17528 Tourney Rd- Staff Report and Exhibits 5-10RECEiVED
OEC 1 5 ZU 15
Dear Planning, TO WN OF LOS GATOS
We have spent 18 months doing exactly what the town of Los Gatos pla.Jl10\A~ING DIVISION
department advised us to do. To work with the neighbors who are impacted by
our pending project and do our best to mitigate their concerns so that they are
satisfied in exchange to be able to improve our property, move along in a timely
manner, and avoid the planning commission . We have gone above and beyond
for neighbors Bev and Steve Miller because we understand they are directly
impacted by our new home project. We have communicated openly with them
every step of the way via phone , email, and 5+ meetings at their home. We
agreed to their every demand and did a complete redesign of the home almost a
year ago, yet the Millers still appealed . Recap of these communications and
efforts with the Millers are attached below in lette r to Marni at planning . Here are
the bullets points on what we changed to try and lessen the impact on their view;
-completely eliminated second story
-eliminated lighting that faced the Millers
-eliminated windows that faced the Millers
-eliminated doors that faced Millers
-elim inated balcony that faced Millers
-changed the proposed roof pitch to lower roof
-agreed to grade down 2 feet to lower roof
-lowering the main plate by 1 foot to lower roof
-created multiple view renderings from Miller viewpoint to clearly show potential
view impact and the changes to lessen the impact.
-put up two sets of story poles
-agreed to do some tree trimming to open up some new view windows from their
house to the valley .
-bought, installed, and moved our plants onto their property so they can control
the height and to mitigate their concerns for privacy. (We planted shrubs along
the Millers property line to give them time to become established and aid in
privacy and to soften the effect of the new house and fence we propose . The
Millers requested we move said plants on to their property so that they can
manage the heights. We agreed and paid to do that for them because these
plants on their property will soften the fence and further block the roof of new
house. )
All of these ch a nges have resulted in a very different house and have been done
at great ex pense , due to the recurring need for architects , engineers , graphic
design , laborers, plant costs, contractors etc. Grading down to lower the house
as Millers requested will result in $100,000 worth of drainage and retaining alone .
Not to mention the significant amount of lost time, all in an effort to lower the
house as much as we can without sacrificing the integrity of the design . In total,
the house was lowered an additional 4 .5ft from the previously lowered single
story design and now is only 6' higher then the ex isting ridge line.
EXHIBIT 5
Prior to the DRC meeting recently, the Millers requested a meeting at their house
on Nov. 12, 2015 for what we assumed was to review the new story poles before
the DRC meeting. At this meeting they told us and our two architects plainly that
they were satisfied with the final story poles and design, and that it looked better
then they thought it would be . They did not even want to go outside to take look
and discuss. Instead they had a new list of demands. Their most recent list of
issues had no mention of the mass, pitch, or roof line we were proposing , instead
their list was about what we would plant and trim on the hillside, the chimney
height which we agreed to change, the roof color, and their desire for a "view
easement" in perpetuity to protect their view from plants, trees, future owners ,
etc. We agreed to plant only low plants and lower the chimney by a foot , but we
had to say no to granting them a view easement. We are not willing to further
encumber the home with another easement unless perhaps they would abandon
their existing easement that allows them to pass thru our property. (They have an
old access gate that passes right thru our property and they can use it when they
see fit. It used to be the only access to the property which is why it was granted
many years ago. They now have a new main entrance . They claim to use it
periodically for party parking and deliveries . However, as you can see from the
photos it is rarely used . The Millers do not allow it to be blocked or parked in front
of at anytime and this is an already unfortunate burden on the property. We
expressed a willingness to grant a view easement in exchange for them
distinguishing this old access easement. They responded with an emphatic "no"
to that fair trade suggestion.) In addition to no granting of a "view easement" we
also said no to letting them choose the colors of our house or roof but that we will
agree to follow town guidelines .
This was the first time in a year+ of meetings and communications that we said
no to any their requests . We have rights as property owners too and this crossed
the line especially when we have done so much to fully redesign the house to
help protect their view. Our unwillingness to create said easement made them
mad and so all of sudden the mass of the roof, the pitch , etc are now not
satisfactory and are noted in the recent appeal. This only two weeks after telling
us they were fine with the story pole heights, and roof line design. Our last
meeting with them was a chance meeting in town when they ran into my wife.
They declared that they had no plans to appeal and said that if they changed
their mind they would let us know ahead of time. They lied to her face and
appealed days later, not very neighborly.
The most telling thing about our dealings with the Millers is highlighted in their
recent appeal of the town's approval for our project at Tourney Rd . Please review
their blatant misrepresention of the rendering they provided thru their appeal. The
rendering they provided thru appeal is not representative of the current project at
all! They used an old version that we gave them prior to our full redesign done
last spring to accommodate their concerns . They did this in an effort to mislead
the town and committee . You can clearly see the difference from the attached
current rendering 6 vs the one they provided at appeal (rendering 4), the home
was lowered 4.5ft after the rendering 4 they provided. This current rendering 6
was supplied to the Millers on Feb 11 , 2015 in person and by email followed by a
first set of temporary story poles to further demonstrate the new compromised
height line . What this clearly shows is their blatant disrespect for the process, the
town , and our efforts to mitigate their ever changing concerns . In addition , they
came to the town planning meeting and spoke, they did not mention any of the
concerns about the height and mass of the roof they now raise in the appeal.
The appeal goes on to complain about our yet to be built fence, yet their fence is
currently built on our property and no effort has been made to rectify this. In
addition they have an illegal built viewing platform that sits 8 feet off the ground
(slope to grade) and is well within any setback. This platform is a direct invasion
of our privacy (photos attached), yet the appeal complains about their views , their
privacy, and our impact on their quality of life . The Millers state that they prefer
an "open fence", and so do we on the other 3 sides of our property. However with
the Millers peering down from their illegal platform on the back property line what
choice do we have but to protect our privacy with plants and a fence.
Furthermore, due to their appeal and lack of fair good will , we now prefer to
create a barrier to protect ourselves and any future owners from their
infringement on our property ownership and privacy. Their illegal construction of
platforms and illegal fencing of our property have been temporarily allowed as we
try to work out a balanced negotiation of our project's impact on their view vs
these blatant neglects of our property rights . We now want to reserve the right to
protect ourselves by removing any conditions made previously to be able to plant
and fence along said property line as we see fit as long as it fits with town
guidelines. Furthermore, their blatant attempt to mislead, lie , and deceive , to
block the project has us wanting to go back and take any and all neighborly
considerations off the table. The house we had planned to build as been
compromised so very much only to be thrown back in our face in an appeal with
no grounds.
We have been neighborly, communicative , and forthright from the beginning . We
always said this was a spec project and for profit (or loss!) which is also brought
up in their appeal as if that is some how not allowed. Many of the homes you see
around this great town of ours were spec homes built by developers who
followed due process and the guidelines of the town. They really have no
grounds for appeal.
We have communicated with a number of other surrounding neighbors and
mitigated their concerns for drainage improvements, construction parking , sewer
line placement , and road maintenance. All of these neighbors came and spoke at
the DRC and were satisfied with our plans to follow town guidelines.
The Millers overall efforts are to appeal and appeal in an effort to block the
project. They want us to solve their problem of having bought a home directly
behind our little one story house , the smalle st home in the neighborhood of 3000
to 6000 sq feet homes, most of which are two stories . They knew that one day
this house would be rebuilt so they plan to delay and obstruct no matter what.
We know this because we have listened to all of their concerns and made all of
the changes they asked for until it infringed on our rights as property owners and
we finally realized their demands would never end. At the end of our last meeting
they started to complain about their fears of "mexican" workers smoking
cigarettes with loud music on our job site! Can you imagine?! I have 3 other
people that were there and can attest. This has become an abomination of your
process and their appeal should be thrown out for lack of grounds and
misregresentation to the town .
In Summary, we want to be allowed to build and improve our property . We have
put in substantial efforts to mitigate the concerns of the impacted neighbors and
want to move forward and will honor the current proposal as approved by the
DRC. We are well within the town's guides for heights and plan to build a quality
high end home that is respectful of the site and the neighborhood. We believe
that the values of the homes in the vicinity will be increased by our project. We
plan to use a respected contractor and will follow the construction guidelines of
the town .
Sincerely,
Shawn Medved
BELOW is the recap submitted to Marni on Oct 20 , 2015, prior to the DRC
hearing and covers from Oct 20 , 2014 to Feb . 30 2015, to further illustrate our
efforts to accommodate the Millers concerns.
Marni, Here is a recap of our various meetings and correspo nde nce with Steve and
Bev Miller. They live directly behind our project on Tourney Rd. We have been aware
of the possible impact on their view and have done our best to communicate with
them in the pre planning and planning stages. We have met wit h them a number of
times and done our best to accommodate their concerns.
Oct 25, 2014 met with the Miller neighbors to discuss our project and sent them the
first copy of our elevations and floor plan. Their comments showed concern for
heights and upstairs space since we originally planned a one story home but elected
to have a s econd story. First proposal showed a 10.5 foot higher ridge l ine then the
existing structure.
Nov. 7, 2014 Sent diagram showing site lines from thei r house over the new
proposed structure.
Nov 12, 2014 Due to the privacy issue at the back of our home we proposed to do
some hedge planting to privatize our home . Steve and Bev had previously planted
vines on the fence for the same reason but they had not taken off.
While Steve and Bev were travelling we placed the new plants along the shared
fence to await their approval.
Nov 23, 2014 Second meeting at the home of Steve and Bev to discuss the plants
and the plans .
We agree to relocate the screening plants to their side of the fence so that they can
contro l the heights in perpetuity. Also, took photos from Miller house to use for
renderings of our propose d home from their various viewpoints .
Dec 12, 2014 renderings of new home sent to Millers for review.
Jan 7, 2015 Millers write back with concerns that the new home appears to impact
their view and the windows from the upstairs space will impact their privacy.
