Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
15358 Santella Ct- Staff Report and Exhibits 1-11
PREPARED BY: JOCELYN PUGA 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: 11/08/2017 ITEM NO: 4 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: JOEL PAULSON, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR SUBJECT: ARCHITECTURE AND SITE APPLICATION S-17-009. PROJECT LOCATION: 15358 SANTELLA COURT. PROPERTY OWNER: LUIS F. VISOSO. APPLICANT: MARK HORTON. REQUESTING APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND REMOVE LARGE PROTECTED TREES ON PROPERTY ZONED HR-2½: PD. APN 527-09-037. DEEMED COMPLETE: OCTOBER 11, 2017 FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION: APRIL 11, 2018 RECOMMENDATION: Approval, subject to the recommended conditions of approval. PROJECT DATA: General Plan Designation: Hillside Residential Zoning Designation: HR-2½:PD Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Parcel Size: 2.63 acres Surrounding Area: Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning North Residential and Undeveloped Hillside Residential HR-2½:PD and HR-2½ South Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½:PD East Undeveloped Hillside Residential HR-2½ West Residential Hillside Residential HR-2½:PD PAGE 2 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM CEQA: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Planned Development and was certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. No further environmental analysis is required for the individual lot development. FINDINGS: As required by the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines that the project complies with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. As required by the Hillside Specific Plan. As required by Planned Development Ordinance 2237. CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture and Site application. ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days. BACKGROUND: The subject property is lot 10 in the Highlands of Los Gatos, a 19-lot Planned Development (PD), originally approved by the Town Council in 2005. On March 17, 2015, the Town Council approved Ordinance 2237, a request to modify the existing PD to allow the use of color averaging for non-visible homes within the development. The property is at the north end of Santella Court (see Exhibit 1). The lot is identified as lot 12 in the original PD Ordinance, but was renumbered to lot 10 when the Tentative Map was approved on July 11, 2006. The Architecture and Site application is being considered by the Planning Commission because PD Ordinance 2237 states that lot 12 (now lot 10) shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission due to visibility concerns. On September 24, 2008, the Planning Commission approved Architecture and Site application S-08-049 to construct a new single-family residence on the subject lot. The application was never vested by the previous developer, Highlands of Los Gatos LLC and the approva l expired pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code. PAGE 3 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM On January 13, 2014, another Architecture and Site application was filed to construct a 5,385 - square foot home with a 2,857-square foot cellar and an 859-square foot attached garage. The application was scheduled to be heard by the Planning Commission o n August 26, 2015, but due to the lateness of the hour, the item was continued to September 9, 2015. At the request of the applicant, the item was continued to October 28, 2015. Due to on -going discussions regarding the visibility methodology of the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G), the applicant requested that the item be continued to December 9, 2015, again to February 24, 2016, and again to April 27, 2016. At the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 2016, the applicant requested that the item be continued to a date uncertain . On June 20, 2016, the applicant withdrew the Architecture and Site application for the property. On March 15, 2017, an Architecture and Site application was submitted for the proposed project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. Architecture and Site Application Architecture and Site approval is required to construct a new residence. B. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood The subject site is a vacant lot located on the northern end of Santella Court (Exhibit 1). Single-family homes are located to the north and south of the subject property. Vacant property is located to the west and east of the subject property. C. Zoning Compliance A single-family residence is permitted in the HR-2½:PD zone. The proposed residence is in compliance with the allowable floor area for the property. Additionally, the proposed residence is in compliance with height, setback, and on-site parking requirements. DISCUSSION: A. Architecture and Site Analysis The applicant is proposing to construct a new single-family home with 4,401 square feet of living floor area, 695 square feet of cellar area, and an 876-square foot attached garage. A floor area table for the countable square footage of the home is shown in the table below on page four of this report. The proposed residence appears as a one-story from Santella Court and a two-story at the rear elevation. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 18 feet along the front elevation and 25 feet along the rear elevation. PAGE 4 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM Floor Area Table Proposed Square Footage Counts Towards FAR Main Level 3,311 3,311 Basement 1,090 1,090 Cellar * 695 0 Garage ** 876 476 Total 5,972 4,877 * Pursuant to Sec. 29.10.020 a cellar is defined as an enclosed area that does not extend more than four feet above the existing or finished grade in any location. Cellars, as defined here, shall not be included in the floor area ratio calculation for residential developments. That area of a cellar where the building height exceeds four feet above existing or finished grade shall not be included in this definition and shall be included in the floor area ratio calculation. For purposes of this definition whichever grade (existing or proposed) results in the lowest building profile of a building shall be used. ** Pursuant to the HDS&G garages up to 400 square feet in area are not included in the floor area ratio calculation. The project proposes an international style home with high quality materials including a solar Siplast flat roof, smooth stucco, stone walls, and wood siding. A color and materials sheet is included as on sheet A0.7 of Exhibit 12. A color and materials board will be available at the public hearing. Please see the applicant’s project description/letter of justification (Exhibit 4) for additional information regarding the proposed project. B. Design and Compatibility The Town’s Architectural Consultant reviewed the project to provide recommendations regarding the architecture and neighborhood compatibility. The Consulting Architect noted that the proposal as designed is well done within a contemporary architectural style. The Architectural Consultant stated that the proposed design would be a contrast to other nearby homes on Santella Court in both size and height (Exhibit 6). The Town’s Architectural Consultant found the smaller scale home with more of an open view at the end of the cul-de-sac to be visually acceptable and compatible with the subdivision. The consultant identified three issues and two recommendations to be addressed by the applicant (Exhibit 7). The following outlines the Consulting Architect’s issues and/or recommendations for the project with the applicant’s response in italics. PAGE 5 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM Issues 1. There are several non-structural walls that are very high and not consistent with the Town’s standards. Non-structural walls at the front of the home were reduced to a maximum of six feet in height as permitted by Town Code. 2. There are other walls that are a part of the home’s exterior envelope that are very tall. Tall structural walls have been reduced in length and broken up with an opening/doorway and balcony at the north end of the home as a design element to provide a visual relief. 3. The proposed building form does not sufficiently step down the hillside topography to be consistent with the HDS&G. The proposed home is primarily a single-story home with a main level, partial lower level, flat roof, and a rear terrace with lower planter beds. Modifications to the floor plan of the living room and rear terrace were made to step the home down the hillside. In addition, the home is half of the sectional volume of the previous Architecture and Site application proposed for the subject site and mirrors the adjacent home located at 15330 Santella Court (Exhibit 10, Sheets SKA.365 and SKA.366). Recommendations 1. Modify the floor plans and building mass to step down the hillside’s topography; or 2. As an alternative for comparison with the design modified to step down the hillside recommended above, the following changes could be made to the current proposal: a. Lower non-structural wall heights to meet Town Code requirements b. Break-up tall structural walls with balconies, canopies, or other design elements c. Extend the downhill building base planters to provide a more stepped profile d. Reduce the roof overhang on the rear of the house to enhance the form step down PAGE 6 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM a. The lower non-structural walls were reduced to six feet in height to be in compliance with Town Code. b. Tall structural walls were reduced in length and broken up with an opening/doorway and balcony on the north end of the home as a design element to provide a visual relief. c. The downhill planters on the rear of the home were reduced to a maximum of six feet in height to be in compliance with Town Code requirements and stepped into the hillside. d. The overhang on the rear of the home was not reduced due to the fact that 25 percent of the overhang is either a trellis (open to sky) or a skylight, so that the actual mass will seem less than it appears in the development plans. Additionally, the proposed overhang is substantially less than the mass of the prior Architecture and Site application proposed for the site and less than the cumulative overhang of the adjacent home located at 15330 Santella Court (Sheets SKA.365 and SKA.366, Exhibit 10). C. Neighborhood Compatibility The Highlands PD contains one and two-story residences and includes a mix of architectural styles. Lot sizes within the Planned Development range from 1.09 to 4.18 acres. Based on Town and County records, the surrounding residences range in size from 4,169 square feet to 5,120 square feet. The applicant is proposing a residence of 4,401 square feet on a 2.63- acre parcel. Pursuant to the HDS&G, the maximum house square footage for the lot size is 6,000 square feet. The following Neighborhood Analysis table reflects current conditions of the homes in the PD: Lot Address Date Approved House Garage Total Floor Area Current Status 1 15685 Shady Lane 4/29/2014 4,457 904 5,361 Under Construction 2 15672 Shady Lane 7/3/2012 4,652 737 5,389 Occupied 3 15644 Shady Lane 12/11/2013 5,120 1,172 6,292 Occupied 4 15657 Shady Lane 7/30/2013 4,169 1,120 5,289 Occupied 5 15615 Shady Lane 12/18/2012 4,658 740 5,398 Occupied 6 15315 Santella Ct. 7/30/212 4,534 817 5,351 Occupied PAGE 7 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM Note: The square footage numbers in the table do not include cellar area. D. Trees The development plans were reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Arborist and a report was prepared (Exhibit 8). The project proposes to remove nine protected trees, of which two are considered to be large protected trees. Six of the nine protected trees to be removed (trees #689, #709, #710, #712, #719, and #720) are Coast Live Oaks and the remaining three protected trees (#708, #711, and #714) are Blue Oaks, which are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed residence. An Addendum report was prepared by the Consulting Arborist regarding the health of the existing trees along the rear down slope portion of the lot (trees #Y-18, #Z-18, #W-14, and #X-32). The Consulting Arborist was not able to get close enough to inspect the health and condition of each individual tree due to the dense and nearly impenetrable brush. However, the Consulting Arborist was able to provide an evaluation of the grouping of trees based on their size, color, and crowns. The Consulting Arborist stated that the area contains a dense stand of 50-100 Coast Live Oaks, approximately 25 to 35 feet tall that 7 15343 Santella Ct. N/A N/A N/A N/A Vacant 8 15371 Santella Ct. N/A N/A N/A N/A Vacant 9 15365 Santella Ct. N/A N/A N/A N/A Vacant 11 15330 Santella Ct. 1/8/2013 4,625 746 5,371 Occupied 12 15310 Santella Ct. 2/13/2013 4,660 1,011 5,671 Occupied 13 15415 Santella Ct. N/A N/A N/A N/A Vacant 14 15574 Shady Lane 7/10/2012 4,574 784 5,358 Occupied 15 15588 Shady Lane 12/18/2012 4,508 802 5,310 Occupied 16 15602 Shady Lane 8/14/2012 4,331 950 5,281 Occupied 17 15630 Shady Lane 8/20/2013 4,712 686 5,398 Occupied 18 15685 Gum Tree Lane 7/3/2012 4,590 807 5,397 Occupied 19 15675 Gum Tree Lane 2/26/2013 4,602 765 5,367 Under Construction 10 15358 Santella Ct. Proposed Project 4,401 876 5,277 PAGE 8 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM would appear to be considered to be in good condition with dense crowns and normal foliar color and size (Exhibit 9). If the project is approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to and during construction. Replacement trees would be required to be planted pursuant to Town Code. Tree protection measures are incorporated as conditions of approval (Exhibit 3) to protect the trees to remain on the subject property and within the development area. E. Visibility Pursuant to the HDS&G a visible home is defined as, a single -family residence where 24.5 percent or more of an elevation can be seen from any of the Town’s established viewing platforms. The applicant’s visibility analysis illustrates that the proposed home would be 24.2 percent visible from the North-West corner of Los Gatos Almaden Road and Selinda Way (Exhibit 10). Pursuant to the requirements of the View Analysis section on page 13 of the HDS&G, the applicant installed story poles on-site that identified the proposed building envelope. The applicant took photographs of the project site from the established viewing platform located at the North-West corner of Los Gatos Almaden Road and Selinda Way with a 50 MM and 300 MM lens. The photographs and computer modeling were then aligned to determine the areas of the proposed residence that would be visible, excluding any trees that are proposed to be removed or are in poor condition (Exhibit 10). The existing trees that have been identified in the photographs as providing screening for the proposed single- family residence are rated in good or fair condition and are proposed to remain. When including the dense stand of existing Coast Live Oak trees on the rear down sloping portion of the lot (trees #Y-18, #Z-18, #W-14, and #X-32), the proposed home would be 20.2 percent visible from the North-West corner of Los Gatos Almaden Road and Selinda Way (Sheet SKA.473, Exhibit 10). As discussed in the Tree section of the report, the Consulting Arborist was un-able to get close enough to the stand of trees to inspect the health and condition of each individual tree; however, overall, he found the grouping of 50-100 Coast Live Oaks to be in good condition with dense crowns and normal foliar color and size . Staff is in the process of providing a modified visibility methodology for the Council to consider and incorporate into an upcoming amendment to the HDS&G. The applicant’s methodology complies with the current and proposed methodology to not include trees in poor condition towards the screening of the home. PAGE 9 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM F. Environmental Review An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Planned Development and was certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. No further environmental analysis is required for the individual lot development. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Story poles and signage were installed on the site and written notice was sent to property owners and tenants within 500 feet of the subject property. The applicant has informed staff that they have discussed the project with their adjacent neighbors, who expressed no objections. At the time of this report’s preparation, the Town has not received any public comment. CONCLUSION: A. Summary The proposed project would allow the applicant to construct a single -family residence on a vacant lot within the Highlands of Los Gatos Planned Development. As proposed, the project would create the second smallest home in the planned development with a proposed 4,401-square foot residence, 695-square foot cellar, and an 876-square foot attached garage. B. Recommendation Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should: 1. Make the finding that no further environmental analysis is required (Exhibit 2); 2. Make the finding that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (Exhibit 2); 3. Make the finding that the project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan (Exhibit 2); 4. Make the finding that the project is in compliance with the Planned Development (Ordinance 2237) (Exhibit 2); 5. 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 6. Approve Architecture & Site Application S-17-009 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 12. PAGE 10 OF 10 SUBJECT: 15358 SANTELLA COURT/S-17-009 DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 2017 N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2017\Santella Crt 15358.docx 11/3/2017 11:45 AM C. Alternatives Alternatively, the Commission can: 1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or 2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or 3. Deny the application. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Required Findings and Considerations (one page) 3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (12 pages) 4. Project Description, dated October 10, 2017 (two pages) 5. Proposed project’s compliance with HDS&G, received October 23, 2017 (four pages) 6. Consulting Architect Report, received May 5, 2017 (eight pages) 7. Applicant’s Response to Consulting Architect’s Report, received October 23, 2017 (one page) 8. Consulting Arborist Report, received July 24, 2017 (36 pages) 9. Consulting Arborist Addendum Report, received October 6, 2017 (three pages) 10. Visibility Analysis, received October 10, 2017 (17 sheets) 11. Public Comment received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, November 3, 2017 12. Development Plans, received October 11, 2017 (50 sheets) Distribution: Mark Horton, 135 South Park, San Francisco, CA, 94107 Luis F. Visoso, 6972 Chiala Lane, San Jose, CA 95129 15358 Santella Court \ \ ----\ \ 0 15 __ J<( /~ --i w ~ );JI/ I EXlllBIT 1 .. This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION -November 8, 2017 REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR: 15358 Santella Court Architecture and Site Application S-17-009 Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HR2Y.z: PD. APN 527-09-019. PROPERTY OWNER: Luis F. Visoso APPLICANT: Mark Horton FINDINGS Required findings for CEQA: • An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Planned Development and was certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. Required technical reviews (arborist, architect and geotechnical) have been completed for the project and no further environmental analysis is required for this application. Compliance with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G): • The project is in compliance with the HDS&G. Compliance with Hiiiside Specific Plan • The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a single-family residence being developed on an e~isting parcel. The proposed development is consistent with the development criteria included in the Specific Plan. Compliance with the approved Planned Development • The project is in compliance with the approved Planned Development (Ordinance 2237). 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. N:\DEV\FINDINGS\2017\Sa ntelli! 15358.doc EXHIBIT 2 This Page Intentionally Left Blank PLANNING COMMISSION -November 8, 2017 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 15358 Santella Court Architecture and Site Application S-17-009 Requesting a.pproval to construct a single-family residence and remove large protected trees on property zoned HRVh:PD. APN 527-09-019. PROPERTY OWNER: Luis F. Visoso APPLICANT: Mark Horton TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT: Planni ng Di vision 1. APPROVAL : This application shall be completed in accordance w ith all of the conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted as received by the Town on October 11, 2017. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, 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 ofthe Town Code, unless the approval has been vested. 3. 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. The lighti ng plan shall be reviewed during building plan check . 4. EXTERIOR COLOR: The exterior colors of the house shall not exceed an average light r eflectiv ity value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation in conformance with the approved PD Ordinance 2237. 5. 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 requ i res all exterior colors to be maintained in conformance with the approved PD Ordinance. 6. FENCING: No fencing is being approved with this application. Any future fencing shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation. 7. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site. 8. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT : A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any t rees to be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit. 9. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all recommendations made by Richard Gessner, identified in the Arborist report, dated as received July 24, 2016, respectively, on file in the Community Development Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or wi!I be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the bu i ldi ng permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable. EXHIBIT 3 10. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees and shall remain through all phases of construction. Fencing shall be six-foot-high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction plans. 11. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss oftrees being removed. The number of trees and size of replacement trees shall be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Town Code. Town Code requires a minimum 24-inch box size replacement tree. New trees shall be double staked with rubber ties and shall be planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits. 12. LANDSCAPE PLAN: The final landscape plan shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines criteria for planting (ornamental planting shall be confined to areas within 30 feet ofthe house, inclusive of decks, patios and driveway). 13. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan, including landscape and irrigation plans and calculations, shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town's consultant prior to issuance of building permits. 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. 14. BMP IN-LIEU FEE: A Below Market Price (BMP) in-lieu fee (6% of the building valuation as determined by the Building Official) shall be paid by the developer prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for the new residence. 15. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard must be landscaped. 16. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of approval of the Architecture & Site application. 17. 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. 18. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed. Building Division 19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Building Permit shall be required for the construction of the new single-family residence. This is a combination Permit which includes all required electrical mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary. A separate Building Permit is required for site retaining walls and a separate Permit for the Solar Photovoltaic System. 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. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report (Geotechnical Investigation), prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official, containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer specializing in soils mechanics. 23. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer or Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the project Building Inspector at the foundation inspection. This certificate shall certify comp l iance 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 accordi ng 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 24. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed w ith adaptability features for single-family res idences 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 when 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 the interior strike edge. d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at the primary entrance. 25. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms must be blue-lined (sticky-backed) onto a sheet of the plans. 26. BACKWATER VALVE: The scope ofthis 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 ofthe 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 elev.ation of the next upstream manhole. 27. TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS: New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase 11 appliance or gas appliance pe f 'Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10 feet of chimneys. 28 . HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE : This p roject will require Class A Roof Assemblies. 29. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE : Th i s project is located in a Wildland-Urban ln ~erface High Fire Area and must comply w ith Section R337 of the 2016 California Residential Code. 30. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN: Prepared by a California licensed Landscape Architect in conformance with California Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182 . ........ · 31. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION : Provide a letter from a California licensed Landscape Architect certifying that the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements have been completed per the Cal ifornia Public Resources Code 4291 and Government Code Section 51182. 32. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspecti on 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/b uild ing 33 . BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24"x36") sha ll be part ofthe plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division Service Counter for a fee o r at ARC Blue Print for a fee or on line at www.losgatosca .gov /building 34. APPROVALS REQUIRED : The project requires the following departments and agencies approval before issuing a Building Permit: a. Community Development-Planning Division: Jocelyn Puga at (408) 354-6875 b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz at (408) 35 4-5 236 c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: {408 ) 378-4010 d. We.st Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407 e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS : Engi neering Division 35. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public ri ght-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 Divi sion of the Parks and Public Works Department. The Applicant/Owner's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of -way according to this condition may result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town performing the required maintenance at the Applicant/Owner's expense. 36. 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. 37. 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 responsi bility of the Applicant/Owner to obtain any necessary en croachment 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 Di strict, 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. 38. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS : The Applicant/Owner or their representative shall notify the Engineering Inspector at least twenty·four {24) hours before starting any work pertaini ng to on ·site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's r ight- of-way. Failure to do so will result in penalties and rejection of work that went on without inspection . 39. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant/Owner shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because of the Applicant/Owner'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 w ith all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The Appiicant/Owner shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing conditions. 