Item 04 - 105 Newell Ave - Staff Report Exh.2-12105 Newell Avenue
T·-. L .
-IJ---,--., I .' --[_ --· J. I fl '-...">.::; '
J
~ -' . ' )'
• -. ' ' I L . , i . ·./ I . /..
·. I ; -..,/ ·,,
\ -, I ; l I
EXHIBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PL~'ING COMMISSION -September 14, 2015
REQUIRED FINDINGS FOR:
105 Newell Avenue
Planned Development Application PD-14-002
Mitigated Negative Declaration ND-16-002
Requesting approval of a Planned Development to rezone a property from R-1:12 to R-
l:ll:PD, demolish an existing building, and construct four single-family residences on
property zoned R-1:12. APN 409-24-0.26.
PROPERTY OWNER: Tango Pappa
APPLICANT: Camargo & Associates Architects
FINDINGS:
-CEQA:
• An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration were completed for the proposed
development. The Planning Commission recommends adoption of the Mitigated Negative
Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program.
Required consistency with the Town's General Plan:
• That the proposed Zone Change is consistent with the General Plan and its Elements in that
the Planned Development overlay allows a commercial use consistent with the property's
zoning district.
Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family homes
not in hillside residential areas.
Required compliance with Hillside Development Standards & Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the applicable sections of the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines for parcels with an average slope of 10 percent or greater, with the
exception of cut and fill depths which have been determined to be acceptable.
Required consistency with Town's Housing Element:
• The project is consistent with the Town's Housing Element and addresses the Town's
housing needs as identified in the Housing Element.
N:\DEVIFINDINGS\2016\Nl!WBU.105 .DOCX
EXHIBIT 3
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
110 East Main Street, Los Gatos, CA 95032 (408) 354-6874
SUMMARY OF DISCUSSION OF A REGULAR MEETING OF THE CONCEPTUAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR
DECEMBER 11, 2013, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, 110
EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS , CALIFORNIA.
-------------~-~----~---------------------------~~~--------------~~--------------------------------------~
The meeting was called to order at 4:30 p.m.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present: Chair Marcia Jensen, Barbara Spector, Charles Erekson, Margaret Smith,
Joanne Talesfore
Absences: None.
Staff Present: Sandy Baily, Community Development Director
ErwiJl Ordonez, Senior Planner
Applicants: Kurt Anderson, Maurice Comargo., Tom Grant, Mike Friesen
ITEM 1: 105 Newell Avenue
Conceptual Development Application CD-13-004
Requesting review of conceptual plans for demolition of an existing commercial
building (Elk's Club) and a Planned Development rezoning to alJow construction
ofeither a 5-lot single-family subdlvision or 11 attached residentiaJ condominium
units on a property zoned R-1:12 .
·: Commeilts:
APN 409-24,.026.
PROPERTY OWNER.: Tom Grunt
APPLICANT: Maurice Camargo, Architect
PROJECT PLANNER: Erwin Ordonez
Town'• Housing Neecli
• Development should meet unmet needs.
• Additional detached single-family market rate units are not an un-met housing need in
Los Gatos.
• Senior housing and units for singles/yoWlger adults with fewer bedrooms and reduced
total square footage are needed due to demographics.
e Single-story senior units are desirable.
r0 Below Market Priee (BMP) units are desirable.
IXHIBIT 4
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
December 11, 2013
Page2
Density
• The two proposed alternatives seem "over developed" for area and surrounding
neighborhood.
• Multi-family proposal ovet developed for the lot and neighborhood.
• Interested in multi-family podium alternative, as it provides BMP units, but number and
size of units should be reduced.
• Single-family altemattve has too many units and is only proposed with five units due to
requested deviations from existing zoning, development standards, and the private street.
• The number of potential single-family units is best determined by first satisfying public
street standards and conforming to existing zoning lot standards (minimum lot size,
width, frontage, etc.). Fewer well-designed units are desirable.
Use ofthe Site
• Proposed development's design must "fit" topography, and adequately addresses the
existing site conditions and prominent location.
• Don't design by numbers, design by lot characteristics.
• Multi-story development less desirable.
• Planned Developments are not desirable.
• Reduction of the Town's standards for developer concession is not desirable.
• Conform to existing zoning and design standards.
• Fewer units for either alternative are more desirable.
• Define the neighborhood. The surrounding Newell A venue seems to be the neighborhood
which is a single-family use.
• Proposed units should have ample yards and private open space. Concern that HOA
developments encourage children to play in the street.
• One-level flats may be more attractive.
Parkingffraffic/Cireulation
• Concerns about traffic at the nearby intersection due to recent developmerit applications.
• Need to reduce intensity of uses in the area.
• Don't complicate traffic issue with proposed development.
• Neighbors will be concerned about the change in traffic.
• Maintain public street standards.
• Public streets are preferred.
• Visitor parking in driveways or distant designated areas is not sufficient.
• Preference is for on-street visitor parking.
AestheticsNi.sibility
• Visual concern due to the property's high setting above Winchester Boulevard.
• Single-story more appropriate due to lot height above Winchester Boulevard.
• Proposed development needs heavy tree screening along perimeter of the site and
especially for views from Winchester Boulevard and Lark Avenue.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
December 11, 2013
Page3
• Larger more mature trees desired in planned screening.
• The number, siz.e, and design of proposed retaining walls are a concern.
o Massing, scale, and proximity to other units/neighbors (setbacks) are a concern.
• The site. is not a separate neighborltood.
• Privacy is a concern.
• Neighborhood compatibility with existing Newell Avenue residences is a concern
(proportionate size, scale, massing, design, etc.).
11 Potential shadow and light concerns .
Miscellaneous
o School and traffic impacts.
~ Must identify significant and compelling argument for Town to consider reduced
standards. ·
• Neighbors don't experience traffic "credits" from past uses, but do drive and have to cope
with the existing in~ traffic.
o Neighbors will not be bashful, so community outreach important for any proposed
application.
o Discourage General Plan amendment unless it is a senior housing development with BMP
units.
ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5:25 p.m. The next regular meeting of the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, January 8,
2014.
Prepared by:
cc: Planning Commission Chair
N:\DEV\CDANdlNUTES\2013\l:Z..11-13 .doe
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
(
PROJECT WRITTEN DESCRIPTION
(For a complete written description of the proposal, please refer to the Letter of Justification)
Demolition and removal of existing 8,636 square feet a.sSembl y use structure with asphalt
paved 83 stall parking and existing site comer access driveway.
Subdivide existing 61,000 square feet parcel into four(4) plots, private road and common
landscape areas with threes(3) on street parking spaces, street light standards anci fire engine
turnaround for four(4) single family residences as a planned unit development.
RECEIVED
JUL 02 2014
TOVv'N OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
"EXHIBIT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
January 20, 2015
Jennifer Savage , Planner
& ASS<I:IATES
ARCHITECTS
Town of Los Gatos Plann ing Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA. 95030
RE: The Elk's Homes Letter of Justification
105 Newell Avenue
Los Gatos, CA.
Dear Jennifer,
RECEIVED
JUN 17 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Our letter of Justification correlates. to our application for request for approval to build 4
single family residences that are intended to meet the Town of Los Gatos Residential
Design Guidelines especially in all areas pertaining to neighborhood compatibility.
EXISTING USE CONSIDERATIONS:
The parcel Is 60,915 sq ft in area and in the designated R12,000 zone. The parcel is
surrounded to the South and West by R1:12 Zoning -single family residences and
commercial properties to the North and East. It is situated on the southwest corner of
Winchester Blvd . and Newell Streets.
Just a short distance to the south, along Winchester Blvd. and very proximate to our
project, is the busy intersection of Lark Avenue and Winchester Blvd. This busy
intersection impacts the current driveway approach which is located right on the corner
of the property at Newell and Winchester which has an existing traffic stop sign.
The current assembly building structure is a two story 8,636 sq ft building which has
housed the Elks Lodge fraternal organization since it was built In 1960. It has operated
to date with a Conditional Use Permit for a fraternal organization.
EXHIBIT 6
The site has an 83 automobile striped asphalt parking area covering most of the site.
Although the facility is not being operated in full capacity, we gathered from neighbor's
input a history of problems with noise and the building's negative visual impact
primarily due to a lack of maintenance upkeep and current automobile parking on site
and off site along Newell Avenue by Courtside members.
lt is important to note that the site location is visually located where residential homes
and zoning. border commercial properties. The topography of the site, sloping upward
in two directions from the intersection of Newell and Winchester streets with a +/-14%
slope. contributes to its prominent visibility.
OUR INITIAL PROPOSED SOLUTIONS:
We presented to the CDAC two alternatives for the development of the site. (See
attached Exhibit 1.)
1. An eleven unit condominium with the following attributes:
a. Primary parking below grade.
b. Transition housing between commercial and residential areas.
c. Visually set back units away from corner visual impact.
2. A 5-unit single family residential planned development:
a. Most compatible to adjacent neighborhood.
b. Retains most designated R1:12 zoning regulations.
c. Did not solve difficult access to the development from the existing
corner driveway approach.
d. Net Area of parcels somewhat less than 12,000 sq ft
Although CDAC was very open to options of the condominium or town home re-zoning
project to avoid versus a planned development the neighbors were completelv opposed
to a multi-housing type project of any sort.
Based on the CDAC meeting and subsequent neighborhood meetings, we revised the 5-
unit single family residential planned development solution to a four-lot Planned
Development solution that would be in keeping with the R1:12 requirement of lots
being approximately 12,000 sq ft in size.
And, most importantly, we are proposing to move the existing access driveway
approach to the middle of the site along Newell Ave. We will eliminate the existing
driveway access which is at best a very difficult and traffic cumbersome driveway
approach.
WHY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND NOT A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION?
Based primarily on the R1:12 zoning regulations, the residential design guidelines and
the How to Read your Neighborhood Workbook, we are proposing to provide
compatible parcels of similar size (+/-12,000 sq ft ) and configuration (rectangular with
wide frontage ) as follows:
Two studies as per attached Exhibit 2 were evaluated as follows:
1. Conventional Subdivision was studied with the following findings:
a. A non-conforming (HS Zoning) 42' R cul-de-sac and 40'wide
public street was still insufficient to achieve minimum
requirements for the four+/-12,000 sq ft parcels.
• Each lot was approximately 12,000 sq ft as desired.
o Lots do not meet the required depth of 1251 from main
street.
Q After R1:12 setbacks were included, the buildable
footprints of Lots 3 and 4 were not suitable for any fitting
home design.
ti Lot 1 and 4, combined with the topography along Newell
and the width of the required public street, rendered the
remaining building sites not compatible with
neighborhood homes.
2. Flag lot subdivision (suggested by staff) resulted in the following
findings:
a. Each lot was an average 13,750 sq ft net excluding the
easement for a shared drive.
b. Lot 1 would most likely be facing the common drive and not
Newell due to the topography of the lot.
c. Lot 4 could be accessed from the original corner driveway
enabling the house front yard to face Newell. The structure
would be very exposed to Winchester.
d. Lots 2 & 3 buildable areas were not compatible to adjacent
neighborhood house design and siting, as they would be
facing the rear yard of lots 1 and 4.
e. The flag lot development was not at all compatible to anything
in the neighborhood.
f. Once subdivided, each property would be developed
independently missing the benefit of a planned development
approach which would provides integrity to the overall
development by delivering a four~lot subdivision with the
construction of all homes and completed common area
iandscaping from the onset.
3. One or Two parcel subdivision:
a. Subdividing the land into one or two parcels would make each
30,000 sq ft for two lots and 61,000 sq ft for one lot rendering
both options totally incompatible with an R1:12 zoning and
the adjacent neighborhood.
Based on all the above, we have concluded that a planned development is the only
planning approval process available at this time to achieve a very compatible
neighborhood project adhering to most all of the current designated zoning R1:12
zoning regulations and allow us to best meet the Residential Design Guidelines.
OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ANALYSIS
The neighborhood is built on a moderate sloping land area which created homes set on
building pads above or below the adjacent roadways. Because of the existing terrain,
we found several homes which have split level garages with one-story elevations viewed
from the front yards while having a two-story elevation to the rear. (Same as our lot 3
Hause}.
The immediate neighborhood includes mostly "ranch style" single, split level and two
story homes with intermittent varying styles randomly found, including "two story
colonials", craftsman and builder contemporary.
We also found a lot of homes that appear to have been renovated with replacement
windows and architectural elements of varying styles, i.e. ranch with traditional columns
and quoins.
The exterior wall finish materials varied extensively with mostly wood siding (vertical,
horizontal lap and shingles), stucco, brick and stone wainscot as well as full wall height
stone and brick veneers.
Please find attached Exhibit 3 which displays a portion of our survey of the immediate
homes surrounding our project property highlighting some ofthe architectural elements
mentioned above.
THE ELK'S HOMES ARCHITECTURE:
The architecture of our proposed homes was based on the "Town of Los Gatos
Residential Design Guidelines" in conjunction with the "How to Read Your
Neighborhood Workbook" to develop compatibility to the immediate neighborhood's
homes. In addition, we recognized that the project site is visually situated adjacent to
commercial properties. Entering the Town of Los Gatos through a predominantly
commercial zone area the project will be the first residential visible site at Winchester
and Lark Avenue intersection. In addition to achieving architectural compatibility with
the immediate neighborhood, the homes were designed to capture the spirit of the
architecture of the Town and to butter itself from the adjacent commercial properties
and busy intersection.
The Site:
o The site will be accessed via 24' wide private road with 3 guest parking stalls
along the private road with the entrance to the project located in the center of
the site facing Newell Avenue. This eliminates the dangerous existing corner
driveway approach. The common landscaped area on Newell's steep slope will
be retained and landscaped.
e The proposed site design allows for wide front elevations further accentuating
the neighborhood compatibility.
o We have provided for two car attached garages with two stalls of parking in front
of the garage similar to most of the neighborhood homes.
o We have provided a fire turn around that conforms to the Santa Clara County
Fire Department's design standards.
• We have created privacy for the neighbors to the west by lowering the proposed
grading from the existing grades by up to 9' in height. In addition, we have
placed the side of the garages on the south side to create privacy for neighbors
to the south.
"' The site design allows for extensive landscape screening along both the
Winchester and Newell site frontages and above existing 10' wall along
Winchester Boulevard.
In addition, all of the proposed setbacks for each home meet the R1:12 setback
requirements.
The Hames:
ii All are two story homes, homes range from 3,410 to 4,244 sq. ft. and FAR range
from 3,199 to 4306 sq . ft .
" Three of the four homes have maximum heights that are 2' less than the
allowed height of 30' in the R:12 Zoning. (Lot 3 has max. height of 30')
All are 3 or 4 bedrooms with at least 3 ~baths, and each has a two-car garage
and parking for at least two additional cars on site. Two homes have cellars.
Two can have optional in-law units.
c All have low pitch hip roofs with 48" overhangs used to emphasize a more
horizontal profile for our two-story street view plans as well as maximize shading
at south and west elevations.
• All of the four homes have incorporated ranch, craftsman and builder
contemporary style features through use of similar materials and architectural
components that are prevalent in the neighborhood. They include the following:
Composition Shingles Roofing
Stucco Walls
Shingle Walls
Vertical Wood Siding
Single or double wood entry doors
FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION FOR HOME SIZES:
Stone and Stucco wainscot
Aluminum Clad Windows
Wood column porches
Wood panel garage doors
Stone and stucco chimneys
• Initially we proposed 5 smaller houses. CDAC and the neighbors preferred the
four proposed homes as more compatibly lot size parcels.
• The Four homes, sized as proposed, share the high costs of accommodating the
private street, as well as the redevelopment of the site to accommodate a
common landscape frontage requiring retaining walls along Newall Avenue
• Construction costs of the proposed four homes, considering the onsite and
offsite improvements, are estimated to come-in on the high side of common
construction costs.
• To be a feasible, and potentially successful, our proposed construction
development project dictates the need for the four homes sized as presented
with all inclusive risk factors, costs, and profit margins considered.
• Using the four lot scenario allows for a 'balanced' project.
HOME SIZING JUSTIFICATION FROM FAR TOTALS:
• The total FAR for each house and garage was calculated for each lot's finished
grade, not the original natural grade.
Q The total FAR for each house including garages was calculated to property lines
including common landscape areas and the private street.
c Total allowable garages and living areas per above FAR calculation criteria adds
up to 18,541 sq. ft. (Garages 3,948 sq. ft., Living areas are 14,5.93 sq .. ft.)
• Total proposed garages and living areas per above FAR calculation criteria adds
up to 19,056 sq . ft. (Garages 2,575 sq. ft., living areas are 16,481 sq. ft.}
o Our proposed four buildings come to within · 515 sq. ft. of the allowable
combined totals for garages and living area, not including cellars.
In summation, we feel that our proposed Planned Development Project adheres as
much as it is possible to meet most all of the Rl-12 Zoning Code and General Plan
Requirements, Residential Design Guidelines, and applicable Hillside Design Guideline's,
including compatibility with the existing neighborhood homes and adjacent commercial
properties. Furthermore, we have met with many of the neighborhood residents on
several occasions and have their support for the project as proposed.
If you have any questions regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
/~7
Maurice Camargo A.I.A.
...
~·-; ...
-----
. · .. '-
. ~ .:{_ . ,,,.
:,/
----..
----· -·-
·-·-'·~--.. -... ...__ ._,, __ _
.. ·--··-·-·-· ·-~ -----.. -~-... ..._. ._ .. ,,~ ..._,_,_.._ --... -.. ,; 1 ~~:~,~~~-.1
I~.·' :· ...... . ; ... '' -~
_ .. !. ·" '· -· ..
l 1
'>, ·'
·····--.;.-
.. ·
i
I ~
j
~ I I I I ·~ I
i .,0 I ·~ I I ~ I I >< I I
I I ~ !
.........
,_ .......... --·. -· -· ... ~ .. ...
-.... ~ ... ......... . ~
~
·~
0 ~ U)
LL! ·~ 0 ...Q ..J a
I~ >< l-en ~ 2
0
CD
~~
b~
_J .~ ..,. ~
_J_ ____ I r,,
-----~··--'
~\ \
(
EXHIBIT 3
NEIGHBORHOOD STUDY
-·~ ..... ,,..__., : ..-. .
I
I
\
I
1
\ '\ . . . -•. , .
l
i
i
f. . ! :~ .l_ 1\iVO CAf~ GA.Hi\GE
COMP. HIP ROOF ·
lNQOD FENCE
108 NEWELJ-' .P~ VENUE
-RENOVATEDRANCH ·STYLE
. •; ,
/PANE ~lrNDOY./
.'\_STUCCO WALL
•c,f:t.°"E'~Q'r.:r. t:.t-.t"!'AY' ( 'i\1·-,•:·o ,,_"' \."'~-...... ,t"t i . . .JI ~L 1.:.1 ,
I '4.R ,'!"E' ;'"'\' /t::.Rµ ~ \'}f': _....... .0 -...... ',; ,_ ,,, .,.. . ..:'-="•
~
"' ... ..
...
I
'"J;,· .,. ~~ .... ~ .• . .. ,,,.,. .. .. ,,--~;.b ' ' ' ) :-~IllBBOt~··W I NDOW ,t'r7':;· -·· "· ,r-·:?· • ·'; RE CE SSED l;NTR
·" . ;~-. . ·::: ,.·. • , . , -~~. ;.~. Wtt)C•p ')Y""lC U .
,":.1w ·-~ • · • ·~. • . . · .•. -' _...., •• ~""' -'· ,'' . ' . ~. C:. { E~. _,r -1 ... Yr \. ·-• '5> r . I · ....,..,_T · •!"" ... ~ -·' . . -?. t1900U f:.i f 0 ! ~~ .. .l;!"~~Vli L:t.: . ! -. "' ' . · .. !~ ,, .. l';i\. rlf-f? I ··AA~ r.:
,,,. . ... ;·•· ~ .... -.I ... -.,~~'~ -~ \ -· . _\; .. ~~·
. . .:4} -..... . ·• ... ·. . ... . :; · -~ -,f.'1J.!;l=J.'·{A''<V~-\n iT("I ., "' ·'*, ·-·. ""'• , •. ~~-•• ~ .. ". .. ""'~~ ·~ l ' """ -. . •' " . .· ,'. .. • 1 . ' . ' ·",,; . . ...... -.1:: ... ~:;,. t L.: .:v· E .
. _ ~/· · · · -;..; .. ~ · ., -~~ . ~( i! ._ .. • ·J(./'t-.~ · -~. , . · ~-'i:ifl.l .!"'J c :-.l\ . •
• ·: { . • 'J' ;l ~··· .· ( . ··". ~~t~~'":·~.: :'~ ~ .. ::' ;'. 'I,;'.j{; :· :::·~~¥~-...... ; :~", ; : ; : . "'
. ··1· ·1· a·· N,IJ~,·WE ..... Ll ... :.~--C··~o·-~ ·u::--. R"rlr·· .. · ~l ,, .. ilt .!4 >·-~:~~r :\>:$~·~\::;·. '~·::.~·;·-:.'.~--. . -t ' -4 , . ' -.-• . . . '• -. ' .. ..-,.. ~.,. .... _ -.! ., JI •
..:..:. ~ ' '.· ~ • -~ ·' •• :· . : •);~~~:~~ .. ' ... ). •• • i;-_ • • -•••.••• ••
·RA.NCH: STI'LE . . ...
. I .\< ·.
,·:r
;· .. ~· ·:~ . .i ..... ',
,
.;
If.~ ~~. u [-
V)•
~~" "u 1-Lz
UJ I< ;.....·~ ~: 0 ~·Fl e: -'< z >
V,'") 0 .. z
~I~ ___, ,
>·
LU ;t
~
:I:
(.)
w ....,.
.... .,, ..
0 ·tn
1
l
1,.IJ
_J
:1l
"1:>'
~~;
.... J .
:l.
"'> c .,,
(". ·~ ' I .....
'·
.. -l _J
< -~
0 ..
}-!.' '. ·~
rr ( -;:. tt < zo:c
UJ a;. a:
0 lW .ll ..
~·-· LU ,.~ :~
() Cl) -·-· c tTl ~ iJ j ·-UJ (l; 0 ._._
~tr:
LI;
G t::
~ ~ :3 -
._,, ' ~,__
_,_
z .-, . ·-
u..
§; ,,,,.;
0
0: ,..
r •1
., UJ ·~
......
~ ..... _ .,..,. ~-
~· ... -:s tr.:
L.Ll z
C'
i·· I ......
(/) I
~
"'"• '"-· '? .:....
·~ ()
0
~
d: .w w z w > x:.
0
a:.. co
~( ·::J i . I
ZI· ~· >·'tj <t~ 1.
~ .,
~ u ~· z
·~ ·~
w z .~
·~J
C''t l
....--!,
('
,·--r-r: !, .. ,._.rla\ v r ,"; i ~-, i l.~'"r " .. ' ·.'J--1!...·-
J
·""-r~.tr -11 ·.,,.. F"' • -, --··• -;...;t.: r 1:..:1 \l ? L..JI. • ; i I. t:.
j--~ ... >'' n ' r_• r"l ;•') r.._ F , ·~J, .... \J:.:~_f_:: r,·~,;1"'• . ..)
/
I
/ OAN;-'\.MENTiEO !r~ON
I SU DER itV.it~t)O\V -· -
-I r~·tT!\GHED T~NO CAR·. ~ & .
=-~HAGE WITH
t 1.on ~01.wr-: -r·,.·\.~"~q -_._1t.:• ._,,. ru "-..... ., .1-...,,1.
127 NI~'VEI"'L COUR.1.,
RANC H STYLE
/GU . _ -rn ~ :-• ., .. • _ _ ---
/ ¢@ _ --.. -• ,
I
I
/' ( --~~
Vi t.:r··=~s-~n -t · (\1PTRV '.~-.,,.·-~"' ,_.... -.... ' t
t M""i E P(\r~t:H ": 't }l...! -.. • Jr. """' "
i " R r:' :·· ..-)-.. ·r"'. .•.• h :i.. t'"" w ·-.. :· .. -:i t: ,_ .. ~ 1:·. I-Hi +·"·'-:.;
npi::-,. ~ f =Av·E-· ' • . . .I \: •.
.II
I '.....,,...r . O' .... ,. riAf\,·-· •µ'-41 -. .. • y r·-t ,.,. ~. li i -.. .. ·..._.. ... ~l ' . . ......
I.
j
STU CCO VIAL L
I
i . .
•· ~·
E~ Ii V v. ·· r.; Df)l N
...... 4 ... l '~ • J .... \ .
131 NEvVEI~l, (~Q tJ R ~l~
1 ·~("11 l":l i:.~ ~-~; ~r-.1''"i .,,• "'·' "".., [.,II .••-I • ,_.J,.. ' ~ ... o
p. '!11.1n ')\Iii
.IU "c"''-·· l ''I
;';,J -l "\l"f l 'IP R.f'"·t""L: -1./ i'\ ... II .• ,. •. r
", .,
\ ~-,~·c"C". c··c-r::=-· -...... R .• , , n!:: _•._:..:-,_•L.::o. t"".!11 i , ')
··--r ~,.....;'B' E: *"',-..OR .. 'J l..i-l. -'·~'!~' ..
fi.ENovl~TE"b R/\.NcH -"J3t}r1~D:EjrcoN11~?"rPo R1\R Y s·r Y.LE
~~
-...--%!\Ir-' I I \t ·~•(·-. •-'')iv1-· 1· <l ~,·• (....1 , \. I ~ ·-· ~ r .. , ..,..,...
l ;)R '\1~. · "'t1· v i. .. t v.-Vl "'· '"'f .
-.. ...__ ... -··-
135 N.E.v\'~El~l .. COU J<T
,....,...,., ... ,, •. F[ ·-r '-R'' r. •-· ..... ··'·· -' 1 ~ ,. ' ' "' .... t..-VL_.'-'""-' -· .,. -,. ~ l -
--RENOVATED RAf.fCH STYLE
N.P;HR OVJ !=I G RC!1
:Lf-\RG£ OVERHAN G 1
'
, ..
l:>t""I'"" ' '·'E~'E ..... ~ Dr\ \A\ 'i< '"' 1.::h-·-j
""HJ:. L"r= r.·on~-! .:.:>1 .'\A,·. •'°i . ._1!·· i
GABLE AND H~P M:x·-·1 l
i f
I
l I
J j
."?_ i j
.,. J i.
~J.
~~
.... _
16 ~ N·E ·v 'E.""" LI : Vl~q ~.JU E -.• ..,, J .. -! • ' • ~-t •. J J\. _..1 ,~ 'i . -~ . --·--· BlJil ... DER CONTE!vIPORAR Y STYLE
-:'"'l',"r' GA 0 '1 ~ '1 ()f''F ,,,_. ~•·''· o._c-: r, _,
<.'.' 11.11\ I l [~ ·-r 1 I . A • ' ,,., f.--~\,t n .l. .. J'.'t.~n r ·!. ·''L:i
..... , '!.:"" -• ·1·. ,........ \-·· .......
1
. . '. . . '\j '. r.i. ,..
' l
I
I
J
.i
-!
I
i
.; .. ~:11.i r·L r:·, .. w·A· l r--:;;.>r.1;,,.: r::::> .. L •. I .
f
I
I
"~ ... _., .. ·-=--..... ..._, ..... -..... _ ... -......... ..,. .......... __ .
--·· ... ··-.... ...._....... .• _,._ .. ·-·--=-.• ... -:;;--.::: ....
. -:~
,.,,,~-~••,, I ·-.~~~~fi
..... :
••, :.:.:· ·-:; .' ·.:':~•:·~'.a:~ --· ~~ ...... , ............ .z .... -.=:::;
I
J
"'
/ •' /
" I .
..
;,j,.l :..1.1
-.'i :;.-
!:!1 c~
.:{
~'; :.::
,•. ~?·' ,,_.• ...
~= -:-.;
0 u
>· . ...,..
i.;, ,. .... ... ,.,
i-· rr:.
>-r.r ·-
,:.-
.,.. ···,= (!) '
>'" .<.
'~·a:
·3: < , ·. ·r!""; . , .. v . ' ... w ··----. >re .; .. ·.7...:..:·~
: r '.'.er. ·w
I
·.; .. ~
' __.
oc:::( s:
,.
\
oa:
·-~ ·~'>#'·
'J.. ;•'\.t
-'-J , ....
\..J . .,..
~ ......
u.
____ ,.,.. __ _
::r:
'i
, ...
t .. ~ ,c:::;
00
<.-'.Z
• 'f ...
EDf<s Project Neighborhood CotinpataibBBH:y Study
<l>z Oa Q ~ t(-w 0 C)~
Address: 1.c~ size, Acns: P..ot size, Gq. Ft: Mo~se ol~e, sq. 11:: i'i ;;;-: 2 ~
0 .-u..z
115 Newell Ct 0.27 11,761 2,153 W ~ ~ ~
119 Newell Ct. 0.26 11,326 2,128 ~ --:) s :J
123 Newell Ct. 0.25 10,890 2,449 go..
127 Newell Ct. ·0.29 12,632 2,506
131 Newell Ct. 0.29 12,632 2,323
135 Newell Ct. 0.28 12,197 2,467
108 Newell Ave. 0.3 13,068 1,97.J
112 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,809
116 Newell ave. 0.28 12,1~7 1,885
124 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 3,212
128 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,150
132 Newell Ave. 0,3 13,068 3,742
136 Newell Ave. 0.~9 12,632 3,110
140 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,368
144 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,513
148 Newell Ave. 0.47 20,473 4,51(;')'
152 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 2,542
156 Newell Ave. 0.31 13,503 2,356
160 NewellAve. 0.33 14,375 2,173
183 Newell Ave. 0.29 12,632 1,860
179 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 2,572
175 N·ewell Ave. 0.27 11,761 1,931
171 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 3,016
167 Newell Ave. 0.27 11, 761 2,375
163 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,838
159 Newell Ave. 0.36 15,682 2,294
147 Newell Ave. 0.27 11,761 2,553
143 Newell Ave. 0.28 12,197 1,908
139 Newell Ave. 0.29 12,63,2 2,485
1
Elks Project Neighborhood Compatibility Study 2
105 Elena Way. 0.27 11,761 2,655
109 Elena Way. 0.26 11,326 1,918
115 Elena Way. 0.27 11,761 2,285
114 Elena Way. 0.25 10,580 2,662
110 Elena Way. 0.25 10,890 2,181
106 Elena Way 0.28 12,197 2,618
102 Elena Way. 0.25 10,890 2,623
103 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,439
107 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,251
111 Brocastle Way. 0.28 12,197 2,323
115 Brocastle Way. 0.25 10,890 2,085
120 Brocastle Way. 0.3 13,068 2,850
116 Brocastle Way. 0.34 14,810 2,199
112 Brocastle Way. 0.30 13,068 3,181
108 Brocastle Way. 0.30 13,068 2,700
104 Brocastle Way. 0.27 11,761 2,732
100 Brocastle Way. 0.26 11,326 2,523
.. '
179 La Montagne Ct. 0.25 10,890 4,046
181 La Montagne Ct. 0.38 16,553 3,965
183 La Montagne Ct. 0.29 12,632 3,596
185 La Montagne Ct. 0.29 12,632 3,672
187 La Montagne Ct. 0.34 14,810 4,083
189 La Montagne Ct. 0.28 12,197 3,474
191 La Montagne Ct. 0.28 12,197 3,564
193 La Montagne Ct. 0.32 13,939 3,960
182 La Montagne Ct. 0.27 11,761 3,256
180 La Montagne ct. 0.27 11,761 4,248.
;·
Ell's Project i+~el~hbatrhcod C~mpatibffHty SfJ:~dy 3
101 La Rlnconada Dr. 0 .28 12,197 2,717
105 La Rlnconada Dr. 0 .28 12,197 3,729
109 La RJnconada Dr. 0.28 12,197 5,172 v'
115 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,398
119 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.31 13,503 2,609
123 La Rlnconada Dr. 0.26 11,326 1,695
··: ·:
14854 Clara St. 0.45 19,602 3,603
14796 Golf Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,898
14780 Golf Links Dr. 0.26 11,326 2,261
14764 Golf Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,309
14748 Golf Links Dr. 0.30 13,068 2,515
14732 Gold Links Dr. 0.28 12,197 2,202·
14716 Golf Links Dr. 0.30 13,068 2,616
:XTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES
I
..
'"1-,,
HOUSE LOT 1
.... ;,,...;
I. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2 . PAINTED GREEN (WHITE OPTION} METAL GUTIERS AND
)OWNSPOUTS 3. PAINTED WOOD SHINGLE 4 . SMOOTH FINISH TEXTURED EXTERIOR PLASTER
5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. BRONZE METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS
'. DARK GREEN PAINTED GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR 8. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING
~ PAINTED WOOD TRIMS
~ =i EXHIBIT · 'l
~
;; ...
0:: w
~ =>
(.!)
0 w
1-z
~ a..
(!) z -LL
0
0
0::
w
....J
(!) z
I en
z
0 -I--en
0 a..
:E
0
(.)
a: w
I-
C/) < -' a.
a::
0 -a:: w
~ w
w
...J
(!)
z -:c en
Cl
0
0 <
' ' ~ ;
·; y
1 ~
(!) z
...J
en
~
0
0 z -~
0
::i
(..)
::?
:J z -~
:J
...J
<(
HOUSELOT2
EXTERIOR MATERl,~LS & FINISHES
1. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2 .. PAINTED WHITE METAL GUTIERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
3 . PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL BATT & BOARD SIDING 4 . STONE VENEER WAINSCOT
5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. BRONZE METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS
7. WHITE PAINTED GARAGE AND DOOR 8. WOOD STAIN FRONT DOOR
9. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 10. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS
0:: w
I= ::>
(!)
0 w ..... z -0:
(!)
z
u..
0
0
0::
w
...J
(!)
z -:::c en
z
0 -t: en
0 a..
~
0
(,'
I
a:: w w z w > w z
0
~
~ z -() -en
() a::
~
al
0 z
<( s
al
_J
tS -~ w >
' Ir
I
'
G z
_J -~
w
..J
ID
()
en s
0
Q z
~
Q
<(
..J
(.)
:2
:::::> z -~
:::::>
..J
<(
HOUSELOT3
=xTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES
I. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2. WHITE PAINTED METAL GUTTERS AND DOWNSPOUTS
t PAINTED GRAY WOOD SHINGLE SIDING 4. SMOOTH FINISH TEXTURED EXTERIOR PLASTER
;, WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6 . STAINED WOOD GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR
'.WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 8. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS
\
;
"
(!) z
Ll.
0
0
0:::
w __.
(!) z -I en
z
0 -~ -en
0
0..
:?!
0
~'
a:: w .....
~ a_
0::
0 -0:: w
!;< w
w
_J
(!)
z -:x: en
Cl
0
0
~
en
~
0
0 z -~
0 ::s
()
:2: ::> z -:2: ::>
_J
<(
HOUSELOT4
EXTERIOR MATERIALS & FINISHES
1. ARCHITECTURAL COMPOSITION SHINGLE ROOFING 2. PAINTED WHITE METAL GUTTERS AND DOVVNSPOUTS
3. PAINTED WOOD VERTICAL BATT & BOARD SIDING 4. SMOOTH FINISH EXTERIOR PLASTER
5. WHITE ALUMINUM CLAD WIDOW FRAMES (BRONZE OPTION) 6. METAL CABLE RAILING AND POSTS
7. STAINED WOOD GARAGE AND FRONT DOOR 8. WOOD HORIZONTAL BOARD FENCING 9. PAINTED WOOD TRIMS
0:: w
I= ::>
(!)
c w
1-z -<(
0..
-u.
0
~
w
_J
(.!)
z -:::c en
z
0 -I--
en
0
0..
~
0
('
~
0:: w
~ a..
0::
0 -0:: w
~ w
(.!)
z -0 -en
0 a:
~
al
0 z
<( s
al
....J
<(
(.) -~ w >
(!) z
...J -~
w
...J
al
(3
en s
0
0 z -~
0
<(
...J
(.)
:2
::> z -~
::>
...J
<(
~·~A • ' ~' :-• • -~ " t,; ·~ ~'''. • •'!:5-'" , .' ' > • .. ; '" • .,-; • <_>-
,:<.' , •• ( iJ ~.5 NeweR Ave. PROJECT DATA i..:
~:·. ... -; ,, .
Zoning aJStricl
Land US6
Gentlml Plan
Designation
Total
Lot 1 (groa)
Lot 2 (gross)
Lot 3 (gross)
Lot 4 (gl'OllS)
lot81-4
siding
trim
windows
roofing
Bldg lloor BR1B {sq.It)
R1:12
Conditional use for
fratemal organization
Low density residential
60,062 sq.ft.
(1 .379 Acres)
16.615 sq.ft.
(0.381 Acres)
16,895 sq.ft.
(0.388 acres)
14,268 sq.ft.
(0.328 acres)
13137 sq.ft.
(0.302 acres)
board & batten, plaster
wood board
2.5" wood trtm boards
composition shingles
12,000 ·aq.ft. IOIS
RECEIVED
APR -7 20'5
-rn\llrtJ.-OF LOS ( ATOS
PLANN\N(j UI• .,\ON
EXHIBIT 8·
Lot 1 Option 1 Option 2 3,+t1~ ...
Primary In-Law
main floor -2,230 1,914 475
upper floor -2,014 2,007 -
garage -615 615 -
cellar -1,098 -1,098 exempt
accessory structure - -
--included in FAR
total -5,957 4,436 1,573
Lot 2 "' 4,30& tw*.
main floor -2,776
upper floor -1,065
garage -695
cellar -1,221 exempt
accessory structure --included in FAR
total -5,757
Lot 3 vi J, Ml w.ac.
main floor -2,508
lower floor -1,691
garage -664
accessory structure --included in FAR
total -4,863
Lot 4 Option 1 Option 2 3 1 1Gl'l '1'JMV.
397 Primary In-Law
main floor -3,011 2,956 -
upper floor -1,186 454 680
garage -601 601 -
accessory structure ----Included in FAR
total ~ 4,798 4,011 680
Setbtlcks {It)
Lot 1
front -25 2 5 ft minimum
rear -20 20 ft minimum
interior side -10 10 ft minimum
side adjacent to street -15 1 S ft minimum
Lot 2
front -25 2 5 ft minimum
rear -20 20 ft minimum
interior side 1 -10 10 ft minimum
interior side 2 -10 10 ft minimum
Lot 3
from -25 2 S ft minimum
rear -20 20 ft ·minimum
interior side 1 -10 10 ft minimum
Interior side 2 -10 10 ft minimum
Lot 4
front -ZS 2 5 ft minimum
rear -zo 20 ft minimum
interior side -10 1 O ft minimum
side adjacent to street -15 15 ft minimum
A~ II/ops (9')
..
Lot 1 20.068 --
Lot 2 7.496 --
Lot 3 10.898 --
Lot 4 20.561 --
Maximlllll height (ft} 30 ft maximum
Lot 1 -27'-W
Lot 2 -25'-7"
Lot 3 -30·-o·
Lot 4 -25'-6•
Building covemge ('16) 40 pert:ent.
Lot 1 -17%. (2845 sqft)
Lot 2 -21% (3471 sqft)
Lot 3 -22% (3172 sqft)
Lot 4 -28% (3615 sqft)
Parking
Lot 1
garage spaces -2 2 spaces
required per
uncovered spaces -4 dwelling unit
Lot 2
garage spaces -2 2 spaces
required per
uncovered spaces -4 dwelling unit
Lot 3
garage spaces -2 2 spaces
required per
uncovered spaces -3 dwelling unit
Lot 4
garage spaces -2 2 spaces
required per
9522uncovered spaces -3 dwelling unit
'I i I
'
I Ir TniB RIJflllWB/s
. -
-See S-• ' 1 1 •Existing Site Plan• --
SeMer or l/ll!lplic
~
-Sewer -
I I l I _J
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ic·· DG .. -·<· --...
: ·-' I . " I CANNON
DESIPN
GROUP
February 23, 2015
Ms. Jennifer Savage
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 105 Newell Avenue
Dear Jennifer:
ARCHITBCTURE PLANNING URBAN DESIGN
RECEIVED
FEB· 2 5 2015
TOVVN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
I reviewed the drawings, and visited the site. My con:llnents are as follows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is located at the dead end of Lark Avenue as it meets Winchester Blvd. It is a steeply sloped site currently occu-
pied by an Elk's Lodge. The si~ is bordered by a mix of uses. Photographs of the site arc shown on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCL E. SUITE 199 LARKSPUR CA. 94939 TEL : 41 S.331 .3795
CDGPLAN@PACBE~lT 9~
The site 1•11--1 ·ed from Winchester Rive~.
View up '~• '•' .If Avenue
Southe rn site edge
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
.~!~--~
105 Newell Avenue
Daign Review Comments
Febnwy 23, 2015 Page 2
Note low open fence at tho;": ~op
of the concrct~ retaining wall.
-.1111mercia/ building across Winchester Blvd.
Ntwe// Avenue sloping site edge
Northwestern site edge
700 LARKSPUR LANDJNG CIRCLE SUITE 199. LARKSPUR. CA . 9493 9
Concerns and Recommendations
SITE PLAN
105 Newell Avenue
Design Review Comments
Fcb=uy 23, 2015 Pagd
Most of the concerns that I see arc related to the site pho and its project impacts at the site edges.
Need to better
understand this
street view to
retaining wall
ru j~~~~~=i~~~ t. 4=.:::-t<JL--J-~-:;.,~::n'u,.,... ~tLa1ks
.,__,,--+o._, .,.J,;il[il!lllij~-tappear to
end abruptly
; ~
I
·1;1 ·: a: ., • •
/
! .
'
1. In gcnCDI, the proposal is to grade the site to allow the construction of four large homes with telatively large first
floor plans on one level The upper end of the site is being lowered from natural grade substantWly which will
create a ni.ther tall retaining Wllll along that property line. The impacts are largely on-site for the residents and views
past the houses to the till retaining wall. However, the retaining wall continues with step-downs to Newell Avenue.
At Newell Avenue, there may he ~oro~ visual impacts of that wall as it would be seen from the street and from the
immediate neighbor. More clarification is needed on that condition.
Eave height wall shown
along edge on site section 2
(Nlltldtobetterundemandhowfhi. Tall wall ma nlficant visual Im acts
willdltlerfromul.iingoontlltloM) ----...... ----~--------...-------..... ~
How wlll view from
Newell Avenue change?
faE~E.S~~ ...... ~--c_:::~~~-
LOT2 LOT1
Site Section 2
Recommendation: Ask for clarifications on views to the retaining wall from Newell Avenue.
Recommendation: Explore the use of floor plans that step down with the grade iather than pding for large flat first
Boor plans.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 lARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . lARKSPUR CA . 94939
105 Newell Avenue
D esign Review Comments
February 23, 2015 Page 4
2. Conditions will change somewhat at the southern boundary adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 where a retaining wall is shown
that reaches to approximately the cave height of the home on Lot 2 (See left edge of Site Section 2 above).
Recommendation: Ask for clarification of how visual conditions will change along this site edge, and why the wall
n eed s to be so high.
3. Currently, there is a long, variable height concrete retaining wall along the Winchester Blvd. site edge (Sec top photo
on page 2). There is a low, open rail wood fence at the top of the retaining wall, as shown on the photo below.
It appears from Site Sections 3 and 1 (shown below) that tiller solid wood f ences will be placed along the back
edges of Lots 3 and 4. This has the potential of changing the focal point view of the site from Lark Avenue.
eta
'~°' ·~. ~-~-·"~N#~-~d-LOT 4 LOT 1
Site Section 3
LOT4 LOT3
Site Section ·1
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 _LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
Recommendation; Ask for clarification of how visual condi-
tions will change along this site edge.
Recommendation: If tall fences 2.l'C to be allowed along the
Winchester Blvd. street edge, ensure that their visual qual-
ity is very high. An example is shown in the photo to the
right.
105 N~l Ave nue
Design Review Comments
Fehrua_7 23, 20 15 Pagd
3.SidCW2lks along Newel Avenue swing into the site at the internal entry street, but arc tcrmirulted before they reach
all but one of the proposed homes.
Recommendation: Extend at least one of the sidew21ks to serve all of the lots.
4. The grade differential between the interoal street and the entry of the home on Lot 1 is subst:anit21. and its design
will subswitially impact the streetscape.
Recommendation: Provide more design imformation on the stairs and landscaping.
5. The guest parking spaces in front of Lots 3 and 4 would obstruct the pedc:Strian access to the homes on those lots.
Recommendation: Relocate the guest parking spaces.
BUILDING DESIGN
In general, the design of the homes holds together well. There are a few details that would benefit from further refine-
ment.
LOT1
1. The home is largely covered with painted shingles except for smooth stucco on the first floor of the entry and at
the front and side comer of the house frontage to the left of the entry. The stucco at the entry seems to work,
but would benefit from a more distinct transition between the stucco and the shingles. However, the comer stucco
breaks up what .is otherwise a well unified design.
2. The supporting brackets for the second floor balcony appear small unless they were to be steel. If steel, they would
be somewhat out of character with what is otherwise a fairly traditional design.
3. The wain.scot at the base of the structure seems appropriate for the style and the design as presented. However, it
varies in height on the right side elevation and is missing from the left side guage facade.
4. The height of the entry arch seems too low for the tall entry doors shown.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
Stucco comer waH Is not
contributing to a unity of
design for this house
Better transition between shingles
and stucco would be hel ul
105 Ncwdl Avenue
D~ign Review Comm ents
Fcbruaiy 23 , 2015 Page 6
Appropriateness
of support size and
spacing dependant
on ro osed material
Entry arch looks low In relationship
to the very tall entry doors
alnscot does not carry around to
all elevations, and varies in height
on the right slc{e elevatron
Recommendation: Replace the stucco comer walls with shingles.
Recommendation: Raise the entry arch to be more compatible with the tall entry doors, or reduce door height
Recommendation: Add molding to separate the stucco and the shingles on the entry.
Recommendation: Provide clarification on the materials and details fur the balcony support brackets, and provide a
narrative of how the proposed materials and details support the architectural style of the house.
Recommendation: Unless there is a strong reason to do otherwise, continue the wainscot around all sides of the house
at the same height as shown on the front elevation.
Add molding to separate
stucco and shingles
Raise entry arch to be more
compatible with tall entry doors
or reduce door hel ht
Provide more details
on material and details
of balcony support
Unless there Is a Gtrong reason to do
otherwise, continue walnscot around
all olrlne M tha hnuon at Ihle h .. t,.h+
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
LOT2
105 Newell Avenue
Design Review Comments
February 23 , 2015 Page 7
1. The architectural style appears to be very much in the spirit of a Ranch Style. In that idiom, the use of simple
columns without caps and bases is appropriate. However, in past applica.tions and in the Town's Residential Design
Guidelines, the use of t:nditional beams at the top of a series of columns has been strongly encouraged.
Recommendation: Add a support beam at all covered porches.
Add beams at all columned porches
LOT3
1. The issue on this lot is the detail treatment of the entty and porch. An open arched element is proposed at the
entry, but its forward face is in line with the main roof eave. Only one column is proposed for this entry element
which appears rather awkw.u:d. Overall, the entry seems much weaker tha.n those on Lots 1 and 2. Also while the
·form is arched, the interml supporting structure appears to be some angular combination of structural elements
which do not go very well with the strong arched form.
2.As noted for Lot 2, the use of columns without caps and bases is appropriate for some archirectural styles, such as
the Ranch Style. However. this design is a bit more formal, as evidenced by the fortml arched, double wide entty
door.
3.It may be a computer drawing error. but the top of the entry doors arc truncated by the arched door frame.
4. The fence to the right of the front elevation appears to be very much like a standard side ya.cd handscape fence. 'Ibis
does not seem in keeping with the larger size and quality of the development.
' AlllW i r--------, j i • : I l
L .......................... L .~~~~.!~~ .. L.~,.-.... -.1 i
ve~~ ~= =--···-····--·-···-;-moie refi_ ;._would h
be hlgllly-ble i
·····-·-····----·--i
' •
Maybeco .. ~-=:::------T ----~r:.~·rch-:-------·--·-------
forma• doors are not fitting Into frame
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
I
I
I
~
I 05 Ncwdl Avenue
Design ~cw Comments
February 23, 2015 Page 8
Recommendation: Extend the arched :try element forward of the main roof eve line, and develop the structural sup-
ports and detailing to better complement the arched form.
Recommendation: Add a beam between columns and between columns and adjacent walls. Add columns caps and
bases unless the further refinement of the arched entry suggests another approach.
Recommendation: Resolve the door height and door head condition.
Recommendation: Utilize a higher quality level of fencing on all sides that are visible from outside of the site and
from the interior site street. One good example of a similar Los Gatos fence is shown in the photo below.
II
.--------, I I
~-=i~~~~·:x====t~--•• I
~--·-·--1 .. -.. ,,::=-..::.:.:~ ·-··· .... ~ .... , ..... ;
Reeolve entry doorl._11
alze end door head U-
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
!--~---.1-.1.•. ____ ., _ _. ........ -···-··--·-· ......................... -
Ada porch beam
Extend canopy
Provide structure to reflect curve
Add column• ·
Add caps and bases to columns
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. sum 199. LARKSPU R . CA. 94939
LOT4
105 Newell AV1:nuc
Design Review Comments
Pc!>ruart 23, 20! 5 Page 9
1. The entry to this house is much weaker than any of the other homes with just a small indentation under the main
roo£ This seems inadequate for the scale and ambition of the test of the design.
Recommendation: Redesign the front entry to be a better match for the me, scale and style of the house.
l
Front entry Is relatively weak compared to the other proposed houses
Jennifer, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are other issues that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Canno n
CANNON DES IGN GRO U P 700 LARKS PUR LAN D ING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 LARKSPU R. CA . 94939
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Architectural consulting comment responses
RECE;VED
JUN 17 2015
Item 1.
Item 2 .
Item 2b.
ltem3.
Jtem4.
Item 5.
Item 1
ltem2
ltem3
Item 4
Item 1
See wall details on Sheet LS-1.0 landscape plan. TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Eave height is not affected by fence as it's over 20' away from fence. See Site
Plan Sheet S-1.2.
Sect ion shows neighbor fence top of 7' wall. See fence detail on Sheet LS-1.0
with max. fence height 6.revise
See Sheet TM-2 on Civil plans and Sheet S-1.2 on Architectural Site plan for
extended side walk.
Steps and Landing provide an ending for our planter retaining wall as designed.
There will be optional path to entry from Driveway.
We rather keep the exterior plaster with a dark paint color. We are emphasizing
the articulation of the front fa~ade with material and texture changes. We agree
on separating the exterior plaster from shingles. (Not yet detailed)
Support outriggers will be heavy wood timber 6X members and are below the
actual structural support system.
Wainscot will go around garage as revised. See sheet A-1 .3 The height is constant
but varies at ground finish grade level.
It Is proportional to from the top of the exterior plaster to the arch which is most
important. We'll adjust accordingly. Doors full height will be viewed from
approach below.
There are beams proposed but not seen In elevation views.
There are two columns and we regard nothing "weak" about this one story front
elevation on this project. It holds its own just fine. It is an asymmetrical front
porch entry . It's a wide horizontal front porch with emphasis to the location of
the front door by the roof archway above, as one approaches from street.
EXHIBIT 1 0
ltem2
Item 3
The eaves as well as the porch vaulted arch ceiling will be finished in wood
boards. We've moved the column to be at the start of the flat eave area of the
porch.
We'll consider a simple base detail just enlarging the diameter of the column
12" . The top we'd like to appear as the column pierces through ceiling. 8"
diameter will work for structural visual proportion.
Fence detail is now provided. We're proposing a horizontal wood plank fence of
various widths with space between them. This will fence will be used
throughout and differs from the various materials used in the homes.
Nothing "Weak" about this entry either. It's the most symmetrical front
elevation of the four lots. The entry porch is 10'-7" wide and the door will be 9'
tall. The clearstory window above the entry doors will also contribute to its
"strength" at night with the entry hall light on.
I ... ....
ARBORRS.J REPORT'
Project Address:
105 Newel Avenue
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Property Owner:
Deborah Ellis, MS
./:\ j !''
Consulting Arbbrist & Horti~ufturist 4 . ~t
·~ LJ ... , .. ~
Service si11ce 1984
/20-~!5
' '\ .
• ,\i' '\,.' \ \: • ' "·'-· \\J";:.
.. ~. \ i .. . . ' ~1 l\ \_
Tango Poppa .. JN ~~~?f--~· ... -_--~ ------ -,-·,, ..... . .
Prepared for:
Jennifer Savage
Town of Los Gatos Communffy Planning Department
11 O E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Enis, MS.
Consuffing Arbor/st & Homculturist
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulttng Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B, International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Profess ional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Horticultural Science
FEBRUARY 19, 2015
~i
~o !~ ~: re. "!4 90 ,. "'
a ~ ' . Cl .. ~~, ~
~ rii er. 0
I PO ~ox 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.nd. http://www.decah .com. I
EXHIBIT 1 I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
-.:.'I
Service si11ce 1984
Table of Contents
TREE MAP ., ............................................................................................................................................................................. &. .. ~'. ...... ,~~ .......... ,1
••••••••••••••••••• 1
SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................................................. J:;..;; ......•. :~ ........ ~ ...................... 2 .
B . f D . . t' f th P . t '., . . . . 2 ne escnp ion o e roiec .............................................................................................................................................. 1 ...................... ; ....................... .
Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Brief Description of the Trees ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table l Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
APPl!NDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
TABLE 2 Complete Tree Table ............................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Supporting lnformatfon ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Purpose & Use of Report .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Observations ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Tree Protection Distances .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 19
3 to 5 x DBH ........... : .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 19
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 20
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
Tree Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23
Assumptions & Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Glossary .... ; ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Cover photo: The front of the old Elks Club building from Winchester Boulevard. Sweet gum t~ees #Z0-25 and 34-36 are labeled . All
photos in this report were taken by D. Ellis on February 9, 2015.
PO Box 3714, SarQtOgQ, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decQh@pQcbell.net . http://www.decQh.com.
Debarah Ellis, MS
Consulting A~borist & Horticulturist '-
TREE MAP
I ""-·. \ --------L_ -------------~ .... .....___. ______ --
~~ f-~ ~ -~~"":., __ :_ • -... ~ ·--$#;..-;..... ~~~. . \ . -• ··-..,, .....__, __ ~. _ .. ____,_ ........ Oll'1k>O"r --"""· -. ---'--"' -Laz_ • _ t l ;s:;.__
~:~ ........... .. ~--! l¥' t ~... g.;. ' vt· . ..=----i-1.L]. ~,.-,.=., ...... _ .....
ERQSIOW CONJBQ.. PUN ----
~
<' ScveTree * Oebalable-fRead dbouHree)
.X Remove. Tree
-__ 'fgA._
11 k
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www;decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015.
~
·-"t-'
~,,
Service since 1984
Pagel of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~'
I:,,..
Service sinci 1984
SUMMARY
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
An existing building on the property will be demolished, and four new two-story. single-family residences are planned.
PLANS REVIEWED
• Existing Site, Sheet S-1.1, June 30, 2014. Camargo & Associates, Architects.
• Site Plan (Proposed), Sheet S-1.2. Same as above.
• Site Sections, Sheet S-1 .3 . Same as above.
• Landscape Plan, Sheet LS-1.0. Same as above.
• Elevations/Sections. A-1.3 , 2.2, 4 .2, 4.3 . Same as above.
• Tentative Map of Existing Conditions, Sheet TM-1, January 16, 2015. Carroll Engineering .
• Tentative Proposed Conditions. Sheet TM-2. Same as above.
• Preliminary Grading & Drainage Plan, Sheet C 1.1, 1.2. Same as above.
• Preliminary Profile & Sections. Sheet Cl .3, 1 .4. Same as above.
• Preliminary Underground UtiHties. Sheet C2 . l, 2.2. Same as above.
• Temporary Erosion Control Plan. Sheet C3. l
• Preliminary Storm water Management Plan. Sheet C4.1. Same as above.
BRIEF DESCRIPTiON OF THE TREES
There are 38 protected trees i within or adjacent to proposed construction. Most of these trees are not in good condition and are not
particularfy valuable trees for the site. All trees are described briefly the Summary Tree Table (Tobie 1 I on page 4 and in greater detail in
the Complete Tree Table (Table 2}. beginning on page 8. The Recommendations section of this report includes suggestions for reducing
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
Scope of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision
1val is reouired. Town Street trees of any size· are orotected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exemot
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 2 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbortst & Horticulturist ,,·
A
.,4., .. ·
Sl!ft!U:t! ,JllWJ J9l'J./
construction Impact to certain trees when possible and practical. For those trees that will be retained on the site, the Town of Los Gatos
General Tree Protection Directions are also included on page 20. Based upon the plans that I have reviewed for this project:
• Thlrtv·four (341 trees are shown on the plans and/or are recommended by me to be removed. The reason that the majority of trees
on this .site will be removed is due to the extensive grading that will occur h~re, the poor condition of many of the trees, and also the
location of several tall-growing trees (&eodal' ceden #28.;31) underneath overhead electric wires . The tall growing deodars
should never have been planted beneath the wires; these trees have been topped repeatedly and now is a good time to remove
them.
• Two (2) trees are categorized as being "Debatable" Save or Remove. These are tzoees #19 (a spindly, volunteer olive that was not
included on the plans) and #33 l~•HBE stone J!line, due to its fair/poor structure. Tree #33 is shown to be saved on the
construction plans, but I suggest considering removal instead.
• Two (2) trees are shown and/or recommended by me to be saved. These are lta:lan •tone u-m•• #27 and 32 . These are not
"great" trees, but they are the most reasonable trees to try and save on this site, given the construction plans and the not-very-good
condition of most of the trees.
• I have not classlled the long hedge row of large •h3ny ..,.:o•ma. shlnabs aioa5 Qbe 1nol'tbwest i:perimeter of the site as
"protected trees" (see photo below}. It is difficult to see the trunks of many of these shrubs, but trunk diameters seem to range from
4 to 12 inches in diameter. There are approximately 23 ......-----------· -----·---------
shrubs. I only SO\N one shrub with a 12 inch diameter trunk
however: most of the trunks are closer to 4 inches in
diameter. Xylosma is used primarily as a landscape shrub
and these plants have been pruned to a height of about 1 O
feet as a hedge. Most of these shrubs are propose,d to be
saved however; and-so they should be protected. They do I 2'1
provide good screening for their height.
Shiny xylosma (Xylosma congestum) shrub hedge
row (right to left) with ?!ta!ian stone pi:!L1.e #27
in the background at far left. --~ ~::~~~·~;:~L~i:::~.i·t~·;;J~}~{:iI~i~r~~:t}i5zi./_-;_ ":;~~~.r;.~~,·t ·· · .•
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbeltnet. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 3 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service .:~u 1984
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
Continued on the next page. *Tree not included on some or a// plan sheets. +Trees ecies native to the immediate area. . .. """·l ... · ·.; ........ ,;;,.. . ·[ . .·.. . ., , .. ·
tr . . . . TrU1-:1 .. · · ·tt , ll::lqJICw11 •. i "· .. , · .,,.. • •• : '-:·! .. "·:, .•. ;
'": , Cbmmo~~) ·j Ola~~ mt•~ P, Col'ilUuetidn Actk>n..1i Reason ·-,_,. · ·: .. :·\;~ 1
1 ,,. Name -.__. .. ~, . .Oift , Sub&Jlity.1 " Impact ; ~.. "' -. ,_._,;; :.~. · ,
• • _,_I , •· i 1
1 jltalian stone pinel9 !Fair J~evere . !Remove !Construction
2 ~eodar cedar js !Fair/Poor !severe 1Remove !Construction/Structure
+3 !coast liv~ oak j10 , 10 . !Fair/Poor . Jse~ere JRemove jcon~truction/Structure
+4 l~oa~t live _oak 11 a· !f:~ir/Go~d --.jse~e~~ . _ : ~ _ IR~~~ve lc~nstr~ction
+5 coast live oak 5 Fair/Poor Severe Remove Construction/Structure
"+6 coast live oak 6 (2.5). Fair Severe Remove Construction ...
7 Silk tree 12 Poor Severe Remove Construction/Overall Condition
8 !Black acacia 14.4.3,3 !Poor Jsevere IR~ove lconstructi;;rVOverall Co~dition
5*2
9 !carob tree 113,6,6, !Poor
3*4, _2*3
10 IAlepp() pine 115 !Fair/Poor
11 Jcarob tree j15 (2.5) !Fair/Poor
_+12 tcoas~ Jiv~ o_~k . . 15.6 ]Fair
13 lltali~m st_ci_ne_ pine 111 (2.5) IF air/Good
Severe Remove
!Severe Remove ...
.severe Remove
Severe Remove
1ove
14 !Italian stone pine 115 IF air .!Severe IRerr 1ove
1ove . --
iove
, 15 !Italian stone pin~l11 _ _JPoor _ t~_v_ere IRerr
] +16 !coast live oak 19 lFair ·!severe !Ren
+17 !coast live oak 117 '!Good !Severe IRerr IOVe
Construction/Overall Condition
~onstructi~n/~Struct~re
!Construction/Overall Condition
Construction
, 18 !carob tree . J9 . _ _!Poor _ .. _ l~eye_re .... _... !Remove IConstruction/StrucitJr.Ei . . .. . .. . . ,
1 ·19 l~lJropEla.~. oliy~ . I~ ... _ m .1!>~~r.-........ __ .1~.<:>?era!~t.~evere;Jqeb~tab~~J~o~a.uon .u~~r!~.~-r.E)_1~ti 11~.~<>_9 r.~d.i!19 I
20 I sweet gum .. ___ J10 ___ IFa lr{Gf.?Od ~ J~i:vere .. ·~· ~Jl3Eimove_ lc;onstructie>r ~-~-__ ·~·~·
21 !sweet gum '7 !Fair jSevere !Remove jconstruction
22 lsweet g~m la !Fair js_evere !Remove IC:onstruction
wee~~m __ !___ Fa ir/Poor ___ -~-'.!1~-~~~truction/Ov,:raH co.ndition __
L-----··~------PO Bo;-37l~S~ratog;CA 950l0. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . htf'P:/;w-;;_d~~h.com. -J
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 , 2015 . Page 4 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arhorist & Horticulturist
/'\
1n·. 1E.
Table 1 .Summary Tree Table (continued from the previous page} !r~ ,..~.i.<r·,~··:~.~~ .. ~~:~::'r~;,~ .. ,-~"'~l r:;t~n.~:tlk:~::•· ~\.~.: .. ~ •. ~UOrf~ .. ; ,· .. ~;.t;;:~;;-.. ~. ··.~.~-.::. .. :;:;~.:':;~;.~<:::. .... :~.~~.,...=·:::~;
• ·; · :~·-:;"Nlrite ·'-,_.=;: .:~~ ~aut&&lii!Y ~ ... ~ti'Oii•:j Aetrcm~; ~ --~~ :.~ ~::~ .~· ::._~;~.; .~·~~~ ·~;~·~. '!~~_: .. ;~:-~~~ ~·:~·:~:~:~~-·:·~~~~-:.~~ ... ::·~···:~~~:~--1 ;'f i1~¥~;f ~~~~~;·~t~%1
*24 ls~~t QU!fl J6 Farr/Poor I Severe Remove ~Construction/Overall Condition
25 fsweet gum 11 O Fair Severe ' Remove ; Construction . ---.
.• Moderate/Severe Remove onstruction/Overal Condition -" -~
26 !dwarf mugo_ pin_~ ]5.!3 ,_3 Poor
27Jltalian sft>n~_pine '.13 1 __ l_F~lr _. _ .. ~Modera~ --·-jSaye ----~ . _ _ __ _ _
28 jdeodar cedar 11 ~-_ ]Poor .. _ .. llMocJ~rate/Seve~e{Remove __ ~Structure, Power llnes, Construction
. 29 ~(:!odar ~dar 13 . __ Poor ·-··· Moderate/Se\fE!re ~emove _ -~tructu~ •. ~~wer lines._Constru<?tio~
I 3~ ~~od~r-~~~-~~ 9_ .. ___ Poor .... Seve~ ~~m_ove _ ~°"nstru~~~· -~tru~~r~!_Power l_ines
3~ _ deodar ~ar 15 ·-·· Poor --· Severe Remove : C~nstruction, ~tructure! _Power li_ne.s.
32 Italian stone pine 12 .. _.fair Low/Moderate Save __ --33 l~l!a!l ~to~~-e!n~· !~-· ·--~air/P~o.r. --Low~derate D~Eatabl~ ~!~~~-~-
~~ J~~et . 91:1.!1.1 _____ .... .'l~ ... ~----~Jf..~i!"[~~--·-.. l~~yere _ --· ... ~l~~~ _ J~~ns_tr~ction
35 J~~et gum__ :110 IF air fSevere !Remove ~Construction
! 36 .fs>,r,reet gur,n _rn-ig JCon~truction
37 lossy pri~e~ . , 5 Se~re_ onstruction/OveraH Condition
. ~!._.9JO.~X .e.~!~_.:.'.~~-·······--· s~~-·-', --~-~~~uction ·--... ~~---,··---
End of Table
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com .
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 .
,,,_...,'II'"'-::!-"'
Se1'11ice since 1984
Page 5 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service Jiru, 1984
RECOMMENDATIONS
l. Existing trees should be numbered on all site-based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In this arborist report.
2. The disposition of an trees should be the same on all plans. For example, the Erosion Control Plan shows some trees to be saved that
are not shown on the landscape Plan. Trees to be sayed must be numbered (with the tree tag numbers used in this report) on all site
based plans including the landscape plan. There should be a demolition plan showing all numbered trees to be removed as well as
trees to be saved.
3. Save and protect the following A protected trees: #27 and 33-
4. Remove the following 34 protected trees: #1-18, 20-26, 28-31 and34·38/
5. The folowing A protected trees are listed as "Debatable": #19 and 33. Read about these trees in the Notes column of the Complete
Tree Table in order to learn why they are debatable and review options for dealing with them.
6. Recommendations for Specific Trees:
a. #27 Italian stone pine: move all soil disturbance (grading, retaining wall excavation or anything else) no closer than 15
feet to the nearest edge of this tree's trunk as measured in the field. Right now the back edge of the wall is shown at about 12
feet. Removal of existing asphalt must be done carefuUy and under the supervision of the project arborist (put this last
sentence on the project plans on the Demolition Sheet).
b. The shiny xylosma shru.b hedge row along the northwest perimeter of the project should be protected with standard
Type 1 Tree Protection fencing and signage.
7. The Arborlst should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 1. Additional
improvements on plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Examples of important
plans to review are: the Existing and Proposed Site Plan, Demolition. Construction Staging, Erosion Control, Grading & Drainage,
Underground Utilities, landscaping & Irrigation, Building Elevations & Sections, Roof Plan and Construction & landscape Details
showing improvements that may impact trees. Therefore the tree dispositions (Save, Remove or Debatable) listed in this· report may
change if and when additional plans for this project are reviewed, or if plans that I have reviewed are revised. 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.
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive . February 19, 2015. Page 6 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Aliborist & Horticulturist
Stroil!" mir.r. 19~1
8. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over·excavatlon or work area beyond the
improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH 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 ~onsidered 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 alsc;> 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 impf?vements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees :than the lines shown on the plans!
9. New landscaping and lntgation can be as much or more damaging to exisHng trees than any other type of constructton. 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 organi~ mulch such as wood or bark
chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing tree$ should be changed very carefully
or not at all -please consult with me regarding changes in the landscape around existing trees an(jj/or have me review the
landscape and irrigation plans for this project. :
10. For those trees that wftl be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protecfionj Dlrectior."J., included in this report
on pages 20 through 22. A separate copy of these Directions is enclosed and must be incorporate(:f Into the project final plans.