Jan 12, 2015 Millers wrote "I spent considerable time yesterday within the Town
Planning Department discussing and reviewing your submitted plans.As we have
mentioned before, our concerns are that unfortunately your project will effect our
use, enjoyment and quality of life greatly impacting our view and privacy. Our use of
the backyard deck and viewing will be obstructed and dramatically changed by your
project.Example,the number of and size of the windows facing our backyard,
bedrooms and potential night lighting from said into our residency and impact to our
privacy."
It is important to note that the backyard deck they refer to is a structure that is 8'
off the ground and 8' off the property line . It l ooks directly down on our home over
the fence and is a direct invasion of privacy. There is little doubt that this structure
would not comply with town guidelines. Their concerns about the view from this
structure are very unfair.
Add that we have purposely oriented private spaces with smaller windows to the
back of the home, not our primary living spaces -those face the front, upper balcony
is buried in roofline, and is not large enough to be a "party baclcony" rather helps to
meet the code for light and egress and ventilation
Jan 14, 2015 Third meeting at neighbors house. Architect Bes Wiersema
comes to help in the discu ssi on. Mr Miller's concerns were privacy with the
second story
deck and windows facing their home, light i ss ues from interior and exterior lights
shining and reflecting on them, as well as the overall height of the new home.
Jan 14, 2 015 We have tech review with town in which we
were asked to adjust the square footage down due to new
hillside square footage calculations, so as it turns out, the house will need to be
smaller to meet hillside guidelines. It appears that the up sta irs space should be
eliminated to be st shrink the overall square footage and to mitigate the concerns of
the neighbors.
Jan 29,2015 Send email to Millers with new drawings expressing the various changes
since our meeting on Jan 14, 2015.
We have listened to your concerns and have amended our plans as follows;
NEW* we have eliminated the entire upstairs living areas and will do a one story
home.
NEW* we have eliminated the back deck that faced your home, including the glass
doors and windows.
NEW* we have eliminated any exterior lights that would have been needed on the
deck that may have been disturbing .
NEW* we have lowered the other window at the back of the house that faces your
home and ex tended the eve to create more privacy and to limit residual light
upwards towards you.
NEW *We have lowered the total height of the house by 1 foot as the previously
planned upstairs bonus room will now be attic space only.
In addition, *We have installed 8+ plants for privacy screening on your side of the
fence so you can control their height in perpetuity.
* We have offered to significantly trim our trees off your dining room to open up
more view windows thru to the valley.
We hope that you will find this acceptable. We hope you agree that we have made
significant changes to accommodate your concerns.
Jan 30,2015 Steve Miller responds; We are surprised that the elimination of the
second floor only reduces the height by 12 inches. We have been researching your
Architects past projects for determining what issues if any have arisen and how they
were resolved. Several of the projects whether in Los Gatos or other communities
have had the same height concerns/compliance, roof mass,etc.Based on what we
researched, roof pitch could be addressed to further lower the roof height such as
changing the pitch to (4:12) which would enhance our view.Grading/ lowering the
footprint would further enhance our views
Architects feedack: reducing the pitch of the roof doesn't go with the proposed style
of the home, we then looked at reducing the plate, and reducing the p itch
somewhat, provided alternative view schemes with reduced roof pitch
Jan 30, 2015 correspondence continues; Steve, thanks for getting back to me. We
did listen to all of your concerns, and we did make significant changes to address
every item you brought up. These requests to lower the height again are not really
feasible without a major redesign. As you know, we are within the town heights
requirements already, even more so now with the 1 foot concession. We cannot
change the roof to 4:12 as that does not work with the architecture or design of the
home, and we cannot grade down much as significant grading is frowned on by the
town. I appreciate your looking into past projects to see how to best resolve them.
Our architect has had projects where height/mass concerns were raised. Th is is not
uncommon. However, her results have been favorable because the heights/mass
were in compliance, as is ours. We are happy to meet with you and Bev on Thursday
or Friday to try again. We highly prefer to work towards a mutual resolution as we
have said and have shown, but we cannot be the only party making concessions.
Lets get together and see what we can figure out. THANKS -Shawn
Jan 30 2015 continued; Shawn ,I suggest we chat next Thursday anytime after 3:30PM.
Our concession by default is losing over 50 o/o of our view which will change our lifestyle
and lower the value of our home .... Please understand our goal is not to hold your
project up but the loss of our view is too important to us which could be remedied by
some crea tivity ..... Regards Steve and Bev
Feb 2, 2015 Bess and I meet with Town planner, Marni, to discuss ongoing discuss ions
with Millers. Usi ng both the Mil lers' and Marni 's recommendations we decide to make
further accommodations to lower the overall height of the home by grading down 1',
changing the plate down by 1', chang ing the pitch to 5.5. The entire change is now 4.5'
lower then our original plans and only 6' higher then the existing ridge line.
Feb 11, 2015 Fourth meeting at Millers. The changes are now significantly greater then
our previous meetings (see attached rendering6 brought to the meeting and emailed to
Millers). We convey that we have taken all of their concerns and suggestions and
implemented all of them. We have removed any upstairs living, eliminated all high
windows and lights that would effect them, we lowered the house another 3.5' (total of
4 .5') to lessen impact on the view by grading down, changing the pitch, lowering the
plate, etc. We have done all of this at a heavy cost to us both financially and in lost time.
Unfortunately, none of this seems to be enough. The Millers response to the new changes
was to ask for more grading, more pitch changes, etc. they seem inclined to further
object on the grounds that this will effect their lifestyle, view, and home value. I offered
to put up a temporary story pole to show the new ridge line myself to give them a chance
to see it before we resubmit .
Millers also said the roof was plain and boring, and Marni suggested we break it up,
hence the addition of the clerestory windows.
Feb 14, 2015 Me and a contractor friend put up a temp story pole to show new ridge line .
We did this for the neighbors to see that the change is not so impa ctful to their view. We
also wanted to show that the house i s not seen from the town
viewing platforms. I also sent new renderings and the changed set of plans to the Millers
that we plan to resubmit.
Feb 19 2015, We r esubmit plans to the town with all cha nges noted above.
Feb . 24 2015 Millers respond to updated plans and renderings;
Shawn, Thanks for putting up your version of a volley ball court. That Gives us a better
idea of what the roof line possibly might look like.As you stated when you were up here,
this would be your best guess. Hope the final is still about 2 feet lower after the town
reviews your lates t submittal and con siders the maximum grading prior to the foundation
being poured. Steve
Summary; the Millers are nice people and we have gotten to know them well over the 4+
meetings at their home. We understand and are sensitive to their conce rn s about their
view and the impact of a new home right below them. However, ou r efforts to mitigate
their concerns seem to be not enoug h . They have conveyed that they will continue to
object and delay the process. They alluded to the fact that they have been involved in
property/development quarrels before here in Lo s Gatos and in Carmel. They have
explained that they have been canvass ing the neighbors, visiting the town planning
dept., r esearc hing the appeal process, meeting with r ea ltors to say that their home va lu e
will be effected etc. They ar e already complain ing about the noise and parking of the
constru ction people. All clearly within their rights to do so, we understand, but at th is
poi nt we will have to let the process run its course .
We have made sign ificant changes to mitigate the impact on the Millers.
This letter is being sent because we wanted to recap our efforts in this email as we move
forward.
We are well within the towns guides for heights and plan to build a quality high end home
that is respectful of the site and the neighborhood . We believe that the v alues of the
homes in the vici nity will be increased by our project. We have done our best to
communicate and make changes to the most im pacted neigh bors. We plan to use a
respected contractor and will follow the construction guides of the town. We hope that we
can avoid the planning commission process by outlining the changes we have made so
that the town understands our efforts with the Millers. Attached are the most telling
renderings that show the changes we made to limit the im pact on the Millers view.
Neighbor Rendering 6 shows the current home plan and we believe that the impact on
th ei r v iew has been significantly reduced.
Sincere ly,
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
CDG -' CANNON
DESIGN
GROUP
April 28, 2015
Ms. Marni Mosl ey
Community D evelopment Department
Town of Los Gatos
II 0 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 9503 1
RE: 17528 Tourney Road
Dear Marni:
ARCHITECJ1JRE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My comments and recommendations are as follows :
Neighborhood Context
The site is a large lot among other large lots in a hillside environment. An existing one-story house currently occupies the
site. The site is shown on the aerial photo below, and photos of the site and its surroundings are on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LAN DI NG C I RC LE. SU ITE 1'l9. LAR KSPUR. CA . 'l4939
EXHIBIT 6
TEL : 415.33 1.379 5
CDGPlAN @ PACilE l l .NET
17528 To urney Road
Design Revi ew Comments
April 28, 2015 Page 2
View t o sit e from sha1ed driveway below
EAisLmg garage and neighbo ring house abo ve View to sit e from sit e drivf'Way below
f-lousr 1m med1ately to the eas t Parcel below ac ross the street intersectio n
CANNON DE SIG N GROUP 700 LARK SPU R LANDING CI RC LE . SUITE 199 . LA RKSP UR . CA . 94939
Issues and Recommendations
17528 Tourney Road
Design Review Comments
April 28, 2015 Pagd
The proposed house is modest in size and scale, and designed to fit comfortably on the sloping site. It is a one-story home
and only slightly taller than th e existing house on the site. Materials and details are of high quality and authentic to the
home's architectural style.
There is only one iss ue that I see with th e des ign
I . The columns at the open porches do not have connecting beams which is not consistent with Residential Design
Guidelines 3.1 0 .1.
3 .1 0.1 Porches and Entries
• Provick a well proportioned beam between the column caps and th e roof Size and
cktail the bea m so that it looks /ike a convincing structural member. It should be
visible both from insick and outsick of the porch. A commo n problem is to make this
element of the porch too sma// or to face it with a material (e.g., siding) that would
not carry the weight above if it were structural ..... .
Rewmmen datio n : Add beams at all porc hes. One example b shown in th e p hoto on th e fo ll owin g page.
Provide beam at all porches consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.10.1
See enmple photo
Proposed North tlevatlon wtth rc>wmmended changc>
Provide beam at all porches consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3 .10.1
See ex•mple photo
Proposecl West tle\·atton 1\"tth recommended change
.!