40. SITE Sl)PERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job site at all times during construction. 41. 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 requ i red . 42. 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. 43. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of any permits. 44. PLANS AND STUDIES : All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval. Additionally, any studies imposed by the Planning Commission or Town Council shall be funded by the Applicant. 45. 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 applicati on (with grading plans} shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 4 1 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wail location(s), driveway, utilities and interim erosion control. Grading plans shall l ist earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works, the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit is for work outside the building footprint(s). Prior to Engineering signing off and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant's soils engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate building permit, issued by the Building Department on E. Main Street, is needed for grading within the building footprint. 46. 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 the State Water Resources Control Board (October 1-April 30), has ended. 47. COMPLIANCE WITH HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES: All grading activities and operations shall be in compliance with Section Ill 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. 48. DRIVEWAY: The driveways conform to existing pavement on Santella Court shall be constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed. 49 . DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvement permits, the Applicant shall: a) design provisions for surface drainage; and b) design all necessary storm drain facilities extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm runoff; and c) provide a recorded copy of any required easements to the Town. 50. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior to the issuance of a grading permit/building permit. 51. 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. 52. 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. 53. SOILS REPORT: One copy of the soils and geologic report shall be submitted with the application. The soils report shall include specific criteria and standards governing site grading, drainage, pavement design, retaining wall design, and erosion control. The reports shall be sig'ned and "wet stamped" by the engineer or geologist, in conformance with Section 6735 of the California Business and Professions Code. 54. GEOLOGY AND SOILS MITIGATION MEASURE: A geotechnical investigation shall be conducted for the project to determine the surface and sub-surface conditions at the site and to determine the potential for surface fault rupture on the site. The geotechnical study shall provide recommendations for site grading as well as the design of foundations, retaining walls, concrete slab-on-grade construction, excavation, drainage, on-site utility trenching and pavement sections. All recommendations of the investigation shall be incorporated into project plans. 55. SOILS REVIEW: Prior to issuance of any permits, the Applicant's engineers shall prepare and submit a design-level geotechnical/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 letter or by signing the plans . 56. 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 perm it is granted . 57. 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. 58. WATER DESIGN: Water plans prepared by San Jose Water Company must be reviewed and approved prior to issuance of any permit. 59. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Applicant shall be required to improve the project's public frontage to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not limited to curb, gutter, driveway approach, etc. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. 60. UTILITIES: The Applicant/Owner 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 27.50.0lS(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. 61. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed subject to the following requirements : a. The Town standard ''T" trench detail shall be used. b. A Town~approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used . c. All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to minimize the impacted area of the roadway. d. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum ofthree (3) inches, meet Town standards, or shall match the existing thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5-inches of one-half (Yi) inch medium asphalt The initiai lift{s) shall be of three-quarter (%) inch medium asphalt. e. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place. f. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending their assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend the full width of.the street and shall extend five (5) feet beyond the longitudinal limits of trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of slurry seal operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the Inspector before occupancy. 62. CURB ANO GUTTER REPAIR: The Applicant/Owner shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. All new and existing adjacent infrastructure must meet Town standards. New curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. 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. The limits of curb and gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the construction phase of the project. The improvements must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued . 63. DRIVEWAY APPROACH: The Applicant/Owner shall install one (1) Town standard residential driveway approach. The new driveway approach shall be constructed per Town Standard Plans and must be completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued. New concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contraqor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. 64. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvements, including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections 23.10.080, 26.10.065, and 29.40.030. 65. TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEE : Prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit, the Applicant shall pay the project's proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development within the Town of Los Gatos. The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued . The amount based on the current resolution is $8,587.04. The fee shall be paid before issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and proposed uses. 66. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and/or worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on any portion of any public (Town) street(s) without written approval from the Town Engineer. 67. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING : No construction vehicles, trucks, equipment and worker vehicles shall be allowed to park on the portion of any public (Town) streets without written approval from the Town Engineer. 68. 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. Pr ior to the issuance of a building permit, the Applicant/Own.er shall work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division Inspectors to devise a tr~ffic 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 Applicant/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. 69. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All site improvements construction activities, including the delivery of construction materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Applicant/Owner shall provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours. Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town. 70. 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. 71. 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 sha II incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Project Schedule, employee parking, construction staging area, materials storage area(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse location(s). Please refer to the Town's Construction ' Management Plan Guidelines document for additional information. 72. WVSD {West Valley Sanitation District): A Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line, or at a location specified by the Town. 73. 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 BM P will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders. 74. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall Incorporate the following measures: a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography. b. Minimize impervious surface areas. c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas. d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum. e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater. 75. 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 th.e Building Department will conduct periodic NP DES inspections of the site throughout the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater ordinances and regulations. 76. 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 ofthe 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 . 77. 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. 78. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest requirements of the CASOA 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. 79 . WATER FEATURES: The proposed water feature 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 feature shall be directed to the sanitary sewer and are not allowed into the storm drain system. 80. 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. 81. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT -OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and homeowner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned up on a daily basis . Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be washed into the Town's storm drains. 82. 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 Applicant/Owner's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in penalties and/or the Town performing the required maintenance at the Applicant/Owner's expense. 83. PERMIT ISSUANCE : Permits for each phase; reclamation, landscape, and grading, sh.all be issued simultaneously. 84. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered. TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT : 85. 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 7 A., as applicable. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check wlth the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. 86. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire-sprinkler system shall be installed in one-and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and in existing one-and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. Note: The owner(s), occupant(s), and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modifications 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. CFC Section 313.2 as adopted and amended by LGTC. 87. 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 the Santa Clara County Fire Department until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2010·CFC Sec . 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7. 88. CONSTRUCTION FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions ofthe CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification Sl-7. Provide appropriate notatiQns on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chapter 33. 89. 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 signs or means shall be used to identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Section 505.1 N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2017\S;mtetla 15358.docx MARK HORTON I ARCHITECTURE • 135 SOUTH PARK SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 T 415.543.3347 F 415.543.1440 www.mh-a.com 10 October 2017 VISOSO RESIDENCE Lot 1 o I The Highlands 15358 Santella · Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 PROJECT PESCRIPTION A new single family home is_ to be constructed on a vacant lot within a pJanned unit development. The vacant lot has never been developed. The new home wil sit within the site LRDA, near the front (entry) of the property. The site is down-sloping, facing northeast, with expansive views in that direction. From the street the garage and the entry court will be visible. The entry court is the only "landscaped" area of the site; all other portions of the site up to the face of the building will remain in their natural state. Very few trees will be removed from the site, and a minimum of grading wiU occur in order to insert the house Into the existing topography. The entry court is framed by a stone clad wall jutting out from the face of the house . The home is to be a two story home, appearing to be a single story from the street, wlh a second level (only half the floor area of the main level) tucked below the main level, which daylights at the rear of the house. The main (upper) level of the holise will include a garage and utility areas, the main entry hallway and guest bathroom, a living I dining I kitchen roon:i, a master suite (including a dressing area and office/ sitting room), and exterior terraces at the rear of the house. The lower level includes two bedrooms with eri suite bathrooms, an office area, and a wine room . There is a small water feature at the outdoor terrace on the main level, and stairs to grade, along with raised planter beds. The home wll be a pier supported concrete grade beam I wood framed structure on the mail level. The lower level wll be slab-on-grade. The mechanical svstem Is to oo a radiant floor heating system w!th .min- split cooing. The home is to be a total of 5,277 SF (gross) square feet of habftable space, with 876 SF (gross) of garage and utility space. In addition, there Is 1,075 SF of exterior deck I terrace space, and 1,748 SF of hardscape (driveway and entry walk). · Exterior finishes tor the house are primarily stucco walls with three poured-in-place concrete walls, a wood Ctad wall at the garage and entry ai:ea, and the stone clad wall in the landscape. Exterior windows and doors will be a dark anodized aluminum system . The project design addresses a large number of items and issues particular to projects covered by the HDS&G requirements, including the following: Size of Home. including Massing and Height. and Site Placement : The total size of the home (not Including the small amount of cellar