Additional tree protection information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary.
11 . Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dl'lpllne of existing trees should preferably Ill• done by hand. taking care to
preserve existing roots In undama.ged ~9.nd,itior:i q~ much as. possibl~ _and cu.tting roots cleanly by h(lnd when first encountered, when
those roots must be removed. A qualifie(fCorisultiri~l:OrboriSf (the prqject d~risl) should be hired tp monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees on neighboring propertjes whose canopies overhang the
work site. .
12. General Tree Maintenance: .Do no unnecessary pruning, ferllllzatlon. or other tree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to
the absolute minimum required for construdion clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning.
a3 1e 19 for an explanation of these calculations which are used to estimate root protection distances for trees.
PO Box 3"14, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408~725-1357. decah@pocbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell [)rive. February 19, 2015. Page 7 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortlcutturist
APPENDIX
TABLE 2 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
Th is Table is continued through page 14. Data fields in the Table are ~xpfained on pages 14 to 17
Tree
#
Species
&
Cotnmon
Name
:.·,:·
Trunk
·Diam . 1·s1ze
@3ft ...
lcONDITION
'"" 0
$
e·
fi
::::s
~
·. ;:\::~ ., ~ -~~ '., :;;~1~~'. :, ,, : ' _,.: :.
Preservation · con.tructlon ·. Action ; . ~<\. Reason ·-:-
, s_ultablllty · ::·: lm~~ct . . . .-'~·;i:\ · f _<.:.,:;-. ~ '~:;.;•· =· ... '· ·
, .. .... l. ... ~~~. ·~: .,
Notes
~:
..,,/...
S ervice JJJIU 1984
TREEftoOT
!PROTECTION
DISTANCES
::c ffi ~ m
0 0 Q.. ~ >< 0 ~
1 IPinus pinea , .19
Italian stone
~5*101 60 60 ]Fair !Severe Remove jConstruction ~onstructlon : in the path of
lope grad ing . This slope
seems very un_stable .
3 I 4 s I
IPine
120*9 I 60 50 IFalr/Poor 2 =edrus 15
deodara ,
arcedar
3 IQue~us j10, 10 122•221 70 45 IFair/Poor
agrifolia,
~ast live oak
4 !coast live oak 110 .24*181 75 60 !Fair/Good
s 1 ~~t 1i~e oak . f . ro·1or60 r 4ci · 1f:a1~!P~r
*6 fast live oak t(2.5) J16*14J _7o . 1. _so :_ 1Fair ...
7 rfbizia 112 ]18*251 20 I 20 !Poor
·ufibrissin ,
ISilk tree
Severe
Severe
Severe
'Severe
Remove
Remove
.Construction/Structure nstruction: in the path of
-slope grading. Condition: area
oo crowded with trees
. _____ . ~ _ already.
Construction/Structure ~onstruction: in the path of
lope grading.
Remove .!Construction
... --·-· •·· ... -•"' ~.-.. .. -----·-·
t
l
'
3 I 4 I 5 l
i
I
!
6 4
·M 3
4 Remove tconstruction/Structure nstruct ion : in the path of I : ' -'
_ ~lop" gn.~~~~: .. I I !
. .. ~evere ~~~move . f ~nst~~~n I 3 . I 4 I 5 j
Severe .Remove Construction/Overall nstructi n: in the path of 3 5 12
Condition slope grading.
Condition: extensive lower
~runk decay and may dead
branches .
. ---...1.-----·--.1-~-----~-~--I ----__ _..!...__,,~-·-•.. .!.--.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pocbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Pa~ 8 of 29
,/\ ..
Deborah Ellis, MS 1..t \. A.Gn
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist /,,,,( ~. i"".L
~-~-,,~·· > -~ : ~
Service since 1984
Tree .. --~~~" .. 1 ~i;.~r< '.'..i·, '=· ·-~;( : :· ·;. / ~,· ,' ; < : C_:; ',y:; { > '• .. TREE~ • I Common · pi.m,--. ,,,,__ • -.. ~d . .• '-· .. . • · · . • · ' _. . -· " "" l!lllEC'flON
· ·'(lllme · .... @91!,. . , i j : ~bHliy ' •. ~ri · ACliolf' . ! . : ~" .. • • , :: :, : ,· (• · 0, '; • ~'
·.· . . ·· · " .. : f\ . & ~>'~: >S: :1:t'.5A~--~; · >~·;;t · .. :i)i::-r_ "2;?~:._:, ·:{1 ~":i~iS7-. :. :-. , 11 111 ~
,. ; ... ~ ..
8 !Acacia
lme/anoxylon,
Black acacia
···-·· -·······-...
9 jCsratonia
siliqua,
,carob tree
I
10
11 lc~~b tree.
14,4,3,3 .!20"151 50
5*2 l
~
i
13,6,6, :j22*30 :1 40
13*4, 2*31 I
15 ]40•22 :1 70
····'··
15 (2.5) J1B*22'.I 50
40 IPoor
40 !Poor
50 IFalr/Poor
50 IFalr/Poor
1Severe
!Severe
:severe
!Severe
Remove ;lconstruction/Overall
.Condition
Remove
Remove IConstructton/Overall
lcondition
3 6 1 7
11 7 12 121
4 6 111
4 6 111
12 looast INe oak t" 120-18] 75 I 60 !Fair )Severe Remove lconstruction n$truction: in the path of
lo~ 9'!ldLn!.1~-_ -···· ...
3 I 4 l 5 I
13 ralian stone 11 (2.5) l30*20l BO I 60 ~Fair/Good !Severe
'Pi_ne
14 •Italian stone j15 i18*20~ 85 l 60 fFair ilSevere
'pine
~ -... -~ ----
!Remove !Construction
...... L ..... .
:1Remove ]Construction
o · on: in the path of
IO.P..9J1.f.!~~f.I~.
c struction: in the path of
lope grading.
C dition: old stake wire
rtlally embedded in trunk.
3 l 4 ~ 8
4 6 l 11
i
I i -'•··--.... :...· .... ,_..,,~ .. ··-·# .. _ -L-.... ·--.......... _. ·•·.--~ ..... .J..~.~---:.. ..• ·-··. J
[--· -----------PO Box 3714, Saro.toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decak@pacbell.net. kttp://www.decah.com . ----]
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. Februar'( 19, 2015. Page 9 of 29
. ',·
. ·,. CONDITION . :""· ... ·. .. ~ .. -.. . ' Species ~·· ..
Tree & Trunk PreseJVation Expected ·
Diam. 'Size f Constructio.n # Common .. @3ft. ... .a. Suitability kn pact 0 Name ~ . m U' s: 2 ···.': . .,. ·'
.. -...
0) .. · . .. . ..
15 Italian stone 11 16*15 80 40 Poor Severe
pine
..
16 k:oast live oak ~ 40·10 80 50 fair Severe
17 K:oast live oak 17 50"30 75 70 Good Severe
. -' -·-
18 ~rob tree .~ 20·10 75 20 ' Poor ~eve re
19 Olea 5 35"8 50 40 Poor ·Moderate/Severe•
europaea,
European olive
. . . . . --~-. ·-.
20 Liquidambar 10 14<>·1s 70 75 ' Fair/Good Severe
styraciffua,
American
sweet gum
{sweet gum)
-~-----------· -·------------------
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~J;l ., "
0-.
,.--~
~
Service since 1984
, ...
-:'.··_·. :. ~ ,· \:. .. ~._= ... ···:.' .. ... ' . TREEROO'r
W'ROTECTION • ' .,.!'
. ·-· .... · .. , ,, ..... .:·· DIST.ANCES '
'.;::' ;~~~~~ '<:·;·:.
.. . ......
.. ..
Action ,• Note:SI
; :.··. . ..... ... x :c ~ .. ., m m ..... _-,:-
' .. 'a 'a Q. .. ,. •. "": .. .. 0 .... · . ... ' . ~:·: ; . ,., IO •. .. ... ,.. ·~ ' '.o; .. ...
·', i
' .. '
Remove Construction/Structure Construction: in the path of 3 4 8 I
slope grading. I
Condition: tree fell over and I part of trunk over the road was I
cut off. Now vertical branches (
I
gro\\' as replacement trunks. I
Remove Construction Constn•~inn: in the path of 3 4 s I ~lope grading.
Condition: area crowded with !
' ltrees; tree very grove affected.
Root collar covered with duff. l
Remove Construction Construction: in the path of 4 7 12 i
slope grading. I . Conditicm: root collar partially I
I
.. .. .. -·--K:overed with ivy and duff. 416 i Remove . Construction/Structure Construction: in the path of 3
slope grading.
Debatable: Location uncertain : Constn •Mion: tree not shown 3 4 5
·relative to grading on plan; may be on
:
rieighboring property. Not
. sure how affected by grading, .
Condition: tall spindly tree;
. . --·-··-·· . probably a volunteer.
Remove : Construction · Construction: within proposed 3 4 7
roadway.
Condition: root collars of
sweet gums 20-25 covered
-------------------. _ _ with ivy.
-·-
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95oio: -408-725~1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. -~--:J
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page JO of 29
Tree
#
·~ '
Specie$· ... .....
. ·C<t.nritt.n ·
Nawe ·· ·.
21 lsweet gum
"24 )sweet gum
25r-
26 Pinus mugo
!mugo,
ldwarfmugo
pine
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortlcult1.1rist
/'
~·
A ,~
L~
~ !If,•--,_,
j
Service since 1984
. ' . ~ .. ~ . J;.iN~ . ;>, ··~ .~; -~.. . .. ·· :. >;i:· < . .· . . ' . <. ; >J . > "· . : . ' > .. " :-::-·. . . REI! R<l()'r
. -· lllzi" · PIH•rvaflo• · ....,._ · . · ··•· ' ·• • : ·,· ... .,... ·., • .. .. . .. " "· • • .,. Ji..OIEC1IQll
17
~
J10
J5,3,3
I :>
·•
145*8 I so 60 !Fair if Severe J~em~ove i Construction
move Construction
r:
.'l
I ie lconstruCtion/Overall
!Severe
. .. =l~ondltion
jRemove ~onstruction/OveraH
ondition
l40*10l 50 40 !Fair/Poor
'
.i50*22 'j~-~rf_ J so ··fF~ir ···~!Severe jRemove Jconstructlon
9*22 50 20 1Poor ~Moderate/SewielRemove. lconstruction/Overall
~ondition
Con' tru n: probably within I 3
r v~ry close to proposed
roadway (tree not shown on
'erosion control olan , which
jshOWS other troos to be
lrem9ved). _ . "
3 ·
~ntotruction : tree not shown I 3 IOOaii site-based plans , but it
is wi~in a proposed driveway. ·
Conditio : all trunks have
lie~ over althCIJ_9._~-~~~~~: ..
4 151
4 I 5
4 1 5
4 l 7
4 5
27 jlt~lian stone l31 150*351 as l 50 ·rair-I_. Moderate -jsave -t orli · : proposed . I a I 13 138
lpme i . j i J rad)ng down frl:>m tree begms
t about 12 feet from trunk,
inchiding retaining wall. Due
latge size of tree mt>ve
rading farther from trunk to
airitain at least 15 feet of
undi~turbed soil (except for .
'--·-·-'---··--~ --'---·--··-··-·······---'·-• ------~-------·-··----··-----·--·-·····~~~~~~1.~f~i~-~~-J ___ J_~t
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-13!57. decah@pqcbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 11 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
..-1;,._ ... , • r ,, ••
' ·"' Service since 1984
,• ,_._..,, ...... ' TftEE ROOT ~ONDIOON' . • -;. ··-. ·>:: ... ~:-:.~· '·~ •' ... ·~ 1, I" • •. ,._
!PROTECTION ' . · . ·: ... ~·:-:--.: ... : ·.,.-:.: ·~ '1 • \{' : .:· :~.:. ....• : . -= .... : .. .. .. · .. . ·-.. ~ Dl~tANGES Species . ·.··¥ ;· .. . .
Tr.unk
. ~ ........ . :. Expect~ . ::·.-··" .. · ·.<<'. -.
Tree & Preservation
.•. ..
# _ Common oram. Size: I!! Suitablllty · · Construction Action Reason ·( ·.· Notes
@3ft. ... ::s -Impact · . .. :c :c ~ Name 0 -m m CD u "!
~ c c 0. s: ::s .. :i '. ..·.: ~ )( 0 ~ ., .. IO ti) :· • .. ' . : . . . . .. ~ .• ..
-... . . ,.
asphalt and curb). i
j
Condition : PG&E line I
clearance pruning to the side I
i (northwest). Roots are I
causing damage to existing I asphalt pavement and curb . i
28 deodar cedar 15 30"25 75 40 Poor ModeratefSevere ·Remove Structure , Power lines, Construction : within a few feet 4 6 7 i
Construction of hammerhead turnaround . I
Shown to be saved, but not I
worthwhile. There is a step-I
down wall proposed right I
behind (to the south) of trees I
~28-32. Shown to be saved, I
!
but not worthwhile. i
~andition: topped underneath I
overhead power lines. It does I
' not make sense to keep a I large and tall-growing tree like .
a deodar cedar in this location. I
-. ... -... _.,. -····· -----., .. ··-··-·-··· . -·--· -' j
29 deodar cedar , 13 125*25 75 40 : Poor ModeratefSevere Remove Structure, Power lines,• Construction: four feet from 3 5 6 i
Construction . comer of hammerhead I turnaround; also a drainage I
catch basin at this corner, plus i
step-down wall behind. i
I
·Shown to be saved, but not I
INOrthwhile. · ' ' Condition: same as above. l
!
!
-----·----------· -·-· ----' -·-... -· -------··--------·---··-··'----·-------------·----·'------~ _._. __________ --·----·----··--~--~---~--
I
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 , 2015. Page 12 of 29
.. , .. \.
Deborah Ellls, MS /~~
" .. f,
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ~ ·.,. ..
/,;I ·' _;;_.,~ .. _,,,lff':!K
' .... 1
Service since 1984
; ).· ~· '. . ' ., ;: . : . . . ..... ·~
n-. ~ ; • Truril( '. ' ··:,,: > : "' . • ': ~: ,: . ' .... ' ;· ,1$RQ()t
. # I. ~ri ; !1iain•• rSlio ~ ; · bjledllc{" · · :. ·.::Y • .,, . .'· :.c., ·." ' "•\ . .. . . . · . RQ'IEC'mN "l!iome .. ~ .... '.' • i 'Soi~· ll~i1 · _....... .,: •., R .:>' :,•,,":" ... ' ... · ' !Jl$'.l'AilCEs
;..:·: ,: '!::->~ )Y ~. ·~ : .. ~!~t\'.:\~,: ~f~,'t/:~~~-:: ;t,;::;w._ :~--~t}!·":;;t!~ :.::c· ,~ : \ .. :. I I I -
30 ldeodar cedar 19
31 fdeodar cedar 115
32 lltalfan stone
pine
33 llt~lian stone pine
12
'15
;!40•1a :1 so :I 40 lPoor .,Severe
14<>*251 85 40 IPoor .Severe
i3o"2o] 65 I 60 ~Fair Low/Moderate
125*251 70 50 IFair/Poor· 'Low/Moderate
!Remove lconstruction. Con tructlon: within graded
!structure, Power lines area.
' on ltion: This tree hasn't
beem topped yet. but it will
because it is underneath the
verhead power lines. It is
alsoivery Impeded by the
eighbor's large Eucalyptus
ltree;
3
:rRemove ]Construction, Construction: within or close tol 4
Structure , Power lines, raded area Including
Save
j DebatableiStructure
rair!iage swale.
Condition: topped; same as
28&29.
··~-·~ .... ~~--~-~
Con.truction: 9 feet from
bioswale, 35 feet from new
house.
Condition : canopy is presently
beyqnd the end of overhead
power lines but may
jeve~tually Interfere with lines.
!Will provide some Mure
sc~nlng.
Construction: 6 feet from
lbiosi.Yale, 40 feet from new
·!house.
3
4
t
0
4 .rs
6 7
5 9
6 ~ 11
I
:i....--., --'\----·~'"" ........ .:
Condition : leans toward street.
Partial g1i"dhrig toot. Can
provide future screening . ------·-~..:.-.-·-·· .... _,.,..,_., .•. , ..... --·--------~~ ~-~-.. ~------=· ... -... ...l. ... ~.,-.,, .. .J
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www:.decah.col'!t. l
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 13 of 29
Tree •
Species
&
Common
Narne
34 jsweet gum
35 sweetgum
36 [sweet gum
37 lugustrom
fucidum,
glossy privet
Trunk
Diam~ ISize
-_ @3ft.
~ONDITIO.N
! .. I :s 0 -Cl «,) > g
tn
....
. : •. , _·,:··f. •
Prese~t ;~~r Expected
Suitability -Construction
· Impact
18,8 *25, 75 I 60 rair/Good Severe
10 35*16 60 50 ·Fair Severe
~eve re
Severe
19 ---i30·14 70 . r so rair
Is h2•1ol 50 I 50 !Poor
Deborah Ellis, MS
/\. /"1'
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist Ii
..... --~,,.l~
-~' .• :~
.:..· .t•
ACtlon · Reason
_,
Remove !Construction
Remove !Construction
1Remove Construction
-~ .
Service since 1984
TREEROOf
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
.. Notes ::c
~
~
!Construction: within proposed I 3
house.
jeonstruction: within proposed I 3
house.
ffi I~ c Q.
~ 0
5 9 !
1
4 i 7 1
Construction: 5 feet from I 3 I 4 I 6 I
Pi:<:>flo_sed _ hou_s~. l
Remove IConstruction/Overan onstrucf n: within or very 3 4 5
Condition close to proposed roadway. _
Condition : appearance is more
like an overgrown shrub . ·-~-~--~'· ~----·•----~· -~---~. --~~---~-~~ ·------~ .. I 38 j91ossy privet ]3,4,5 j15*16j 60 TScJlFair/Poor 1 5evere---iRemove:fconstruction -----jsame as above. ---T31 4 I 5 l
............. -·-----·---.... -··· ·-............. _____ . __ , __ ,., __ ·-·-.. ·--·----..---.---------·--·-------------~--------------... ·---·-.. -·---~--.-.
EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS:
1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the field is tagged with a 1.25 inch round alum inum number tag that
corresponds to its tree number ·referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Specifications and any other project plans 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 the plant, for example Quercus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genus
and agrifo/ia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but t hose used in this report are from the most current
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book {2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation . The scientif ic name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree
Table, along w ith the regional common name. After that only the common name is used.
PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725 ~1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .decah .com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive . February 19 , 2015 . Page 14 of 29
Deborah Elliss MS
-ConsuHtng ArJ>orlst & Horticulturist
Service ~utu I Q~.1
3) Trunk diameter (~t 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 w<1s measured at this
alternate height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree.
Examples: an "'18" in the Diameter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18 inches at 3 feet above the ground. An "18 {2)"' means that
trunk diameter was 18 inches measured at 2 feet above the ground. "'18, 7, s• means that this is a multl~trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18,
7 and 5 Inches at 3 feet above the ground. ·
4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width In feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare -
like a supermodel in human terms). A 60 Is "'average" (not great but not terrible either). There are two componenp to tree c·:>ndition -vigor and
sttucture, 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 fqr each separate component:
100 ls equivalent to Excellent (an ~A' academic grade), 80 Is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor {D), 20 is Unucceptab/e (F) and O is Dead.
6) The Condition of the tree .is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site.to provide an opinion on the tree's
Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, tn this location, as explained ln Table 3 ~elow and on the next page. This Is
based upon the scenario that the tree ls given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long li~ on the site. Ratings such as
•Fair/Good" and HFair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for
example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly Improved with just a small amount of work -and it would be worthwhile to
keep the tree if this were done.
Excellent
Table 3 Preservation S.ultabllltv Ratlna Explanation
Such trees are rare but they ha"Ve unusually good health and structure and provic'e J
multiple functio. na. I and aesthetic benefits to. the environment ~nd the ~sers of the site.
These are greattrees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor ~nd structur·9.
Equivalent tb academic grade ·A'. ·
J DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is" the forestry and arborlcultural standard measurement
helaht that iS also used in manv tree-related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saro.toga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357, decah@pacbell.net. http://www.deco.h.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 15 of 29
......
A -< \.
Deborah Ellis, MS f \~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-? I -
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ...;~ IL:
~
y, e 3 Preservation Suitabllltv Rating Exolanatfon (continued from the previous oaoe
Good
Fair
Poor
None
7) Action (Disposition):
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can
be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good
condition and provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the
environment and the users of the site. These are better than average trees equivalent
to academic Qrade 'B'.
These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or
may not be possible to improve with treatment. These are "average• trees -not great
but not so terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on
most sites tend to fall into this category. These trees will require more intensive
management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life spans than trees in the
"Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Equivalent to academic grade ·c·.
These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be
reasonably improved with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline
regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics
that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I
do not recommend retention of trees with low suitabiRty for preservation in areas
where oeoole or orooertv will be present. Eauivalent to academic arade 'D'.
These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk
or other issues. In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees
are beneficial as food and shelter for certain animals and plants including
decomposers. Eauivalent to academic arade 'F'.
a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures.
-.. _,,,._,7" '-~
,,.
Service since 1984
b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation su itability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or
any combination of these factors.
c} Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining this tree. Find out why in the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table.
Examples are :
• The tree is shown to be saved !and_ may be a desirable tree to sayel but Proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause too
much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that It can be saved.
• Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e .g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess
tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis.
[ PO Box 371~~~5070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. · http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist ~eport for 105 Newell Drive . February 19 , 2015 . Page 16 of 29
~~
Deborah Ellls, MS ~-·1])
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist ;;" ~l t.._
·~ ~ ..-l-~''i ·_c, ' .. :f
Service "1ue 1984
• Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove t he tree as It stands now. Jn
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information proitided in thii report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• Species : the tree may be a poonpecies.for the area or the Intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertain construction impact
• Other (as explained for the Individual tree)
8) Reason {for tree removal or to explain why a tree is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided .. with the most significant
reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to:
• Construction (excessive construction Impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhi le to try and save the tree)
• Condition (e .g. poor tree condition -either vigor, structure or both)
• Landscaping (the tree is being removed because it does not fit In with or conflicts with proposed new landsca~i ng)
• OWner's Decision (for some reason the owner has decided to remove this tree)
• Species (the tree Is a poor species for the use of the site)
• Risk (the tree presents moderate to excessive risk to people or property that cannot be sufficien~ly mitigated)
9) Notes: This may include any other informat ion that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within t he scope of work for this
report, such as a more detailed explanation of tr~e condition or expected construction impact.
10) Tree Protection Distances (See page 19).
a} RootProtection :
i) 3 and SxDBH : Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of the :OBH of the largest trunk is added to
50% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Pr dtection Distance calculation s. For
practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance is 3 feet and the minimum SxDBH distance is 4 feet. If di sturbance cannot be kept at least 3
feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed.
ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Prote"ion zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development. Matheny :et al., International Society of
Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree-age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not
be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this
requirement and list only the 3 and S>tDBH distances .
b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
c) I have increased a few of the calculated tree protection distances for individual t r ees based upon my professional judgment relative to site
constraints.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 17 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
I\
Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist )~
Service since 1984
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part ot the building permit process for this project. The purpose of
the report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site --their size. condition and suitability for preservation. The
audience for this report is the property o-..yner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities
concerned with tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are
in acceptable condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on February 9, 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 are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by
email if requested.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com .
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19 . 2015. Page 18 of 29
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
A
Deborah Ellls, MS Ji·1.n /.· '""Jt t l.•·
Consulting Amorist & Horticul"'ri",!.. •. , ·~
,,..,:
Service since 1984
The existing site includes the old Elks Lodge building, asphalt roadway and parking lot and landscqping. Site topography is mainly
level nearthe building, but slopes steeply down to Newell Avenue to the north and Winchester Bo01evard to the east. The northern
slope seems very unstable, which may be part of the reason that there will .be significant grading here, requiring the removal of all
trees In this area. There is an irrigation system for most of the landscaping, although it may have been turned off for a while. Sun
exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon proximity to the existing building and to other trees. Most of
the trees on the site are not native to the immediate area and were planted or are volunteers (they were not planted). The several
coast live oaks on the northern slope are native to the immediate area and are probably of natural growth (they were not planted),
but unfortunately these trees will be removed due to grading.
TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES
3 TO 5 X DBH
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of ·an
individual tru to affect tree stability or heahh 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 excavation should be fr9m the edge of the trunk on one side of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 200~. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
DBHis trunk "d iameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used ~uring the desig;n and planr1ing phases of a construction
project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper.
which is the area in wh ich the large buttress roots(main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diam~ter with i.'lcreasing d istance from the
trunk. For example , using the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of en 18-inch DBH tree. Such distances
are guidelines only , and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies , sign ificant leans, decay , structural.problems, etc. It is also important to
understand that in actual field conditions we ·otten find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by· the guidelines. 3xDBH 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 extensive network of long . rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as
transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5xDBH tree protection zone ar greater around a tree will
preserve more of these transport roots, which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.ne.t . http://wwwfdecah.com. I
Arborist Repo r t for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 19 of 29
OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE)
A I .,.;
Deborah Ellis, MS ): ~n
Consulting Amorist & Horticulturist,.~
,,.,
Service since 1984
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age, 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 stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural
industry. The most current 90ideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al ., Inter national Society of Arboriculture , 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 distance 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 (Tree 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
r 1 I 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 lnstructjon (Sheet T-J ,J-2. etc.}. These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition,
utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
(3.b.l The site or landscape plans shall indicate wbich trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approval to
remove a tree until a sepgrate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit. as
outlined in section 29 .10 .0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 20 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & H,-,fiicul\1.irii»t
SerW:e tin.a 1984
(3.e.) 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 vertfying that the required tree protection fenoe is installed around street trees
and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report. ·
(3.g.! An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the iinstallaticn 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. Wdrk 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 soecitv the folowjng:
1) Size and matertals: A five (5} or six {6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shaD be
driven into the ground to a depth of at-least two (2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be
demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
2) Area type to be fenced. IJ'.ruL[: 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 arborisf-4. ~: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain llnk fence
around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small plante~r. cutout only (such as
downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden
boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place
until final landscaping is required. 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". A template sign has been provided to
be used on the project site.
4 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to t.he construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible,
including as much of the drlpline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripllne, then
so be it. But the contractor must trv to fence off as much area under the canopy as posslble, do n()t be irresponsible about this.-
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 2r of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS ~~ /' ]
ConsuHlng Aroonst & Horticultu,lst J I~
~c -,,~--•• F· ...,r._ ,........_
~!J
Service si1ue 1984
b} All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
1} Prior to the commencement of construction, instal 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.
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasolne, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripllne 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 utllHy services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
6) Retain the services of the certified or consulting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees t o
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 arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a p rotected 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 fertiRzing if specified .
1) Any public utility installlng 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 utHtty lines and energized conducton 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 is
prohibited.
[ PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 22 of 29
TREE PHOTOS
7
·•r· ~ ··.~~:~1c~i:WI{~f ~!:~~;:-<:-.~~:~~~·-f :,~~·-i·_:. _,;::~:·;~ :.; ~:.-./··_~'.·-:·.~:::.·'.::,.:~~~ ..
These photos show trees on and at the top and bottom of the
slope on Newell Avenue. Trees #3 Co 6, 16 ;11nd 17 are coast
live oaks. #7 at the top of the slope is a silk tree, mostly dead.
Tree #10 is an Aleppo pine., #11 aa~ 18 ore. carob tre.es, #13 .
and 14 are Italian stone. pines and #19 is a volunteer olive.
Deborah Ellis, MS ~J;l ~~~~~~~~-"" ~
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist L? _ ·Ji
7
~~~ ~-!
Strvia since 1984
. .r~ , ·' ;~,•" ·~,".'·li~,,h..:;r"~~ ..... ..,.:..!!:''·'"' ....... ,;. .. ·•". ,, .. [ ..... -<' a • • • .•.~ .,,,. _,, .. -.., ··"~ •. '11• '·
.:• :~E:~~i€.!:~::~;iF~:; -L, .. :; ~., :~~~-:~7~>~:~t~'..f:.i:::/)€~~_;J'.F~~iy~:~-\~f.iS~\T~T.: :· -.;.,
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. ,decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 23 of 29
~ II . MS / '~D
Deborah E is, /-~\ii~
s~1:rlfr11 si11ce J 9ti../
27
"·~ ~,r _,. -'~·{./~· ... •:· :·: ~·
~
~ ., .. '·
Upper left photo: sweet gam trees #20-26 on the northwest
side of the Elks Club building.
Upper right: large stone pine #27 at far right (the southwest
corner of the site) with deodar cedars #28-30 along the south
perimeter. Not visible in this photo are the overhead power lines
that have caused these tall-growing trees to be topped repeatedly.
The trees look better in the photo than they do on site. Don't be
fooled -remove them; They are not worth saving.
Lower photos: Italian stone pine #27 from the east (left
photo) and the northeast (right photo).
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015 . Page 24 of 29
\· .~.~·
34 '
'.•
Left photo: s~one pines #32 aa.c!l 33. Neither are great trees, but
#32 is the better one to keep, at least for the near future.
Center: •weef: ga.izns #34 .. 36 on the south side of the Elks club
building.
Right : g!ossy privets #37 21Ecl 38.
/~t
oeb0rah Ems, Ms ../ ~Il
Consulting Anborlst & Horticulturist ~· ... .i, ~
,,1.-' . . .{!.-
I :r'-.Jt:; :-... -.... ~:....-,, .. -.•. ~~
h~
Servic1 sin.a 1984
·-o.:l~'
~,-,-r:..-~-r-~~rin~~I
----· -.-~~~--·-·'·"··~-· •.-.. .: .;~~~-~i'.:\~''.~~~,\:t:~--
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.~t. http://www_.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 25 of 29
Deborah Ellis, MS
·~ .-J ~.:~. L .
Service si11ce 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
l) Tree locations were provided by <an unknown party, since tree trunk locations are not included on the and are shown on the
Tentative Map of Existing Conditions, Sheet TM-1, but tree trunks do appear on the Existing Site Map S-1. 1 > Tree Map on page T of
this report. The Tree Map is a reduced partial copy of the Erosion Control plan that I was given, since that plan contained the
majority of trees shown on any of the plans. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the field.
2) The CondiHon Ratings for deciduous trees that are out of leaf (because they l:u;we shed their leaves for winter dormancy) are
estimated. More accurate condition ratings for these trees can be obtained after they have fully leafed out (usually mid-May
through September). Deciduous trees on this site that were completely leafless or in the process of shedding their leaves are: sweet
gums and the one silk tree.
3) Some of the trees described In this report were not Included on the Erosion Control Plan (trees #6 aacl 24) and so we tentatively
plotted the approximate locations of these trees on the Tree Map.
4) A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described in this report was performed on February 9, 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.
l) 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.
2) Several trees had their root collan and or lower trunks covered with soil, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I
conducted my tree evaluation. The obstructions should be removed and I should re-examine these previously covered areas.
3) 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.
4) 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.
5) Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
6) Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not imply right of publlcation for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand.
7) This report and the 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.
8) This report has been prepared in conformity with generany acceptable appraisal/diagnostic/reporting methods and procedures
and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting
Arborists.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 26 of 29
A
Deb~rah Ellls, MS j '}h
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturl~t -~{ _ 11'~
../.---.. ~···~ !'i
s~rrr~ ~incl 1984
9) My evaluatlon of the trees that are the subject of this report Is llmlted to vlsual examination of accesslble Items without dis$eeflon,
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.
10) I take no responslbllHyfor any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has ~een climbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root cOlla·r e:>tC.QVdl!Oris and
evoluQttons have not been performed unless otherwise stated. .
11 ) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of ttie 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 re.ason. B13cause 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 rooi 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 leve!I of risk associated with
trees, particular1y 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 if11 can be of further assistance.
Sincerely,
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS .
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
LS.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578
l.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Enclosures:
• Town ·of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set)
• · Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing)
I --PoBo;m4.-s~ratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://wwwtdecah.com. -HI
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive .. February 19, 2015. Page 27 of 29
/\
Deborah Ellis, MS j:~h
Consultlng Arborl$t & Horticulturist ~ 1·~ .....
.A's.:-·~·.,.-·~·~
' ~~
S ervice since 1984
GLOSSARY
1. Arborist. Proiect. The arborist who is appointed to be In charge of arborlst services for the project. That arborist shall also be a qualified
consulting arborist (either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arborist or an American Society of Consulting
Arborists (ASCA} Registered Consulting Arborist} that has sufficient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work required. For most
construction projects that work will include inspection and documentation of tree protection fencing and other tree protection procedures , and
being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project.
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. Branch dieback: the abnormal and premature death of branches, usually in the upper or more terminal portions of a tree or woody plant.
Generally the smaller diameter branches die first, and the dieback may extend downward and/or to larger branches. Branch dieback is generally
a symptom of stress some underlying problem with the plant, such as root disease or an unfavorable environment. The plant is "downsizing" to
deal with this problem.
4. Ch!orosis/ch!orotic: chlorosis is a plant symptom exhibited abnormally yellow colored foliage. Such foliage is described as chlorotic. This
symptom can have many causes such as lack nutrients, diseases or high soil salinity.
5. Drlpline: 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".
6. Girdling roots are roots that grow circularly around the trunk (rather than away from the trunk) and compress the trunk or other roots,
constricting the growth of these parts. Circling roots grow similarly, but they do not (or have not yet) restricted growth. Girdling roots
can inhibit the flow of water and nutrients by "choking" vascular elements in the trunk or other roots, and they can also cause whole·
tree failures at the root collar.
7. ~: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" canopies. 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.
8. Qualified Tree Service: 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 Tree Service (C61-D49) 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
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 28 of 29
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2ooa. Edition. Ibid .. (Covers tree care methodology).
Deborah Ellis, MS ~~ .,
Consulting Arborist & Homcutturist f.,li.'. •
·; '~ / -,.;.~ .... ·.,,
1 f
Servict .rina 1984
• ANSI Z133. 1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations . 2006 Edition. Ibid . (Covers safety}.
9. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root co//arOunction between trunk and roots) is critical to whole-tree health and
stability. A root collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools, water or pressurized air). The area is then examined to
assess its health and structural stability. !Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. Decay assessment of the larne roots
close to the trunk Cbuttrtss roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract Interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance-
recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavitie,. 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. Dnll 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 trun~:) can be degraded to the
extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations app~ar to be sound.
10. Stump sprout trees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If t~e tree survives, it sends out many
small shoots (suckers) from around the cut stump. Some of these suckers may survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are
spaced very close together and usually have Included bark between them, which reduces the strength of th~lr union. Such trunks are prone to
failure. Stump sprout trees can be very structurally unsound, particularly as they become large and old . THere is often a great deal of decay
associated with the mother stump, which can also reduce mechanical stability.
11 . 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 assum& the terminal role . Reputable
arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive pruning practice. It is stressful to mature trees and may result in
reduced vigor, decline and even death of trees. In addition, branches that regrow from topping cuts are weak ly 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 welt 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 . ·
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-13-57.-d~~b-;!l.~et. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 105 Newell Drive. February 19, 2015. Page 29 of 29
LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS
Note that the following Is excerpted from DMslon 2 {Tree Protection} of the Los Gatos Town
Code and does not consHtute 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
l 1 l The final qpproved Tree Preservation Report shall be induded in the building permit set of
deve!oomenf...plc;ms Gnd-prin!ed-on-0-sheets-titled.; Tr€e-P-reseP1et~oA IRstNc;;iion-iSfieet T-1, T-2.
~ These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civn, demolition, utility,
landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
(3.b.) The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However. the
plans do not constitute approval to remove a tree until a separate permit is granted. The
property owner or appUcant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit, as outlined in
section 29 .10.0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition.
{3.e.) 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 installed around street trees and protected
trees In accordance with the Tree Preservation Report.
13.q.l An applicant with a oroposed development which reauires underground utilities shall
qvojd the-installation of said utilities wjthin the dripline of exjstjng trees whenever possjble. In
the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boringr 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 ofTrees During Construction
a) Protective tree fencing shall soecify the followlnq: -
1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain Dnk fencing, mounted on two-Inch
diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground to a depth of at least two
(2) feet at no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and
when stipulated ln a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
2) Area type to be fenced. ~: Enclosure with chair:i link fencing of either the entire
dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when specified by a certified or
consulting arborist1• ~: 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
i 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 possi ble, including as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing
for enough room to build i mprovements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then so be it. But
the contractor must try to fence off as much area under the canopy as possible, do not be irresponsible about this.
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions. Page 1of2
bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or
branches.
3) Duration of Type I, 11, Ill fencing . Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or
construction begins and remain in place until final landscaping is required . Contractor shall
first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
4) Waming sign . Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x l l-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". A template sign has been provided to be
used on the project site .
b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions:
l) 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 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 drlpline of the tree unless
approved by the director.
3) Prohibit disposal or deposHlng of oll, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within
the drlpllne 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 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.
l ) 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 l) -Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is prohibited.
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions. Page 2 of 2
WARNING
TREE PROTECTION ZONE
This fence shall not be removed
and is subject to penalty according to
Los Gatos Town Code 29.1091025
PUBLIC COMMENTS AND RESPONSES REGARDING
DRAFT MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
AND
INITIAL STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
105 Newell Avenue
Planned Development Application PD-14-002
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration ND 16-002
July 2016
Prepared for:
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Prepared by:
Kimley-Horn and Associates
100 West San Fernando Street, Suite 250
San Jose, CA 95113
Kimley»> Horn EXHIBIT 1 2
Response to Comments -105 Newell Avenue
Written Comments and Responses
Index to Response to Comments
All letters received during the public review period for the Notice of Intent to adopt the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration are listed in the table, Index of Comments Received,
below. Each comment letter is reproduced in its entirety with the Issues of concern numbered
In the left margin. Correspondingly numbered responses to the comments follow each letter.
Index of Comments Received
1.ett~r .c,,~,-,,, ~~~~!'!~~
A Santa Oara Valley Transportation Authority
B Santa Oara Valley Water District
c Camargo and Associates
July 2016
Subject: RE: 105 Newell Avenue
From: Molseecl, Roy[mailto:Roy.Molseed@VTA.ORG]
Sent: Tuesday, June 14, 2016 2:11 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subjec.t: 105 Newell Avenue
A.-1 [vrA has no comments on the above Initial Study. l hanks.
RoyMolseed
VTA
(408) 321-5784
1
Letter A -Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority
A-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at
variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative
record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos
decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.
105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016
Responses to Public Comments
Letter B -5anta Clara Valley Water District
B-1 The Town acknowledges and appreciates this comment. However, the comments are not at
variance with the content of the Mitigated Negative Declaration/Initial Study/Environmental
Checklist and no further response is required. This letter will be included in the administrative
record as part of the response to comments and will be provided to the Town of Los Gatos
decision-making bodies for their review and consideration.
105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016
Responses to Public Comments
Letter B -San Clara Valley Water District
Subjed: RE: 105 Newell Avenue -NOi I Mitigated Neg Dec
From: Barton Ching [mailto:BChing@vallevwater.ora]
Sent: Thursday, July 07, 2016 4:44 PM
To: Jennifer Armer
Subject: 105 Newell Avenue -NOi I Mitigated Neg Dec
Ms. Jennifer Armer,
I apologize if this is past due. The Santa Clara Valley Water District has received and reviewed the subject Initial Study
B-1 and Mitigated Negative Declaration. We have no comments.
Thank you,
Barton
BARTON CHING, P.E. LEED AP
ASSISTANT CIVIL ENGINEER II
Community Projects Review Unit
Watershed Stewardship and Planning Division 5750
Almaden Expy, San Jose, CA 95118
(408) 630-3079
bchi ng@val leywater .org
l
Letter C -Camargo and Associates
C-1
June 28th, 2016
Community Development Department
Attn. Jennifer Armer
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
CAMARGO
& ASSOCIATES
ARCHITECTS
RE : 105 Newell Avenue, APN# 409-24-026, Current Zoning is R-1: 12
Application PD-14-002, ~TI ND-16-002
Dear Jennifer:
Just a brief comment on the current draft MND report above.
Home on Lot 3 is a two story home not a single story home.
If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Maurice Camargo, AIA
Principal
3953 Yolo Drive San Jose, California 95136 · Office ( 408) 266-3442 · Facsimile ( 408) 266-7560
Letter C -Camargo and Associates
C-1 The project description in the Initial Study has been changed to reflect that Lot 3 would have a
two-story home. This change reflects a clarification of the project description and does not
affect any of the conclusions in the analysis within the Initial Study or Environmental Checklist.
105 Newell Avenue 1 July 2016
Responses to Public Comments