CANNON DESI GN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRC LE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
I have no other recommendations for changes.
17 528 Tourney Road
Design Review Comments
April 28, 2015 Page 4
Marni, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
C7f~~
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DE SIG N GR O UP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRC LE . SUilE 1 99 . LA RKSPU R . CA . 94 939
~
::i
--.«
Re.ce.'"eo
·"'~ ? a ?0\5
JW"I~ --
\OWN Of LOS GATOS
pLANN\NG 0\V\S\ON
ARBORIST REPORT
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Tree Inventory, Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Relative to Proposed Construction
Project Address :
17528 Tourney Road
Los Gatos, California
Prepared for:
Marnl M oseley
Town o f Los Gatos Community Planning Department
11 0 E. Main Street
Los Gat os, CA 95031
Prepared by:
D eborah Ellis , MS .
Consulting Arbor/sf & Horticulturist
Registered Consu lting Arborist #305. American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-04576 . International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Profe ss ional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science
DATE: APRIL 28, 2015
Reoort Historv: This is my first report for this project.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Co nsulting Arborlst & Ho rtic ulturist
Service since 1984
Table of Contents
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY .••.....•..••.•.......•.••••..•.••.•••..•....•.••.•..•.••••.•.••...•••••.•..•.••.••.••.•••.•••••..•••••••••••••••••••••••.••.••••••••••••••••••••••.••••••••••••••••••••.•.•••••••••••••••.•••••••••••••••••••••••••.•••••••• 2
The Project ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Trees & t he Pro j ect ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Table 1 Summary Tre e Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Trees o n Ne ig hboring Pr operty .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
REC O MMEN DATI O NS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTR O DU CTI O N .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pu rpose & Use of Report ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
Pl a n s Re viewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
METH O DO LOGY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
O BSERV ATI O NS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Site Conditio ns ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
APPEND IX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3 Comple te Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Expla n a ti o n o f Tree Table Data Colu mns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Tree Protection Dist ances ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
3 to 5 x DB H .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 15
OTPZ (O ptimum Tree Protection Zo n e) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Los Gatos General Tree Pro tection Directi o ns .................................................................................................................................................................. 16
Tree Ph o tos .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
Ass u mptions & Limitatio ns ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 24
Cover photo: entrance to the property off Tourney Road . The trees labeled are: #2 bigleaf .naple, #8 black locust, #9 valley oak
and #10 black walnut. All photos 1n this report were taken by D. Ellis on Aprill5 , 2015 .
I PO Box 3714 , Sarat oga, CA 9 5070 . 408-725-1357. de cah@pac bell.net. http:/ /www.deca h.com . I
Deborah E llis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturi st
S ervice sin ce 19 84
TREE MAP 7 ' 7 .... ~p --·6 -1' , -·_::______./ 7:" ----·--/ I = -"""'"'-------~~-- -----·--. -'"'::.. 5 / ' ~ ----·--·--1 ,..,,. ~ ...:-..:: .4 . '----·-I ~ -, •••-• , . ·-=, I \ ·-·----cv I I ,
• : I'' ; .. ' •-~~-= '· ""--.. 'I
fiT ;:;_ --I =· . -~. --~~~-.... ";I E:• ;/ // • ~--· ----"" o o ~ " '" '"'" ~~ ~ I ~B I ' . 7~ -·-·· 1 ;a.. --..1:~:--~.c-~--= .. "'· . . -~.1 -~I : / ; ~ l : -_-:·. --:.. ~·. -= . I I : :
""" -.. '" .. _,, --~ I I ' \ , .. --t:.-, ··-~ . I : :
-1 ' -, I . I . \ I .....__ I ' <> / -·' --"' -0•--1 .. ,; ~~ --, -a
\ \
' ·--·-· I / "' "' \ 1=---~ " " '<..;. \ o ·~. .... I "'" \ ~-\ . ' • .. '0 n ---. . = . --' " ;;; ~~ '• ... •'I . ... .. . . =-·· . . I •' 8 p .~ " ,. ' I ' -.. ~, o.·\·-\, •·, ___ o ····'o · ~-. ·.t 1 _~· //
1
\'·I , · · ·-•o --·-'""" I I • ... ~ \~' ,'i . -. ~ . -·. 0 ... 3 y·· I -.... T· . . : -/.. \~~-. =-. -..... ~o -·• .,. .... . 0 " • ; ; 0
'· \ I ' - -. . .. "1 ~-'<. ; ', < \ ....... . .~· . . -•. . 0 ! ; •· ....;. < .. = 55!le . ..-. -'" . ••. . -:.-I ' : --' \... (X· =--~-·-:--· ::.-. · ~-·-· ·' -~"-0 ~-:::-" ' --~ . ~ ~ ·'o .... . . ·,;--:;. -. -' \
. '-.P--_..,,4' -:-:· ~.. ~ ·. ...... ::: -~ 9 't =.-:..(; ' • ~-:....~~ •' 2 ------/' * =,_ I ' . . . · .. ~.. "::::::---_ ... ' . . .. -· -
•• "";::1\ • • ---, •• ~ 0 ' '• ·---~ • • ~ -= "'-" \ .:-'-= . I I "" •• :1 . ..... ' ~ ••• ;'-', "' I. I ' \. •, . '~ ' '
\. 'o,,
0 r ',. 1 1 '1.
' •• ' r ~~~·-. ', t I ,
0
""'"~
• '··... ,., .._ -'" -----~ • Dobola bre •
-.._ '··... -I> lQ. ... • \Road a bautr~\ '>....,. '-. ···•·... 'i · -X Roma•e ''•• ~~ ....... ~--. 0
...... ..... ··-... 0 -0 ' ~ ' ' -'::::.::::----------...... -----=:::::Y, -..... ----0. :_ ' ... ,
--· .__~"'.l!l!:_ --·--------~
I PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28 , 2015 . Page 1 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
SUMMARY
11'H E PROJECT
An existing single-family, one-story home will be demolished and a new single-family, two-story home will be constructed.
THE TREES & THE PROJECT
Ten protected trees 1 on the subject property are adjacent to proposed improvements and are listed and described in t his report. In
addition several redwood trees and coast live oaks on neighboring property to the North are discussed .
A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page 3, and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table 3 {the
Complete Tree Table) beginning on page 9. The Complete Tree Table also provides recommended minimum root protection distances
for those trees that will or may be saved, as well as other important information about individual t rees.
After review of the current plans and in light of individual tree condition and preservation suitability, I have listed three trees for removal,
two trees as "Debatable" and five trees that should be saved and protected . Trees on neighboring site whose canopies overhang the
site {several redwoods and coast live oaks) must also be protected in the same manner as trees on the project site. The three trees
listed for removal need to be taken out due to proposed construction, but two of these trees (# 1 coast live oak and #3 Chinese
ebn) are also in poor condition and have poor preservation suitability.
1 For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos as defined in the Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tree Protection. Section 29.10.0960. 12/3/2010 the
Scooe of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zon ing approval or subdivision
aooroval is reauired . Town Street trees of anv size are orotected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are ex emot.
PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com.
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28, 2015. Page 2 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TR EE TABLE
Tree Co mmon Trunk Preservatio n Expected
Diam. Construction Action Reason # Name in .) @ 3ft. Suitability Impact i
1 coast live oak 31 Poor Severe Remove Overall Cond ition . Risk Construct ion I
----------~----------! 2 jb1gleaf maple I 14 !Fair/Good Jsevere jRemove !construction
l 3 jChmese elm I 13 !Poor jsevere !Remove -]ConstructiOn . Structure
4 lcoastlive oak I 16 IFa 1r
I 5 falley oak I 27 l Fai r/Good 'Low 'Save I
rsrast rive oa~<--p l Good ______ Tcc>..v---·--.,save ·~
I "'7 'valley oak I 14 'Fai r/Good 'Low 'Save I
I 8 !black locust I 18 .14 jFair/Poor !Moderate !Debatable !overa ll Cond ition . Construction r· 9 !valley oak I 17 !Fair/Good !Severe !Debatable I
I ~~_l ca~i!·.?~ac~ ~alnut l_ _ .2~. _ _!.~!_r!!:oor _ _.J ':_o~·-·-· _ ·-Lsav~·-~---L---·-----· ----------·--· .. ·----·
lREIES ON NE IGHBOR ING PRO PERTY
There are 3 coast live oaks and 4 redwoods on neighboring property to the north that are located on a slope below the existing and
proposed driveway. Photos of these trees are on page 21 . The trunks of 3 of the redwoods appear to be w ithin a few feet of the
existing driveway. My understanding of the plans is that the existing driveway adjacent to these trees will remain as is (this driveway is
also an easement). In any c ase tree protection fencing should be erected at the edge of the driveway adjacent to the c anopie s of
these trees , prior to any work (including demolition) beginning on site.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http ://www.dec~~o-;.-----I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015 . Page 3 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service sina 1984
RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Existing trees to be saved or removed should be renumbered on all site-based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In
this arborlst report. The tree tag numbers in this arborist report match the number tags on the trees in the field.
2. Remove the following three trees due to construction impact or because I have recommended them for removal for other reasons: #1
coast live oak, #2 bigleaf ~maple, #3 Chinese el~n .
3. Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #8 black locust and #9 valley oak. Read about these 2 trees in the Notes Section of the
Complete Tree Table in order to determine what to do with them (will they be saved or removed)? A "Debatable" designation means
that there is a problem with retaining that tree, such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor species for the site , or in poor
condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too close to it. The reason for the
"Debatable" designation can be found in the "Reason" and "Notes" column of the Complete Tree Table. Additional action or
decisions are necessary on the part of the tree owner, project architects or others involved in the project design and construction are
necessary in order to resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved or removed.
4. For those trees that will be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions, included in this report on pages
16 through 18. At this time' the following five trees will most likely be saved: #4 and 6, coast live oaks, #5, 7 and 9 valley oaks
and #10 black walnut. A separate copy of the Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans.
Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. These Directions shall replace any tree
protection notes, specifications or other directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans.
5. Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site (e .g. coast live oaks and .. edwoods on the nol'th
neighboring pl'opel'ty) must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site; for
example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of these trees as much as possible in
order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch
breakage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance
pruning.
6. I shou ld review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 7. Additional improvements on
plans that were not reviewed or were revised may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by the
r-PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28, 2015. Page 4 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
S ervice since 1984
arborist should be full-size, to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements.
Scale should be 1 :20 or 1 :1 0 .
7. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the
Improvement} as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 5xDBH 2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be
used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course . For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here . Tree canopies must
also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
8. Construction or landscaping work done underneath the drlpllne of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to
preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when
those roots must be remo ved. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees . This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the
work site.
9. Landscaping:
a . New landscaping and Irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any oth er type of construction . The
same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping.
Within the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch
such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface . The environment around existing trees
should be changed very carefully or not at all -please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing
trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project.
b . This site contains oaks that are native to the immediate area (coast live oak and valley oak). These tree species fare best with
no irrigation during the normal dry months of the year. The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies of native oaks
is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include during the winter in
extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root loss due to construction, and for newly planted trees during
their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation. Native oak species are often killed due to inappropriate landsc aping
2 3 & SxDBH : See oaae 15 for an exoianation of these calculations which are used to estimate root orotection distances for t rees.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015. Page 5 of 25
De bo r a h Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Arb orlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
that is installed around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water-
use plants. Large drought tolerant trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation,
especially close to their trunks . California native oaks that are treated in this manner may contract root rot diseases and fall
over at the roots ; often causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes, cars and
people. It is important to landscape correctly around our native oaks; e .g . summer dry. I have attached a publication
entitled Living among the Oaks, to assist in best managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items
'b' and 'c' below.
c. Around the native oaks (taoees #1, 4, s, 6, 7 and 9 ): there shall be no planting or irrigation (including drip Irrigation) wHhln a
m inimum radius of 10 feet from the trunks of the oaks or the inner haH of the dripllne of the tree, whichever is great er. Farther is
better. Within this 10-foot (or greater) radius around the t runk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or
bark chips or tree trimming chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the
mulch off the root collar of the trees. Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought-tolerant,
summer-dry plant species, preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association
with the native oaks , may be planted. Only summer-dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of the dripline of the
tree or 20 feet from the trunk, whichever is greater. Such plants may be planted from no larger than l -gallon cans in holes
that are hand-dug manually with a shovel (no power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced
sparsely (e.g. planted no closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants
shall be mulched in the same manner previously described . The drip irrigation for these plants should preferably be
abandoned after a 2 to 3 year establishment period .
l 0. General Tree Maint enance:
a . The root collars and lower trunks of some of the t rees were obscured from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering . Such
portions of the tree should be uncovered and the tree re-evaluated by the arborist .
b. Do no unnecessary p runing, fertilization or other t ree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum
required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning .
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28 , 2015 . Page 6 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by the Town of los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of th e
report is to identify and des cribe th e existing protected trees on site --their size . condition and suitability for preservation. Th e audience
for this report is the property owner, developer. project architects and contractors, and Town of l os Gatos authorities concerned with
tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to prese rve the existing protected trees o n site that are in acceptable
condition. are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site .
PLANS REVIEWED
Table 2
PLAN DATE SHEET NOTES
Existing Site Topographic Map 4/28/15 A1 .2 includina existina tree trunk locations
Proposed Site Layout
Demolition
Construction Staging
Grading/Drainage 4/28/15 C-2
Erosion Control
Underground Utility I
Site & Building Sections 4/28/15 4 .1, .2 i
Building Exterior Elevations 4/28/15 A3 .1 .2
Roof 4/28/15 A2.2
Shadow Study
Construction Details th at would
affect trees (for example building
foundations, pavement installation
including sub-grade preparation,
underground utility installation)
Landscape Planting
Irrigation Plan
Landscape & Irrigation Details
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arbori s t Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015. Page 7 of 25
D eborah Ellis, M S
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on April 15, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color
and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were
taken from:
• Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition , 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
• Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992.
The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations .
I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground, which is the required trunk diameter
measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter was extrapolated to DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above the
ground) because DBH is also used calculate tree protection distances and other tree-related factors . The DBH figure is not included in
the Tree Tables , but I have used it to estimate construction impacts to trees . Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I estimated
the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional notes for trees
when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable) proposed use of the site yields
the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital camera. Some of
these photos ore included in this report, but all photos are available from me by email if requested.
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITI O NS
There is an existing single -family, one-story home on the site, plus some pavement around the house. Landscaping is very minimal. as is
landscape maintenance. I do not think that any of the trees receive irrigation, which is a good thing for the native tree species. Most of
the trees on site are native to the immediate area with the following exceptions: bee #3 Chinese elan and #8 black locust. Site
topography is level near the house and slopes up along the south perimeter of the property and d own toward the north . Sun exposure
for the trees varies from full to portly shaded, depending upon proximity to other trees . Coast live oaks #6 and 7 appear to be
loc ated on neighboring property to the south, but the topographic survey for this project shows the trunks of these trees to be located
on the project site.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28 , 2015. Page 8 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
APPENDIX
TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
This Table is continued through page 11. Data fields in the Table are e xplained on pages 12 to 15.
"' indicates that tree is not tagged because it is behind a fence on adjacent property. --·-,------------· -------~r------r--·-------------------·-·--·-----·-·-~-~·-· ·---·
CONDITION
Species Trunk Expected Tree & Diam. Size e Preservation Construction Action Reason Notes # Common (ln.) ... :II Suitability Impact Name @3ft. 0 -Ill u > :II ... -(/)
1 Quercus 31 145*45 20 20 Poor Severe Remove Overall Construction : existing/proposed retaining
I agrifolia, Condition, jwall back side less than 2 feet from trunk.
coast live oak Risk , This is too close already, but over-I Construction excavation behind the wall will be even
closer to the trunk. But this is a moot point,
because the tree should be removed now
even if no construction occurs.
Condition : extensive lower trunk decay and
mostly defoliated. High risk of the tree
I failing toward the existing/proposed house
I from the lower trunk or roots ! 2 lAcer 14 25*22 85 50 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction Construction : at edge of house/porch roof.
macrophyl/um,
I big leaf maple
l 3 Ulmus 13 16*25 80 40 Poor Severe Remove Construction, Construction: within proposed house.
I lparvifolia, Structure Condition : trunk diameter really about 16
I Chinese elm inches but % of trunk is dead. I
r 4 coast live oak 16 30*20 85 50 Fair Low/ Save Construction: proposed drainage ditch
I Moderate behind retaining wall at 12 feet, house at 25
I feet.
! I Condition : grove with adjacent tree; OK to
I
I
--··---·--··-TREE ROOT
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
::1: ::1: N CD CD 0... c c ..... )( )( 0 M It)
8 13 31 I
I
I
I ' I
l
I
l
~
I
;
3 6 10 ;
I
I
I
3 5 9 I
l
i
4 7 8 I
I
I
I ;
I
-· _L ·-------------·----·-----------------·-· save as long as adjacent_!~ee #5 remains. I .. ____ -··----, __ ..,!
~-----PO Box 37i4.-&;-.=-ato-~:c'A-95o76 .--408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http ://www.dec;h.c~~~----------------:=J
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015 . Page 9 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
·-----····---· ·----,----------------
TREE ROOT
~ONDITION PROTECTION
Species Trunk DISTANCES
~ree & Diam. Preservation Expected
Size e Construction Action Reason Notes # Common (ln.) ... :I Suitability Impact ::1: ::1: N
Name @3ft. 0 t) tO tO 1:1.. 01 c c b > :I >< >< ... ... M It)
U)
I s Quercus 27 60*50 80 50 Fair/Good Low/ Save Construction : proposed retaining wail at 15 7 11 27
' lobata, Moderate feet, house at 27 feet.
' ' valley oak I
I *6 coast live oak 24 60*40 75 70 Good Low Save "onstruction : proposed retaining wall at 37 6 10 11
I feet, house at 48 feet. I Condition : on other side of fence between
properties, so could not access all around
tree to view tree from south side. Some
groundcover (Vinca major) and soil covering
upslope side of trunk.
*7 valley oak 14 ~0*20 70 50 Fair/Good Low Save ronstruction: proposed retaining wail at 26 3 6 10
I feet, house at 35 feet.
Condition : same as above regarding
I location and access .
I a Robinia 18,14 35*40 60 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Construction , Construction: centerline of drainage swale at 6 10 31
pseudoacacia, Overall 7 feet from trunk, patio at 14 feet, house at
I black locust Condition 19 feet. Drainage dissipater 19 feet
! downslope. Grading for flagstone patio
looks to be about 4 feet from trunk, but on
' slight slope below house pad. Bottom line: if
' ree remains, make sure there is no soil
i disturbance within 6 feet of base of trunks.
I There should also be no soil disturbance for
I landscaping (including the low water turf) I r,vithin a minimum radius of 1 0 feet from the
I trunk. Within this 10-foot zone should be
!
I
spread a 3 to 4 inch depth of coarse wood ,
I bark or tree trimming chippings.
Condition : 2 trunks 12" apart .