square footage) is .5,277 SF. The cellar is an additional 694 SF. This compares to an allowable square footage of 6,400 SF (this house is 820.4 of the allowable size of a house on this site). As well, the massing and height of the home is significantly less / lower than aU of its neighbors. MH/A has documented this in SKA's 365 + 366 (building height and width, as viewed from street -this home is EXHIBIT 4 .. ' ) ) superimposed on top of images of existing and proposed homes), ~SKA 423 (mass /.section), where this proposed home is superimposed on top of images of existing and proposed homes, including an ouUine of the section of the other homes. With regard to site placement, the home has been located near the front of the parcel, within the LRDA, to reduce the length of the driveway, and minimize the n001be r of trees to be affected . As weM , this placement puts the house at the start of the downslope of the site,. allowing for the least amount of grading to occur while also letting the house step down the hill with the lower (second) level. Construction Type : The oonstruction type Is a pier and grade beam construction, which has the least effect on the natural slope of the ·site. Below most of the house the natural grade (±) falls .away underneath the habitable portion of the house, in a non-usable crawl space (foundation area). This results In the least amount of grading and off-haul of soil for the construction . Impact to Trees : Tt:ie attempt was made , with this design and ·site placement, to ma intain as many of the existing trees on site as possible, with particular attention to tree I 688, as a feature tree for the entry Into the house. Per the arborist report, and based on the new design, 9x trees have been specified to be removed from the site. The landscape architect has noted In a submittal to Planning that 5x new trees (possibly more) could be planted to replace these trees. • Exterior Materials. including Glare : The exterior materials of the home have been selected to appear to be soft, natural color I texture, visually non -reflective materials. The house has been des igned to appear to sit within a natural landscape (there is very little actual landscaping -the native landscape comes to the face of . the house for most of its perimeter), and the use of non-:treated I natural concrete as well as stucco and clear- stained wood exterior siding will help reinforce this. The total house LAV fits within the required limits of the HDS&G. The windows at the rear of the house (facing the valley) will be treated with a film whiCh reduces light transmittance to only 23% of normal glass transmittance. Glare f~ the windows , to the valley, Is essentially non-existent, as shown in the light I solar study modeling provided on SKA's 396 and 401 ; the windows facing the valley are essentially In complete shadow after 8:00 AIVI for the entire year, except for a small period centered around the summer solstice (June 21). · Visibility of the Home . : The home is visible .Jrom the valley floor (viewing platform $t Los Gatos Almaden Road I Selinda Way), but only 24.2% of it. This percentage is further reduced when trees not inc luded in the Arborist Report are calculated ; MH/A calcu~tes that when these trees are included that the house is only 20.2% visible. Relationship to Neighbors : The project owner has met with the project's immediate neighbors to present the project and discuss the design (as is requ ired by the HOA in addition to Los Gatos Planning). All of the neighbors within the HOA he has met with noted their approval forthe pr:oject, and those names have been submitted to Los Gatos Planning . As well, a ineeting was set up with the neighbor downhill from this project to review the proposed plan ; much of this meeting dealt with the tree preservation I removal plan. · As well, IVIH/A modified the project design, during the course of Planning review , to adjust and conform to comments provided by the Los Gatos Consulting Arch itect. In the final evaluation, the consulting architect noted .: "I believe that the design, as proposed , is well done within the architectural style selected ." General Compliance with HDS&G : MH/A provided Los Gatos Planning with a point-by-point accounting for the project for each HDS&G section dealing with. project design and construction. MARK HORTON I ARCHITECTURE 135 SOUTH PARK SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 T 415.543.3347 F 415.543.1440 23 October 2017 VISOSO RESIDENCE Lot 1 O I The Highlands 15358 Santella Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES REVIEW In Response to Review Comments Dated : 23 August 2017 GENERAL COMMENTS: 1. Staff Support I HDS+G Chapters Ill and V. HDS+G Chapter Ill : SITE PLANNING Grading Standards 1. Compliant. Cut and fill dimensions for project fit within allowable limits. 2. - 3 . Compliant. Building is located to provide least amount of grading possible. 4 . Compliant. No strip grading is proposed. 5. Compliant. Grading area Is only area required for house. • www.mh-a.com 6. Compliant. Site will approximate, as closely as possible, natural site outside of house footprint. 7. Compliant. Little to no grading is occurring on site away from house structure. 8. Compliant. Natural vegetation is to be restored in all locations outside house footprint. 9. Compliant. Plan includ8d . 10. Compliant. Grading will occur after 1 April. Guidelines 1. Compliant. Additional flat pads are not to be constructed on the site. Drainage Standards 1. Compliant. Runoff Is clspersed within the site. 2. Compliant. No drainage from this site win affect downslope development. 3. Compliant. Natural drainage courses are preserved, and no native vegetation is Impacted by drainage. 4. Compliant. No manmade channels are to be constructed. Guidelines 1. Compliant. No manmade channels are to be constructed. 2. Compliant. No natural drainage courses are to be lined. 3. Below grade water, foundation drainage, and downspouts are collected and run to an exposed rip rap outfall below the house. Driveways and Parking Standards 1. Compliant. Driveway Is in most efficient location in plan. 2. Compliant. Driveway Is to be paved to meet Town standards. 3. NA 4. Compliant. Driveway to meet Fire Department requirements. 5. Compliant. Maximum slope at driveway Is 11.65%. Guidetines 1 . Compliant. Driveway is wider than 12'-0". 2 . Compliant. Driveway is approximately 52' from the property line to the garage door. EXHIBIT 5 3. Compliant. Driveway is at the end of a cul de sac and positioned in the center of the property as it daylights at the public right-of-way. 4. NA 5 . Compliant. Driveway has a good line of site to the public street. Safety Standards 1. Compliant. Soils Report provided .. 2. Compliant Project is to be constructed to comply with geotechnical engineer's report and recommendations. Guidelines Fire Hazards Standards 1. • 2 . Compliant. Landscape plan calls out zones around house and zone requirements . 3. Compliant. Home Is d irectly accessible from street, and driveway Is Fire Department compliant. 4. - 5. - 6. NA Guidelines 1. - 2. Compliant. Noted in landscape plan . 3. Compliant. Noted In landscape plan . 4. Compliant. Noted In landscape plan . 5. NA HDS+G Chapter V : ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN Design Oblectives Design to be neighbor friendly Standards 1. Compliant. Privacy for this house, and neighbors, Is maintained. Guidelines · 1 a. Compliant. There are no second story windows. 1 b. Compliant. There is no upper floor, and windows, decks, and balcon ies all face away from neighbors. 1 c. Compliant. The only window (kitchen) which faces a neighbor has a large planter placed in front of it. 1d. Compliant. No decks pose a privacy concern . 1 e. Compliant. There is no privacy issue. 1f. Compliant. Most existing vegetation is to remai n, and none affects pr ivacy. 1g. Compliant. No noise issues need to be screened . 1 h. Compliant. No outdoor activities are provided for, other than decks. Design for sustainability Standards Guidelines 1. Compliant. Very little landscaping (irrigation) is to be provided, and the house meets I exceeds the Build-it-Green requirements of the Town. 2. Compliant. The house meets I exceeds the Build-it-Green requirements of the Town. 3a. Compliant. The house is generally one room "thick", allowing for natural ventilation to cool the house easily. As well, per SKA 396, the majority of the windows on the house are shaded from the hot summer sun . 3b. Compliant. Per SKA 396, the majority of the windows on the house are shaded from the hot summer sun, for passive solar protection. 3c. Compliant. In general, the natural landscape of trees is to be left in place around the house. This will provide protection from solar gain as well as wind. 4. Compliant. Fly ash concrete is called for on this project, and engineered lumber Is called out in the structural drawings. Design for fire safety Standards 1. Compliant. House has a 1-hr. rated envelope, with tempered glazing throughout. Sprinklers are to be provided both inside the house, as well as at the exterior eaves. 2. Compliant. Class A roof to be provided . 3. Compliant. 1-hr. rating of eaves to be provided. 4 . Compliant. Gutters and downspouts to be metal. 5. Compliant. All exterior walls to be 1-hr. rated. 6. Compliant. Crawl areas below house to be enclosed with a 1-hr rated wall enclosure. 7. Compliant. Vents to be covered with a%" mesh. 8. Compl iant. Automatic fire sprinkler system to be installed. 9. CompHant. Roof skylights to be tempered. Guidelines 1. Compliant. Exterior windows to be tempered. 2. Windows on the downhlll side of the home (view side) are, like all windows on the home, tempered glazing . Additional fire sprinkler coverage, for windows, can be provided, if needed. 3. Roof eaves on this house are non-existent, except at the terraces , the garage entry, and a small overhang at the kitchen window. If requested , fire ratings and I or sprinkler coverage can be increased in these areas. Building height Standards 1. Compliant. Building does not exceed 25' .{Y in height at any point. 2 . Compliant. Building does not exceed 35•.q from the lowest point to the highest point. 3. Compliant. Per the Visi>ility Study, this house is not a "visible. home. 4. Compliant. The lower level is less than 4'-0" above existing grade. 5. _Compliant. This home is two stories. Guidelines Minimize building bulk and mass Standards 1. Compliant. This home Is significantly less bulky, and massive, than Its neighbora. See SKA's 423, 365 and 366. 2. Compliant. This home runs with the contours , and sits down into the hlllside. Guidelines 1a. Compliant. This home's building forms are very simple . 1b. Compliant. This home Is not massive or bulky. 1 c. Compliant. This home measures at less than the allowable square footage possible for this site, per Los Gatos Planning code . 1 d. Compliant. This home does not have large volumes. 1e. Compliant. This home does not have overhanging decks, large staircases, and patios using retainng walls. Railings on this house are not solid. 1f. Compliant. The house roof and foundation step with the naual slope. 1 g. Compliant. The surfaces of the house are broken up horizontal y and vertically, to reduce bulk. There are no two-story wall planes. The house appears to be a single story from the street. 1 h. Compliant. Overhangs and stepping of stories allows for light and shadow play. 1 i. Compliant. The second story steps back from the lower level. 1j. • 1 k. Compliant. Below-grade rooms have been used to reduce the apparent size of the house. 11. NA 1 m. Compliant. While there is no "second story-on this house, the main level (upper level) is stepped back from the lower level, to provide a visual difference in the wall plane . Roofs . Standards 1. NA. The roof is a flat roof, so it is not visible. The house, though, has been broken Into many separate planes, to break the scale of the house down . 2. NA. The roof of this house is a flat roof, to reduce the visual bulk of the house. Guidelines 1. NA. There are no gable ends on this house. Architectural Elements Standards 1. Compliant. Underside of decks are enclosed. 2. Compliant. Skylights are not visible from outside of the house. 3. Compliant. Arch itectural detailing is consistent on all sides of the house. Guideti nes 1. Compli ant. Daytime glare from the glass on this house to the valley floor below wHI be no~xistent; see the solar study, SKA 396, which shows that little to no direct sunlight hits the window glazing {in order to reflect off) during any portion of the year. The glass is to be coated with a no"1)1are film to reduce nighttime tight emanation; this note was provided in a prior Planning response package: Glazing on the northeast face of the house {the side of the house facing the valley) will have Panorama Hilite 25 film installed onto it. This film reduces light transmission in both directions from 90% for normal window glazing to 23%. This results In light transmittance through the glazing of 14 of what It would be with standard glazing. A sample of the proposed film has been provided. 2 . Compliant. No large elements, sucn as two story entries, turrets, or chimneys are provided on this project. Materials and colors Standards 1. Compliant. The proposed materials are generally natural and muted. 2. Comp~ant. The building complies with the LRV requirements of Los Gatos. 3. NA. The roof is flat, and not visible from any point. The roof complies with the LRV requirement. It should be noted, though, that a lighter color roof would be environmentally better, as It would reflect more light and provide less solar heat gain to the house. 4. Compliant. All exposed metal is a dark color. 5. Compliant. No windows are to be tinted to a mirror-like appearance. 6. Compliant. There are no contrasting color accents. Guidelines 1. Compliant. The house is clad in a number of different materials, including wood, stone, stucco and concrete. These materials will all add Interest to the house and mitigate the visual impact of walls. 2. Additional Drawing Sets I Fee I Materials Board. Once the Planning Commission review ls the next step, MH/A will provide all required Items to Los Gatos Planning. 3. Architectural Consultant Review Complete. Noted. 4. Arborist Consultant Review Complete. Noted. 5 . Town Height Pole and Netting. Story poles have been in place for several weeks. The contractor I sub- contractor would like to know the schedule fur when they can be removed. 