.
The existing residence is a visible home because 25 percent or more of an elevation can be
seen from two of the Town’s established viewing areas. It is 52.29 percent visible from the
Highway 9/17 overcrossing viewing area and 38.06 percent visible from the Main/Bayview
viewing area (Exhibit 11, Sheet PS-1a). The proposed modification of and addition to the
residence would reduce the visibility of the residence. The applicant proposes to remove the
A-frame roof form, which would reduce the visible mass. The proposed addition would
increase the surface area of the residence facing the viewing areas; however, most of the
added surface area would be screened by existing trees. As a result, the visibility of the home
PAGE 5 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
would decrease to 36.36 percent visibility from the Highway 9/17 overcrossing viewing area
and 32.56 percent visibility from the Main/Bayview viewing area.
Visibility Summary
Viewing Area Existing
Visibility
Proposed
Visibility
Visibility of
Addition
Highway 9/17
Overcrossing
52.29% 36.36% 6.40%
Main Street/
Bayview Avenue
38.06% 32.56% 7.48%
A number of existing trees provide screening for the residence. Pursuant to the recently
updated standards for Visibility Analysis, trees with a poor health rating (less than 50 percent
overall condition rating) shall not be included in the visibility analysis (Exhibit 5). The project
arborist provided an Arborist Report detailing the health condition of the trees on site (Exhibit
7). None of the trees providing screening are in poor health. A health summary of the trees
considered in the visibility analysis for the proposed project is below.
Health Summary of Trees Providing Screening
Tree Number Species Diameter Condition Rating
28 Coast Live Oak 22 65%
35 Coast Live Oak 17 55%
36 Blue Oak 24 60%
38 Coast Live Oak 19 60%
39 Blue Oak 21 60%
40 Blue Oak 21 65%
46 Valley Oak 24 55%
47 Coast Live Oak 21 65%
48 Monterey Pine 28 65%
52 Coast Live Oak 21 50%
In addition to the proposed modifications to the residence, the applicant proposes a number
of site improvements:
• Driveway
The applicant proposes to improve the existing driveway, which includes a maximum
slope of 33 percent. The proposed driveway would be shifted to the west of the
existing driveway and supported by new retaining walls on both sides, allowing the
slope of the driveway to be reduced to a maximum of 20 percent. The proposed
driveway would improve access for the residents and emergency personnel.
PAGE 6 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
• Parking Area
The existing site and narrow roadway offer little additional parking for visitors. The
applicant proposes to construct a parking area on the property located along the north
side of High Street. The parking area would accommodate three parking spaces and
would be supported by a downslope retaining wall with a maximum height of five feet.
• Swimming Pool and Patio
A new swimming pool and patio is proposed downslope (northwest) of the existing
residence, in an area with a slope of approximately 20 percent. The pool and patio area
would be formed on two levels, supported by several retaining walls with maximum
heights ranging from two to four feet.
• Pathways
Two new stepping pathways are proposed to provide site circulation. The first pathway
would lead from the proposed parking area on the north side of High Street to the
proposed entry to the residence. This pathway would traverse eastward from the
parking area to the residence, supported by retaining walls with maximum heights
ranging from one and one-half (1.5) to four feet. The second pathway would provide
circulation between the residence and the swimming pool and patio. This pathway
would lead from the northeast side of the residence down to the swimming pool area
23 feet below the residence. The pathway would be supported by a retaining wall with
heights ranging from one and one-half (1.5) to five feet.
Due to the constraints of the site, the applicant is requesting several exceptions to the HDS&G
standards necessary for the project. The applicant has included a Letter of Justification
addressing the following exceptions (Exhibit 8):
• HDS&G standards that visible homes shall not have a lowest-to-highest height
exceeding 28 feet (Section III.E.2) and shall not extend more than 18 feet above the
existing grade (Section III.E.3).
The existing residence exceeds both the lowest-to-highest and maximum height
standards set by the HDS&G. The proposed modifications and addition to the existing
residence would reduce the existing height and result in areas that exceed the
maximum height standards of the HDS&G, but would be within the height maximum
allowed in the HR-1 zone:
o The applicant proposes to modify the existing 34.75-foot tall A-frame roof form
by reducing its height and pulling it back toward the hillside (Exhibit 11, Sheet
PAGE 7 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
A.6). The existing A-frame form would be removed, and a shed roof would be
introduced, reducing the downhill projection by approximately four and one-
half (4.5) feet and height by five and one-quarter (5.25) feet to a maximum
height of 29.5 feet. This modification would eliminate one of the most visible
components of the existing home, reducing its visual impact.
o The existing residence has a lowest-to-highest elevation of 34.86 feet (Exhibit
11, Sheet A.6). With the proposed changes to the existing A-frame roof and the
new addition, the applicant proposes to reduce the lowest-to-highest elevation
by nearly four feet (3.86) to 31 feet. The highest point of the structure would
be pushed south into the site from the existing A-frame roof and incorporate a
proposed shed roof on the addition, which would not be visible from either
viewing area.
Height Summary
Height Existing
Residence
Proposed
Residence
Change
Maximum height 34.75 29.50 -5.25
Lowest-to-highest elevation 34.86 31.00 -3.86
o The proposed addition would be concentrated on an existing relatively flat area
of the property and would be two stories with a maximum height of 23.67 feet.
The addition would take advantage of the flat area and be pushed into the
hillside to limit its visual impact. The proposed addition would be heavily
screened by existing trees when viewed from the Highway 9/17 overcrossing
viewing area, with approximately six (6.4) percent of the addition being visible.
When viewed from the Main/Bayview viewing area, the addition would be
screened by the existing residence and existing trees, with approximately seven
and one-half (7.48) percent of the addition being visible (Exhibit 11, Sheet PS-
1a).
• HDS&G standards for maximum 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 fill depths exceeding the limitations of the HDS&G for the construction of the
driveway and new parking area.
The proposed driveway would be shifted to the west of the existing driveway, allowing
the slope to be reduced to a maximum of 20 percent. The new driveway would require
fill depths of five feet, where three are allowed by the standards of the HDS&G, which
PAGE 8 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
would reduce the slope of the driveway and improve access to the site for the residents
and emergency personnel. Consistent with the HDS&G, the Santa Clara County Fire
Department has provided preliminary approval of the project, including the driveway
slope.
The proposed parking area would be located on the north side of High Street,
supported by the replacement of an existing failing retaining wall and a new downhill
retaining wall (Exhibit 11, Sheet C-1). The parking area requires a fill depth of five feet,
where three are allowed by the standards of the HDS&G. The parking area would
increase the width of the roadway from 15 feet to 25 feet, providing three additional
parking spaces for the site. Grading depths are summarized in the table below.
Maximum Graded Cut and Fill Depths – HDS&G
Maximum Cut Depths (feet) Maximum Fill Depths (feet)
Allowed Proposed Allowed Proposed
House Footprint 8* 4 3 0
Driveway 4 4 3 5
Parking at High Street 4 0 3 5
Site Work 4 4 3 3
* – Excludes below grade square footage
Bold – requires exception to the HDS&G
• HDS&G standard that driveways shall not exceed 15 percent slope (Section III.C).
The existing driveway includes a maximum slope of 33 percent. The applicant proposes
a new driveway to the west of the existing driveway, which would allow for the
maximum driveway slope to be reduced to 20 percent (Exhibit 11, Sheet C-2). The
reduced slope would improve access to the site for the residents and emergency
personnel. Consistent with the HDS&G, the Santa Clara County Fire Department has
provided preliminary approval of the project, including the driveway slope.
• HDS&G standard that buildings be located within the LRDA (Section II.C).
The project site has an average slope of 40 percent and extensive tree cover. These
constraints limit the LRDA to areas around the residence, driveway, and an area
downslope of the residence (Exhibit 11, Sheet C-3). The applicant proposes to
concentrate the proposed addition on an existing flat area east of the residence, with
limited portions extending beyond the LRDA to allow for a compliant parking space in
the garage and living areas within the addition. Additional development outside of the
LRDA includes portions of the new driveway, pathways, and pool deck area. The
driveway and pathways would provide safe site circulation and the pool deck area
PAGE 9 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
would allow for outdoor recreation. The proposed swimming pool and patio have been
limited to the areas with the lowest slopes.
B. Design and Compatibility
The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations
regarding architecture and neighborhood compatibility (Exhibit 9). The Consulting Architect
noted that the residence is well designed to fit the site and a substantial improvement over the
existing structure. Recognizing that the applicant has designed the residence with an objective
of largely adhering to the HDS&G, the Consulting Architect noted that some elements may not
be totally consistent with the HDS&G; however, these elements do relate well to the existing
residence and help in creating improved design unity. The Consulting Architect made two
recommendations for changes, which are summarized below along with the applicant’s design
response to each recommendation.
1. The new aluminum and frosted glass garage doors may not be consistent with the
Hillside Standards and Guidelines that call for sensitivity to the existing hillside
character.
The applicant revised the proposed garage doors eliminating the aluminum and frosted
glass doors and specifying sectional wood doors stained to match the residence.
2. Care should be taken in the selection of colors for all membrane and standing seam
metal roofing. While views to the roof are not currently an issue, they would be in the
event of pruning or removal of the landscaping between High Street and the structure.
The applicant has provided a color and materials board specifying a zinc gray standing
seam metal roof with an LRV of 20. The proposed dark earth tone color would blend
with the natural environment, consistent with the standards of the HDS&G. While
specific details for the membrane roof have not been submitted, the applicant has
confirmed that the roof material will meet the LRV limitations. Staff has included a
condition requiring all exterior materials to meet the LRV limitations of the HDS&G
(Exhibit 2).
C. Neighborhood Compatibility
The immediate area is made up of single-, two-, and three-story single-family residences and
includes a mix of architectural styles. Based on Town and County records, the surrounding
residences range in size from 1,350 square feet to 5,844 square feet. The floor area ratios
(FAR) range from 0.03 to 0.17. Pursuant to the HDS&G, properties with an average slope
greater than 30 percent, such as the subject property, are subject to a net lot reduction of 60
percent. After the slope reduction, the maximum allowed square footage is 4,100 square feet.
PAGE 10 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
The applicant is proposing a residence of 4,059 square feet on a 34,645-square foot parcel
(0.12 FAR).
The following Neighborhood Analysis table reflects current conditions of the immediate area:
Neighborhood Analysis
Address Floor Area Gross Lot Area FAR Stories Zoning
16696 Cypress Wy 4,176 44,866 0.10 1 HR-1
16710 Cypress Wy 3,187 57,064 0.06 2 HR-1
16840 Cypress Wy 6,330 88,426 0.08 2 HR-1
17461 High St 3,833 25,000 0.17 3 R-1:10
17470 High St 2,580 66,516 0.04 1 HR-1
17480 High St 3,942 32,320 0.13 2 HR-1
17510 High St 5,278 70,131 0.08 2 HR-1
17512 High St 0 15,246 0.00 0 HR-1
17520 High St 1,475 24,640 0.08 1 HR-1
17505 High (E) 2,028 34,645 0.07 2 HR-1
17505 High (P) 4,059 34,645 0.13 2 HR-1
The proposed residence would be the fourth largest home in the immediate area in terms of
square footage and tied for the second largest in terms of FAR.
D. Trees
The applicant provided a report prepared by their arborist with their initial submittal. A peer
review of this report was conducted by the Town’s Consulting Arborist, which included
recommendations for additional information and design revisions (Exhibit 6). The applicant
submitted a revised arborist report that addressed the recommendations of the Town’s
Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 7).
The tree inventory included in the arborist report for the project includes 52 protected trees.
The arborist report and project plans identify whether the trees included in the inventory
would remain or be removed. Of the 52 protected trees in the inventory, 31 would remain.
The proposed tree removal would meet one or more of the required findings for tree removal
under Section 29310.0992 of the Town Code. The condition of the trees proposed for removal
is summarized below.
PAGE 11 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
Condition of Trees Proposed for Removal
Condition Quantity
1 - Poor 1
2 2
3 18
4 0
5 - Excellent 0
Total 21
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 3). These recommendations include provisions for
arborist monitoring during construction to ensure proper implementation of protection
measures.
E. Grading/Geotechnical Review
Site grading includes maximum fill depths of five feet, requiring approval of an exception to the
HDS&G, discussed above. As noted above, the average slope of the lot is 40 percent. The
applicant submitted geologic investigations for review by the Town’s Geotechnical Consultant.
The Consultant concluded that development of the site is feasible from a geologic and
geotechnical engineering viewpoint. Department of Parks and Public Works conditions of
approval have been included requiring compliance with the geotechnical recommendations
(Exhibit 3).
F. Light Reflectivity Value
Section V. (Architectural Design) of the HDS&G requires that the individual exterior materials
of a hillside home with greater than 24.5 percent visibility must have a light reflectivity value
(LRV) of 30 or less, including roofs. The applicant has provided a materials and color board
indicating that all exterior materials would meet this requirement (Exhibit 4). Staff has
included a condition requiring all exterior materials to meet the LRV limitations of the HDS&G
(Exhibit 2).
G. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing Facilities.
PAGE 12 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
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 hillside property. Comments from the public are
included in Exhibit 10.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The proposed project would allow the applicant to construct additions to the existing
residence, exceed the maximum building height for a single-family residence, and construct
site improvements requiring a grading permit on the property. As proposed, the project would
create a 4,059-square foot residence and 41-square feet of below grade square footage,
including a 729-square foot attached garage. Due to the site constraints, the applicant is
requesting the following exceptions to the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
• Exceeding the height limitations for a visible home;
• Grading exceeding maximum fill depths;
• Driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; and
• Development outside of the LRDA.
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning
Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Find that the proposed project is Categorically Exempt, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines
for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing
Facilities (Exhibit 2);
2. Make the finding that due to the constraints of the site, exceptions to the height limitations
for a visible home, maximum fill depths, driveway slope exceeding 15 percent, and
development outside the LRDA, are appropriate and the project is otherwise in compliance
with applicable sections of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture & Site application (Exhibit 2); and
5. Approve Architecture & Site Application S-17-025 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3
and the development plans in Exhibit 11.
PAGE 13 OF 13 SUBJECT: 17505 HIGH STREET/S-17-025 APRIL 19, 2018
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2018\High Street, 17505 - 04-25-18 - PC Report.docx 4/20/2018 11:46 AM
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction;
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations (two pages)
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (12 pages)
4. Color and Materials Sheet, dated February 27, 2018 (one page)
5. Revised Section II of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (eight pages)
6. Consulting Arborist’s Peer Review Report by Richard J. Gessner, dated December 18, 2017
(nine pages)
7. Applicant’s Arborist Report by HortScience, Inc., received March 1, 2018 (32 pages)
8. Letter of Justification, received March 30, 2018 (three pages)
9. Consulting Architect Report, dated November 20, 2017 (five pages)
10. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, April 20, 2018
11. Development Plans, received March 1, 2018 (27 sheets)
Distribution:
Michael Sullivan, 17505 High Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CYPRESS WY
HIGH STPHILLI
P
S
A
V
N QUARRY RDS QUARRY RD
JARED LNSPRECKLES AV
BLACKBERRY HILL RDHIGH ST
17505 High Street
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\High Street, 17505 - PC Findings.docx
PLANNING COMMISSION – April 25, 2018
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
17505 High Street
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
Requesting approval for construction of an addition greater than 100 square feet to an
existing second story, to exceed the maximum building height for a single-family
residence, and for site improvements requiring a grading permit on property zoned
HR-1. APN 532-23-037.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Michael Sullivan
FINDINGS
Required Finding for CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15301: Existing
Facilities.
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 height limitations for a visible home; maximum cut and fill depths;
driveway slope exceeding 15 percent; and development outside the Least Restrictive
Development Area. The subject property is 0.795 acres (34,645 square feet) with an
average slope of 40 percent and extensive tree cover. Due to these constraints, the
proposed residence would exceed the height limitations for a visible home. Fill depths
would exceed the limitations of the HDS&G to allow a reduction in driveway slope from 33
percent to 20 percent, which increases safe access to the site for residents and emergency
personnel. Due to the constraints of the site, the property includes a limited LRDA. The
applicant has sited the majority of the proposed improvements within the LRDA. 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.
EXHIBIT 2
N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2018\High Street, 17505 - PC Findings.docx
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.
PLANNING COMMISSION – April 25, 2018
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
17505 High Street
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
Requesting approval for construction of an addition greater than 100 square feet to
an existing second story, to exceed the maximum building height for a single-family
residence, and for site improvements requiring a grading permit on property zoned
HR-1. APN 532-23-037.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Michael Sullivan
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.DEMOLITION: This project must comply with the Town’s Demolition Ordinance.
6.DEMOLITION AFFIDAVIT: Prior to issuance of a building permit, a demolition affidavit must
be submitted and signed by the property owner, project architect, project engineer and
contractor.
7.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.
8.TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
9.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.
EXHIBIT 3
10. 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.
11. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
12. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard
must be landscaped.
13. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report. These recommendations must be
incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building
permit where applicable. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations
have or will be addressed.
14. 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.
15. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
16. 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.
17. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. SIZE OF PLANS: Submit four sets of construction plans, minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum
size 30” x 42”.
22. 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.
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. 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
26. 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.
27. 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.
28. 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.
29.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.
30.HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof
assemblies.
31.WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban Interface High
Fire Area and new buildings must comply with Section R337 of the California Residential
Code regarding materials and construction methods for exterior wildfire exposure..
32.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.
33.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.
34.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.
35.SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704, the
Architect or Engineer of Record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the Building Permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building.
36.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.
37.APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a Building Permit:
a.Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874
b.Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771
c.Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d.West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e.Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department: (408) 918-3479
f.Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
38. 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 by the Engineering Division of the Parks and
Public Works Department. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job
site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this
condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders
and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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.
42. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The 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.
43. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace all
existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: 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.
44. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction.
45. STREET CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street requires an
encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective
enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.
46. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan review
at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
47. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance
of any permits.
48. 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
Applicant’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.
49. PARKING: Any proposed parking restriction must be approved by The Town of Los Gatos,
Community Development Department.
50. 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 wall 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). A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main
Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint.
51. 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.
52. 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.
53. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on High Street shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
54. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to
the issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant’s engineers shall prepare
and submit a design-level geotechnical and geological investigation for review and
approval by the Town. The Applicant’s soils engineer shall review the final grading and
drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and
site drainage are in accordance with their recommendations and the peer review
comments. Approval of the Applicant’s soils engineer shall then be conveyed to the Town
either by submitting a Plan Review Letter prior to issuance of building permit(s).
58. 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.
59. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological
recommendations contained in the project’s design-level geotechnical/geological
investigation as prepared by the Applicant’s engineer(s), 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.
60. WATER DESIGN: In the event of any required improvements to the existing water service
and/or meter, water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and
approved prior to issuance of any permit.
61. WATER METER: In the event the existing water meter is currently located within the public
right-of-way it shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the
public right-of-way line. The Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards
any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this
activity.
62. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT: In the event the existing sanitary sewer cleanout is
currently located within the public right-of-way it shall be relocated within the property in
question, directly behind the public right-of-way line. The Applicant shall repair and
replace to existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-
way that is damaged during this activity.
63. 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.
64. 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 the
utility, input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation.
65. UTILITY EASEMENTS: Deed restrictions shall be placed on lots containing utility
easements. The deed restrictions shall specify that no trees, fences, structures or
hardscape are allowed within the easement boundaries, and that maintenance access
must be provided. The Town will prepare the deed language and the Applicant's surveyor
shall prepare the legal description and plat. The Applicant shall pay any recordation costs.
66. 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.
67. 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.
68. 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.
69. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any permits, the
Applicant shall submit a construction management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan
set that shall incorporate at a minimum the Traffic Control Plan, Project Schedule, site
security fencing, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s),
concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse locations. Please refer to the Town’s
Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information.
70. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Applicant 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.
71. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following
measures:
a) Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b) Minimize impervious surface areas.
c) Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d) Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e) Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
72. 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.
73. 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.
74. 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.
75. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of
the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for Construction Activities
and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading and erosion control
ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as
required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
76. WATER FEATURES: New swimming pools, hot tubs, spas and fountains shall have a
connection to the sanitary sewer system, subject to West Valley Sanitation District’s
authority and standards, to facilitate draining events. Discharges from this/these
feature(s) shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain
system.
77. 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.
78. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of
Contractor/Homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is
cleaned up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, and other construction debris SHALL NOT be
washed into Town storm drains.
79. PRIVATE SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEMS: Private sewage disposal systems shall consist of a
septic tank and a system of underground drains for the disposal of the tank effluent. Such
tank and drains shall be constructed per Town Code and the preliminary Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health (DEH) approval. Final DEH signoff shall be
provided prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
80. 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 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/or
the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
81. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered.
82. PRECONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: Prior to issuance of a Grading/Building Permit,
the project applicant shall complete a pavement condition survey documenting the extent
of existing pavement defects using a 35-mm, smartphone video (in Landscape orientation
only) or digital video camera. The survey shall extend the entire lengths of High Street,
Johnson Avenue, Loma Alta Avenue, and the portion of Cypress Way between Johnson
Avenue and Loma Alta Avenue. In addition, a pavement deflection analysis conforming to
the same limits as the photographic survey shall be performed to determine pavement
strength. The results shall be documented in a report and submitted to the Town for
review.
83. POSTCONSTRUCTION PAVEMENT SURVEY: The project applicant shall complete a
pavement condition survey and pavement deflection analysis to determine whether road
damage occurred as a result of project construction and whether there were changes in
pavement strength. Rehabilitation improvements required to restore the pavement to
pre-construction condition and strength shall be determined using State of California
procedures for deflection analysis. The results shall be documented in a report and
submitted to the Town for review and approval before a Certificate of Occupancy for any
new building can be issued.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
84. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access,
water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire
department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review
to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all
applicable construction permits.
85. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: (As noted on Sheet T1.1)An automatic residential fire
sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: 1. In all new
one- and two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when
additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. NOTE:
The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor (s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for
consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification or
upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed C-16 Fire
Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and
appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their
work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LGMC.
86. 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
87. 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 identify the
structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1
88. 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
Chapter 33.
89. 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.
90. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated Wildland-
Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of
Section R327 of the California Residential Code or the California Building Code (CBC)
Chapter 7A., as applicable. 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.
91. This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions of the
California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit presuming
to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such laws or
regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction
documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2018\High Street, 17505 - PC COA.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF Los GATOS
HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
II. CONSTRAINTS ANALYSIS AND
SITE SELECTION
A.Prior to Selecting a Building Site.
1.Constraints analysis.
Each development application subject to the HIiiside Development Standards and Guidelines
shall be accompanied by a constraints analysis when it is deemed necessary by the Town to
identify the most appropriate area or areas on the lot for locating buildings given the existing constraints of the lot. This is a critical step in the overall planning and design of projects in the
hillsides. When all constrained areas have been identified and mapped, the remaining area(s) wlll be designated as the "LEAST RESTRicnvE DEVELOPMENT AREA" (LRDA). These are the areas most appropriate for development.
To ensure that new development is sensitive to the goal and objectives of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and respects the existing site constraints, the following
elements shall be mapped by appropriate professionals and taken into consideration when
determining a site's LRDA:
•Topography, with emphasis on slopes over30%•Vegetation such as individual trees, groupingsof trees and shrubs, habitat types•Drainage courses and riparian corridors• Septic systems•Geologic constraints including landslides andactive fault traces•Wildlife habitats and movement corridors•Visibility from off site•Areas of severe fire danger•Solar orientation and prevailing wind patterns•Significant Ridgelines
Many of the above topics are covered in more detail in Chapter 11.B. and Chapter III. The accurate determination of the LRDA early in the planning process could avoid delays once an application has been submitted. Site specific studies such as geotechnical or other
environmental evaluations, tree survey and/or topographic survey may be necessary to
accurately determine the LRDA.
Page 12
EXHIBIT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
December 18, 2017
Sean Mullin
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
Community Development Depar tment
Planning Division
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Decernber18,2017
Consulting Art>orists LLC
Summary
The arborist's report provided by HortScience, Inc. dated September 28, 2017 contains most of
the required information for the proposed project. There are few deficiencies regarding
ordinance requirements and potential impacts. The plan set does not contain the required Tree
Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1) sheet and some sheets do not include trees or tree numbers.
The Landscape Plan should provide replanting information in tabular form and be consistent
with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy Replacement Standard section 29.10.0985.
Introduction
Background
I was asked by the Town of Los Gatos to review the plan set and arborist's report for 17505 High
Street (APN 532-23-037)Architecture and Site Application S-17-025.
Assignment
Provide a peer review of the arborist's report "Arborist Report 17505 High Street" Prepared by
HortScience, Inc. dated September 28, 2017.
Assess the tree and site conditions for consistency in the report and plan set regarding numbers,
species, si7.e, location, condition, and suitability for preservation, expected construction impacts,
and tree protection.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 9
EXHIBIT 6
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arborlst's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
December 18, 2017
Limits of the Assignment
The following plan set (Image 1) was reviewed for this assignment and provided by Dahlin
Group dated October 26, 2017. The only arborist's report reviewed was "Arborist Report 17505
High Street" Prepared by HortScience, Inc. dated September 28, 2017 authored by Maryellen
Bell.
ARCHITECTURAL DRAWINGS
T-1 TITLE SHEET
A-1 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN FIRST FLOOR
A-2 EXISTING FLOOR PLAN SECOND FLOOR
A-3 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN, FIRST FLOOR
A-4 PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN, SECOND FLOOR
A-5 PROPOSED ROOF PLAN
A-6 BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATION, FRONT ELEVATION
A-7 BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATION, LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
A-8 BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATION, REAR ELEVATION
A-9 BUILDING EXTERIOR ELEVATION, RIGHT SIDE ELEVATION
A-10 BUILDING EXTERIOR PERSPECTIVES
D-1 BUILDING EXTERIOR WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
D-2 BUILDING EXTERIOR WALL DEMOLITION CALCULATIONS
PS-1 PHOTO SIMULATIONS 300mm VIEWS
PS-2 PHOTO SIMULATIONS 50mm VIEWS
PS-3 PHOTO SIMULATIONS SUPPORTING PHOTOS
CB-1 BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY
CML DRAWINGS
C-1 SITE PLAN
C-2 GRADING AND UTILITY PLAN
C-3 LEAST RESTRICTIVE DEVELOPMENT AREA
LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS
L-1 CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE PLAN
L-2 LANDSCAPE DETAILS
Image 1: Plan set reviewed provided by Dahlin Group dated October 26, 2017
Purpose and Use of the Report
The report is to help provide information regarding the provided arborist's report and plans with
reference to the trees. The report is to be used by Town of Los Gatos, the Town's agents, and the
property owners and owner's agents to help determine accuracy and deficiencies within the
documents regarding the trees.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23--037
Observations
Arborist's Report
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
December 18, 2017
The report provides typical required information including a tree inventory and assessment with
species, trunk diameter, condition, suitability for preservation, expected construction impacts,
appraised values, and boiler plate "Tree Preservation Guidelines". There is an enclosed map
with tree numbers and locations along with suggested tree protection fence locations. The
information provided is believed to be true and accurate as verified during my site visit on
December 5, 2017.
The report lists trees impacted by the proposed plans to be removed along with five additional
trees requested for removal based on condition and one on undesirable location.
Listed below are the deficiencies recognized in the report:
• There are no estimates of crown diameters which would be used for replacement values for
trees removed under the Town code "Sec. 29.10.0985. -Determination and conditions of
permit."
• The boiler plate "Tree Preservation Guidelines" in the report are sufficient, however the
Town's requirements in "Sec. 29.10.1005. -Protection of trees during construction." Should
also be included. There are rio tree protection barrier specifications or specific protection
requirements for any individual trees that may require special attention. Tree protection fence
locations are located on a map but there is no discussions to how they were derived.
There are at least four additional trees that could be affected by the proposed plans not indicated
as so which are as follows:
1. # 18 with a retaining wall three feet from the trunk.
2. #47 with grading activity, stairs, and a retaining wall four to five feet from the trunk and
impacts on three sides.
3. #14 which is a 27" diameter Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga mensiezil) growing on a slope with
impacts on four sides and tree protection fence placed six feet to the north and south and nine
and ten feet the east and west respectively. There is also a proposed retaining wall seven feet
from the trunk to the north.
4. #35 must have the outflow dissipator located outside its drip line distance.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 3of9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arborlst's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application 5-17-025
December 18, 2017
Plan Set
There is no T-1 Sheet as required by the ordinance as in section 29.10.1000 -New property
development section ( c) (1) " ... Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1 ). Sheet T-1 shall be
referenced on all relevant sheets ( civil, demolition, utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree
impacts from improvements may be shown to occur;". This is incomplete.
All the plans should have the tree numbers and locations on them as well. There are several
sheets that indicate trees with no reference numbers or no trees at all, including sheets C-1, C-3
and the Landscape Plan L-1. All sheets should be consistent and contain the tree numbers and
locations along with their disposition for retention or removal as indicated with an "X".
The landscape plan includes replacement trees but there has been no determination as to what the
replacement values should be based on the required removals. Replacement trees should be
listed in tabular form to help provide easily accessible information regarding mitigation. The
landscape plan does not appear to be based on the Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy Replacement
Standard section 29.10.0985. Determination and conditions permit table 3-1).
Discussion
Arborist's Report
Based on their condition additionally requested removals are #2, #11, #15, #43, and #49. The
arborist shall indicate which findings for removal are met as stated in "Section 29.10.0980
Applications for a tree removal or severe pruning permit." Subsection "(2) A written explanation
of why each tree(s) should be removed or pruned and how it meets the Town's Standards of
Review". These trees would be removed not based on the impact of the project but for other
reasons and Town findings need to be met for approval. The Town also recommends in "Sec.
29.10.0987. -Special provisions-hillsides subsection (4) Property owners should be encouraged
to retain dead or declining trees where they do not pose a safety or fire hazard, in order to foster
wildlife habitat and the natural renewal of the hillside environment. " If this applies, the trees
even in poor condition should be evaluated for their environmental benefit and potential for
retention.
Tree canopy diameters were not indicated in the report and some ofthe civil plans show
symmetrical tree crowns. The Town uses this information to help determine replacement
mitigation for tree loss. Rather than providing this information for every tree it may be sufficient
to provide the diameters of only the trees to be removed.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 4of9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-()25
December 18, 2017
In :Section. 29.10.1005. -Protection of trees during construction." the ordinance provides
fencing specifications including material, type of protection, duration, and warning sign
language. In addition to the barrier information the ordinance also provides a list of prohibited
activities and requirements. Although the report provided by HortScience indicates general
guidelmes the specific code requirement should be provided in the report and pasted onto the T-1
sheet when it is produced. Once specific information is provided the "project arborist" shall
provide relevant specifications to be transposed onto the scale "Tree Preservation Instructions
(Sheet T-1} to be included in t.1:te plan set. This would include either fence location plotted on a
scale plan or written radii from the tree protected.
Based on my observations of the plans I would request a re-evaluation of the likelihood of
retaining trees # 18, #4 7, and # 14. These trees appear to be in conflict with the plans or in the
case of# 14 it may be compromised to the point of posing an unreasonable risk.
Plan Set
There is no T-1 Sheet as required by the ordinance as in section 29 .10.1000 -New property
development section ( c) (1) " ... Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1 ). Sheet T-1 shall be
referenced on all relevant sheets ( civil, demolition, utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree
impacts from improvements may be shown to occur;". This is incomplete at this time. Once all
tree protection measures and designated trees for removal and their replacements are indicated
Sheet T-1 can be produced. The project arborist shall provide specifications including the town
code requirements as indicated in "Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of trees during construction."
All the plans, especially the civil drawings and landscape plan, should have the tree numbers and
locations on them as well. There are several sheets with no reference numbers or in some
instances no existing trees at all, including sheets C-1, C-3 and the Landscape Plan L-1. All
sheets should be consistent and contain the tree numbers and locations, protection measures if
required, along with their disposition for retention or removal as indicated with an "X".
The landscape plan should indicate replacement trees and list them in tabular form to help
provide easily accessible information regarding mitigation. The hmdscape replanting plan does
not appear to be based on the "Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy Replacement Standard section
29.10.0985. Determination and conditions permit table 3-1." Once the plans are approved along
with the expected tree removals a proper mitigation ratio can be established.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC-P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 5 of9
1 7505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
December 18, 2017
Conclusion
The arborisfs report provided by Hort:Science, Inc. dated September 28, 2017 contains most of
the required information for the proposed project. There are few deficiencies with regard to lack
of crown diameters, no specific tree protection measures and required ordinance specifications
and findings for additional removals, and some concerns about trees that will likely be highly
impacted but not noted. The plan set does not contain the required Tree Preservation Instructions
(Sheet T-1) sheet and the C-1 sheet and Landscape Plan do not indicate existing trees or their
locations and numbers. The Landscape Plan should provide replanting information in tabular
form and be consistent with the Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy Replacement Standard section
29.10.0985.
Recommendations
Arborist
1. Provide relevant information including the particular Town findings met for the additional
trees requested for removal.
2. Have the "project arborist" work with the design team to help ensure proper tree protection
and conservation measures are accounted for in the plans and plan set. Refer to ordinance
section 29.10.1005 Protection of trees during construction for specifications and precautions.
A note as to how the tree protection distances were determined should be included.
3. Provide canopy diameters for trees to be removed to help guide the mitigation process.
4. Re-evaluate the impacts and likelihood of retaining trees #18, #47, and #14 which appear to
be in conflict with the plans.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 6 of9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Applicant
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
December 18, 2017
1. Have the design team work with the "project arborist" to help ensure proper tree protection
and conservation measures are accounted for in the plans and plan set. Refer to ordinance
section 29.10.1005 Protection of trees during construction for specifications and precautions.
2. Create a T-1 Sheet as required by the ordinance as in section 29. I 0.1000 -New property
development section (c) (1).
3. Place all existing trees, numbers, and locations along with dispositions for retention, removal
as indicated with an ''X", and protection as designated by the project arborist onto the civil
and landscape plans.
4. Once it is determined what trees are to be removed provide a mitigation plan with
appropriate replacements as indicated in the Town of Los Gatos Tree Canopy Replacement
Standard (ordinance Section 29.10.0985. Determination and conditions permit table 3-1).
The Landscape Plan should reflect the proper mitigation as determined by the Town. The
landscape plan also needs to indicate the existing trees and their numbers.
Bibliography
Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas. Smiley. Managing trees during consh'uction, second edition.
Champaign, IL: International Society of Arhoriculture, 2016.
Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of
trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of
Arboriculture 1998.
Los Gatos Town Code viewed Oecember 17, 2017. <https://library.municode.com/ca/los_gatos/
codes/code of ordinances?nodeid=CO CH29ZORE ARTIINGE DIV2TRPR>
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 7of 9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arborist's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
December 18, 2017
Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or
ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or
evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management.
AH property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or
other regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot
be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences,
mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual
arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services.
This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and
the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a
stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or
surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants
on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference ..
Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a
representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information.
Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the
time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items
without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed
or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the
future.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.0 Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 8 of 9
17505 High Street
APN 532-23-037
Arbortst's Peer Review
Architecture and Site Application S-17-025
Certification of Performance
I Richard Gessner, Certify:
December 18, 2017
That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and
have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the
att.ache.d report and Tenns of Assignment;
That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject
of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved;
That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own;
That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared
according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices;
That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated
within the report.
Thatmy compensation is not contingentupon the reporting ofa predetermined conclusion that
favors the cause of the client or ·any other party, nor upon the results of the· assessment, the
attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events;
I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of
Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of
Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master
Arborist®. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of
trees since 1998.
Richard J. Gessner
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496
ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B
ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified
CA Qualified Applicators License QL 104230
Copyright
Cl Copyright 2017, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specifi<: exception granted for copies made by
the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publi<:ation may be reproduced, stored in a
retrieval system, or transmitted in any fonn or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or othetwise without
the express, written pennission of the author.
Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018
831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 9of9
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Mike Sullivan
Revised Arborist Report
17505 High Street
Prepared for:
Mike Sullivan
17505 High Street
Los Gatos, CA 96030
Prepared by:
HortScience, Inc.
325 Ray Street
Pleasanton, CA 94566
December 22, 2017
RECEIVED
MARO 12018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
EXHIBIT 7
Revised Arborist Report
17505 High Street Los Gatos CA
Table of Contents
Introduction and Overview
Assessment Methods
Description of Trees
Suitability for Preservation
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action
Appraisal of Value
Tree Preservation Guidelines
List of Tables
Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence.
Table 2. Suitability for preservation.
Table 3. Recommendation for action.
Table 4. Appraised value of trees recommended for removal.
Table 5: Appraised value of trees recommended for preservation
Attachments
Estimates of Crown Diameters for Removals
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Location Map
Tree Pruning Guidelines
Homeowner Guide to Oaks in the Landscape
Page
1
1
2
4
6
8
11
4
5
7
9
10
•.
Introduction and Overview
Mike Sullivan is planning to redevelop the hillside property located at 17505 High Street in Los
Gatos CA. Current site use consists of a residential home on a wooded hills ide, parking and
associated landscape. Mr. Sullivan requested that HortScience, Inc. prepare an Arborist Report
for the site. This report provides the following infonnation :
1. An evaluation of trees currently growing within and immediately adjacent to the proposed
project area.
2 . An assessment of tree impacts from constructing the proposed project.
3. Recommendations for action .
4 . Appraisal of tree value.
5. Guidelines for tree preservation during the design, construction and maintenance phases
of development.
Assessment Methods
Trees were assessed on September 14,.2017. The assessment included trees measuring 8" and
greater in diameter within the project area. The assessment procedure consisted of the following
steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Tagging each tree with a numerically coded metal tag and recording its location on a
map;
3. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54" above grade;
4. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 -5:
5 -A healthy, vigorous tree , reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease , with
good structure and form typical of the species .
4 -Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural
defects that could be corrected .
3 -Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of
crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with
regular care .
2 -Tree in decline , epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large
branches , significant structural defects that cannot be abated.
1 -Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage
from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
5. Rati ng the suitability for preservation as "h igh", "moderate" or "low". Suitability for
preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree species,
and its potential to remain an asset to the site.
High : Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential
for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than
can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense
management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than
those in 'high' category.
Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot
be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of
treatment. The species or individual tree may have characteristics
that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for
use areas.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page2
Description of Trees
Fifty-two (52) trees were evaluated, representing 14 species (Table 1, following pages). Ten off-
site trees with canopies extending into the subject site were included in the assessment. Trees
fell into one of three general categories:
1. Native oaks and other native species. The northern portion of the site is a remnant of
an oak woodland. The lower sloped section was less developed than the area along
High Street. Individual native oaks and associated species were found in the upper part
of the site closer to the road. Native species indigenous to the Los Gatos area included:
Calif. bay laurel, Calif. buckeye, coast live oak, blue oak, and toyon. Other species such
as coast redwood and Douglas-fir are native to the region but did not appear to be
indigenous.
2. Orchard. A wide range of fruit-bearing trees were encountered including: citrus, apricot
and plum. Trees were generally mature in development and had been maintained as
orchard trees rather than ornamentals. Most species were represented by a single tree.
3. Ornamental species. A few trees were non-native species including Douglas-fir, manna
gum, olive, firethorn and camellia. Each species that was represented by a single tree.
Coast live oak was the most frequently occurring species with 31 trees and appeared to be
indigenous to the site. Coast live oaks were scattered throughout the site. Trees immediately
adjacent to the street had been side-trimmed for utility clearance (photo 1, next page). Trunk
diameters ranged from 8" to 22" (#28). Tree condition was mostly fair (30 trees). Coast live oak
#43 was in poor condition. It had carbon ball fruiting bodies (Annulohypoxy/on thouarsianum) -a
fungus associated with internal decay-scattered on the underside of a branch high in the
canopy (photos 2 & 3, next page).
Seven (7) bl!Je oaks were present. All appeared to be indigenous to the site. Trunk diameters
ranged from 1 O" to 24" (#36). Most trees were larger than 20" and mature in development. Tree
condition was fair. Four off-site trees (#37 and 40-42) had canopies extending onto the property.
Two (2) Monterey pines had 8" and 28" (#48) diameter trunks. One (#49) had been growing in a
small container and overtime the roots had extended into the ground. Pine #48 was growing 4'
north of the existing patio. Trees condition was fair.
Two (2) California buckeyes (#50 and 51) were off-site trees. Both had multiple stems that
originated at or near the ground. Both trees were in fair condition.
All the remaining species were represented by one tree. Included in this group were:
• Camellia shrub #11 had multiple stems with 4, 4, 3, 2, 2" trunk diameters. It had been
topped and the base was embedded in the fence. It was in poor condition.
• Manna gum #2 had multiple stems with 27, 23, 16, 11" trunk diameters and had been
topped. It was in poor condition.
• Toyon shrub #20 had multiple stems with 4, 4, 3, 3" trunk diameters in fair condition.
• Olive #8 had multiple stems with 5, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2" trunk diameters and was in fair
condition.
• Plum #23 had codominant stems with 7" and 6" trunk diameters and was in fair condition.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street HortScience Inc.
December 22, 2017 Page4
Table 1. Tree condition & frequency of occurrence.
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Common Name Scientific Name Condition
Poor Fair Good
(1-2) (3) (4-5}
California buckeye Aesculus califomica 2 2
Camellia Camellia sp. 1 1
Manna gum Eucalyptus viminalis 1 1
Toyon Heteromeles arbutifolia 1 1
Olive Olea europaea 1 1
Monterey pine Pinus radiata 2 2
Plum Prunus domestica 1 1
Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 1 1
Firethorn Pyracantha spp. 1 1
Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 1 30 31
Blue oak Quercus douglasii 7 7
Valley oak Quercus lobata 1 1
Coast redwood Sequoia sempeNirens 1 1
California bay Umbellularia califomica 1 1
Total 4 48 52
Suitability for Preservation
Trees that are preserved on development sites must be carefully selected to make sure that they
may survive development impacts, adapt to a new environment and perfolTTl well in the
landscape. Our goal is to identify trees that have the potential for Jong-term health, structural
stability and longevity. Evaluation of suitability for preservation considers several factors:
• Tree health
Healthy, vigorous trees are better able to tolerate impacts such as root injury, demolition
of existing structures, changes in soil grade and moisture, and soil compaction than are
non-vigorous trees.
• Structural integrity
Trees with significant amounts of wood decay and other structural defects that cannot be
corrected are likely to fail. Such trees should not be preserved in areas where damage to
people or property is likely. Coast live oak #43, with decay in its stem, was such a tree.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page5
• Species response
There is a wide variation in the response of individual species to construction impacts
and changes in the environment. In our experience, for example, Monterey pine and blue
oak are very sensitive to construction impacts; while coast live oak and coast redwood ar e
more tolerant of site disturbance.
• Tree age and longevity
Old trees, while having significant emotional and aesthetic appeal, have limited
physiological capacity to adjust to an altered environment. Young trees are better able to
generate new tissue and respond to change.
• Species invasiveness
Species that spread across a site and displace desired vegetation are not always
appropriate for retention. This is particularly true when indigenous species are displaced.
The California Invasive Plant Inventory Database (http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/) identifies
species as having invasive potential. Los Gatos is part of the Central West Floristic
Province. Species identified as invasive that were present at the High Street property
included olive, plum, and firethorn.
Tree condition (health and structure) is the starting point for assessing suitability for preservation.
In addition, suitability for preservation considers species response to impacts and invasiveness.
Each tree was rated for suitability for preservation based upon its age, health, structural condition
and ability to safely coexist within a development environment (fable 2).
High
Moderate
Low
Table 2. Tree suitability for preservation.
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Trees in good condition that have the potential for longevity at the site.
There were no trees rated as having high suitability for preservation.
Trees in fair health and/or possessing structural defects that may be abated
with treatment. Trees in this category require more intense management and
monitoring, and may have shorter life-spans than those in the "high" category.
Thirty-five (35) trees were rated as having moderate suitability for
preservation including 25 coast live oaks, four blue oaks, one Douglass fir,
one coast redwood, one Monterey pine, one olive and one plum.
Trees in poor health or possessing significant defects in structure that cannot
be abated with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless
of management. The species or individual tree may possess
either characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or be
unsuited for use areas. Seventeen (17) trees were rated as having low
suitability for preservation including six coast live oaks, three blue oak s , two
Calif. buckeyes, one camellia, one manna pine, one Monterey pine, one
toyon, one valley oak and one firethom .
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page6
We consider trees with high suitability for preservation to be the best candidates for preservation.
We do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where
people or property will be present. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
depends upon the intensity of proposed site changes .
Evaluation of Impacts and Recommendations for Action
Appropriate tree retention develops a practical match between the location and intensity of
construction activities and the quality and health of trees. The tree assessment was the
reference points for tree condition and quality. Impacts from the proposed project were assessed
using the Site Plan prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson, project engineers (December 2017)
and Grading Plan & Utility Plan prepared by Carlson, Barbee & Gibson engineers (December
2017). Tree canopy outlines and trunk locations were included on the plans, which I believe to
be estimated representations. Estimates for crown diameters were based on these plans.
Re-development of the site will require demolition and re-grading. All existing structures and
infrastructure will be retained. The proposed project plans for extending the house and outdoor
living space with a deck, kitchen, eating bar, spa and pool being developed. An expanded
driveway will be constructed in the general location of the existing main entrance. There will be
an expansion of the existing parking space located along the street.
Impacts to trees could occur in a variety of ways. Development such as extending buildings and
infrastructure may directly damage tree roots and crowns. Many trees are located in close
proximity to buildings and outdoor gathering spaces. Grading and other construction activities
may also significantly damage trees, through both direct mechanical injury and indirectly by
altering drainage.
The site contains 52 trees, including 10 off-site trees. The 31 trees located outside of
development area will be retained (Table 3, next page). Fifteen (15) trees shall be removed due
to being in direct conflict with proposed improvements and two should be removed because of
their poor condition, diseased or invasiveness. One was originally growing in a pot and became
grounded overtime. The homeowner would like to remove the tree and it's root are most likely girdled.
Impacts to trees will occur in the following ways.
1. Three trees (#25-27) are located within building footprints and will need to be removed.
2. Five trees (#1, 6, 7, 8, and 10) are located within the new parking along High Street and
will need to be removed.
3. Two trees (#16 and 17) are located within the driveway expansion and need to be
removed.
4. Eight trees (#9, 11, 12, 13, 14, 18, 23 and 29) are located within a new retaining wall.
5. The homeowner would like to remove the Monterey pine tree #49 located on the existing
extended patio. This potted tree established roots into the ground and had poor
suitability.
I recommend removal of two trees (15, and 43) that are in poor condition at the time of our
assessment. Tree #43 had Annulahypoxylan thouarsianium balls, which is a black fungus often
associated with later stages of sudden oak death. Firethorn (#15) was in poor condition and this
species is found on the invasive species list as stated on page 5. Another 31 were in fair condition.
Even among trees in fair condition, significant problems with either health or structure may be
present.
My recommendations for preservation focus on trees in good and excellent condition as these are
most likely to tolerate impacts from construction and remain assets to the site. To summarize, of
the 52 trees on the site, I recommend removing 21 and preserving 31 trees.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street HortScience Inc.
December 22, 2017 Page7
Table 3. Recommendation for action.
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Tree Species Trunk Protected Proposed Notes No. Diameter Action
in.
1 Coast live oak 15 Yes Remove New parking area
2 Manna gum 2.7,23, 16, 11 Yes Preserve
3 Coast Jive oak 19,9 Yes Preserve
4 Coast live oak 8 Yes Preserve
5 C a lifornia bay 9 Yes Preserve
6 Coast live oak 11 Yes Remove New parking area
7 Coast live oak 10 Yes Remove New parking area
8 Olive 5,3.3,3,2,2,2,2 Yes Remove New parking area
9 Coast live oak 9 Yes Remove New retaining wall
10 Coast live oak 9 Yes Remove New parking area
11 Camellia 4,3,3,2,2 Yes Remove New retaining wall
12 C oast live oak 9 Yes Remove New retaining wall
13 Coa st live oak 8 Yes Remove New retaining wall
14 Douglas fi r 27 Yes Remove New retaining wall
15 F irethorn 3,3,2,2,2 Yes Remove I nvasive species
16 Coast live oak 10 Yes Remove New driveway
17 Coast live o ak 9,7 Yes Remove New driveway
18 C oast live oak 14 Yes Remove New retaining wall
19 Coast Jive oak 9 Yes Preserve
2 0 T oyon 4,4,3,3 Yes Preserve
21 Coa st live o ak 11 Yes Preserve
22 Coast redw ood 25 Yes Preserve
23 P lum 7,6 Yes Remove New retaining wall
24 Coast live oak 8 Yes Preserve
25 Coast live oak 13 Yes Remove New reta ini ng w all
26 Coast live oak 9 Yes Remove Pool
27 Coast live oak 11 ,4 Yes Remove Outdoor kitc he n
28 Coast live oak 22 Yes Preserve
29 C oast liv e oak 12 Yes Remove New retaining wall
30 Coast live oak 10 Yes Preserve
31 Coast live oak 8 Yes Preserve
32 Coast live oak 10 Yes Preserve
33 Coast live oak 8 Yes Preserve
34 Coast live oak 21 Yes Preserve Off-site
35 C oast live oak 17 Yes Preserve
36 Blue oak 24 Yes Preserve
37 Blue oak 21,7 Yes Preserve Off-site
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
Table 3. Recommendation for action (continue).
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Tree Species Trunk Protected Proposed
No. Diameter Action
(in.)
38 Coast live oak 19 Yes Preserve
39 Blue oak 21 Yes Preserve
40 Blue oak 21 Yes Preserve
41 Blue oak 22 Yes Preserve
42 Blue oak 19 Yes Preserve
43 Coast live oak 20 Yes Remove
44 Blue oak 10 Yes Preserve
45 Coast live oak 21 Yes Preserve
46 Valley oak 24 Yes Preserve
47 Coast live oak 21 Yes Preserve
48 Monterey pine 28 Yes Preserve
49 Monterey pine 8 Yes Remove
50 California buckeye 16,9 Yes Preserve
51 California buckeye 7,6,6,5 Yes Preserve
52 Coast live oak 21 Yes Preserve
Appraisal of Value
HortScience Inc.
Page8
Notes
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
Diseased
Off-site
Off-site
Off-site
Poor suitability
Off-site
Off-site
The Town of Los Gatos requires that the value of trees "included in the Preliminary Tree Report
affected by the development which are required to remain" (section17.16.050 #6} be established.
To establish the value of the surveyed trees, I employed the standard methods found in Guide
for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition (published in 2000 by the International Society of Arboriculture,
Savoy IL}. In addition, I referred to Species Classification and Group Assignment (2004), a
publication of the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. These two
documents outline the methods employed in tree appraisal.
The value of landscape trees is based upon four factors: size, species, condition and location.
Size is measured as trunk diameter, normally 54" above grade. The species factor considers the
adaptability and appropriateness of the plant in the South Bay area. The Species Classification
and Group Assignment lists recommended species ratings and evaluations. Condition reflects
the health and structural integrity of the individual. The location factor considers the site,
placement and contribution of the tree in its surrounding landscape.
The appraised value of the 31 trees recommended for preservation is $126,350. (Table 5, page
10). The value of the 21 trees recommended for removal is $27,350 (Table 4, next page).
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page9
Table 4. Appraised value of troos recommended for removal.
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Tree Species Trunk Diameter Protected Appraised
No. (in .) Tree? Value($)
1 Coast live oak 15 Yes 1950
6 Coast live oak 11 Yes 1500
7 C oast live oak 10 Yes 90 0
8 Olive 5,3.3,3,2,2,2,2 Yes 500
9 Coast live oak 9 Yes 1000
10 Coast live oak 9 Yes 1000
11 Camellia 4,3,3,2,2 Yes 300
12 Coast live oak 9 Yes 1000
13 Coast live oak 8 Yes 800
14 Douglas fir 27 Yes 3850
15 Firethorn 3,3,2,2 ,2 Yes 50
16 C oast live oak 10 Yes 1250
17 Coast live oak 9,7 Yes 11 50
18 Coast live oak 14 Yes 1700
23 Plum 7,6 Yes 950
25 Coast live oak 13 Yes 2050
26 Coast live oak 9 Yes 1000
27 C oast live o ak 11,4 Yes 1650
29 Coast live oak 12 Yes 1750
43 C oast live oak 20 Yes 2850
49 Monterey pine 8 Yes 150
Total $27,350
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page 10
Table 5. Appraised value of trees recommended for preservation.
17505 High Street, Los Gatos CA.
Tree Trunk Protected Appraised
No. Species Diameter (in.) Tree? Value{$)
2 Manna gum 27,23, 16, 11 Yes 3850
3 Coast live oak 19,9 Yes 5250
4 Coast live oak 8 Yes 800
5 California bay 9 Yes 1300
19 Coast live oak 9 Yes 1000
20 Toyon 4,4,3,3 Yes 400
21 Coast live oak 11 Yes 1500
22 Coast redwood 25 Yes 5950
24 Coast live oak 8 Yes 800
28 Coast live oak 22 Yes 5750
30 Coast live oak 10 Yes 1250
31 Coast live oak 8 Yes 800
32 Coast live oak 10 Yes 1250
33 Coast live oak 8 Yes 800
34 Coast live oak 21 Yes 5250
35 Coast live oak 17 Yes 3450
36 Blue oak 24 Yes 9000
37 Blue oak 21,7 Yes 7650
38 Coast live oak 19 Yes 4300
39 Blue oak 21 Yes 6900
40 Blue oak 21 Yes 6900
41 Blue oak 22 Yes 7550
42 Blue oak 19 Yes 5650
44 Blue oak 10 Yes 1600
45 Coast live oak 21 Yes 5250
46 Valley oak 24 Yes 11550
47 Coast live oak 21 Yes 5250
48 Monterey pine 28 Yes 2500
50 California 16,9 Yes 5300
51 California 7,6,6,5 Yes 2300
52 Coast live oak 21 Yes 5250
Total $126,350
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
Tree Preservation Guidelines
HortScience Inc.
Page 11
The goal of tree preservation is not merely tree survival during development but maintenance
of tree health and beauty for many years. Trees retained on sites that are either subject to
extensive injury during construction or are inadequately maintained become a liability rather
than an asset. The response of individual trees will depend on the amount of excavation and
grading, the care with which demolition Is undertaken , and the construction methods .
1. A TREE PROTECTION ZONE must be established for trees to be preserved, in which no
disturbance is permitted . TREE PROTECTION ZONES for trees identified for
preservation are provided in the following table. No grading, excavation, construction
or storage of materials shall occur within that zone.
Tree No.
20
47
48
52
Specific Tree Protection Zones
TPZ
4' NE; 5 ' E ; dripline S & W
Back of new wall S, back of dg path N,
back of stairs E; dripline S
10' S; dripline N, E & W
Back of new wall S ; dripline N , E &W
2. Tree Preservation Guidelines prepared by the Consulting Arborist should be
included on all plans.
3. No underground services including utilities, sub~drains, water or sewer should be
placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. To minimize impacts to trees, locate
underground services to provide as much room as possible from trees identified for
preservation.
4 . Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and
labeled for that use.
5. Irrigation systems should be designed to avoid trenching within the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE.
6. Do not apply lime to soil for stabilization within 25' of trees to be preserved. Lime is
toxic to tree roots.
7. Maintain the existing irrigation system. If the existing irrigation system is not
functional , have a temporary system installed (using soaker hoses or pvc laid on the
ground and covered with mulch) as soon as possible to supply the trees with water
and help them recover and prepare them for impacts associated with the demolition
and construction process.
The keys to tree preservation at the 17505 High Street site are:
• Careful demolition of structures and pavement close to trees.
• Appropriate irTigation from the time of project approval through the
completion of construction.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
Design recommendations
HortScience Inc.
Page 12
1. Any plan affecting trees should be reviewed by the consulting Arborist with regard
to tree impacts. These included, but are not limited to, improvement plans, utility
and drainage plans, grading plans, landscape and irrigation plans and demolition
plans.
2. Evaluate the possibility of adjusting the design as described in the following
table to allow for preservation of these additional trees.
Recommended Design Modifications
Tree Species Diameter Modification
No. (inches)
47 Coast live oak 21 Eliminate concrete on north and make dg
pathway; move retaining wall to S 5'; no
footinos within 10'
48 Monterev oine 28 Move retaininq wall S 5'
52 Coast live oak 21 Move retaining wall SW 5'; no footings
within 10'
3. Establish a TREE PROTECTION ZONE around each tree to be preserved as noted
on map. No grading, excavation, construction or storage of materials shall
occur within that zone.
4. Use only herbicides safe for use around trees and labeled for that use, even
below pavement.
5. If the existing irrigation system is not functional, have a temporary system
installed {using soaker hoses or pvc laid on the ground and covered with
mulch) as soon as possible to supply the trees with water and help them
recover and prepare them for impacts associated with the demolition and
construction process.
6. Design irrigation systems so that no trenching will occur within the TREE
PROTECTION ZONE.
Pre-construction and demolition treatments and recommendations
1. Install protection around all trees to be preserved. Fencing shall be
erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and
remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain
the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
2. The demolition contractor shall meet with the Consulting Arborist before
beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. No entry is
permitted into a tree protection zone without permission of the project
superintendent.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page 13
3 . Fence all trees to be retained to completely enclose the TREE PROTECTION
ZONE prior to demolition, grubbing or grading . Fences shall be 6' chain link
mounted on two-inch galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a
depth of~ 2' at :S 1 O' spacing as required by the City of Los Gatos. Fences are
to remain until all grading and construction is completed.
4. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half inch by
eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone".
5 . Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to:
excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree
unless approved by the Director. The Director and project arborist shall be
notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so
that proper treatment may be administered.
6. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful
materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that
may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. Prohibit the attachment of wires,
signs or ropes to any protected tree.
7. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline
when feasible.
8. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the
project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those
trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities
occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved
and shall document all site visits.
9. Trees to be preserved may require pruning to provide adequate clearance from
construction activities. All pruning shall be performed by a licensed State of
California contractor possessing the C61 classification license and the 049
specification. All pruning shall adhere to the latest editions of the American
National Standards Institute 2133 and A300 standards.
10. All tree work shall comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act as well as California
Fish and Wildlife code 3503-3513 to not disturb nesting birds. To the extent
feasible tree pruning and removal should be scheduled outside of the breeding
season. Breeding bird surveys should be conducted prior to tree work. Qualified
biologists should be involved in establishing work buffers for active nests.
Tree protection during construction
1. Prior to beginning work , the contractors working in the vicinity of trees to be
preserved are required to meet with the Consulting Arborist at the site to review
all work procedures, access routes, storage areas and tree protection measures.
2 . Any grading, construction, demolition or other work that is expected to
encounter tree roots should be monitored by the Consulting Arborist.
Revised Arborist Report, 17505 High Street
December 22, 2017
HortScience Inc.
Page 14
3. If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as
soon as possible by the Consulting Arborist so that appropriate treatments can
be applied.
4. Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences are to
remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or
removed without permission of the project superintendent.
5. Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced
areas at all times.
6. No materials, equipment, spoil, waste or wash-out water may be deposited,
stored, or parked within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE (fenced area).
7. Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be
performed by a qualified arborist and not by construction personnel.
8. Any roots damaged during grading or construction shall be exposed to sound
tissue and cut cleanly with a saw.
HortScience, Inc.
-<.:_~~/
Maryellen Bell
Certified Arborist WE-4653
ATTACHMENTS
Estimates of Crown Diameters for Removals
Tree Assessment Form
Tree Location Map
Tree Pruning Guidelines
Homeowner Guide to Oaks in the Landscape
Estimates of Crown Diameters for Removals
Trunk Crown
Tree Diameter Protected Diameter
No. Species (in.) Tree? (feet)
1 Coast live oak 15 Yes 10
6 Coast live oak 11 Yes 10
7 Coast live oak 10 Yes 10
8 Olive ,3.3,3,2,2,2, Yes 10
9 Coast live oak 9 Yes 10
10 Coast live oak 9 Yes 10
11 Camellia 4,3,3,2,2 Yes 10
12 Coast live oak 9 Yes 10
13 Coast live oak 8 Yes 10
14 Douglas fir 27 Yes 40
15 Firethorn 3,3,2,2,2 Yes 10
16 Coast live oak 10 Yes 10
17 Coast live oak 9,7 Yes 15
18 Coast live oak 14 Yes 20
23 Plum 7,6 Yes 15
25 Coast live oak 13 Yes 15
26 Coast live oak 9 Yes 20
27 Coast live oak 11,4 Yes 20
29 Coast live oak 12 Yes 20
43 Coast live oak 20 Yes 40
49 Montere1 eine 8 Yes 10
Tree Assessment
Tree Species
No.
1 Coast live oak
2 Manna gum
3 Coast live oak
4 Coast live oa k
5 California bay
6 Coast live oak
7 Coa st live oak
8 Olive
9 Coast live oak
10 Coast live oak
11 Camellia
12 Coast live oak
13 Coast live oak
14 Douglas fir
15 Firethorn
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
15
27,23,16,1
1
19 ,9
8
9
11
10
5,3.3,3,2,2,
2 ,2
9
9
4,3,3 ,2,2
9
8
27
3,3,2,2,2
17505 High Street
Los Gatos, CA
September 14, 2017
Protected Condition
Tree? 1=poor
5=excellent
Yes 3
Yes 2
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 2
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 1
65%
45 %
60%
65%
65%
55%
65%
65%
65%
60%
25%
65%
65%
65%
10%
Suitability for Comments
Preservation
Moderate Located on slope; self-correcting lean ; codominant trunks arise
from 7'; headed back on S near utility lines.
Low Multiple trunks arise from base; topped; N trunk horizontal at base
and sinuous with decay in W where stem removed .
Moderate Codominan t trunks arise from 4'; s inuous trunk with lean to S;
stain on S at 6' with bulge.
Moderate Bend in trunk at 6'; codominant trunks arise from top of canopy.
Moderate Bulge and base ; codominan t trunks arise from 1 O'; bend in trunk at
4'; canopy one-sided to the S.
Low Leans S; topped .
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 15'; self correcting lean.
Moderate Multiple tr unks arise from base; stake embedded i n S trunk;
minimal twig and branch dieback.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10'; canopy extends over house to
E.
Moderate Headed back due to utility lines; codom inant trunks arise from 12';
self~correcting lean ; small wound on Wat 1'.
Low Topped ; base embedded in fence; canopy growing ove r ho~se; 3
1/2' from stairwell .
Moderate Top of canopy one-sided to E; canopy extends over top of house;
codominant trunks arise from 15'.
Moderate Top of canopy one-sided to E; canopy extends over driveway;
bend in trunk at 1 O'.
Moderate Thin canop y.
Low Multiple trunks arise from base ; sweeping canopy; all but dead.
Tree Assessment
Tree Species
No.
16 Coast live oak
17 Coast live oak
18 Coast live oak
19 Coast live oak
20 Toyon
21 Coast live oak
22 Coast redwood
23 Plum
24 Coast live oak
25 Coast live oak
26 Coast live oak
27 Coast live oak
28 Coast live oak
29 Coast live oak
30 Coast live oak
31 Coast live oak
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
10
9,7
14
9
4,4,3,3
11
25
7,6
8
13
9
11,4
22
12
10
8
17505 High Street
Los Gatos, CA
September 14, 2017
Protected Condition
Tree? 1 =poor
5=excellent
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
65%
65%
65%
65%
50%
60%
65%
65%
55%
55%
60%
60%
65%
65%
65%
65%
Suitability for Comments
Preservation
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 5'; self correcting lean.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from base and 5'; located 4' W of existing
driveway; E trunk sinuous.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from top of canopy; located 3' W of
existing driveway; self-correcting lean.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from top of canopy; evidence of
woodpecker activity; self-correcting lean.
Low Multiple trunks arise from base; middle stem dead.
Moderate Sinuous.
Moderate 70% green foliage; twig and branch dieback in lower canopy.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2'; wound on S stem.
Low Topped; seam at 5'.
Low Self-correcting lean; codominant trunks arise from 5' with seam; N
stem codominant trunks arise from 1 O'; twig and branch dieback in
canopy.
Moderate Leans W; codominant trunks arise from 10'; twig and branch
dieback in canopy.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 2' with seam; N stem codominant
trunks arise from 8'; twig and branch dieback in canopy.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from high in canopy; self-correcting lean;
dense canopy.
Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 15'; tall narrow crown.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 10'; suppressed on S.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 8'; sinuous; suppressed on S;
canopy one-sided to NW.
Tree Assessment
Tree Species
No.
32 Coast live oak
33 Coast live oak
34 Coast live oak
35 Coast live oak
36 Blue oak
37 Blue oak
38 Coast live oak
39 Blue oak
40 Blue oak
41 Blue oak
42 Blue oak
43 Coast live oak
44 Blue oak
45 Coast live oak
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
10
8
21
17
24
21.7
19
21
21
22
19
20
10
21
17505 High Street
Los Gatos, CA
Septem ber 14, 2017
Protected Condition
Tree? 1=poor
S=excellent
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 2
Yes 3
Yes 3
60%
60%
55%
55%
60%
65%
60%
60%
65%
50%
55%
30%
55%
55%
Suitability for Comments
Preservation
Moderate Suppressed; self-correcting lean; twig and branch dieback in lower
canopy.
Moderate Suppressed ; sinuous; canopy one-sided to NW.
Moderate Off-site; cav ity on Nat 10'; history of branch failure on S at 12';
twig and branch dieback in lower canopy.
Moderate Codom i nant trunks arise from 10 and 15'; suppressed by #36;
growing on side of slope; history of branch failu re on W ; dense
canopy pr imarily to SW.
Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 1 O'; growing in side of slope; twig and
branch dieback in lower canopy.
Moderate Off-site; codominant trunks ar ise from 2'and 5'; leans W .
Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 6'; growing on side of slope; history of
branch failure on W; dense canopy primarily to W.
Moderate Multiple trunks arise from 1 O'; growing on side of slope; twig and
branch dieback in canopy; canopy primarily growing to W.
Moder ate Off-site; canopy primarily growing to NW; epicor mic growth.
Low Off-site; canopy primarily growing to SW; history of branch failure;
fungi growth in upper canopy.
Low Off-site; history of branch failure; twig and branch dieback
epicormic growth.
Low Multiple trunks arise from 6'; growing on side of slope; history of
branch failure on inside W stem; epicormic growth; hypoxylon
fruiting body .
Low Off-site; bulge at base on E; growing in side of slope; codominant
trunks arise from 10'; topped.
Low Off"site; codominant trunks arise from 7'; growing on side of slope;
history of branch failure on S and W ; epicormic growth.
Tree Assessment
Tree Species
No.
46 Valley oak
47 Coast live oak
48 Monterey pine
49 Monterey pine
50 California
buckeye
51 California
buckeye
52 Coast live oak
Trunk
Diameter
(in.)
24
21
28
8
16,9
7,6,6,5
21
17505 High Street
Los Gatos, CA
September 14, 2017
Protected Condition
Tree? 1 =poor
5=excellent
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
Yes 3
55%
65%
65%
50%
60%
60%
50%
Suitability for Comments
Preservation
Low Off-site; codominant trunks arise from 7'; growing on side of slope;
history of branch failure on Sand W; epicormic growth; large
cavity in SW at 1 O'.
Moderate Located 4' N of existing porch; codominant trunks arise from 1 O';
canopy extends 18' SW;25' E;16' W.
Moderate Codominant trunks arise from 25'; excessive sap in top of canopy;
good color; 4' N of patio.
Low Planted in pot and growing into ground; tall narrow crown.
Low Off-site; multiple trunks arise from 2'; history of branch failure on N
stem; branch dieback in canopy.
Low Off-site; multiple trunks arise from base; fused stems on N and S;
branch dieback in canopy.
Low Located 3' N of existing porch; codominant trunks arise from 18';
wound at base on SW with decay; good color.
Homeowner's Guide to
Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees
One of the outstanding features of the Pleasanton foothills are the mature and young native
oaks in the landscape. The coast Jive oak has dense, deep green foliage that is retained
throughout the year. Several oak trees are located throughout the property. These trees
were sown naturally from acorns of nearby trees. They established and grew in balance
with the amount of rainfall and groundwater that was available, and the nutrients both held in
the soil, and recycled through fallen, decomposing leaves.
Oaks are sensitive to changes in their environment. Any changes were minimized during
development of the property and construction of your new home. These changes will
continue for the life of the trees as we incorporate the trees into our landscapes and daily
activities.
This booklet has been prepared to help you care for the oaks on you property. It provides
guidelines for you, the homeowner, and the landscape architects, contractors and tree
service people who will help you design, install and maintain your landscape. Although this
material addresses oak trees specifically, the practices set forth in these guidelines are
appropriate for most trees in Northern California landscapes. It is recommended that the
homeowner follow these guidelines to protect any existing trees either on or adjacent to their
property.
Protecting your Oaks
The key to promoting tree health and vigor is protecting it from damage. Once damage is
done, there is no way to repair it. There are many professionals involved in designing and
constructing a home and landscape. All must cooperate in protecting the oaks from
unnecessary damage. If oak tree preservation is a priority to you, it must become a priority
to anyone providing a service for your property.
Remember that any activity on your property that requires digging into the soil can affect the
health and stability of nearby oaks. Some examples are:
• Installation of drain lines
• Installation of landscape irrigation and lighting
• Construction of patios, decks, walkways
• Installation of pools, spas, ponds
• Fine grading to create mounds, swales
• Construction of fences, walls, gazebos
• Rototilling to incorporate soil conditioners
• Digging holes for planting
Furthermore, grade changes that cause water to be directed towards oaks, or that cover the
roots with additional soil (fill) will have very detrimental effects on your tree. It is important to
keep the original soil level around the tree and make sure water does not stand around it.
As little as 6" of fill can harm the tree.
Root Structure of Oaks
Protection of the root area of an oak tree is the single most important aspect of tree
preservation. Without roots, the tree cannot absorb water and mineral nutrients vital for
growth. In addition, a healthy root system physically supports the tree.
Homeowners Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Inc.
Page2
Most people think of oaks as being deep-mated trees with a long taproot. Unfortunately,
that is not the case. Roots can only grow where there is adequate air and moisture for their
survival. These conditions occur predominantly in the top 3' of soil.
About 90% of the roots of oak s can be expected to occur within the top 3' of soil, and about
70% of these are within 6" -18" of the surface (Fig . 1 ). When the shallow nature of the root
system is understood, It is easy to see how digging 12" -1 a• deep trenches to install
irrigation lines can cause major root injury.
Another misconception is that tree roots only occupy the area beneath the tree canopy
(within the dripline}. Actually, roots extend beyond the dripline for some distance.
Design and Construction around your Oak
The more site change that occurs around an individual oak tree, the greater care must be
taken In protecting and maintaining it. Injured trees are less drought tolerant, and more
prone to developing pest and disease problems. This is particularly true for the valley oak,
which are less drought and construction impact tolerant than coast live oak. The degree of
damage to a tree caused by construction depends on the severity of the impacts (e.g. how
much of the roots are injured} and the initial health and age of the tree. Therefore,
preservation efforts must begin with an evaluation of the individual tree and some
assessment of its ability to adjust to an altered environment
As you plan site improvements, such as landscaping, pools and patios , consider soliciting
advice from a consulting arborist on how best to protect and manage your tree.
When designing uses around the native oaks consider the following :
1. All the trees within the development area of your property are accurately
surveyed and plotted on the site plan. Include the driplines on all the plans as
well.
2. Avoid entry into the dripline of an oak tree whenever possible. For vigorous
trees it may be possible to encroach within the dripline, but maintain at least the
area half way from the trunk to the dripline free from any encroachment, and
only on one side of the tree . Encroachment includes soil fills, cuts, trenches ,
paving or structures.
3. Maintain natural grade around the trees. If you have excess soil from grading
your lot or digging a pool, do not put it around the trees . As little as 6" of soil
can kill oaks.
4. It is important to avoid redirecting water by altering natural drainage. Simply
put, do not direct drainage water toward oaks.
5. Avoid installing impervious paving, such as concrete, within the dripline of trees.
Pervious paving materials can be used (e.g . uncemented brick), but they should
be placed on grade to avoid excavation normally required to place base material
under the pavement. Compaction of the soil under the bricks also should be
avoided.
6. Where structures must encroach beneath a t ree, consider using footings or
foundations that avoid having to dig continuous trenches (e.g. pier foundations
with the grade beam above grade).
7. The single most Important thing you can do to protect your trees Is to
place a temporary fence around those that are near the construction area.
Homeowner's Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Inc.
Page3
This excludes activity around the trees that can compact the soil, injure roots
and damage the trunk and limbs. No equipment, materials, excess soil or trash
should be placed under trees within the fenced area. The fencing should be in
place before any type of equipment is allowed on your lot, and remain until all
construction activity is completed.
Landscaping Around Oaks
Native oaks are adapted to conditions of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. They
are accustomed to a period of prolonged drought in the summer months. They are
intolerant of heavy irrigation during this period. Installation of new landscapes around oaks
must recognize and respect this fact. Lawn, flowers, ivy, azaleas, ferns or other plantings
requiring frequent watering are inappropriate around oaks. Even so, attractive landscapes
can be created around your trees.
The best treatment under oaks is to place a thick layer of organic mulch such as bark or
wood chips. Alternatives are rock or cobble mulches that can simulate dry streambeds.
Make sure there is surface drainage away from the base of the trunks so that water does not
flow to the base of the trees.
If you do decide to plant under oaks, select species that are under 4' tall when mature,
shade tolerant and will require irrigation no more than once a month. Do not plant within 10'
of the trunk. Some planting suggestions are listed in Table 1.
Design your irrigation system with the tree in mind. Maintain an area within ten feet of the
trunk free from any irrigation. If you install plants outside that dry zone, create a berm
around the plant to contain water. The well can be irrigated by hand. If you prefer an
automatic system, use drip, micro-sprinklers or bubblers that wet a small area around each
plant. However, you must give careful consideration to how the irrigation system is laid out
to avoid damaging roots during installation.
The best way to minimize damage to the oaks is to avoid laying irrigation lines within the
dripline. If you chose to plant in that area and want to install an irrigation system, consider
laying the pipe on the surface rather than in trenches that cut through the roots. The pipes
can be covered with deep mulch. If you must place pipe underground within the dripline of
the tree, dig the trenches by hand so that woody roots can be left intact. Dig a tunnel under
the roots and thread the pipe underneath. In this way, the roots that transport water and
minerals to your tree will continue to function.
As you design your landscape, consider planting more oaks. They fit in well with your
environment, are adapted to the site, and are easy to care for. Vigorous, nursery-grown
oaks have a growth rate similar to many common landscape trees. Use them to augment
your landscape scheme. Oak species to consider are the valley oak and the evergreen
coast live oak.
Homeowner's Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Inc.
Page4
Table 1. Plants appropriate for uso under native oaks
Shrubs
Carpenteria
Wild lilac
Western redbud
Mountain-mahogany
Santa Cruz Island buckwheat
Island bush snapdragon
Silk-tassel bush
Mahonias
Gooseberries
San Diego wild sage
Coastal white sage
Snowberry
Ground Covers
Wollyyarrow
Manzanita
Carmel creeper
Hoover ceanothus
Australian fuchsia
Rock rose
Compact Oregon grape
Creeping mahonia
Catalina currant
Evergreen Herbaceous Plants
Winter-blooming bergenia
Buckwheat
Giant alum root
California iris
Monkey flower
Beard tongue
Deciduous or Annual Herbaceous Plants
Clarkia
Bulbs
Chinese houses
Shooting stars
Poppies
Baby blue eyes
Evening primrose
Blue-eyed-grass
California wild fuchsia
Blue dicks
Mariposa lilies
Leopard lily
Common trillium
Carpentena ca/ifornica
Ceanothus species
Cercis occidentalis
Cercocarpus betuloides
Eriogonum arboroscens
Galvezia speciosa
Ganya elliptica
Mahonia species
Ribes species
Salvia c/eva/andii
Salvia /eucophylla
Symphoncarpos sp.
Achiel/ea tomentosa
Arctostaphy/os
Ceanothus griseus var. horizonta/ls
Ceanothus maritimus
Correa sp .
Cissussp.
Mahonia aquifolium 'Compacta'
Mahonia ropens
Ribes vibumifolium
Bergenia crassifolia
Eriogonum umbe/atum v. po/yanthum
Heuchera maxima
Iris douglasiana and hybrids
Mimulus aurantiacus
Penstemon sp.
Clarkia species
Collinsia heterophyl/a
Dodecatheon clevelandii
Eschscholzia species
Nemophila Menziesii
Oenothera species
Sisrinchium bellum
Zauschneria califomica
Brodiaea species
Calochortus species
Lilium pardinalinum
Trillium chloropetalum
Homeowner's Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Inc.
Pages
In summary, the following are general guidelines for landscaping around oaks:
1. The best treatment under oaks is a thick layer of organic mulch, such as bark, wood
chips or leaf litter. Prunings may be chipped by the arborist and left beneath the
canopy. Alternatives include use of rocks or cobbles. In all cases, drainage must
be away from the trunk.
2. Use wood decking on piers rather than patios under the driplines of trees. Allow at
least 1' clearance between the deck and tree trunk.
3. If you choose to plant under your oaks, select plants that are shade and drought
tolerant (no more than one irrigation per month). No plants should be installed
within 1 O' of the trunk of the tree. A list of species appropriate for use under oaks is
listed in Table 1.
4. Irrigation systems must be very carefully designed to avoid trenching through roots.
No irrigation lines shall be placed under the driplines of existing oaks. Only
infrequent irrigation (once a month, maximum) is compatible with oaks.
5. If lawns or other frequently irrigated planting are to be used, place them outside the
driplines of oaks, and ensure that runoff will not enter the dripline.
6. When planning landscape irrigation, route all irrigation trenches outside the driplines
of oaks. Make sure that the area within 1 O' of the trunk is not wetted during
operation of the system. Also, direct runoff away from oaks.
7. Planting young oaks is highly recommended. Coast live oak (Q. agrifolia) and valley
oak (0. /obata) are the species that are appropriate for your site.
Maintenance of Oak Trees
Native oaks have survived for decades in a system that provides the right balance of water,
elements, light, etc. Even though we try to design appropriately around oaks, the balance
that nature has provided is interrupted. The trees become a maintenance responsibility.
The primary maintenance requirements of oaks are pruning, mulching, pest and disease
control, and in some cases, irrigation and fertilization.
Pruning
Mature oaks seldom need much pruning. It is important to maintain as much foliage as
possible to supply the tree with adequate food for growth and maintenance.
Oaks are pruned to enhance their health and structural stability, and to provide clearance
beneath their crowns. Removal of dead, dying, diseased and weak branches enhances tree
health and reduces the potential for failure of a branch.
Topping and stubbing off branches are not appropriate pruning methods for any tree,
particularly oaks. Avoid stripping out the interior foliage. Excessive pruning to expose the
branch structure of oaks is very damaging. As a general guide, remove no more than 25%
of the foliage of the tree. Previously shaded branches that are exposed to the sun are easily
damaged from sunburn. Pruning to reduce the weight on heavy horizontal limbs should
remove small diameter branches (less than 3"), and retain foliage along the length of the
branch.
Homeowner's Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Inc.
Page 6
Overmature trees such as the valley oak in the rear yard need to be inspected annua lly or
every 2 years to evaluate structural stability and need for pruning . Most old oaks have
considerable amount of decay in the trunk and major branches. They need to be inspecte d
regularly by a professional to determine if weight needs to be removed from weak areas to
reduce the risk of branch or trunk failure.
Pruning and cabling should be undertaken by qualified arborist. Tree pruning companies
must carry the California State Contractors License for Tree Services (#C61/D49). Any
pruning should be performed by a Certified Arborist o r Tree Worker and adhere American
National Standard Institute A300 Pruning Guidelines.
Irrigation
Oaks are accustomed to dry summer conditions and tend to develop fatal root diseases if
irrigated frequently during the summer. Drought stressed trees may benefit from "extending
the rainy season• while preserving the annual summer drought. Irrigate in late spring (May
and June) and early fall (September-October). However, no irrigation should take place in
July and August.
Irrigation should wet the top 2' -3' of soil. We suggest creating basins to contain irrigation
water on flat sites , or using slow drip emitters or soaker hoses on sloped sites. Soaker
hoses can be allowed to run overnight. Check the depth of water penetration with a shovel.
Under no circumstances should trees be irrigated within 1 O' of the trunk. Irrigating frequently
around the t runks of mature oaks during the summer leads to development of root d iseases
that can kill the tree.
Pest Management
Oaks should be inspect ed regularly for disease and insect pests. Treatment is not normally
required for t hese problems but when pest infestations are severe they may reduce t he
overall health of the trees. Careful water management (see above) can avoid most disease
problems.
Fertilization
Oaks do not normally require annual fertilization if the leaf litter is allowed to accumulate
under the canopy. As the leaves decompose, they return nutrient elements to the trees.
If you routinely remove the natural leaf litter, then plan to fertilize your oak every two to three
years. A slow-release fertilizer that provides only nitrogen is the best material to use. Apply
the material at a rate of 1 pound actual nitrogen per 1000 ft2 of open soil under the dripline
plus 10' beyond. Spread the fertilizer evenly on the soil within the dripline of the tree plus
10' beyond (where possible). Apply in the late winter before the rains end.
Mulch
Oaks benefit from a layer of thick organic mulch beneath the canopy. The mulch helps
retain surface soil moisture, moderates temperatures, and provides nutrients for the tree as
it decomposes. Mulch material can be purchased at garden centers . You can also have
brush from prunings chipped and left under the trees. Allow the natural leaf litter to
accumulate within the mulched area as well. Mulch should be maintained at a maximum
thickness of 4-6".
Homeowner's Guide to Protecting and Maintaining Native Oak Trees HortScience, Jnc.
Page?
Summary
The oak trees on your property are a valuable asset to you, the community, and the
environment. But they require on-going care, specific to their needs. Trees change over
time and need to be inspected regularly to evaluate their health and structural condition.
This booklet has provided some guidelines for providing for the basic needs of your native
oaks.
HortScience, Inc.
·/ /./ 2./ .-;. __ /~n -f,,/
Maryellen Bell
Certified Arborist WE-5643
Letter of Justification
1. 7505 High Street Remodel
RECEIVED
MAR 3 0 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANN ING DIVISION
This letter of justification is written to explain the rationale of the proposed remodel and addition
at 17505 High Street, Los Gatos. The existing house is approximately 1,900 square feet with all
original flooring, electrical, windows, roofing, etc. The home lacks insulation and has an open
carport. No direct access to the front door exists absent navigating a 33% sloped driveway. The
home is functionally obsolete due to limited access, an outdated f!oorplan, no garage and/or
storage, etc.
This application's goal is to further the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines while
leveraging the existing structure to rebuild a more practical and accessible home.
Working alongside staffs direction, this revised application is in compliance with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines to the greatest extent feasible. We designed the home
carefully to ensure that all new construction is within the LRDA area to the greatest extent
possible, while replacing existing retaining walls and ensuring we build into the hillside as
encouraged by the guidelines. We have carefully designed the home to move back into the
hillside while greatly reducing the height of the existing structure. We believe the new design
very much addresses the intent of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Notwithstanding, the discussion below provides insight into areas of potential non-compliance
with the Hillside Developm ent Standards and Guidelines. This discussion addresses the height of
the home, grading requirements, and the LRDA.
Justification to Height
Reducing the height and massing of the home was a central architectural design goal of this
application. The existing structure is an A-frame style home that measures 37'6" from the
existing ridge to the existing grade. We intend to modernize the home while respecting the Town
code by pulling the home back into the hiliside and significantly reducing the height. The
proposed height of the existing structure is now under 30' at a total of 29'11" from top of ridge
to existing grade (over 6' in height reduction relative to existing conditions). The home reduces
in height from the point measured at 29'11" immediately as the roof slopes down while the
existing hillside slopes back up toward the home.
The expansion area of the home is screened by existing trees making it virtually impossible to see
from viewing platforms {6.4%, 7.3% for LG-Saratoga/Highway 17 and Main/Bayview,
respectively). The most visible portion of the home is the existing A-frame and we are eliminating
a significant portion of the exposed elevation. In addition, the bulk of the new improvements
are tucked into the hillside so that the second floor is in many cases only 12-'15 higher than
existing grade. As such, only small portions of the new construction exceed any height limits
while much of the home will be lower and less visible.
EXHIBIT 8
In addition, we are pulling the second story of the home back by 4' which reduces the massing in
the hillside across the entire frontage facing the valley. Similarly, the roof pulls back by over 4'
which includes an 8' A-frame mass which is eliminated from side, front, and rear profiles. This
entire massing and presence of the home will be significantly reduced, and the balance of the
structure is pushed back into the hillside as encouraged by the design guidelines.
As stated by Cannon Design Group, the " ... proposed additions and modifications are well
designed to fit the site, and are, in my judgement, a substantial improvement over the current
structure". We concur as the home is less visible in the hillside, reduces the height of the
structure by over 6' in height, and respects the design guidelines and intent. We believe this is a
vast improvement over the existing conditions. Together, these improvements will reduce the
probability that the home is ever visible from the valley floor (including from all Los Gatos viewing
platforms).
In the event that we were required to bring the existing home into compliance with all Town
ordinances, we would be required to demolish the majority ofthe home due to its existing height.
The footprint would have to expand and much ofthe site would be disturbed around the existing
foundation. This would impact many of the trees we are most concerned with protecting and
require additional grading that would disturb the hillside more significantly. The application as
proposed has succeeded in balancing the most critical factors discussed in the Town's Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines to achieve a sensitive and well-planned design.
Cut/Fill Justification
Table 1 in Section Ill of the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines limits cut
and fill to 4' and 3', respectively. The proposed plans exceed fill by 1' with respect to the
driveway and to the parking on High Street.
Driveway: The driveway exceeds the fill in order to reduce the slope of the driveway from 33%
(existing driveway slope) to a 20% slope. The existing driveway at a 33% slope poses many
challenges for emergency personnel and day-to-day access. The proposed 20% slope is now
consistent with the Town of Los Gatos fire requirements and the design team was encouraged
by Town Staff to meet this target despite the increased grading. Access will be greatly increased
for fire, police, and medical emergencies. Adding additional fill allows increased and improved
safety and access as compared to existing conditions.
High Street Parking: The parking along High Street also requires an additional 1' of fill. We see
significant benefits to the proposed grading as it widens High Street at a very narrow section that
includes parking. It will allow much safer parking conditions (over existing conditions) while
providing ample right-of-way for vehicles to travel. In any event, much of this grading is required
to replace failing retaining walls to the north of High Street. We believe this will improve safety
and access which will benefit the home as well as the community (residents, city services,
emergency services, etc).
LRDA Justification
The design team worked carefully to confine all work to the LRDA. Having said that, some work
is proposed outside of the LRDA and the discussion below provides the rationale for the
improvements.
Driveway: The existing and proposed driveways are both located outside of the LRDA (due to
slope). The proposed driveway design is a signific,mt improvement that increases access and
safety for the home and surrounding properties. The majority of this work outside of the LRDA
is re-grading of the existing driveway and retaining walls. No other access or alternative is
feasible given the site constraints.
Access to the Front Door: The proposed design includes a small pathway from the parking area
to the front door of the home. Portions of the pathway are outside of the LRDA. The pathway
provides access to the front door of the home and significantly increases accessibility for our
family and guests as well as emergency personnel. An obsolete pathway is currently located in
this area resulting in a minimal impact to the area between High Street and the front door of the
home.
Pathways/Portion of Deck: Pathways leading to the rear yard are proposed outside of the LRDA.
In many cases they follow old existing access paths that we proposed to rebuild to current code.
We designed these pathways to be sensitive to the slope and existing landscaping. The proposed
design is the most efficient and environmentally sensitive approach to maintaining and providing
access to the property. We took extreme care to ensure that these improvements result in limited
grading with limited impact to trees.
letter of Justification Conclusion
We are pleased to have re-designed a home built in 1964 that is out of compliance on code, Town
standards, and building standards across the board, to a point that we are only requesting several
relatively minor exceptions. At the same time, we are delivering exceptional improvements on
the architectural design, viewing platform perspectives, and building code updates to the home.
This includes addressing safety issues with increased emergency access and fire sprinklers to
environmental issues like new insulation, Energy Star appliances, and solar.
We thank the Town of Los Gatos for all of the work and coordination. The project continues to
enjoy unanimous support from all neighbors with whom we have met, and we will continue to
ensure thorough neighborhood outreach and project support.
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
November 20, 2017
Mr. Sean Mullin
Community Devdopment Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 17505 High Street
Dear Sean:
ARCHITECTIJRE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
APR 18 2018
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I reviewed the dtawings and ewluated the site context. My comments and recommendations are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located on a steeply sloping si te where an existing house sits below the level of High Street. Photographs of
the site and nearby homes are shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET
EXHIBIT 9
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
A 17505 high street
Susie <snimrie@msn.com>
Wednesday, April 04, 2018 6:15 PM
Sean Mullin
Construction at 17505 High St
I am writing to voice full support for the project at 17505 high street, Los Gatos.
Michael and Theresa came to our home to introduce themselves and their project. They had all the pictures
and architectural drawings with them. We found them to be honest, friendly and truly committed to working with
the neighbors and minimizing any disruption to the lives of their neighbors.
We have lived in our home for 40 years and have had much construction around us over the years and we
have never had any previous owners come to us with such openness and honesty. We fully support the project
without any hesitation. Steve and Susie !mrie
Get Outlook for Android
Get Outlook for Android
EXHIBIT 10
16706 Cypress Way
A17505 hiQh street
I am writing to voice full support for the project at 17505 high street, Los Gatos.
Michael and Theresa came to our home to introduce themselves and their project. They had all
the pictures and architectural drawings with them . We found them to be honest, f ri endly and
truly committed to working with the neighbors and minimizing any disruption to the lives of
their neighbors.
We have lived in our home for 40 years and have had much construction around us over the
years and we have never had any previous owners come to us with such openness and
honesty. We fully support the project without any hesitation.
Steve and S usie !mrie
snimrie@msn.com
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 2018
T OWN OF LOS GATOS
PL A NNIN G DIVIS IO N
16900 Cypress Way
~_qgchee2@aol.com
To
mike_sullivan@att.net
Apr 7 at 10:06 AM
Hi Mike and Theresa,
Thank you so much for taking the time to show us your plans for your home. It looks like it will be a
beautiful home and an asset to our neighborhood. We look forward to seeing the finished project.
Phil &Kim
Phil 's cell (408) 461-0530
Kim 's cell (408) 568-2284
RECEIVED
APR 1 1 2018
TOWN O F L O S GAT O S
P LANNING DIVISION .
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Foiiow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Sean Mullin,
vratner@aol.com
Sunday, April 15, 2018 1:30 PM
Sean Mullin
17505 High St.
Follow up
Flagged
I live at 17360 High St., and have reviewed the house plans that Mike and Teresa Sullivan would like to implement at their
home on 17505 High St. I fully support the changes that are planned and I urge the Planning Commission to support this
project.
I am emailing this to you because I will not be able to attend the public meeting due to a conflict in my schedule.
Thank you in advance for making sure that this email reaches all the members of the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Vicki Ratner, M.D.
VRatner@aol.com
mobile: 408-569-1100
On Monday, April 16, 20181:22 PM, Laura Stanford <lrstanford@gmail.com>wrote:
Dear Theresa and Michael,
We are very much in favor cf your new home addition on High Street.
The plans and the story poles give us a visual picture of the the finished project. Your
home blends nicely with the hillside topography, as well.
As your neighbors on High Street, we look forward to seeing your plans come to fruition!
Laura and Tad Stanford
17375 High Street
Sent from my iPhone
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Follow Up Flag:
Flag Status:
Dear Sean Miller
rmreid2@comcast.net
Friday, April 20, 2018 6:31 AM
Sean Mullin
Proposed project at 17505 High Street
Follow up
Flagged
I am a resident of Los Gatos, and reaching out to you to indicate my support for the remodeling project Mike and Teresa
Sullivan have proposed for 17505 High Street. I have reviewed the plans, and feel it is very good improvement for the
property, fits in nicely with the neighborhood and adds to the positive development of the community.
Please share my support of the project with the other members of the planning commission.
Respectfully,
Rob Reid
142 Pine Wood Lane
Los Gatos, CA
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Michael Sullivan < mike_sullivan@att.net>
Friday, April 20, 2018 10:47 AM
Sean Mullin
Fw: 17505 High Street
On Wednesday, April 18, 2018 11 :34 AM, Peter Zecchin <zecchinlabs@gmail.com> wrote:
Mike and Theresa,
Thank you for going over your future home plans with me last night. I was really impressed with the
effort made in the designing a home that disappears into the wooded hillside. Your choice of esthetic
fire retardant exterior materials is a bonus to the neighborhood. My wife and I are in full support of
your home plans, and look forward to seeing it completed.
Sincerely, Your neighbors,
Peter and Terese Zecchin
17370 High street
Sean Mullin
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Sean,
Mike Sullivan <mike@srecompany.com>
Friday, April 20, 2018 10:50 AM
Sean Mullin
RE: Proposed project at 17505 High Street
I just sent an additional letter. I think I sent you Laura's email as well which I copied below. How many letters do you
have in support at this point? I want to make sure you have everything I've received. Thanks Sean!
Dear Theresa and Michael,
We are very much in favor of your new home addition on High Street.
The plans and the story poles give us a visual picture of the the finished project. Your home blends nicely with the hillside
topography, as well.
As your neighbors on High Street, we look forward to seeing your plans come to fruition!
Laura and Tad Stanford
17375 High Street
04/20/18
Dear Theresa and Michae!,
We are very much in favor of your new home addition on High Street.
The plans and the story poles give us J visual picture of the the finished project. Your home blends nicely
with the hillside topography, as well.
As your neighbors on High Street, we look forward to seeing your plans come to fruition!
Laura and Tad Stanford
17375 High Street