.__ __ --~ --~-. ._ __ ------·--· --------·-
I PO Box 3714 . Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pocbell .net. http://www.decoh.com . I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Rood . April 28 , 2015. Page 10 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
------·-· --.-----· -------------------------·--~------··· ·-~-,-------~-----·--------------------·-
CONDITION
Species Trunk I Preservation I Expected 1 1 ~~e~ & Clam. Sl Reason Common (ln.) ze ! Suitability Construction Action ... :;,
Name @3ft. 0 .. Impact
Dl u > :;,
~
I U)
9 !valley oak 1 17 145*45 1 70 60 !Fair/Good !Severe !Debatable !Construction
I '
I
20 130*45 1 90 40 !Fair/Poor Low .Save
I californica
'I hindsii,
Calif. black
Notes
TREE ROOT
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
~~~~~ 0 0 1-)( )( 0
M II)
Construction : 7 feet from back edge of I 4 I 7
retain ing wall adj acent to house. 4 feet from
swalelberm/drain line. House at 15 feet
12 1
from trunk. If tree will remain , there must be
no soil disturbance within a minimum of 7
feet from the edge of the base of the trunk,
in all directions. So the retaining wall and
drainage must be moved farther from the
ree, to take into account over-excavation
beyond these improvements. House is only
15 feet from trunk. so some careful
clearance pruning will be necessary. It
!would be better if the house were moved
ifarther from the tree. Also see
Recommendations section of report
'regarding landscaping around native oaks.
Construction : 25 feet to centerline of drain I 5 I 8
pipe, 30 feet to drainage water dissipater.
Condition: topped.
i
l .
f
I
;
' ' ' .
I
I
;
I
I
' I
I
24 i
!
!
1 10 ~ug/ans
;_ ___ .. ~In~~---· ___ , __ -·-·--·----·---'--------·---------·-----L ---·---1--L-..! . ·--~
End of Table
I --PO-B~~-m4.~9~.-cA95o70 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com. n -~
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28 , 2015. Page 11 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS:
1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the f ield is tagged with a 1.25 inch rou nd aluminum number tag that
corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Specifications and any other project pl ans where existing
trees must be shown and referenced.
2) Tree Name and Type :
Species : The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of t he p lant, for example Quercus agrifo/ia where Quercus is the Genus
and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most curr ent
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation . The scientific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used .
3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the ground). This is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH3• For
multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number in parentheses (e.g. 2) after the trunk
diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter was measured at this
alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree.
4) Size : tree size is listed as height x width in feet, estimated and approxi mate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect t ree (which is rare-
like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is "average" (not great but not terrib le either). There are two components to tree condition -vigor and
structure, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a
valid reason to remove a tree from a site --even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each sepa rate component:
100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead.
6) Relative to the scope of work for this report. tree Condition has been rated but not explained i':l detail and recommendations for the management of
tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific
recommendations for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition.
3 DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. Th is is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement
heiaht that is a lso used in manv tree-related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pocbell .nd. http://www.decoh .com.
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015 . Page 12 of 25
Deb o r ah Ellis, MS
Consultin g A r bori st & Horticult uri st
Service since 1984
7) The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree specie s and present or f utu r e i ntended use of the site to provide an opinion o n the tree's
Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keep ing on this site, in t his location, as explained in Ta ble 4 belo w. This is b ase d u pon the sce nario
t ha t the tree is given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long l ife on the site. Rat ings su ch as "Fair/Good" and "Fa ir/Poor'' ar e
intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Conditi on Rating becaus e (for ex ample) so me trees with poo r
condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work -and it w o uld be worthw hile to keep t he tree if this were done.
·--·--..-. ·---· ·-··-·· --··--···-J ... -... ·~zr_-~--""-·-··--·-··
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide
Excellent multiple functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the site.
These are great trees with a mi nimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and struct ure.
Equivalent to academic grade 'A'.
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can
be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good
Good condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefi t to t he
environment and the users of the site . These are better than average t rees equivalent
to academic grade ·s ·.
These trees have moderate or greater healt h and/or structural defects that it may or
may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are ·average• trees -not great
but not so terrible that they absolutely shou ld be removed . The maj ority of trees on
Fa ir most sites tend to fall into th is category. These t rees will require more intensive
management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the
"Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivale nt to academic grade ·c·.
These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be
reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline
Poor regardless of management. The tree speci es themselves may have ch aracteri stics
that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsu itable for h igh use areas. I
do not recommend retention of trees with low su itability for preservation in areas
where people or property will be present. Equiva lent to academic grade ·o·.
These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk
N one or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees
are beneficial as food and shelter for certain an imals and plants including
decomposers. Equivalent to academic grade 'F'.
I PO Bo x 371 4, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com . I
Arbor ist Report for 17528 Tou r ney Road . April 28 , 2015 . Page 13 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
8) Action (Disposition):
a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures .
b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or
any combination of these factors.
c) Debatable: there is a problem w ith potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table.
Examples are:
• The tree is shown to be saved (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too
much damage to retain the tree. Desig n changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved .
• Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e .g. the tree requ ires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Exa mples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess
tree stability from the roots, or tiss ue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosi s.
• Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• Species : the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertai n construction impact
• Other (a s explained for the individual tree)
9) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant
reason listed first . Rea sons can include but are not limited to:
• Construction (ex ce ssive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile to try and save the tree)
• Conditi on (e .g. poor tree condition-either vigor, structure or both)
• Landscaping (the tree is being removed becau se it does not fit in with or conflicts with proposed new la nd scapi ng )
• Owner's Decision (for some rea so n the owner has deci ded to remove this tree)
• Species (the tree is a poor species for the use of the site)
• Risk (the tree prese nts moderate to excessi ve risk to people or property that cannot be su fficiently mitigated)
10) Notes: Thi s may include any other information that would be h elpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the sc ope of work for this
report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact.
r PO Box 3714 , Saratoga. CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28 , 2015. Page 14 of 25
De b o ra h Ellis, M S
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
11) Tree Protection Distances (See below and on the next page).
a) Root Protection :
i) 3 and SxDBH : Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are li sted for each tree. For multi -trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the largest trunk is added to
50 % of the DBH f or all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Di stance ca lcuiations. For
practical purpose s, the minimum 3x DBH distance li st ed is 3 feet and the minim um Sx DBH distance is 4 feet . If disturbance cannot be kept at
lea st 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed .
ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): Th is is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development Matheny et al., Intern ational Society of
Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance . Becau se it m ay not
be pos sible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for tree s on many projects due to crowd ed site condition s, the Arbori st may omit thi s
requirement and list only the 3 and SxDBH distance s.
b) Canopy Protection : Additional space beyond r oot zone protection distances may be necess ary for canopy protection .
TR EIE PROTECTION DISTANCES
3 TO 5 X DBH
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soi l disturbance such as an ex cavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an
indi vidual tree to affect tree stability or health at a low , moderate or severe degree --there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or
anticipate. 3xDBH however , is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any ex cavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies i ncluding (Smiley , Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002 , Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
DBHis trunk "d iameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction
pr oject i n order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper,
which is the area in which the large buttress roots(main support roots close to the trunk) rapi dly decrease i n diameter with increasing distance from the
trunk. For ex ample , using the 3X DBH guideline an ex cavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18 -inch DBH tree. Such distances
are guidelines only , and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. It is also important to
understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3x DBH may be more of
an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be
strived for , and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond
the zone of rapid taper form an ex tensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in di ameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as
transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals . Maintaining a 5x DBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will
preser ve more of these transport roots , which wilt have less of an impact on tree health than if the ex cavation were closer to the t r un k.
I PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357 . decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com . I
Arborist Report for 17 528 Tourney Road . April 28 , 2015 . Page 15 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
O TPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE)
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree , that construction or other disturbance should not encroach with in. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age, DBH and the
particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction
(for example , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stabili ty, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural
industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of Arbariculture, 1998. The tree
protection zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ's provided in this report. Due to the crowded , constrained nature of many
building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ d istance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also listed alternate
distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see paragraph above).
LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS
Note that the following Is excerpted from Division 2 (rree Protection) of the Los Gatos Town Code and does not constitute the complete
Division 2 text. The owner /applicant Is responsible for Implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to tree protection.
August 7, 2014
Sec . 29.10.1000 New Property Development
I 1) The final approved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building permit set of development plans and printed on a
sheets titled: Tree Preservation Instruction !Sheet T-1, T-2, etc.!. The se Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition,
utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
l3.b.l The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approv al to
remove a tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit. as
outlined in section 29.1 0 .0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition.
13.e.l Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall
submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is inst alled around street trees
and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report.
c-. PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28, 2015. Page 16 of 25
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
(3.q.l An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within
the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring.
air-spade excavation or by hand. taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripline of existing
trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist.
Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees During Construction
a) Protective tree fencing shall specitv the following:
1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain link fencing. mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts. shall be
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 1 0-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. IYruU: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area o r at the tree protection zone
(TPZ). when specified by a certified or consulting arborist4 • ~:Enc l osure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence
around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as
downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden
boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark o r branches.
3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demoli ti on. grading or construction begins and rema in in place
until final landscaping is required . Contractor sha ll first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign sta ting: "Warning-Tree Protection Zone-th is
fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.1 0.1 025". A template sign has been provided to
be used on the project site .
b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
1) Prior to th e commencement of construction, Install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an
approved arborist report. around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and
prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any
way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction.
2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drlpllne of the tree unless approved by the director.
4 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible,
including as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then
so be it. But the contractor must trv to fence off as much area under the canoov as oossible. do not be irresoonsible about this.-
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com.
Arborist Report for 17528 Tou rney Road . April 28. 2015 . Page 17 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Seroice since 1984
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drlpline of or In drainage channels,
swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree
4) Prohibit the aHachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
5) Design utility services and Irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborlst for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to
be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved .
7) The director and projeCt arborlst shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that
proper treatment may be administered.
Section 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance
All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices -Tree Pruning, established by
the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which
require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected
trees including cabling, and fertilizing if specified.
1 ) Any public utility Installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall
obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree (e.g.
cable TV /fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.)
2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1) -Pruning , Section 5.9 Utility Prun ing. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is
prohibited.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015. Page 18 of 25
TREIE PHOTOS
Coast live oak # 1 , with an abnormally
sparse canopy-md icating severe tree
dec line .
Coast live oak # 1 , the r ear
(south) s ide of the trunk is
extensively decayed. Some of
the bark has fa ll en off . but I
have outlined t he la r ger decayed
area where the bark is dead .
The tree is highl y like ly break at
this point or the roots and fall
toward the house.