6. Neighbor Review. The owner met with 4x neighbors, and this was noted to Planning in the 24 May response to comments from MH/A to Los Gatos Planning: Neighborhood Review. Per the Highlands HOA, the owner met with three neighbors : Lots 7, 9, and 11, and reviewed plans with them. Each neighbor signed an acknowledgement that they had reviewed the plans, and were accepting of them, which was filed with the HOA. Additionally, the owner met with David Weissmann, the neighbor down hill from this parcel, per the suggestion of Los Gatos Planning, and reviewed the plans with him. 7. Additional Processing Services. Noted. 8. Resubmittal Fees. Noted. 9 . Additional Review. Noted . 16114 May5. 2017 Ms. Joyo:lyn Puga Community Devdopmcnt Department Town of Los Gatos 11 O E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95031 RE: 15358 Santella Court Dear Jocelyn: ARCHITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN I reviewed the drawings, and evaluated the site contcXt. My comments and recommendations arc as follows: Neighborhood Context The site is l0catcd at the end of Santella Court, a cul.de-sac at the very top of this planned hillside subdivision. Several Estate Style homes have already been constructed and there arc two .other parcels at the end of the cul-de~sac to be devel- oped in the future. Photographs of the site and surrounding neighborhood are shown on the following page. 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 _IXBIBrr 6 TEL : 415 .331 .37 95 CDGPLAN@PACBELL.N£T View to Lots 8 and 9 to the left H ouse to the left on Santella Court Another Subdivision home CANNON DESIGN GROUP The Site : Lot 10 15358 Santella Court Design Review Comments May 5, 20 17 Page 2 H ouse t o the immed iate r ight on Santella Cou rt House to t he right on Sante lla Co u rt Another Subdivision home 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR CA . 94939 Concenu and Issue 15358 Santdla Court Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 Page 3 1111: house would be located on one of the three lots at the end of the Santella Court cul-de-sac. It would be similar in site footprint as other completed homes on Santdles Court, as sh.own on the air photo diagram below. Th e proposed house is designed iu :i Contcmpo r.i.ry Scylc, ll~ ~hown ln the applicant's two sketch renderings below. REAR CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939 15358 SantdlaCoun Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 Page 4 The proposed design would be a marked contrast to other nearby homes on Santella Coun in both si1.c and height -see illustrations below of the comparison, including the house previously proposed fur a Lot l 0. LOT10 NEW LOT 10 PREVIOUS I LOT 11 CURRENT FRONT ELEVATION CANNON DESIGN GROUP PREVIOUS LOT 10 APPLICATION FRONT ELEVATION PREVIOUS APPLICATION LOT 10 SIDE ELEVATION 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA . 94939 1535 8 Santd!a Court Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 Page 5 There arc at least two ways to evaluate the scale difrerential . One way is to suggest that the scale and character of all homes on this short street should be similar to establish a small neighborhood rontcxt. The second is to welcome a smaller sale more open view at the end of the cu1-dc-sac as a welcome relief at tlie to p of the subdivision. Reasonable people could adopt either position. I believe it is a staff judgment, but I do not have a problem with accepting a visually smaller home on Lot 10 . Also, a change in architecrural styl e does not concern me here. The context is similar to many other high end, large lot neighborhoods that I have experienced. In making a final evaluation, sWf may wish to take into consideration the profile of this proposal cnmp:ucd to the pKVi- ously proposed Lot 10 design and the completed house on the adjacent Lot 11 -see illustrations below. CURRENT PROFILE AS PROPOSED CANNON D ESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA. 94939 l 53 58 Sancd la Court Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 Page 6 I believe that the design, as proposed, is wdl done within the architecruraJ style selected. If staff is be comfortable with the architectunl style and smaller scale, there are still some issue which have already been identified that need to be ad- dressed as follows; l. There are several non-structural walls that arc very high and not consistent with Town's standards. 2 . There arc other walls that are part of the home's exterior envelope that are very tall an d not consistent with the Town Code. 3. The proposed building form docs not sufficiently step down the hillside topography to be consistent with the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines. Tall non-structural wall ls not conalatent with Town standards Tall wall is not consistent wHh the Town's Residential Design Guidelines Tall non-structural wall is not consistent with Town standards 25FT Tall non..gtructural wall is not consistent with Town standards ~+.. ----' Tan wall Is not consistent with the Town's Residential Design Guidelines and the bulld&ng form does not adequately step with the grade to satisfy the Town's tlllslde Design Guidelines Tall non-structural wall is not consistent with Town standards .----s== CANNON DESIGN GROUP Tall non-structural wall Is not consistent with Town standards Tall planter and pool walls "'----tdo not step the bulldlng r.r form down sufficiently to satisfy the Town's Hiilside Design guldellnes ~ 700 LARKSP U R LANDING C IR CLE . SU ITE l 99 . LA RKSPU R . CA . 94 939 Recommendations 15358 Santell. Court Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 P:age 7 The following are some recommendations on ways to address the identified issues. However, the applicant's design profa- siol".als ~ skilled, and other .:non: sarufactvry solutions may be proposed for evaluation. 1. To be compliant with the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines, the building mass should step down the hill's topog- raphy as shown on the diagrams bdow from the guidelines. My recommendation is tO modify the floor plans and building massing to conform to the Hillside Design Guidelines. 2.As an alternacivc for comparison with the design modified to step down the hillside recommended above, the follow- ing changes could be made ro the current design. • Lower tall non-structural wall heights to meet Town Standards. • Break up tall structural walls with balconies, canopies or other design dements . • &tend the downhill building base planters to provide a more stepped down profile consistent with the Town's Hillside Design guidelines. • Reduce the roof overhang on the rear of the house to enhance the form step down. Shpnad wall + Wrapped 1 balcon I! CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LAN D ING CIRCLE SUITE 199 LARKSPUR CA 94939 Wrap balcony to break up tall wall 15358 Santdla Coun Design Review Comments May 5, 2017 Page 8 -t ::;- ..----Lower wall .,.....__ ___ _..., J-Stepped planlenl h CURRENT PROFILE WITH RECOMMENDED STEPPED PLANTERS Jocelyn, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there arc other issues that I did not address. Sincerely, CANNON DESIGN GROUP ~~ Larry L. Cannon CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939 MARK HORTON I ARCHITECTURE • 135 SOUTH PARK SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94107 T 415.543.3347 F 415.543.1440 www.mh -a.com 23 October 2017 VISOSO RESIDENCE Lot 10 I The Highlands 15358 Santella Court Los Gatos, CA 95032 CONSUL TING ARCHITECT REVIEW COMMENTS RESPONSE CONSUL TING ARCHITECT ISSUES Page 6 / Item 1. Page 6 / Item 2. Page 6 / Item 3. Non-structural walls. See "Recommendations" below, Item 2.a, from Page 7. Other tall walls. See "Recommendations" below, Item 2.b, from Page 7. Step down hillside. See "Recommendations" below, Item 1, from Page 7. RECOMMENDATIONS Page 7 / Item 1. Step house down hill. As primarily a single story house with a main level, and a partial level below, and a flat roof, and a rear tenace with lower planter beds, the house currently appears to step down the hill. See SKA 364 . The current design (shown In grey and pink) Is essentially half the sectional volume ofthe prior application, and to a large degree mirrors the existing house on Lot 10, adjacent this parcel. Page 7 / Item 2. a. Lower tall non-structural wall heights. Non-structural walls at the "fronr of the house (northwest corner of plan), have been reduced to a height of 6'-0" above grade. b. Break up tall structural walls. Tall structural walls have been reduced in length (for both the wall at the north end of the house as well as the wall In the middle of the house with the fireplace) and broken up with an openir-G I doorway and balcony (wall at north end of the house). c. Extend downhill planters. The downhill planters have been lowered, so that their tallest wall dimension from grade is 6'-0". Most of each planter is less than 6' -o· above grade. The planters have also been enlarged in plan, to stretch to point where they touch the LRDA (as large as they can be), in order to appear to extend down the hill . d. Reduce roof overhang at rear. The overhang at the rear of the house has not been reduced . Over 25o/o of it is either a trellis (mainly open to the sky) or a skylight, so the actual mass will seem less than it appears in plan. As wen, as shown on SKA 364, the amount of overhang Is substantially less than the mass of the prior application, and less than the cumulative overhang condition of the existing house on Lot 10. 16114 '£XHIBIT '1 _This Page lnten_tionally Left Blank Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection 15358 Santella Court Los Gatos, CA 95030 Prepared for: The Town of Los Gatos Jllly 24, 2017 Prepared By: Richard Gessner ASCA -Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA -Board Certifed Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA -Tree Risk Assessor Qaalijied CA Qualified Applicators License QL 104230 P.O ~ Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331 . 8982 Consulting Arborists LLC C Copyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2017 EXHIBIT 8 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Table of Contents Summary .................................................................................................................. 1 Introduction .............•.....•............•...•.•.•..........•...•..............•.....•.•....•..............•.....•.. 1 Background ............................................................................................................. 1 Assignment ............................................................................................................. 1 Limits of the assignment ......................................................................................... 1 Purpose and use of the report ....... ~ ....................................................................... _.2 Observations •........•..•••...•.•.........••••.•.•.•...•.......••••.•.•..•.•.......•••.•.•..•...•..........•.•....•.• 2 Trees and Sjte ........................................................................................................ 2 Plans and Tree Conflicts .......................................................................................... 2 Analysis .................................................................................................................. 3 Discu salon ............................................................................................................... 4 Tree Inventory ......................................................................................................... 4 Condition Rating ..................................................................................................... 5 Suitability for Preservation ...................................................................................... 6 Impact Level ........................................................................................................... 7 Tree Protection ....................................................................................................... 9 Conclusion ........•......•..........••..........................••••........•.....•...•........•..•....•••.......... 11 Recommendations ..•..............•...•..•..•.•.•.•..........•.•.•.........••.....•.•..•.•....................• 12 Pre-construction and Planning Phase .................................................................. 12 Construction Phase .............................................................................................. 13 Post-Construction Phase ...................................................................................... 13 Bibliography .....•..............•..•......•...............•...•..........•.......•................••................ 14 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................. 15 Appendix A: Tree Inventory Map and Site Plan ............................................... 17 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables ..................................... 18 81 : Inventory, Assessment, Disposition ................................................................ 18 82: Appraisal Summary Data ................................................................................ 22 Appendix C: Photographs ••.•.••.....•••...••••••••.......•...•••••••••........•••.••••••••••••.......••.• 25 C1 : Trees in primary building area affected .......................................................... 25 C2: Story Poles from Santella Court ..................................................................... 26 C3: Failed Tree #720 ............................................................................................ 27 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 2 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidt!lines .......................................................... 28 Section 29.10.1005. ~ Protection of Trees During Construction ............................ 28 Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications ................................................. 28 All persons , shall comply with the following precautions ...................................... 28 Monitoring ............................................................................................................. 29 Root Pruning ......................................................................................................... 29 Boring or Tunneling ............................................................................................... 29 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations ................................................................ 29 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs ................................................................... 30 E1: English ............................................................................................................ 30 E2: Spanish .......................................................................................................... 31 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions .................................. 32 Certification of Performance ................................................. ~······························33 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 2 of 2 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Summary The site is located at the end of Santella Court labelled Lot 10 and the inventory contains 37 trees comprised of2 different species with 15 blue oaks (Quercus douglasii) (41%) and 22 coast live oaks (Quercus agrifo/ia) (59%). The majority of trees are in fair condition (25) with three good, eight in poor shape, and one dead. Approximately one third of all the trees assessed will be highly impacted and need to be removed. Seven additional trees are in close proximity to construction and will need to be protected. The remaining nineteen trees will not be affected by the proposed plans. The plans indicate Type I tree protection will be employed consisting of a perimeter fence. There are some trees within the building area and these additional specimens will require Type III protection at a minimum and likely a combination mulch and bridging with plywood to be retained. A total of 3 7 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $185,300.00 using the Trunk Formula Method Introduction Background The Town of Los Gatos asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements. Assignment • Provide an arborist's report that includes an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation ratings. Affix aluminum number tags on the trees for reference on site and on plans if necessary. • Provide tree protection specifications, guidelines, and impact ratings for trees that may be affected by the project. • Provide appraised values. Limits of the assignment • The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on July 7, 2017. No tree risk assessments were performed. • Tree heights and canopy diameters are estimates. • The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows: Preliminary Utility and Grading and Drainage Plans C-2.0 and C-3.0 revised date July 3, 2017 provided by Lea & Braze Engineering, Inc. Construction Management Plan A0.8 dated July 7 , 2017 provided by Mark Horton Architecture. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1of33 15358 SanteHa Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the Town of Los Gatos and the property owners as a reference for existing tree conditions to help satisfy planning requirements. Observations Trees and Site The site is located at the end of Santella Court labelled Lot 10. The property slopes east and includes several coast live oaks and blue oaks with trunk diameters ranging from 8 to 36 inches including 11 trees with codominant or multiple stems. The crowns are mostly sparse and at least one tree, coast live oak #720, has a recently failed stem. The best specimens are around the perimeter on the slopes with the largest specimens labeled #411/#326(C) and #410/#327(B) having the greatest value and contribution. Trees #696 to #707 on the lower northeast slope are all in decent shape with potential longevity for the site. The upper part of the site where the building is proposed is exposed and very dry with drought stressed trees even after the recent long and rainy winter. Plans and Tree Conflicts The plans indicate five blue oaks and six coast live oaks will he highly impacted and need to be removed. These eleven trees are located within the building, driveway, or utility footprints. All of these specimens are in fair or poor shape with fair or poor suitability for preservation. Seven additional trees are in close proximity to construction or improvements including trees #704, #106, and #718 all in poor condition. The remaining trees will not be affected by the proposed plan. Plans indicate perimeter tree protection fence and trees to be removed. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -r1ck@monarcharborist.com 2of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Analysis Tree appraisal was perfonneo according to the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 9th Edition, 2000 (CLTA) along with Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004. The trees were appraised using the "Cost Approach" and more specifically the "Trunk Formula Method" (Appendix B). "Trunk Formula Method" is calculated as follows : Basic Tree Cost= (Appraised tree trunk increase X Unit tree cost+ Installed tree cost) Appraised Value = (Basic tree cost X Species % X Condition % X Location % ). The trunk formula valuations are based on four tree factors; species, size (trunk cross sectional area), condition, and location. There are two steps to determine the overall value. The first step is to determine the "Basic Tree Cost" based on size and species rating which is detennined by the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. The second part is to depreciate the value according to the location and condition of the trees. The condition assessment and percentages are defined in the "Condition Rating" section of this report. The condition ratings deviate from the Guide's condition assessment numerical rating system. The reason for this deviation is the Guide's assessment criteria fails to account for significant health or structural issues cre ating high percentages for tree with either significant structural defects or health problems that could ultimately lead to failure or irreversible decline . Location rating is an average of three factors; site, contribution, and placement. Site is determined by the relative property value where the trees are planted. The residential site would be classified as "very high" value with a 90 percent rating compared to similar sites in the area (ISA, 2000). Contribution and placement is determined by the function and aesthetics the trees provide for the site and their location on the property. The percent of contribution and placement can range from 10 to 100 percent depending on the trees influence to the value of the property. These percentages ranged from 0 to 90 percent in my assessment. A total of37 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $185,300.00 using the Trunk Formula Method (Appendix B2): Appraisal worksheets are available upon request. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 101 O, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 3 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Discussion Tree Inventory The inventory consists of trees protected by the Town of Los Gatos located on site and those in close proximity on neighboring properties. Los Gatos Town Ordinance 29.10.0960 Scope of protected trees (1) states the following: "All trees which have a twelve-inch or greater diameter (thirty-seven and one-half-inch circumference) of any trunk or in the case of multi-trunk trees, a total of eighteen inches or greater diameter (fifty-six and one-half inch circumference) of the sum of all trunks, where such trees are located on developed residential property (Appendix A and B). Los Gatos Town Ordinance 29.10.0970 Exceptions (I) states the following: "A fruit or nut tree that is less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter (fifty-seven-inch circumference). The inventory contained 3 7 trees comprised of 2 different species with 15 blue oaks and 22 coast live oaks. The area is typical of a mixed oak woodland hillside in this region. The chart below list the species and their quantities (Chart 1). e blue oak (Quercus douglasiO e coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Chart 1: Species Distribution Percertages 1glasli) coast live Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 4of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Condition Rating A tree's condition is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects: roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage . The assessment considered both the health and structure of the trees for a combined condition rating. • 100% = Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. • 75% =Good= No apparent problems, good structure and health, good longevity for the site. • 50% = Fair= Minor problems, at least one structural defect or health concern, problems can be mitigated through cultural practices such as pruning or a plant health care program. • 25% = Poor =Major problems with multiple structural defects or declining health, not a good candidate for retention. • 0% = Dead/Unstable = Extreme problems, irreversible decline, failing structure, or dead. The majority of trees are in fair condition as is expected of an unmaintained woodland area such as this property. Twenty-five are in fair condition, three good, and eight are in poor shape with one tree dead (Chart 2). Good Fair Poor 0 6 Chart 2: Condition • Quantity 12 18 24 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 30 I I Sof 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Suitability tor Preservation A tree's suitability for preservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species characteristics, and longevity using a · scale of good, fair, or poor. The following list defines the rating scale (Tree Care Industry Association, 2012): • Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity. • Fair= Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life spans than those in the good category. • Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and will continue to decline regardless of treatment. The species or· individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. Similar to the condition ratings the majority of trees have fair suitability for preservation in a construction setting. One tree is dead, seven are poorly suited, three are good and twenty-six have fair suitability for retention. I considered one tree in poor condition to have fair suitability because it grows codominantly with another specimen and could be retained (Chart 3). Good Fair Poor 0 Chart 3: Suitability for Preservation Quantity 6 12 24 18 30 I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 6of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Impact Level Influence level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating: • Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. • Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. • High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. Eleven trees will be hig~ly impacted and caused to be removed which consisted of five blue oaks and six coast live oaks. The highly impacted trees are largely located within the building footprint or directly adjacent to planned utilities. Seven trees are in close proximity to construction and will need to be protected by fenc~ and diligently monitored. The remaining nineteen trees will not be affected by the proposed plans . In total approximately one third of all the trees assessed will be highly impacted and need to be removed (Chart 4). High Moderate 0 Chart 4: Construction Impact Quantity 5 10 15 20 I I I I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 7of33 15358 Santella Court T ree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 201 7 The table below lists the trees expected to the highly impacted by the proposed plans (Table 1 ). Tree Species Table 1: Trees Highly Impacted Number Trunk Diameter (In .) Estimated Canopy Dia mater (ft.) Condition Sultablllty Impact Level I I blue oak 688 19 (Quercus douglasi~ Expected Impact on and Excavation 44 Fair _[! Fair High Construct! f---------~·---------+-------------· --------·---f---·---------- coast live oak 689 16 20 Fair Poor High Building (Querclis footprint agrlfolla) ------------·--··----------·----~-· -----·-·-------------·----~-------------·- blue oak (Quercus 705 16 40 Fair Fair High Move earth movement stockpile, storm drain I doug/asi/J ~<~aua-~u:ef-":u:-es\---~--k _-___ I ___ :_: ~:-1 -3 • _ 2 _ 3 ______ .... _--__ -_ ---:-.. ··--t-::: --r: ----:~:~-ii-.·-___ -_-___ +-_ ~-=--:1-::-. _-__ ,.,, 15 footprint agrifo/ia) ---------------+-----+-----+---------+---------------- coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 710 22 18 Poor Poor High Storm drain and building 1-------------~---., __ ···~·----·----· -------· -···-· ··----. -• -·~ ----t ----··· --· .. ··-· ~-----. ·1 blue oak (Quercus douglasi1) 711 14 48 Fair Fair High Driveway footprint ···--·-----.. --·-·1-·--·-----1--------···-~· ------... -· .. ·-·------1---··----------·----·--··----·---- coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) blue oak 1 (Quercus I douglasii) .. -··-····-~-·-·----·· coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) .. , ·-·------~ -----. .. coast live oak l.~~~;;~-....... ··-- .. .. _ . - . ··-· 712 16, 14, 18 714 - 719 ----- 720 - 13 I -· 14 . ---- 14 ·-- 50 Fair - __ __L___ . ---· -•• - 30 Fair . -... -. - 20 Poor 30 Poor ... _ J Fair High Build ing footprint I Fair High Storm drain and building Poor High Joint trench J Pam ----r~h ___ _ Driveway Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick @monarcharborist.com 8of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Tree Protection There are three different tree protection schemes which are called Type I, Type II and Type ill trunk protection only (Figures 1, 2, and 3). Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) or as the drip line in some instances. Preventing mechanical damage to the main stems from equipment or hand tools can be accomplished by wrapping the main stem with straw wattle (Figure 3). The wattle will create a porous barrier around the trunk and prevent damage to the bark and vascular tissues underneath. This mechanical barrier will be required for all trees within the project area. The plans indicate Type I tree protection consisting of a perimeter fence to exclude equipment and personnel from encroaching outside a defined building area. There are some trees within the building area including #688, #687, #686, #716, #717, #718 and #719 that will also require protection (although I expect #688 to be removed due to proximity to excavation). These additional trees will require Type III protection and likely a combination mulch and bridging with plywood or road plate to be retained. Figure 1: Type I Tree protection with fence placed at a radius of ten times the trunk diameter. Image City of Palo Alto 2006. f'Cftt(ns ...C ptO¥idc! pl!bliic riusap: '"'k proledinc all uk llltld ta n'Z. Figure 2: Type II Tree protection with fence placed along the sidewalk and curb to enclose the tree. Image City of Palo Alto 2006. Figure 3: Type III Tree protection with trunk protected by a barrier to prevent mechanical damage. Image City of Palo Alto 2006. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 9of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 The table below lists the trees ''moderately" impacted and their required tree protection distance of six times their trunk diameter on one side (Table 2). Table 2: TPZ on one site of Moderately Impacted Trees I I Speclea Number Trunk Estimated Expected impact Tree Protection Zone on Construction aide Diameter (In.) canopy Diameter (ft.) coast live oak 686 ! 11, 11, 13 40 Moderate ! 18 feet (Quercus · 1 ~~ ~ _r-----~~ 1-11-, 1-1-,-g;Q -~-..... --__ -_ ~----..;, -Mo-de-nd;---J~-.~-,~:---- , blue oak I 704 I I I (Quercus 1 dougfasi~ I ····1--· --·----1---··-·-------·-· ---·- blue oak I 706 10, 12 35 (Quercus '1 I dougfasm ----·------i ..... --. .. -· .. r--·-.... - coast live oak , 707 I 16, 9 ( Quercus !' I agrifofla) I 9 I 1 s feet 20 Moderate I ! 13 feet 44 Moderate coast live oak r-· ---11if _____ ·-12-··- ! i ·--r-,. ---~· --------- (Quercus j I agrifofia) 1 --_, ..... + ... -·-·------------+-"- coast live oak r 718 ! 14, 12 (Quercus 1' i agrif ofla) 1 ! - i _J ___ .. - 35 Moderate : 6feet i I i Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rlck@monarcha rborist.com 10 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Conclusion The site is located at the end of Santella Court labelled Lot 10 and the inventory contains 3 7 trees comprised of 2 different species with 15 blue oaks (41%) and 22 coast live oaks (59%). The majority of trees are in fair condition (25) with three good, eight in poor shape, and one dead. Nearly mirroring the condition ratings the most of the trees have fair suitability for preservation in a construction setting. Approximately one third of all the trees assessed will be highly impacted and need to be removed. Eleven trees will be highly impacted and caused to be removed which consists of five blue oaks and six coast live oaks, all of which are within the building or utility footprints . Seven additional trees are in close proximity to construction and will need to be protected. The remaining nineteen trees will not be affected by the proposed plans. The plans indicate Type I tree protection will be employed consi sting of a perimeter fence to exclude equipment and personnel from encroaching outside a defined building area. There are some trees withi n the building area expected to be moderately impacted including but not limited to the following : #686, #687 , #704, #706, #707, #717 , #718 including #719, #716 inside the proposed fenced area (although I expect #688 to be removed or alternative construction techniques employed due to proximity to excavation). These additional trees will require fype ID protection at a minimum and likely a combination of mulch and bridging w ith plywood to be retained . A total of 37 trees were appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $185,300 .00 using the Trunk Formula Method. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharbolist.com 11of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Recommendations Pre-construction and Planning Phase 1. Place all tree numbers on every set of plans (Appendix A). 2. Place tree protection fence around the perimeter of the site as described in the "Construction Management Plan". 3. Wrap the trunks of moderately affected trees #686, #687, #704, #706, #707, #717, #718 including #719, #716 inside the proposed fenced area. Create a root armoring system for these trees to include 4-6 inches of mulch and plywood to protect the soil from compaction . and equipment. · 4. Move the locations of the Parking, Porta Potty, Trailer, and Wash Out and the Earth Movement Stock Pile to preserve trees #686, #714, #715, and #705 as indicated on the "Construction Management Plan". 5. Reevaluate the retention of#688 which appears to be in conflict but not listed as a removal. 6. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.l safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. 7 . Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ. 8. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 9. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. 10. Arrange for the project arborist to monitor and document initial grading activity and no grading is to occur within any tree protection zone including utility hook-ups. Monarch Consulting Arborlsts LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 12 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Construction Phase 1. Verify all tree protection measures are in place. 2 . Monitor construction and any excavation near trees #686, #687, #704, #706, #707, #717, #718 including #719, #716 inside the proposed fenced area, and provide monthly documentation of protection measures while making any necessary recommendations. 3. Mulch moderately impacted trees by placing 4 to 6 inches of course bark or wood chips under the trees within the canopy diameter or required TPZ. The mulch can be generated and kept on site from the expected tree removals . 4 . Provide ten gallons of water per inch trunk diameter to the moderately impacted trees every two weeks during the summer months through infrequent soaking rather than constant frequent application. 5. Treat retained coast live oaks for bark beetle prevention during construction. Treatment is applied to the trunks with Permethrin (Astro® or generic) or Bifenthrin (Onyx or generic) according to their label recommendations. Post-Construction Phase 1. Monitor the health and structure of all trees for any changes in condition. 2 . Perform any other mitigation measures to help ensure long term survival. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 13 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Clark, James R., and Nelda P. Matheny. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture, 1993 . Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones. Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society Of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Glossary of Arboricultural Terms. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2011 . Print. ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. Western Chapter ISA Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R . Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land dev elopment. Bedminster, PA : International Soc iety of Arboriculture 1998. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.0 Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 14 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Glossary of Terms Basic Tree Cost: The cost of replacement for a perfect specimen of a particular species and cross sectional area prior to location and condition depreciation. Cost Approach: An indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia ( arboriculture ), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada,. the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture. Drip Line: Imaginary line defmed by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. The outer extent of the tree crown. Mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. Scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. Topping: Inappropriate pruning technique to reduce tree size . Cutting back a tree to a predetermined crown limit, often at intemodes. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is, and what the likely outcomes are . In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. Trunk: Stem of a tree. Monarch Consulting Arborlsts LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 15of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Trunk Formula Method: Method to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Based on developing a representative unit cost for replacement with the same or comparable species of the same size and in the same place, subject to depreciation for various factors . Contrast with replacement cost method. Volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial property. Unlike trees that are brought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private grounds. This Glossary of terms was adapted from the Glossary of Arboricultural Terms (ISA, 2013). Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 16 of 33 Appendix A:. Tree Inventory Map and Site Plan Snapllhol -n lt0m .na plan A1 .1 nat to-. ..,.. \ \ \ \ \ \ I I \ I '\- ' ' I I I I \ I I I I ' I I \ \ \ \ \ I I ; I \ I ' \ \ \ \ ' I \ \ \ ' ' \ \ PUBUCSTORM D9'AIN \ \ fAllEMEHI' (8i;E llCJT1! i) ~\ \ ... \ \ I ' \ "~, \ \ \ \ " \ ' ... , ',, h __ _L _____ _ Monorch ConlU~!'QArl>D~lla U.C • P.O Boo 1010, Follon, CA 95018 831 .331.8812 -rlck8monerchert)Qrl&tcom - 17 ol31 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Assessment Tables B1: 1-nventory, Assessment, Disposition Table 3: Tree lnvento.ry and Assessment J . i Tree Speclee I Trunk Condition Sultablllty Impact Remove Dlllmetw Height canopy Level or (ft.) Diameter Retain {ft.) Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com Retain Retain Retain 18 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 r·· . 1 Tree Species I Trunk Condition Sultablltty Impact Remove Diameter Height Canopy Level or (ft.) Diameter Retain (ft.) ! blue oak 697 I 18, 19 (Quercus I doug1asm 1 1-------·-----·-.. -+------· --- coast live oak 698 I 27 ! (Quercus I I agrifolia) I ! ........ --· ,,_____ I -I . 699 [_ blue oak (Quercus douglasi1) blue oak (Quercus douglasi1) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) blue oak (Quercus douglasi1) blue oak (Quercus doug/asil) blue oak (Quercus douglasi1) blue oak (Quercus douglasit) blue oak (Quercus doug/asiJ) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) blue oak (Quercus douglasit) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 100 I I j --I . 701 I I -----+ 702 I I I -~ 703 ! ! i I 704 I I I j ... 705 I I _J __ ! 706 ! 10, 12 i + 707 ! 16, 9 708 ' 709 ! 14, 13, I ! 15 . . I Bi I --+ 12 ! I ... L 18 ! ! I -~ . - 14 1 I ", _ 1-5 i ! I 9 j i ! .L I 16 ! I f I I ! I 23 ! .J i 1 ~I----~-o--:-~-d---~= ---! =--Retain Retain 30 45 50 35 35 20 I 45 ·35 ·1 I . J 50 l I 55 1 30 Fair . ---·-~ 25 Fair 40 Poor 45 Fair 30 Fair 20 Poor 40 Fair 35 Poor 44 Fair 60 Fair 60 Fair Fair -------- Fair I Poor I Fair Fair Fair I'---. Fair l ~oor Fair Fair Fair 1 low Retain ------. ···--··------ low Retain -i Low low Retain Retain T L~w Retain i Moderate Retain I -l ... -. Retain land alter plan I Moderate i R~tal n . - High 1 -- ' Moderate Retain I i I High I -f-l High Remove I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 19of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 I 'Tree Speclee I Trunk ,., CandlUan Sultablllty Impact R emove or Retain Diameter Height canopy Level (ft.) Diameter (ft.) Poor I I coast live oak 710 ! 22 35 1 18 1 (Quercus j 1 I ~ agrifolia) _ -·t----! ----t----· I blue oak 711 ; 14 i 50 1 48 Fair I Poor I ! I _I._,_ 1 Fair i High I Remove ---b--~---1 High ! Remove I (Quercus I I ; j douglasii) 1 I I j , 1 ~5 ~~ -:;:-]:~~~~~·---~~ -:r --:-::-::-----):~:---~+~-----~~:--w~ ( Quercus .,!. 1 j I I douglasii) Remove ~~-a°:u-ks . 114 j 13 i -. SQ ( 30 FWr TF~lr--' H;gh . - E-~k -i--;;~ l . 241 50 i 32 Fair I F~; _: ~ ~. -R~~~-: !Low Retain agrifolia) , , · l 1 ~~-~.-=;.;.-; -;1; i 121 --50 J----·35 fw;-[ FWr I M~~rate R~~~- fil ;;;;k-· ---;1e j14.12 -t ·-..ot ----;5 Poor -1 F;;i; +~~ R.t;;- ~~~~~-----· ! -{ ---~---·-------------! __ ....... ______ !_ --- coast live oak 719 l 14 ·1· 35 1 1 20 Poor .i .. Poor I High I (Quercus 1 ~~Y.~'_"fo_lia_)_. ____ I____ _ _ J _ -·~--------+ _ _ ______ ! __ -------·-.. f·-_ I coast live oak 720 i 14 45 i 30 Poor 1 1 Poor I High (Quercus : i ag~~i~} -. . -. --· ! _ -! I ! I F . !Low '! coast live oak 41 O 30 55 I ( Quercus and I l.~~~folia) _ I ;~~--~----·-·-· ___ J._... J __ -· 55 Fair i air I I I I J Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com Remove Remove Retain .l... ---·-. ·~- 20 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 411 Trunk Diameter I 24 i I ;~~ ; I C30 : i -----_____ ._ ______ ...!_ _____ j -Condition Suitability Height canopy (ft.) Diameter {ft.) _J _ so Fair Fair Impact Level Low Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 24, 2017 Remove or Retain I Retain L _____ 21of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 82: Apprai sal Summary Data Table 4 : Appraisal Summary f Tree Species , Tru nk Species Condition Location Buie Tree Rounded Diameter Rating Rating Rating Cost Value 267 19, 12 I coast live oak 90.00% I 50.0% l 63.33% $3,235.73 $2,480.00 ( Quercus agrifolia) I I ' coast live oak 269129, 15, 90.00% ! 50.0% I 63.33%. $30,354.34 $14,100 .00 ::: ::'""!i~!-39e i' '-27 -OO.oo% i -5o.0%1-;;;:aad $26:;57.92 -s7.500~00- ( Quercus agrifo/ia) 1 ! L " I ' coast live oak ----400 1·-· -----32 --eo:Oo:A: ,---0~0% ! e3~3°kf $s6, 1 #.21 --$0J,O. ( Quercus agrlfolla) I l ! ------· ... ···--·-· .. ·-----.-·-··---·· ----· --t··-. ---..... ----·r· -·· -·-·---···---.. -·--·-.. -· ---· --- coast live oak 404 i 36 90.00% ·1· 75.0% 63.33% ! $44,602.52 $19,000 .00 ( Quercus agrifolla) I 1 -------·-----_J_ ----,-·-··--·----------------- coast live oak 686 I 11, 11, 90.00% I 50.0% j 63.33% $4,663.03 $4,480.00 ( Quercus agrifolla) ! 13 I 1 ---------~----··· ---- ( Quercus agrifolla) ! 9 · · -· --------+---+--·-------- blue oak (Quercus 688 : 19 90.00% ! 50.0%. 63.33% $22,197.73 $6,300.00 ~o!!~~~~--. ---·· . -· l--. -·· .. ·-... -. ..... .. j __ .. . ·-·· ·--~ -···---. . .... ·----· ---- coast live oak 6891 16 90.00% i 50.0% l 63 .33% $15,841.81 $4,510.00 ( Quercus agrifolia) 1 t-1 i -------------·--------·------------r ------··---+--------···--~----- blue oak (Quercus $4,510 .00 douglasi1) -----------··------.. ·----~--· blue oak (Quercus $3,010.00 doug1asm --·--------...,..,..--.... ·-·---·-·--··--- blue oak (Quercus $18,000.00 douglasi1) i I ; 1 -~~!:::~;011a;· -69e 1·· 21 ---90.00~1~ I 75:o%f -63-~33%T s26:357 ~2 -$11 ~oo~o -----·----+--· ------·+ ____ j_ ___ . ·----·-----------··-· blue oak (Quercus 699 j 8 90.00% : 1 50.0% ·, 63.33% $4,219.55 $1,200.00 douglasl~ , ·bl~; ~~k (au~r~u~ ··--ic>C>t ·12-r 90.00%; 50 .0% ! 63.33% , .. $9J>62.1-6 $2 ,sao.oo ::::~~:~;----I 101 · ----;e i 9o oo; i ---250%; 6333~ j s11-9os s5 ---$17000 J1 -~~:e~~s<;r::~~--i --·7o2 . ····14\· oo :~+ · s0.od -63.aa~1$1;2o9:85 -$3~~ doug1asm : I i l..·---···-···-----·--·-___ , ________ . __ ..:..... ··-· ---·---.-..l ..... -·-· _! _______ ,, ·-····------·-··· Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rlck@monarcharborist.com 22 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Species blue oak ( Quercus doug/asi1) blue oak ( Quercus douglasil) I 703 i I Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Trunk Species Condition Location Basic Tree Rounded Diameter Rating Rating Rating Cost Value 15 90 .00% -··---~---·--+----i----·- 9 90.00% ::g~:!,;Quercus 5~:~% l 63.33°~~) $1~,~~~~.~ $4,500.00 ~:~J-Ou~s ..... :. ~-Mjl 10, ~2 ~~ -.::~:i---~~0%i ~.33% f -$6~3~8-~ _:-~~~ coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolia) blue oak (Quercus doug/asi1) coast live oak ( Quercus agrlfolia) coast live oak ( Quercus agrifolla) blue oak (Quercus douglasi~ coast live oak ( Quercus agrlfolia) 707 116, 9 90.00% I 50 .0% 63 .33% $9,480.15 $3,620.00 I ...... ____ L I 708 j 23 90.00% 50.0% 63.33% $32,367.21 $9,200.00 l.. .. .. .... -·-. ---· . -. -· ... 709 / 14, 13, 90.00% I 50.0% 63.33% $7,339.21 $6,300.00 .. ----~~ 5 ------· -----l-----.... .. . -----· -----.. ------ ... ~-1~J _. 22 .. :~·~~D J . , :_.:_.:_! ... :.-3.3:~_33;_._ ::::::.~ .. ~:510~ 711 j_ -1 ~ 0 9~.0~o/oJ --.... -. . .. .. . $3,48~--~~ 112 I 16. 14, 90.00% / 50.0% 63.33% $9,480.15 sa.200.00 i 1 a_ -. --I . ---.. .. ---· . --.. -.... blue oak (Quercus 113 ] 1 6, 6, 6 90.00%~ 50.0%1 63 .33% $2,524.63 $2,160.00 douglasi1) :=~~· · 71·~-13 OO:Oo% 1 --so.a% -63.33% t S1o.s75:.i7 -ss:010-:-oo ~~:~~ ;:~f 2~-:;r--~:~:1 . ~:::1$~::·~~---$=~ ( Quercus agrlfolia) i j ' j f =!: :l'ifolla) m I 12 gQ.o0% j 50.0% i s3.33%j $5,483.72 $1,560 .00 ·-~-g::=~=) r -::~l 14. 12-.~4~:~1 -;::;I· ::~;1 ~~~~:~: :::~-~ -~9~~,~~-~grif~/~a~ . -l ---·-·---.. !--. ·-· 1.... . + .. .. -----------... I coast live oak 720 i 14 90.00% I 25.0%; 63.33% ! $7,339.21 $1,050.00 , ( Quercus agrifolia)_ ! .. l . I j I Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rlck@monarcharborist.com 23of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 l Tree Speclee # Trunk Species Condition Location Buie Tree Rounded Diameter Rating Rating Rating Coat Value coast live oak 410 30 90.00% l 50.0% I 63.33% $32.459.60 $9,300.00 ( Quercus agrifolia) and 327 -90.00% l 50.0% I 63.33% --·----- coast live oak 411 I 24 $20,898.51 $6,000.00 ( Querous sgrlfolia) and I I 326 I ·-·----------!..----~- --L ______ ,__ __ - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 ~8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 24 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Appendix C: Photographs C1 : Trees in primary building area affected Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rlck@monarcharborist.com July 24, 2017 25of33 15358 SanteUa Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection C2: Story Poles from Santella Court Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 24, 2017 26 of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection C3: Failed Tree #720 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 101 O, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com July 24, 2017 27of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Section 29.10.1005. -Protection of Trees During Construction Tree Protection Zones and Fence Specifications 1. Size and materials: Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than ten-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base. 2. Area type to be fenced: Type I : Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with two-inch.wooden boards bound securel y on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches. 3. Duration o.fType I, ll, ID fencing: Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction p ermits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence. 4. Warning Sign: Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an eight and one-half-inch by eleven-inch sign stating: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone---This fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025." Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E). All persons, shall comply with the following precautions 1. Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction. 2. Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director. 3. Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree. 4. Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree. 5. Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 28 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 2017 6. Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits. 7. The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered. Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented . The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Root Pruning Roots greater than two inches in diameter shall not be cut. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered and are authorized to be cut or removed, they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, recip:r:ocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or tom. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet de ep . Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Treatment, including pruning, shall be specified in writing according to the most recent ANSI A -300A Standards and Limitations and performed according to ISA Best Management Practices while adhering to ANSI Z133. l safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rlck@monarcharborist.com 29of33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1:Engiish CD c 0 N C) c c .2 ·-.... cu .... Cl) "'O ;:: a.. a. Cl) Cl) ~ ~ -0 C> Q) c: > ·-0 "0 E· 0 LO Q) 0 C\I a: 0 0 (]) <( ~ m~o ~ ca or: o c: m z Q) C\I =a.. Q) C'CS 0 ""C .c: F o en ....... o Q) (.) c: 0 -~ > c: ..c ;> Q) :J ~ LL Cf) en oo ·--.c: "tJ 1--c: <( Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 July 24, 2017 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 30 of 33 15358 Santella Court E2: Spanish Tree Inventory; Assessment , and Protection 0 -c ·-. ....._ CD a; ... 0 Q. "20 -c .c ·-... :J <( 0 CD c ca c 0 N Q) CJ) "'C 0 c: "'C -.o LO CtS ·-C\I (.) (.) 0 co c: ~ CJ) .a 0 ~ L.. c: . Q) Q) O') en N c: c: ---o (]) --ca ·-s... (.) "'C "'C c: ""C 0 CtS co a. C/) "'C 0 CtS ::J c: ·- CtS s (.) = Q) 0 CtS ....... O> > ::J ·-CJ) "'C CtS --co --o +-' +-' (.) en en w (]) >- July 24, 2017 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831 .331.8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 31 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection July 24, 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. All property is pr esumed to be in conformance with applic able 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 opi nion of the consultant, and the consultant's f ee 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 <;oordination 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.O Box 1010, Felton , CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 32 of 33 15358 Santella Court Tree Inventory, Assessment , and Protection July 24, 2017 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and 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 with.in the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the 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 0 Copyright 2017, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of thi s publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any fonn or by any means , electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 -rick@monarcharboristcom 33of 33 15358 Santella Court October 6, 2017 Jocelyn Puga Associate Planner Stand of Oaks Down Slope Assessment Community Development Department 110 E Main Street October 6, 2017 Los Gatos CA 95030 Monarch Conaultlng Arborists LLC P.O . Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331. 8982 I was asked to locate and inspect four additional trees down slope on 15358 Santella Court labeled ''W", "X", "Y", ·and "Z" on site plan SKA.473 snapshot dated September 27, 2017 (Appendix A). The trees were to be assessed as part of the visibility analysis to help determine their condition. I tried to locate the trees based on the provided map and trunk diameters using tree #3 09 as an on-site reference. I found what I believe is tree "X" which is a declining valley oak (Quercus lobata). with a dead top and large wound on its lower stem. The remaining three trees "W'', "Y''. and "Z" I was not able to locate. The area is very dense with poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) and brush that is nearly impenetrable without a machete. The area where the trees are located is a dense stand of coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia). This groove of trees is composed of probably 50 to 100 coast live oaks. The composition of plants are typical for this area and there are the usual oak woodland species such as poison oak, manzanita (Arctostaphylos sp.), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). The majority of trees are approximately 6-10 inches in diameter and are about 25 to 35 feet tall with 10 to 25 foot canopy diameters. This is a young stand of trees and most would be considered to be in good condition with dense crowns and normal foliar color and size. There may be a couple of outliers like the large declining valley oak (X), but these are the exception. No individual trees stand out as taller or larger than any others and·the crowns are of a uniform height (Appendix B). No individual trees within the stand provides additional screening or obstructions of the hillside or beyond. 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 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 1 of 3 EXHIBIT 9 15358 Santella Court Stand of Oaks Down Slope Assessment October e, 2017 Appendix A: Aerial image provided for assessment Snapshot not to scale from SKA.473 dated September 27, 2017 provided by Mark Horton Architecture. \ \ ' ' ---w.14· • Z·18' • v-1a· ~. 400 , ::<J)'Ql2 100 7'0 I ;,.704 ~103 Monarch Consulting Arborlsts LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 • rick@monarcharborist.com 713 11 .... _, I I ' I I I I I fl ~' '-·-1 ;.,_ ' 2fJl8 t t J 2 of3 15358 Santella Court Stand of Oaks Down Slope Assessmeiit October 6, 2017 Appendix B: Image from the site taken adjacent to tree #706 What I believe is tree "X" with a dead top Image taken adjacent to tree #706. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC -P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331 .8982 -rick@monarcharborist.com 3 of 3 This Page Intentionally Left Blank NOTES REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 JT AS NOTED VISIBILITY STUDY VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.437 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VISIBILITY STUDY TAKEN FROM 50MM (NAKED EYE POINT OF VIEW)17 LOT 10 LOT 10 VIEWING PLATFORMNW CORNERLOS GATOS ALMADEN ROAD& SELINDA WAY EXHIBIT 10 NOTES REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 JT AS NOTED VISIBILITY STUDY VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL SKA.451VISIBILITY STUDY17 TREES INFRONT OF LOT10 PROPOSEDHOUSE LOT 10 VIEWING PLATFORMNW CORNERLOS GATOS ALMADEN ROAD& SELINDA WAY LOT 11T.O. ROOF CUL-DE-SAC@ LOT 10LEVEL 740'-0"± 720'-3"± 410 404 399 707 705 697 NOTES REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 JT AS NOTED VISIBILITY STUDY VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.452 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VISIBILITY STUDY 17 LOT 10 VIEWING PLATFORMNW CORNERLOS GATOS ALMADEN ROAD& SELINDA WAY 410 404 399 707 705 697 TREES INFRONT OF LOT10 PROPOSEDHOUSE CALCULATIONS REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 JT AS NOTED VISIBILITY STUDYCALCULATIONS VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.453 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL VISIBILITY STUDY CALCULATIONS 17 VISIBLE AREA: 606.6 SF TOTAL AREA: 2,506.7 SF = 24.2% SF VISIBLE LOT 10 VIEWING PLATFORMNW CORNERLOS GATOS ALMADEN ROAD& SELINDA WAY TREES INFRONT OF LOT10 PROPOSEDHOUSE NOT HIDDENBYVEGETATION HIDDEN BYVEGETATION CALCULATIONS REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 DH / JT AS NOTED VISIBILITY STUDY VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.454 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL SITE PLANSCALE: N.T.S.17 410 404 707 399 705 697 TREE CANOPYDIAMETER CALCULATIONS REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 DH / JT AS NOTED VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.455 VISIBILITY STUDY 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL SITE PLANSCALE: N.T.S.17 410 404 707 399 697 705 CALCULATIONS REVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 DH / JT AS NOTED VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 SKA.456 VISIBILITY STUDY 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL EAST VIEWSCALE: N.T.S.17 410 404 707 399 705 697 Imagery ©2017 Google, Map data ©2017 Google United States 50 ft 15358 Santella CtREVISIONS JOB NUMBER DRAWN BY SCALE DATE FOR OWNERSHIP OF INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICEALL REPORTS, PLANS, SPECIFICATONS, COMPUTER FILES, FIELD DATA, NOTES AND OTHER DOCUMENTS AND INSTRUMENTS PREPARED BY THE CONSULTANT AS INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE SHALL REMAIN THE PROPERTY OF THE CONSULTANT. THE CONSULTANT SHALL RETAIN ALL COMMON LAW, STATUTORY AND OTHER RESERVED RIGHTS, INCLUDING THE COPYRIGHT THERETO. 16114 JT AS NOTED SITE PLANVISIBILITY ANALYSIS VISOSO 15358 SANTELLACOURT LOS GATOS,CALIFORNIA95032 11 OCTOBER 2017 PLANNING REVIEW RESUBMITTAL SKA.473 SITE PLAN LEGEND SAVE TREE TREE NOT IN ARBORIST REPORT DEBATABLE REMOVE TREE DIAMETER OF TREE TRUNKS ARE LABLED AND SHOWN ON PLAN 1.10'-0" PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT FOR LOT 9 SANITARY SEWER SERVICE. 2.EXISTING 5'-0" PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENT (PUE) 3.LOCATION OF PUBLIC STORM DRAIN HAS NOT BEEN CONFIRMED. THE STORM DRAIN PIPE IS MOST LIKELY NOT WITHIN THE 10'-0" EASEMENT. KEY NOTES TREES 399, 404, 410, 697, 705, 707 ARE LABELED BY THE ARBORISTAND ARE SHOWN COVERING THE HOUSE TREES W-14", X-32", Y-18", Z-18"ARE TREES NOT SHOWN ON THE ARBORIST'S REPORT AND NOT ORGINALLY LABELED BUT ARE SHOWN COVERING THE HOUSE *NOTE: THE SIZE OF THE TREE (TRUNK DIAMETER, HEIGHT AND CANOPY DIAMETER) IS APPOXIMATE BASED ON SIMILAR CANOPY SIZE TREES THAT ARE LABELED BY THE ARBORIST ON THE SITE PLAN AND AN IMAGE FROM GOOGLE EARTH. TREES SHOWN IN VISUAL STUDY SITE PLAN WITH TREESSCALE: 1" = 20'-0"17 PLAN NORTHUPUPxx 410707404 411 705 697 399 698 699 701 702 700 703 704 689 708 709 712 710 711 714 713 688 687 686 720 718 717 716 267 715 268 269 690 400 695 706 719 X-32" Y-18" Z-18" W-14" LOT 11 (E) PRIVATE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE LOT 9 UNBUILT PARCEL FUTURE PRIVATE SINGLEFAMILY RESIDENCE PUBLIC COMMENT Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, November 3, 2017 NONE EXHIBIT 11 This Page Intentionally Left Blank