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
C ------·-ro-Box 3714, Saratoga~507o~o8--725-i357. decah@pac~li~http://www.decah.com . I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28, 2015. Page 19 of 25
Deborah Ellis , MS
Cons ulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Upper Left: #3 Chinese ebn 'With #8
black locust in the background.
Upper Right: close-up of dead maJority of
trunk of Chinese ebn #3.
Lower Left and Right : coast live oaks #4
and 6, valley oaks #5 and 7 .
L PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pac~ll .net . http:/ /www.decah .com ; I
Arb or ist Report for 17528 Tourney Road . April 28 , 20 15 . Page 20 of 25
9
Upper Left: #3 Chinese elan, #8 black locust
and #9 valley oak.
Lowe r Left: #3 Chinese elan, #9 valley oak and
#10 black walnut.
De b o ra h Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Nei ghb oring Trees on North Pr operty :
Center: coast live oal4:s along
driveway to 17528 To urney .
Right: l'edwoods along dri veway.
These trees appear to be in very poor
cond ition , probab ly due t o drought
stress.
r --------POBo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www.decah .com . I
Arborist Report for 175 28 Tourney Road . April 2 8, 2015 . Page 21 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1. Tree locations were provided by SMP Civil Engineers and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a
reduced partial copy of the Site Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field .
2. A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described In this report was performed on April 15, 2015 for the purpose of this report. A basic
evaluation is a visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that
additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary .
3. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site. I did not enter the
neighboring property to inspect these trees up close .
4. The south side of coast live oaks #6 and 7 was not visible and evaluated because these trees were behind a fence on
neighboring property.
5. Some trees had their root collars and or lower trunks covered with soi l, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I
conducted my tree evaluation. If these trees may remain, the obstructions should be removed and I should re-examine these
previously covered areas.
6. Any Information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my Investigation In this case and the preparation of this report
are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no
responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title .
7. The Information contained In this report covers only those Items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the
time of inspection.
8. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
9. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not Imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand.
10. This report and the ratings or values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of
a specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported.
11. This report has been prepared In conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures
and is consistent with practices recommended by the Internationa l Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting
Arborists.
12. My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is limited to visual examination of accessible Items without dissection,
excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the plants
or property in question may not arise in the future.
13. I take no responsibility for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such , structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise
l PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28, 2015. Page 22 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturi st
Service since 1984
stated . Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree.-Likewise, root collar excavations and
evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
14. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist In the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein , should
some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee
that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a
tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die.
Because there may be hidden defects within the root system , trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious
defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate
detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with
trees. particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree . Trees are unpredictable .
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good
faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
AS CA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S .A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B
I.S.A . Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Enclosures:
• To w n of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set)
• Lo s G atos Tree Prote c tion Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing)
• Keeping Nativ e Calif. Oaks Healthy. Hagen . June 1990. California Department of Forestry & Fire Protection. Tree Notes #7 .
[~uu --~--------------------"" -----------•-••• "" "" ------------------------I
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com .
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28 , 2015. Page 23 of 25
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
GLOSSARY
1. Arborist. Project. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the proj ect. That arborist shall also be a qualified
consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist) that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required . For most
construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures, and
being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project.
2. Arborist. qualified Consulting: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American
Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work
required .
3. Dripline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree
protection zone".
4. ~: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" canop ies. If of the same
species , there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as well as water and mineral sharing . Removal of
one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have
asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals.
5. Topped (Topping) is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height;
to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large enough to assume the terminal role.
Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful t o mature trees and may
result in reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition , branches that regrow from topping cuts are weakly attached to the tree and
are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them, which weakens the branch as well as the
attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the risk of a high risk tree
that will soon be removed.
6. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar uunction between trunk and roots) is critica l to whole-tree health and
stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized a ir). The area is then examined to
assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the Iaroe roots
close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a res istance-
recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root
decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is
excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the
root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the
extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound.
7. Root rot disease is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot)
ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .nd. http:/ /www .decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 17528 Tourney Road. April 28, 2015. Page 24 of 25
De bo rah Ellis , MS
Cons ulting Arbor ist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem. Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to
frequent irrigation during our normally rain-free months, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is often worsened in fine-
textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our
native plants .
8. Summer Drv: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our
normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils . Therefore it is
important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment
underneath native oaks is non-compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood, leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep
this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar uunction of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly
planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting, until they are "established") and also during droughts that occur during the normal ra iny
season.
9. Tree Service, qualified : A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business. A Qualified Tree
Service is a tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture)
Certified Arborist and acts in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of
California Contractor's license for T ree Service (C61-049) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance.
The person(s) performing the tree work must adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards:
• Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign , IL 61826-3129.
217-355-9411
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards . 2008 Edition. Ibid . (Covers tree care methodology).
• ANSI Z133. 1 Safety Requirements for Arboric ultural Operations. 2006 Edition . Ibid. (Covers safety).
I PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www .decah .com. I
Arb orist Re port f or 175 28 Tourney Ro ad . April 2 8, 2015 . Pa ge 25 of 25
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Marni Moseley
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
17528 Tourney Road, Arborist Report #2
Service siru:e 1984
OCT .i ·~ /0 15
This report supplements Arborist Report #1 dated April 28, 2015 TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
October 12 , 2015
Dear Marni:
I reviewed the revised plan set that you sent to me. Based upon these plans two additional trees will
be removed (#8 black locust, 8 & 14" trunk diameters and #9 valley oak, 17" trunk diameter). A
total of five trees will now be removed, a s indicated in the revised Summary Tree Table below. I
hove also included a revised Grading Plan as the Tree Map on page 2 that shows the numbers and
locations of the trees that will be saved or removed. Updated Recommendations are included o n
pages 3-5.
Table 1 Summary Tree Table
Trunk Expected Tree Common Dlam. Preservation Construction Action Reason ' Name (ln.) Suitability Impact @3ft.
1 coast hve oak 31 Poor Severe Remove Overall Condition, Risk , Construction
2 big leaf maple 14 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction (3 feet from proposed patio)
3 Chmese elm 13 Poor Severe Remove Construction (w1thm proposed house)
Structure
4 fcoast live oak 16 Fair Low/Moderate Save
5 ralley oak 27 IFatr/Good
*6 'coast live oak 24
*7 f alley oak 14 !Fair/Good
8 'black lo cust I 18 ,14 Fa1r/Poor Severe Remove Overall Condition. Construction (less than 3
feet from proposed retaining wall)
9 r.talley oak 17 Fa1r/Good Severe Remove Construction (less than 5 feet from retammg
!wall and drainage on 2 s1des)
10 Calif. black 20 Fair/Poor Low Save
I
I
I :
I
I ' l
I
! . . lw~,~~~ ... ----· . . -.. ~---·-·-· -·--·----. --------·-·. . -· -. --------•• -----.J
PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. htt p://www .decah.co m.
17 528 Tourney Road. Arbori st Report #2. October 12, 2015 . Page 1 of 10
EXHIBIT 8
Tree Protection
Fencing {Typ .) .... n-\"· . ~ -.\~ I 8: •. \\ .. -~~~ .,. -~-= -' \ •. ''"
\ g:g ,., ' \.
I z\ I \ \ ... i ( I -·.-r~;ut •r.
I : 1()-..
\ \.
I
I
I
', ~---\ ~J~~~ct
I ~~·M ·:r~::;. / ~ \ sao· 24' OO"E ' I <~··3Q':3!1--
: '1.~:.:-tP~
\..~1.'\' ..
Deborah Ellis. MS
Consulting Arborist & Hortic u lturist
\ .
\
\
\
\ .
~
\
Service sina 1984
\ .. 7
m; ~ 5 j1',
1;~ ..!4 'q)~
'-~ ~::6
\ --~ ......... ... '\ \
.. SQ.fi'J.6'_!lQ"W. . ' \
1)T.DS ----·-··-~ ' • ---~--........:.-=-=·-==··-.... ~_
Tree Map, October 12 , 2015
PO Box 3714 , Sarat oga , CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.de cah .com.
17528 Tou r ney Road . Arborist Report #2. October 12 , 2015 . Page 2 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
T bl 2 R a e evse d I p1ans rev ewe d f th" or 1s repo rt
PLAN DATE SHEET REVIEWED SHOULD NOTES REVIEW
Existing Site Topographic
Map including existing tree
trunk locations
Proposed Site Layout 9/11/15 A 1.2 X
Demo lition X
Construction Staging X
Grading/Dra inage 4/28 C-2-4 X
Erosion Control X
Underground Utility X If all is not included in Grading/Drainage
Site & Building Sections 9/11/15 A4 .1, X 4.2
Building Exterior A3.1,
Elevations 9/11/15 3.2 X
Roof 9/11/15 A2.2 X
Shadow Study
Construction Details that X
would affect trees (for
example building ' foundations, pavement
installation including sub-
grade preparation,
underground utility
installation)
Landscape Planting X
Irrigation Plan X
Landscape & Irrigation X
Details
RECOMMENDATIONS:
1. For those trees that will be retained on the sHe, follow the new and improved Town of Los Gatos
Tree Protection Directions. The Los Gatos Town Code. Tre e Protection Division, was revised in July
of 2015. A copy of the new Town Tree Protection Directions included in this report on pages 6
throu gh 10. A separate copy of the Directions is also enclosed and must be incorporated into
the project final plans. Additional tree protection information is a lso available from Deborah Ellis
if necessary. These Directions shall replace any tree protection notes, specifications or o ther
directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans .
2. The tree protection fencing that is shown on the Site Plan does not protect enough ground space
around the trees t o be saved. Use the t ree protection fencing lo cations that I have drawn in on
the Tree Map in thi s report. Also note the tree protection fencing d ire ctions that are contained
in the Town Tree Protection Directions. Oaks #6 and 7 are behind (to the (to the south) of an
existing 6-foot tall chain lin k fence. This fence serves as the tree protection zone for these trees ,
along with the additional fencing installed for oaks #4 and 5.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com .
17528 Tourney Road. Arborist Report #2. October 12 , 2015. Page 3 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service si11ce 1984
3. Neighboring trees: whose canopies overhang the project site (e.g. coast live oaks and
.. edwoods on the nonh neighboring p .. opeaoty) must receive tree protection in the
same manner as existing trees to remain on the project site; for example tree protection fencing
and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of these trees as much as
possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If
pruning is necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor shall hire a
qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary construction clearance pruning.
4. I should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on
page 3. Additional improvements on plans that were not reviewed or were revised may cause
additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by the arborist should be full-
size, to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed
improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or 1:10.
5. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over-excavation
or work area beyond the Improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH•
or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be used as the minimum distance for any"
soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection.
Farther is better, of course. For disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater
should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must also be taken into
consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working
margin around improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes
much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
6. Construction or landscaping work done underneath the drlpllne of existing trees should
preferably be done by hand, taking care to preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as
much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when those roots
must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) shou ld be hired to
monitor tree protection and supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies
to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the work site.
7. Landscaping:
a. New landscaping and Irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than
any other type of construction. The same tree root protection distances recommended
for general construction should also be observed for new landscaping. Within the root
protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of
coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over
the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed very carefully
or not at all -please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around
existing trees and/or have me review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project.
b. This site contains oaks that are native to the Immediate area (coast live oak and valley
oak). These tree species fare best with no irrigation during the normal dry months of the
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com .
17528 Tourney Road . Arborist Report #2. October 12, 2015. Page 4 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service sin ce 1984
year. The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies of native oaks is nothing
but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include
during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root loss
due to construction, and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment
period after installation. Native oak species are often killed due to inappropriate
landscaping that is installed around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires
frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water-use plants. Large drought toleran t
trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation,
especially close to their trunks. Calif ornia native oaks t hat are treated in this manner may
contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots ; often c aus ing great damage and
personal injury I there are targets in their vicinity such as homes, cars and people. It is
important to landscape correctly around our native oaks; e.g. summe r dry. Along with
Arborist Report # 1 I attached a publication entitled Living among the Oaks, to ass ist in
best managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items 'b'
and 'c' below.
c. Around the native oaks (bees #1, 4, s, 6 and 7 ): there shall be no planting or
irrigation (including drip Irrigati on) within a minimum radius of 10 feet from the trunks of
the oaks or the Inner half of the drlpllne of the tree, whichever Is greater. Farther Is better.
Within this 10-foot (or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse
organic mulch suc h as wood or bark chips o r tree trimming chippings shall be spread
over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the
root collar of the trees. Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only
drought-tolerant, summer-dry plant species, preferably plant species that a re native to
the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the native oaks, may be
planted. Only summer-dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of t he dri pline
of the tree or 20 feet from the trun k, whichever is greater. Such plants may be p lanted
from no larger than 1-gallon cans in holes that are hand-dug manually with a shovel (no
power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparse ly (e .g.
planted no closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone
around these plants shall be mulched in the same manner previously described. The drip
irrigation for these plants should preferably be abandoned after a 2 to 3 year
establishment period.
d . General Tree Maintenance: Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work.
Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum required for
construction c learance. A qualified tree service shou ld be hired t o provide such pruni ng.
PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4 0 8-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.co m.
17528 Tourney Road . Arborist Report #2. October 12 , 2015. Page 5 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
~·····························
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that
this report was prepared in good faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again.
Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A . Board Certified Master Arborist WE-457B
I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Enclosure: Los Gatos Tree Protec tion Requirements
LOS GATOS TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
LOS GATOS· TOWN CODE
Chapter 29 -ZONING REGULAT IONS
Article I. -IN GENERAL
Division 2. TREE PROTECTION
Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction.
(a) Protective tree fencing shall soecify the following :
(1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized
iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet at no more than 1 0-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 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area
or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II :
Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire planter strip to
the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as
downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first
branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid
damaging any bark or branches.
PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com .
17528 Tourney Road . Arborist Report #2. October 12 , 2015. Page 6 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
(3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or
construction permits are issued and remain in place until the work is completed . Contractor shall
first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection fence .
(4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating:
'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according
to Town Code 29.10.1025".
(b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
(1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection
zone {TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be
retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction
materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline
shall not be altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction .
{2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation,
grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director.
{3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within
the dripline of or in drainage channels .-swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected
tree.
{4} Prohibit the attachment of wires , signs or ropes to any protected tree.
{5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
{6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborl st 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 arborlst shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected
tree during construction so that proper treatment may be administered .
{Ord . No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance.
All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture
Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant
Management-standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For
developments, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in
reasonable charge of all activities involving protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if
specified .
{1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or
conduits In the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain permission from the Director before
performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e.g. cable
TV/fiber optic trenching , gas, water, sewer trench , etc.).
{2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in
compliance with the current version of the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 {Part
1 }-Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning , except where no other
alternative is available, is prohibited.
(3) No person shall prune, trim , cut off, or perform any work, on a singl e occasion or
cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five percent or more of the crown of
any pr otected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding
PO Bo x 3714. Saratoga. CA 9 5070. 4 08-725-13 57. decah@p a cbel l.ne t . http:/ /www.de cah.co m.
1752 8 Tourney Road . Arbor ist Repor t #2 . Oc t o be r 12 , 2015 . Page 7 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
of fruitless mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other species approved by the Town Arborist.
Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating where pruning is proposed.
(4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through
pruning or other method greater than four (4) Inches in diameter (12.5" in circumference)
without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority.
Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authoritv of the Town under Division 29 of Title 29
Cloning Regulations). Title 26 (Public Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to require
trees and other plants to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as conditions of the approval of
development. In the event of conflict between provisions of this division and conditions of any permit or other
approval granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines. The more protective requirements shall prevail.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement.
All offiCers and employees of the Town shall report violations of this division to the Director of Community
Development. Whenever an Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1.30.015 of the Town Code
determines that a violation of this code has occurred, the Enforcement OffiCer shall have the authority to issue
an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30.020 of the Town Code
Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a
violation of that provision has occurred, the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an
administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement-Remedies for violation.
In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law. the following remedies
shall be available to the Town for violation of this division:
(1) Tree removals in absence of or In anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the
absence of or prior to proposed development, then discretionary applications and/or building permit
applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been remedied to
the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the Director may
be imposed as a condition of any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the
subject property. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any
remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was
removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s). The
replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set
forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or
trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained
in a good and healthy condition . The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance
agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by
the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works.
PO Bo x 3714, Sarat oga, CA 95070. 408-725-1 357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.de cah .com .
17528 Tourney Road . Arborist Report #2. October 12 , 2015. Page 8 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service si11ce 1984
(2) Pendi ng devel opment applications. Incomplete applicati o n s will not be processed further
until the violation has been remedied . If an application has been deemed complete, it may be
denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial
at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a
condition of approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any
remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each hillside tree that was
removed illegally with a new tree(s} in the same location(s} as those illegally removed tree(s). The
replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set
forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or
trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained
in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance
agreement with the Town . For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by
the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works.
(3} Projects under construction.
a. If a violation occurs duri ng construction. the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and
prohibiting further activity on the property pursuant to the grad ing. demolition. and/or building
permit(s) (including construction. inspection, and issuance of certificates of occupancy) until a
mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the
property owner(s) or the applicant(s} or both , and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting
of adequate security in the discretion of the Director. A mitigation plan shall include specific
measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the
replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s} in the same
location(s} as those illegally removed tree(s}. The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than
that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division. If the
court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the
violation, the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property
owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town . For those trees on
public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by
the Director of Parks and Public Works.
b. The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree
removal, landscaping , construction or other business in the Town shall constitute grounds for
revocation of any business license issued to such person.
(4} Ci v il penalties .
Notwithstanding section 29.20.950 relating to criminal penalty. any person found to have violated
section 29.10.0965 shall be liable to pay the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a.
through d.
a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town , a court may assess against any person who
commits , allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this division a civil penalty in an amount
not to exceed five thousand dollars per violation.
b. Where the violation has resulted in rem oval of a protected tree. the civil penalty shall be in an
amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed . or the replacement value
of each such tree. whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable to the Town and
deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund . Rep lacement value for the purposes of this section
shall be determined utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared
by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers and the Species and Group Classification Guide
published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture.
c. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the
remedy for the violation. the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condit ion .
The property owner shall execute a five year written maintenance agreement with the Town .
d. The cost of enforcing this division , which shall include all costs , staff time, and attorneys'
fees .
PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com .
17528 Tourney Road. Arborist Report #2. October 12, 2015. Page 9 of 10
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
(5} I njunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate, enjoin, or otherwise compel the
cessation of such violation.
(6} Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this division in which the Town prevails , the court shall
award to the Town all costs of investigation and preparation for trial, the costs of tria l, reasonable
expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in prosecuting the action , and
reasonable attorney fees .
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03}
Sec. 29.10.1030. Fees.
The fee, as adopted by Town Resolution, prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule shall
accompany the removal or pruning permit application submitted to the Town for review and evaluation
pursuant to this division.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I , II, 8-4-03}
Sec. 29 .10.1 035. Severabili ty.
If any provision of this division or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be
invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this division
which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this
division are declared to be severable.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03}
S ec. 29.1 0.1040. No tices.
All notices required under this division shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code.
S e c. 29.10.1 045. Appeals.
Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with
the procedures set forth in section 29.20.260 of the Town Code. All appeals shall comply with the public
noticing provisions of section 29.20.450 of the Town Code.
(Ord. No. 2114 , §§ I , II, 8-4-03} .
PO Box 3714, Saratoga , CA 9507 0 . 408 -725-1 357. de cah@pac be ll.net. http://www .deca h.c om.
17 5 28 Tourney Road. Arb or ist Re port #2. Oc t obe r 12, 2015 . Page 10 of 10
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95030 (408) 354-6874 ---------
SUMMARY MINUTES OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR NOVEMBER 17,2015 HELD IN THE TOWN
COUNCIL C HAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, ll 0 EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 1 0 :04 a.m. by Chair Machado.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Marni Moseley , Associate Planne r
Doug Harding. Fire Department
Michae l Mac hado, Building Official
Mike Weisz, Associate Civil Engineer
Ry an Do. Ass is tant Civil Engineer
PUBLIC H EARINGS
ITEM 1: 45 Broadway
Architecture and Site Application S-15-040
Requesting approval for relocating a contributing single-family residence in the
Broadway Historic District, constructing a second story addition greater than I 00
square feet, and an accessory structure with reduced setbacks on property zoned
R-1D :LHP. APN 510-45-057.
PROPERTY OWNE R: Lori Baker
APPLICANT: Jay Plett
PROJECT PLANNER: Susie Pineda
I. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2. Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced.
4 . Members of the public were not present.
5. Public hearing closed .
6 . Mike We isz moved to approve the application subject to the conditions presente-d with the
following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New C onstruction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
EXHIBIT 9
DRC Minutes
November J 7, 2015
Page2
Required -Compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes not in
hillside residential areas.
CONSJDERA TIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7. Doug Harding seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8 . Appeal rights were cited.
ITE M.2: 17 528 Tourney Road
Architecture and Site Application S-14-127
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence and to construct
a new single-family residence on property zoned HR -2 Yl . APN 53 7-04-019.
PROPERTY OWNER: Joe Thornton
APPLICANT : Bess Wiersema
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
l. Chair Machado opened the public hearing.
2 . Staff gave report on proposed project.
3. Applicant was introduced .
4 . Members o f the public were present.
• Roger Hayashi, 200 Tourney L<?op
• Jeff Weinstein, 17500 Tourney Road
• Steve and Beverly Miller, 17651 Tourney Road
5. Public hearing closed.
6. Marni Moseley moved to approve the application subject to additional conditions o.f approval
with the following findings and considerations:
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA :
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15 303 : New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures.
DRC Minutes
November 17, 20 15
Page 3
Required findings for demolition:
·• A s required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a singl e family
residenc e :
1.
2 .
3 .
4 .
The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the house will be replaced.
The structure has no historic significance.
The property owner does not desire to maintain the structure due to it s current
l:Ondition and site constraints; and
The economic utility of the structure is limited.
Required Compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines.
Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan:
The proj ect is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that the site is developed as a
s ingle tamily residence on an existing parcel. The proposal is consistent with the development
criteria included in the plan.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
architecture and site application were all made in reviewing this project.
7. Mike Wei sz seconded, motion passed unanimously.
8. Appeal rights were cited.
OTHER BUSINESS
NONE
ADJ O U RNMENT
Meeting adj ourned at 11:1 0 a.m. The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Development Review
Committee is the following Tuesday.
'-yv\p nAA ~~~<'~r-
Michaei Machado, Building Official
N :\DEV\DRC \Min 201 5\1 J-1.7-15 .doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030 RECE!VED
APPEAL OF THE DECISION OF NOV 3 0 ZU15
DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
OR TOWN OF LO S GATO S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE PLANN ING DIVI S ION
PLEASE TYPE or PRINT NEATLY
I , the undersigned, do hereby appeal a d ecision of the COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT/DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
COMMITTEE as follows:
DATE OF DECISION: Jloo£¥YJ,~~ 1 7~~
5-l4 ~ J;)'l fl PN 537-t4-D/~ PROJECT/APPLICATION:
; 7528 TO u '(' n-ey Rd
~ ~s qs:o2>o
LOCATION:
LIST REaSONS WHY THE APPEAL SHQTVLD BEJ~TED: Fl• 1 1 , \ _ IJ ~L-eas-e.. 5-e.·e-q-tt:aa;J,~ L.-'f tta vv,:e.x
(If more space is needed, attach additional sheets.)
IMPORTANT:
1. APPEAL MUST BE FILED WITHIN TEN ( 1 0) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF MAILING OF WRITTEN
NOTIFICATION OF THE DECISION.
2. THE APPEAL SHALL BE SET FOR THE FIRST REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING
COMMISSION WHICH THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION WILL PERMIT, MORE
THAN FIVE (5) DAYS AFTER THE DATE OF THE FILING OF THE APPEAL. THE PLANNING
COMMISSION MAY HEAR THE MA ITER ANEW AND RENDER A NEW DECISION IN THE MA ITER.
3. YOU WILL BE NOTIFIED, IN WRITING, OF THE APPEAL DATE.
4. CONTACT THE PROJECT PLANNER TO DETERMINE WHAT MATERIAL IS REQUIRED TO BE
SUBMITTED FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DATE OF PLANNING COMMI SS ION H EARING:
COMMISSI ON ACTION : I.
2.
3.
PLAPPEAL
PLAPPEAL
PLAPPEAL
N :'DEV FORM$1Planning\2015-16 Fonns'Appcal C DD-DRC.docx
OFFICE USE ONLY
DATE:---------DATE: ________ _
DATE:---------
$ 18 1.00 Residential
$ 725.00 Commercial
$ 74.00 Tree Appeals
710 1120 15
EXHIBIT 1 ·0
The owner and applicant of 17528 Tou r ney Rd has planned and
submitted 8 revised p lans and now has received approval to move
forward at the November 1ih OCR Meeting.
The proposed project has been designed for the selling of profit. Their
current rendering is advertised in a local real estate magazine as a
hillside property offering privacy and beautiful valley views.
This appeal will outline our concerns with the plan, and our request fo r
the town to take another look at its Standards and Guidel ines for our
consideration . Further, the applicant realizes, this hillside affords all
residences privacy, beauty and vi ews . The applicant's project will be
providing the new owner hillside privacy, and breathtaking views . This
which has until now been afforded us but will be dramatically impacted
after the completion of their spec for profit project is completed .
We will further identify other plan specifics potentially impacting us
which we will address as part of our appeal.
Our appeal is for items as identified below:
1. Their current p lan on its page (2) states that the applicant will
position a new 6 foot wooden fence on the property line per thei r
su rvey. Item# (46) of a condition the Town has placed states a
new fence is to be on the property l ine. This town condition and
notation on their plan is being appealed. The current open fence
which we own was installed in the year 2000.Per their new
survey, we encroach on their property but they note i n some
locations up to 12 feet is inside of our own proper ty. We will
gladly relocate our fence to the correct staked property line which
will then allow the applicant to install thei r own fence, which will
RIEC!i:~VEID
NOV 3 0[015
TOVv'N OF LOS GATOS
/:ll A r,11..11 ~1,....
' ~'"\II \\,;. D!V!SION
become the second fence . The issue is of two cohabitating fences
and should either one be located on the property line . Further ,we
enjoy ou r open style of fencing on the hillside as do the other 10
residences on Tourney Rd .This open fence style is better suited to
hillside open space and hillside greenery.
2 . We are further appealing the decision of the DRC regarding the
current roof wh ich is massive in design, color offensive and impacting
our privacy and enjoyment of the hillside.
Adopted by the Los Gatos Town Council January 2004, the HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES which discusses and as
we have interpreted is not respectful to us as an up hill neighbor. The
planned roof girth is massive . The he i ght an d pitch were designed for a
two level home . This is no longer the i r design plan and is now designed
as a single story. Why should we be subject to a height that impacts
how we would like to conti nue the enjoyment of the hillside and is
significantly higher than the existing single level home.(see applicant's
last rendering attachment #1) and (see the current home's roofli ne
photo #1)
Further, The roof color does not blend with that of the hillside
greenery, coastal oak trees and the natu r al earth ground color. The
current existing roof color is eye pl easing and does not detract from the
overall hillside beauty. Why couldn't that color shade be used?
In Conclusion , in the section, Arch itectural Design of the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines the town states how important
it is to minimize building bulk and mass . The applicants design has
resulted in high visibility from our surrounding property.
Our home plan was designed, built and completed after t he origi nal
residence was destroyed by the Lorna Prieta earthquake. The plan was
inclusive of over 100 linear feet on the down hillside slope. This
allowing for the bedrooms, family room/dining area, living room, and
kitchen all to be designed with various size windowing on the hill
downside for our enjoyment of the hillside beauty, privacy and viewing.
(see photo# 2 )
We are asking, has everything been done to minimize the impact to us
as the Standards and Guidelines would hope to accomplish .
iPad-:;:-A/rAt!,J~E~T #-:L I ~ -Mo5>+ /Zf?Ceo>'r /ZEiJ.It=fl)':-1 SJfl'-'t(t ll b ~
APPLC.A ... T As 'To ({-!.;>i t?.. !2-ooF ---, --.-.. ~-~=-
*98%-
:: ·( Search A ··./
. -. ·""~ .. . .
~ -1 ""0() s; ·s: 2 ~ z~ 0 -.:;. m 2 < -0 1"""-2il Cv ., .J
Clr c ?"ii"l gg o==·J ,....., «' <G> 0 ...,.,
~~ IT! oa c...TI C'
2 (/)
17528 Tourney Rd Project
We the owners and occupants of Tourney Rd are
requesting the Town of Los Gatos further consider the
impact of this project to our hillside residences. The
project is in conflict with the Town of Los Gatos Hillside
Development Standards & Guidelines.
We feel the project has not been designed with site
sensitivity to the adjacent neighbors. This project impacts
privacy, views, and the beauty of the hillside. The project
will not maintain the existing open characteristics of our
hill.
NAME ,1 Ll1 DATE :. ~ otth ( I Vzl/tr
~~~).liZ.:-.\( {Mn \1 /~ ((];
RECEtVEO
NOV 3 0 ?01~
TOW!~ OF LOS GATO S
PLANhJil'lG DIVIS ION
\\f30llS
ADDRESS
/1f)J 'Twrnc-1 ~·
II b bJ; Tcrurn~ JV{
\J0SS\owvwl1~£cJ .
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank