Item 05 - 15565 Camino Del Cerro - Staff Report & Exhibits 1-8TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 5
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: October 26, 2016
PREPARED BY: Jocelyn Puga, Associate Planner
jpuga @ lo sga tos ca .gov
APPLICATION NO: Subdivision Application M-16-007
Architecture and Site Applications S-16-045 through S-16-04 7
LOCATION : 15565 Camino Del Cerro (located on the west side of Camino
Del Cerro, approximately 330 feet south of Los Gatos-Alamden
Road)
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER: Camino Del Cerro Holding LLC
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family
residence, subdivide one lot into three lots, and construct three
new single-family residences on property zoned R-1 :8. APN
523-23-094 .
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DATA:
DEEMED COMPLETE: October 19 ,2016
FINAL DATE TO TAKE ACTION:
SUBDIVISION-December 8, 2016
ARCHITECTURE AND SITE-April 19, 2017
Approval, subject to recommended conditions of approval.
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1 :8 -Single-Family
Residential, 8,000-square foot lot
mtmmum
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan and Residential
Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 1.2 acres
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Medium Density Residential PO
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1 :8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1 :8
Planning Commission StaffReport-Page 2
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
CEQA:
FINDINGS:
CONSIDERATIONS:
ACTION :
EXHIBITS:
BACKGROUND:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted
Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction or
Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15315: Minor Land
Divisions.
• As required, pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
this project is Categorically Exempt, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section
15315: Minor Land Divisions.
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for
the demolition of a single-family residence.
• As required by the Residential Design Guidelines that the
project complies with the Residential Design Guidelines.
• As required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act for
approval of the subdivision application.
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of Architecture and Site applications.
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless
appealed within ten days.
1. Location Map
2. Findings (two pages)
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval (nine pages)
4 . December 9, 2015 CDAC Meeting Minutes (three pages)
5. Project Data Sheets (three pages)
6. Project Description and Letter of Justification, received
September 21 , 2016 (two pages)
7 . Town 's Consulting Arborist Report , received July 28 ,
2016 (36 pages)
8. Town's Consulting Architect Report, received July 18, 2016
(five pages)
9. Development Plans, received October 19,2016 (31 sheets)
The subject site is located on the west side of Camino Del Cerro, approximately 330 feet south of
Los Gatos-Almaden Road. The existing site contains a 1,878-square foot single-family
residence and several accessory structures, including a carport, greenhouse, and bam. The
previous property owner used the property as both a residence and a nursery.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
Preliminary plans were reviewed by the Conceptual Development Advisory Committee (CDAC)
on December 9, 2015. The CDAC meeting minutes are included as Exhibit 4.
The project is being forwarded to the Planning Commission because the three proposed homes
would result in the first, third , and fourth largest home with regards to sq uare footage in the
immediate area.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Subdivision Application
The applicant is proposing to subdivide one lot into three lots. All three lots would have
frontage on Camino Del Cerro and comply with the minimum lot area of 8,000 square feet.
Lot l would be approximately 16 ,4 06 square feet , Lot 2 would be approximately 17 ,222
square feet , and Lot 3 would be approximately 17 ,363 square feet.
B. Architecture and Site Applications
The applicant is proposing to construct three single-family residences with attached
garages.
Lot 1 would contain a residence of 3,390 square feet and a 668-square foot garage. The
proposed residence has 19 7 square feet of countable attic space that is included in the total
square footage. Pursuant to Section 29.10.020 of the Town Code when attic space exceeds
seven feet in height, all areas down to five feet are counted as square footage. The
residence would have a maximum height of 29 feet, five inche s. The total square footage
without the att ic area is 3,193 square feet. Materials would include: horizontal si ding , vinyl
clad windows with wood trim , a composition roof for the house, and a metal roof for the
front entry.
Lot 2 would contain a residence of 3,200 square feet and a 698-square foot garage. The
residence would have a maximum height of 27 feet , five inches. Materials would include:
board and batten siding, vinyl clad windows with wood trim, a composition roof for the
house, and a metal roof for the front entry.
Lot 3 wo uld contain a res idence of 3 ,197 square feet and a 696-square foot garage. The
re sidence would have a maximum height of28 feet, five inches. Materials would include :
shingle and s mooth stucco siding, stone ve neer, vinyl clad windows with wood trim , and a
composition roof.
A color and material s board will be available at the Planning Co mmiss ion meeting and
Exhibit 5 includes general project data .
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 4
155 65 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
C. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The project site is located on the west s ide of Camino Del Cerro, approximately 330 feet
so uth of Los Gatos-Almaden Road . Surrounding properties to the north , so uth , and west
contain single-family residences and the properties to the east contain multi-family
residences.
D. Zoning Compliance
The proposed subdivi sion application complies with the minimum lot frontage, depth , and
s ize requirements. The pro po sed Archite cture and Site applications com pl y with the
height, st ru cture coverage, setbacks, a nd parking requirements. T he zo ning perm it s three
lots with a single-family re sidence o n each lot.
ANALYS IS:
A. Subdivision
The applicant is proposing three lots that meet the minimum lot dimens io ns and lo t si zes
(see table below) required by Town Code :
Lot Dimension ADa lysis
Lot Required Proposed Required Proposed Required Proposed
Depth Depth Frontage Frontage Lot Size SF Lot Size SF
Lot 1 90 242.6 60 70 8,000 16 ,406
Lo t2 90 242.5 60 7 1 8,000 17,222
Lot3 90 242.7 60 7 1.6 8,000 17 ,363
B. Public Improveme nt s
The proposed proj ect requires public improvements to be installed which include : roadway
widening, curb, gutter, and s id ewa lk alon g Camino Del Cerro. A public im provement plan
is required prior to the issuance of building permits or record ati o n of a parcel map
(Conditions 4 3, 45, and 4 6 of Exhibit 3).
C. Flo or Area
Based on Town a nd Co un ty records, the resi dence s in the immediate neighborhood range
in size from 2 ,295 square fee t to 3,272 square feet. The fl oor area rati os (FAR) range from
0.17 FAR to 0.3 4 FAR. T he proposed residences would b e 3 ,197 to 3,390 square feet with
F ARs of 0.18 to 0 .2 1. Based on the pro posed lot sizes, the maximum sq uare footage for
each lot is 4 ,2 45 for Lot 1, 4 ,3 44 for Lot 2 , and 4,360 for Lot 3.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 5
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
The following Neighborhood Analysis table reflects current conditions of the single-family
re sidences in the immediate area.
Nei2bborhood Analysis
Address House Garage Lot size FAR
15601 Camino Del Cerro 2,697 633 7,999 0.34
15605 Camino Del Cerro
(flag lot) 3,272 586 10,688 0 .31
15 801 Edmund 2 ,295 564 10,851 0.21
I 01 Maria Teresa Ct 2 ,756 612 8,411 0 .33
I 05 Maria Teresa Ct 2 ,756 612 8,393 0.33
109 Maria Teresa Ct 2 ,452 638 8,948 0.27
108 Maria Teresa Ct 2,325 638 13,455 0.17
104 Maria Teresa Ct 2,565 638 8,647 0.30
100 Maria Teresa Ct 2 ,3 25 638 8,589 0.27
15565 Camino Del Cerro (E) 1,878 0 53,108 0.04
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Lot 1 3,390 668 16,406 0.21
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Lot2 3,200 698 17,222 0.19
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Lot3 3,197 696 17,363 0.18
The Residential Design G uid elines specify that consideration will be given to the existing
F ARs , residential square footage s, and lot sizes in the neighborhood. With proposed
square footage between 3,197 and 3,390 square feet , the residences would be the fir st,
third , and fourth largest homes in the immediate area in terms of square footage. The
second largest home in the immediate area would be 15605 Camino Del Cerro. With
proposed F ARs between 0.18 and 0.21, the residences would be compatible with homes in
the immediate area in terms ofFAR.
Pursuant to Town Code, the minimum front setback is 25 feet. The proposed setbacks are a
minimum of26 feet for Lot 1, 30 feet for Lot 2, and 35 feet for Lot 3 . While the residences
would be the first , third , and fourth largest homes in the immediate area with regards to
square footage , the proposed and varied setbacks help to reduce the visible mass of the
homes. In addition, due to the proposed large lot sizes, the residence s would be the sixth,
seventh, and eighth largest homes in the immediate neighborhood with regard s to FAR.
The s ix a djacent properties to the north of the project site contain two-story single-family
residences along Maria Teresa Co urt. The two adjacent properties to the south of the
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
project s ite also contain two-story s ingle-family residences . The property directly across
from the project site contains a mix o f single and two-story multi-famil y hous in g units.
D. Architectura l Considerations
The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the project (Exhibit 8) to provide
recommendations regarding architecture and neighborhood compatibility. The Co nsultant
found the homes to be traditional in their architectural style and noted that they sho uld fit
comfortably into the nei g hborhood. He also found that the propo sed homes are mod est in
size compared to the lot sizes and are similar to the other homes in the immediate
neighb orhood.
The consultant recommended the following changes in order to bring the project into
complia nce with the Town 's Residential Des ign Guidelines:
1. Materials Changes
The Town 's Co nsu lting Architect recommended modifying the use of materials for Lot
2 an d Lot 3 by m aking material changes at the inside comers of the e levations.
The applicant modified th e design of Lot 2 by eliminating th e use of stucco and using
board and batten siding for all elevations (Ex hibit 9). In addition, the applicant
modified the design of Lot 3 by making th e material changes between the stucco and
s hing les at th e inside corners (Exhibit 9).
2. Us e of Materials
The Town 's Consu lting Architect recommended modifyi ng th e side and rear e levati ons
of Lot 1, Lot 2, and Lot 3 to incorporate the materials from the front elevatio ns.
The applicant modified th e design of Lot 1 by elim inating th e us e of s tu cco on th e rea r
and side elevations and using horizontal siding for all e levations (Exhibit 9, Sheets A-4
and A-5). In addition, th e applicant modified th e design ofL ot 2 by eliminating th e use
of s tucco on the rear and side elevations and using board sidingfor all e levations
(Exhibit 9). Lastly, th e applicant also modified the design of Lot 3 by in corporating th e
shingles more consist ently along all elevations of th e home (Exhibit 9).
E. Tree Imp acts
The project site contains 30 protected trees; 28 protected trees are propo sed to be re move d
in order to accommodate the demolition of the existing structures and construction of the
proposed residences (Exhibit 7). Two protected trees; a 40-in ch Do uglas fir (tree #7 ) and a
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 7
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
13-inch Blue Atlas Cedar (tree #13) are proposed to remain. The Consulting Arborist
noted that most of the trees on the property are not in good condition and will require
removal as part of the propo sal.
If the project is approved, tree protection measures would be implemented prior to and
during construction. Replacement trees will be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being
removed pursuant to Town Code. The number of trees and size of replacement trees will
be determined using the canopy replacement table in the Town Code. Town Code requires
a minimum 24-inch box size replacement tree. If all replacement trees cannot be
reasonab ly planted on the subject property, a combination of replacement trees and an in-
lieu fee will be paid .
F. Environmental Review
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions .
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
The Town did not receive a formal public comment; however, a neighbor on Mari a Teresa Court
spoke with staff regarding their concerns of privacy from the proposed residence on Lot 3. The
neighbor and applicant were able to meet and resolve the neighbor's concerns by swi tching the
proposed re si dences on Lot 2 and Lot 3.
COORDINATION:
Plannin g staff coordinated with the Building Department, the Engineering Division of Parks and
Public Works, and the Santa Clara County Fire Department.
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION :
A. Summary
As currently proposed, the project would create three lots with a single-family residence on
each lot. The three single-family residences will be compatible with the immediate
neighborhood. The residences would be the first, third , and fourth largest homes in the
immediate neighborhood with regards to square footage and the sixth, seventh, and eighth
largest homes in the immediate neighborhood with regards to FAR. The project would also
comply with the Residential Design Guidelines and zoning requirem ents .
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 8
15565 Camino Del Cerro/M-16-007/S-16-045 through S-16-047
October 26, 2016
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends approval of the Subdivision and Architecture and Site applications based
on the summary above. If the Planning Commission finds merit with the proposed project,
it should: ·
1. Make the required finding pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, that this project is
Categorically Exempt, Section 15303 : New Construction or Conversion of Small
Structures and Section 15315: Minor Land Divisions; and
2. Make the required findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) ofthe Town
Code for granting approval of demolition of a single-family residence (Exhibit 2);
and
3. Make the required finding that the project is in conformance with the Residential
Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2); and
4. Make the required findings as required by Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map
Act (Exhibit 2); and
5. Make the required considerations as required by Section 29 .20.150 of the Town
Code for granting approval of Architecture & Site applications (Exhibit 2); and
6. Approve Subdivision Application M-16-007 and Architecture and Site Applications
S-16-045 through S-16-047 with the conditions contained in Exhibit 3 and
development plans attached as Exhibit 9 .
ALTERNATIVES:
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the application(s) to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the applications with additional and /or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the applications.
Prepared by:
~ocelyn Puga
Associate Planner
JGP:JSP :cg
Approved by:
Joel Paulson, AICP
Community Development Director
cc: Camino Del Cerro Holding LLC , 225 Demeter Street, East Palo Alto, CA 94303
Douglas McBeth, 8881 Research Drive, Irvine, CA 92618
N:\DEV\PC REPORTS\2 0 16 \Camino Del C erro 15 565 .docx
15565 Camino Del Cerro
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION-October 26, 2016
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Subdivision Application M-16-007
Architecture and Site Applications S-16-045 through S-16-047
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, and construct three new single-family residences on property zoned R-1:8. APN
523-23-094.
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Camino Del Cerro Holding LLC
FINDINGS
Required fmding for CEQA:
• The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303 : New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures and Section 15315 : Minor Land Divisions.
Required fmding for the demolition of a single-family residence:
• As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of a single-
family residence:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the single-family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structures have no architectural or historical significance, and are in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
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 fmdings to deny a Subdivision application:
• As required by Section 66474 of the State Subdivision Map Act the map shall be denied if
any of the following findings are made: None of the fmdings could be made to deny the
application.
Instead, the Planning Commission makes the following affirmative findings:
a. That the proposed map is consistent with all elements of the General Plan.
EXHIBIT 2
b. That the design and improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with all
elements of the General Plan.
c. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development.
d . That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development
e. That the design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause
substantial environmental damage nor substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife
or their habitat
f. That the design of the subdivision and type of improvements is not likely to cause serious
public health problems.
g. That the design of the subdivision and the type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within
the proposed subdivision.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required considerations in review of Architecture & Site applications:
• As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code, the considerations in review of an
Architecture and Site application were all made in reviewing this project.
N :\DEV\FINDINGS\20 16\Caminode1Cerro 15565 .docx
PLANNING COMMISSION -October 26, 2016
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Subdivision Application M-16-007
Architecture and Site Applications S-16-045 through S-16-047
Requesting approval to demolish an existing single-family residence, subdivide one lot into
three lots, and construct three new single-family residences on property zoned R-1:8. APN
523-23-094.
PROPERTY OWNER/ APPLICANT: Camino Del Cerro Holding LLC
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions
of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the plans approved and noted
as received by the Town on October 19 , 2016. Any changes or modifications to the
approved plans shall be approved by the Community Development Director, the
Development Review Committee, the Planning Commission, or Town Council, depending
on the scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to
Section 29 .20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING : Exterior lighting shall be kept to a minimum , and shall be down
directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent properties. No flood lights
shall be used unless it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safety or security. The
lighting plan shall be reviewed during building plan check.
4. GENERAL: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan, and must remain on the site.
5. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any trees to be
removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
6. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost , all
recommendations made by Deborah Ellis, MS , identified in the Arborist reports, dated as
received July 28, 2016 , respectively, on file in the Community Development
Department. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations have or
will be addressed. These recommendations must be incorporated in the building permit
plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building permit where applicable.
7. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees
and shall remain through all phases of construction. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone
attached to two-inch diameter steel posts drive 18 inches into the ground and spaced no
further than 1 0 feet apart. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the construction
plans.
8. REPLACEMENT TREES: New trees shall be planted to mitigate the loss of trees being
removed. The number of trees and si z e of replacement trees shall be determined using the
canopy replacement table in the Town Code. Town Code requires a minimum 24-inch box
size replacement tree. New trees shall be double staked with rubber ties and shall be
planted prior to final inspection and issuance of occupancy permits.
EXHIBIT 3
9. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan, including
landscape and irrigation plans and calculations, shall meet the Town of Los Gatos Water
Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is
more restrictive. The final landscape plan shall be reviewed by the Town's consultant prior
to issuance of building permits. A review fee based on the current fee schedule adopted by
the Town Council is required when working landscape and irrigation plans are submitted
for review.
10. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front
yards must be landscaped.
I 1. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit,
the developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of
the company that will be recycling the building materials . All wood, metal, glass, and
aluminum materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a
company which will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these
materials, noting the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to
the Town's demolition inspection.
12. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
13. TOWN INDEMNITY : Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires
that any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
14. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with
the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
15. PERMITS REQUIRED : An individual Building Permit shall be required for the
construction of each new two story single-family residence with attached garage. Separate
permits are required for electrical, mechanical, and plumbing work as necessary.
16. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full on
the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of
Approval will be addressed.
17. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans , minimum size 24" x 36", maximum
size 30" x 42".
18 . DEMOLITION REQUIREMENTS: Obtain a Building Department Demolition Application
and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District Application from the Building
Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has been completed, all signatures
obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities have been disconnected,
return the completed form to the Building Department Service Counter with the Air
District 's J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site plans showing all
existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and PG&E. No
demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
19. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction ofthe Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted with
the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
specializing in soils mechanics.
20. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed civil engineer or
land surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation inspection.
This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as specified in the soils
report, and that the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall locations and
elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal and vertical
controls shall be set and certified by a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer for the
following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b. Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation comer locations
d . Retaining Walls
21. RESIDENTIAL TOWN ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: The residence shall be
designed with adaptability features for single family residences per Town Resolution 1994-
61:
a . Wood backing (2" x 8" minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls at water
closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34-inches from the floor to the center of the
backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars.
b . All passage doors shall be at least 32-inches wide on the accessible floor.
c . Primary entrance shall be a 36-inch wide door including a 5 'x5 ' level landing, no more
than l-inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18-inch
clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
22 . TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance
Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
23 . BACKWATER VALVE : The scope of this project may require the installation of a
sanitary sewer backwater valve per Town Ordinance 6.50.025 . Please provide information
on the plans if a backwater valve is required and the location of the installation. The Town
of Los Gatos Ordinance and West Valley Sanitation District (WVSD) requires backwater
valves on drainage piping serving fixtures that have flood level rims less than 12-inches
above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
24 . TOWN FIREPLACE STANDARDS : New wood burning fireplaces shall be an EPA Phase
II approved appliance as per Town Ordinance 1905. Tree limbs shall be cut within 10-feet
of Chimney.
25. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
26. SPECIAL INSPECTIONS: When a special inspection is required by CBC Section 1704,
the Architect or Engineer of record shall prepare an inspection program that shall be
submitted to the Building Official for approval prior to issuance of the building permit. The
Town Special Inspection form must be completely filled-out and signed by all requested
parties prior to permit issuance. Special Inspection forms are available from the Building
Division Service Counter or online at www.losgatosca.gov/building
27. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the plan
submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building Division
Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blue Print for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
28 . APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development -Planning Division: Jocelyn Puga (408) 354-6875
b . Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Mike Weisz (408) 354-5236
c . Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate
school district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to
permit issuance.
f. Bay Area Air Quality Management District: (415) 771-6000
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
29. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications, and Engineering Design Standards. All work
shall conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall
be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and debris shall
not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and materials on the
sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment permit is issued.
The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all working hours.
Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may result in the
Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
30. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approvals listed below and in substantial compliance with the latest reviewed and approved
d evelopment plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or conditions of
approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer
31. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the Applicant/Developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment permits from affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited
to, Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District,
California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits must be
submitted to the Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department
prior to releasing any permit.
32. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS : The Developer or his/her representative shall notify
the Engineering Inspector at least twenty-four (24) hours before starting any work
pertaining to on-site drainage facilities, grading or paving, and all work in the Town's right-
of-way. Failure to do so will result in rejection of work that went on without inspection.
33. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed because
of the Developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to, curb, gutter, and
pavement shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better than the original
condition. Any new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names , graffiti, etc. Any
concrete identified that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the
Contractor's sole expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore.
Existing improvement to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering
Construction Inspector, and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The
Developer shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector before
the start of construction to verify existing conditions.
34. STREET/SIDEWALK CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street
and/or sidewalk requires an encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on
works hours , protective enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe
manner may be required.
35. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to plan
review at the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department.
36. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance of
any Permit.
37. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California, and submitted to the Town Engineer for
review and approval.
38. GRADING PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required for site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of the Town Code. The grading permit
application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering Division of the Parks and
Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading plans shall include
final grading, drainage, retaining wall location, driveway, utilities and interim erosion
control. Grading plans shall list earthwork quantities and a table of existing and proposed
impervious areas. Unless specifically allowed by the Director of Parks and Public Works,
the grading permit will be issued concurrently with the building permit. The grading permit
is for work outside the building footprint(s). A separate building permit, issued by the
Building Department on E. Main Street is needed for grading within the building footprint.
39. DRAINAGE STUDY: Prior to the issuance of any grading permits , a drainage analysis
indicating how the project grading, in conjunction with the drainage systems (including
applicable swales, street flows , catch basins, storm drains, etc.) will allow building pads to
be safe from inundation from rainfall runoff which may be expected from all storms up to
and including the theoretical 1 00-year flood.
40. TREE REMOVAL: A tree removal permit is required prior to the issuance of a grading
permit/building permit.
41 . PARCEL MAP: A parcel map is required. Two (2) copies of the parcel map shall be
submitted to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Pub lic Works Department for
review and approval. Submittal shall include closure calculations, title reports and the
appropriate fee. The map shall be recorded before any permits for new construction are
issued.
42. DEMOLITION: The existing building shall be demolished prior to recordation of the
parcel map affected by this existing building.
43. DEDICATIONS: The following shall be dedicated on the parcel map. The dedication shall
be recorded before any permits are issued:
a. Camino Del Cerro: A 10-foot right-of-way dedication for public street purposes.
44. JOINT TRENCH PLANS: Joint trench p lans shall be reviewed and approved by the Town
prior to recordation of a map . The joint trench plans shall include street and/or site lighting
and associated photometries. A letter shall be provided by PG&E stating that public street
light billing will by Rule LS2A , and that private lights shall be metered with billing to the
homeowners association. Pole numbers, assigned by PG&E, shall be clearly delineated on
the plans .
45. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS : The following improvements shall be installed by the
Developer. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California registered civil
engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract, Faithful
Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of a building
permit or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be completed and accepted b y
the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building can be issued .
a. Camino Del Cerro: New curb, gutter, a 10-foot detached sidewalk with park strip,
pavement section, and half-street pavement reconstruction and/or repair.
46. SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT : The Applicant shall enter into an
agreement to construct public improvements in accordance with Town Code Section
24.40.020. The Applicant shall supply suitable securities for all public improvements that
are part of the development in a form acceptable to the Town in the amount of 100%
performance and 1 00% labor and materials prior to the issuance of any permit. The
Applicant shall provide two (2) copies of documents verifying the cost of the public
improvements to the satisfaction of the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public
Works Department. A copy of the recorded agreement shall be submitted to the
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the issuance of
any permit. ·
47 . UTILITY COMPANY REVIEW : Letters from the electric, telephone, cable, and trash
companies indicating that the proposed improvements and easements are acceptable shall
be provided prior to the recordation of the final I parcel map.
48. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for on-site retaining walls. On-site walls are not rev iewed or
approved by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works.
49. UTILITIES: The Developer shall install all new, relocated, or temporarily removed utility
services, including telephone, electric power and all other communications lines
underground, as required by Town Code Section 27 .50.015(b). All new utility services
shall be placed underground. Underground conduit shall be provided for cable television
service. Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply
approval for final alignment or design of these facilities .
50. WEST VALLEY SANITATION DISTRICT:
a. All sewer connection and treatment plant capacity fees shall be paid either immediately
prior to the recordation of any subdivision or tract maps with respect to the subject
property or properties or immediately prior to the issuance of a sewer connection
permit, which ever event occurs first. Written confirmation of payment of these fees
shall be provided prior to map recordation.
b . Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West Valley Sanitation District and approved
by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used or reused . A sanitary sewer clean-out is
required for each property at the property line, or at a location specified by the Town.
51. SIGHT TRIANGLE AND TRAFFIC VIEW AREA: Any proposed improvement$,
including but not limiting to trees and hedges, will need to abide by Town Code Sections
23.10.080, 26.10.065 , and 29.40.030.
52 . TRAFFIC IMP ACT MITIGATION FEE: The Developer shall pay the project's
proportional share of transportation improvements needed to serve cumulative development
within the Town of Los Gatos . The fee amount will be based upon the Town Council
resolution in effect at the time the building permit is issued . The fee shall be paid before
issuance of a building permit. The final traffic impact mitigation fee for this project shall
be calculated from the final plans using the current fee schedule and rate schedule in effect
at the time the building permit is issued, using a comparison between the existing and
proposed uses.
53 . CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (1 0,000) pounds shall be allowed to park on the
portion of a street which abuts property in a residential zone without prior to approval from
the Town Engineer.
54. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4:00p.m. and 6:00
p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control
plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off the
project site. This may include, but i s not limited to provisions for the developer/owner to
place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and hauling
activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other significant
projects in the area may also be required. All trucks transporting materials to and from the
site shall be covered.
55. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00a.m. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and
9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to
twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
56. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the site security fencing, employee
parking, materials storage area, concrete washout, and proposed outhouse locations.
57. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate one or more of the following
measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
58. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction b egin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present
and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three times daily, or
apply (non-toxic) soil stabilizers on all unpaved access roads, parking areas , and staging
areas at construction sites in order to insure proper control of blowing dust for the duration
of the project. Watering on public streets shall not occur. Streets will be cleaned by street
sweepers or by hand as often as deemed necessary by the Town Engineer, or at least once a
day. Watering associated with on-site construction activity shall take place between the
hours of 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. and shall include at least one late-afternoon watering to
minimize the effects of blowing dust. All public street s soiled or littered due to this
construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily basis during the workweek to
the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork activities shall be halted when wind
speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH. All trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose
debris shall be covered.
59. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest
requirements of the CASQA Storm water Best Management Practices Handbooks for
Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the Town's grading
and erosion control ordinance, and other generally accepted engineering practices for
erosion control as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities .
60. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through
curb drains will be allowed. Any storm drain inlets (public or private) directly connected
to public storm system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -Flows
to Bay" NPDES required language. On-site drainage systems for all projects shall include
one of the alternatives included in section C.3.i of the Municipal Regional NPDES Permit.
These include storm water reuse via cisterns or rain barrels, directing runoff from
impervious surfaces to vegetated areas and use of permeable surfaces. If dry wells are to
be used they shall be placed a minimum often (10) feet from the adjacent property line
and/or right of way.
61. GOOD HOUSEKEEPING: Good housekeeping practices shall be observed at all times
during the course of construction. All construction shall be diligently supervised by a
person or persons authorized to do so at all times during working hours. The storing of
goods and/or materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an
encroachment permit is issued by the Engineering Division. The adjacent public right-of-
way shall be kept clear of all job related dirt and debris at the end of the day. Dirt and
debris shall not be washed into storm drainage facilities. The storing of goods and
materials on the sidewalk and/or the street will not be allowed unless an encroachment
permit is issued. The Developer's representative in charge shall be at the job site during all
working hours. Failure to maintain the public right-of-way according to this condition may
result in the Town performing the required maintenance at the Developer's expense.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
62. FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be
installed in one-and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one-and two-family
dwellings and in existing one-and two-family dwellings when additions are made that
increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition
to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building area.
NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) or subcontractor(s) are responsible
for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any modification
or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California licensed (C-16)
Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application
and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their
work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LGTC.
63. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS: Potable water supplies shall be protected from
contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the
applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying
the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such
requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection
systems, and /or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of
the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under
consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of
the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the
applicant(s). 2010 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114 .7.
64. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION: New and existing buildings shall have approved address
numbers, building numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is
plainly legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers
shall contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or
alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (1 01.6 mm) high with a
minimum stroke width of0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road
and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or
means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1
N:\DEV\CON DITION S\20 16\Camino Del C erro 15565.docx
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 CONCEPT UAL
DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS FOR
DECEMBER 9, 2015, HELD IN THE TOWN COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CIVIC CENTER, II 0
EAST MAIN STREET, LOS GATOS, CALIFORNIA.
The meeting was called to order at 4:30P.M.
ATTENDANCE
Members Present:
Barbara Spector
Marcia Jensen
Mary Badame
Thomas O 'Donnell
Absences:
Kendra Burch
Staff Present: Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
Joel Paulson, Planning Manager
Mami Moseley, Associate Planner
Jocelyn Puga, Assistant Planner
Applicants Present: Sandy Harris (Item 1)
Skip Spiering (Item 1)
Patrick Jerry (Item 2)
Mark Lazzarini (Item 2)
ITEM 1: 16100 Greenridge Terrace
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-007
Requesting review of conceptual plans to remove the property from HR-2 Y2 to HR-
2Y2:PD and to subdivide into eight lots. APN 527-12-002.
PROPERTY OWNER: Emerald Lake Investments, LLC
APPLICANT: Mark Hirth
PROJECT PLANNER: Mami Moseley
CDAC Comment s:
o Can the properties be clustered?
o Does the current plan comply with the current Planned Development Ordinance?
o Where are the potential building sites for each lot, it is unclear if there is sufficient area
within the Least Restrictive Development Area (LRDA) for individual home sites.
o Tree canopy must be taken into account to better determine the LRDA.
o Will the site be accessed from Santella or Greenridge Terrace?
EXHIBIT 4
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
December 9 , 20 15
Page 2 of3
• The site will require sensitive evaluation given the trees, slopes and ridge lines.
• It looks like too many homes given the slopes on the property.
• Primary concerns will be trees, driveways to access the potential building sites, grading
and compliance with the Town's Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
(HDS&G).
• The information provided is not sufficient to determine if the number of lots proposed is
appropriate.
• It's unclear from the information provided if the proposed development could comply
with the Town's PO Ordinance, HDS&G particularly relating to grading, and visibility of
homes.
• The Town is in the process of amending the PO Ordinance, the HDS&G, as well as , the
Grading Ordinance. These changes will most likely affect this application.
Comments from the Public:
• Would an EIR be required?
• Greenridge Terrace is a private road and the existing agreement would only permit one
residence to access from Greenridge Terrace.
• Were the roads included in the slope density and lot areas? Its unclear based on this if the
slope density calculation and proposed lots would conform.
• How does the proposal comply with the Blossom Hill Open Space Study?
ITEM 2: 15565 Camino Del Cerro
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee CD-15-006
Requesting review of conceptual plans to subdivide a 1.2 acre lot into tour lots on
property zoned R-1 :8. APN 523-23-094.
PROPERTY OWNER: Allen Kawasaki, Trustee
APPLICANT: DAL Properties, LLC
PROJECT PLANNER: Jocelyn Puga
CDAC Comments:
• Currently, there is no traffic on the street. Could this be a potential problem?
• The number of two-story homes on all four lots and the design of the cul-de-sac are some
concerns.
• The design of the cul-de-sac should be more consistent with the neighborhood.
• If they changed the length of the driveways , there could be more open space and more
trees. Also, it might comply better with the rules and setbacks.
o Reduce the lots from four to three . This will eliminate a lot of the CDAC 's concerns.
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee
December 9 , 2015
Page 3 of3
ADJOURNMENT Meeting adjourned at 5 :27p.m . The next regular meeting of the
Conceptual Development Advisory Committee is Wednesday, January 13,
2016.
cc: Planning Commission Chair
N:\DEV\C DAC\C DAC' MINliTES\lOIS \12-9-IS .d oc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
15565 Cami no Del Cerro (Lot 1) -PROJECT DATA
EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIRED/ PERMITTED
Zoning district R-1:8 sam e -
Land use Sin gle-family r es idence Single family re sidence -
General Plan Designation lo w den sity re sidential same -
Lot size (sq. ft.) 53,188 16,406 8 ,000 sq . ft. minimum
Exterior materials:
siding Wood siding, brick, Horizontal siding -
corrugated steel
trim N/A 1x4 -
windows M etal Vinyl clad -
roofing Shake, comp & corrugated Mt'l. Composi tion shingles -
Building floor area:
first floor A = 1,878 Total = 5,154 -
B = 1,787 1,587 S.F . c = 1,489
second floor N/A 1,606 S.F. -
garage Carport = 93 2 -
Barn= 598 668 S.F.
Shed = 241
Setbacks (ft.): Greenhou se = 932
front Most forward structure = 35' to garage 25 f eet minimum 49 .3' 26' to porch
Furth es t r ear structure= 15 9' to house 20 feet m inimum rear 4.4' 144'-9" to pati o
side Left = 5 6.2' 8'-R, 8'-L 8 f eet minimum
Right = 4.4'
Maximum height (ft.) Hi ghes t structure = 16'-0" 29'-9 Y." 30 f ee t m ax imum
Building coverage {%} 40%maximum
Floor Area Ratio {%} Hou se = 19.5%
Gara ge= 4%
house Livin g areas = 9% 3,193 S.F. 4,245 sq . ft. ma ximum
garage Oth er struct ures = 5% 668 S.F. 1,117 sq. ft. m ax imum
Parking 3-Car garage+
2 spaces required
2-Driveway
EXHlBIT 5
15565 Camino Del Cerro (Lot 2)-PROJECT DATA
EX ISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQUIR ED/ PERMITTED
Zoning district R-1:8 sa m e -
Land use Single-family residence same -
General Plan Designation low d e nsity re sid ential same -
Lot size (sq. ft.) 53,188 17,222 8,000 sq. ft. minimum
Exterior materials:
siding Wood Siding, bri ck Board & Batten & Stucco -
corruga t ed st ee l
trim N/A 1 x4 -
windows Metal Vinyl -
roofing Shake, comp & corrugated Mt'l. Co mposition shingl es -
Building floor area:
first floor A= 1,878 c = 1,489 1,807 S.F. -
B = 1,787 Total= 5,154
second floor N/A 1,393 S.F. -
garage Carport = 932 -
Barn= 598 698 S.F .
Shed= 241
Setbacks (ft.): Greenhou se= 932
front Most forward st ru cture= 30' to garage 25 feet minimum 49 .3' 37' .2" to porch
Furthest rear st ructure = 150' house 20 feet minimum rear 4.4' 138' cov. patio
side
Left= 56.2' Left= 8' 8 feet minimum
Right= 4.4 ' Right = 8'
Maximum height (ft.) Highest structure= 16' -0" 27' -7'1." 30 feet m axi mum
Building coverage {%) 16.8% 40%maximum
Floor Area Ratio (%) Hou se= 18.2%
Garage= 4%
house Living are as= 9% 3,200 S.F. 4,387 sq. ft. maximum
garage Other structures= 5% 698 S.F . 1,139 sq. ft. maximum
Parking
3-Car garage + 2 spaces required
2-Driveway
15565 camino Del Cerro (Lot 3)-PROJECT DATA
EXISTING CONDITIONS PROPOSED PROJECT REQU IRED/ PERMITTED
Zoning district R-1:8 sa me -
Land use Si ngle-fa mily residence same -
General Plan Designation low d ensity re sid enti al same -
Lot size (sq. ft.) 53,188 17,3 63 8,000 sq. ft. minimum
Exterior materials:
siding Wood Si di ng, brick Shake, Siding Board & -
co rrugated steel Batten , Stucco
trim N/A 1x4 -
windows Metal Vinyl -
roofing Shake , comp & corrugate d Mt'l. Compos ition shingles -
Building floor orea:
first floor A = 1,878 c:; 1,489 1,688 S.F . -
B = 1,787 Tota l = 5,154
second floor N/A 1,509 S.F. -
garage Carport = 932 -
Barn = 598 696 S.F.
Shed = 241
Setbacks (ft.): Greenhou se= 932
front Most f orward structure= 35' to ga ra ge 25 f ee t m ini mum 49.3' 37'-10" to porch
Furthest rear structure = 130'-7" 20 feet minimum r ea r 4.4'
si de Left= 56.2' Left= 8' 8 feet minimum
Right = 4.4' Right = 12' -7"
Maximum height (ft.) Highest structure = 16 ' -0" 28' -BY." 30 feet m ax imum
Buildi ng coverage (%} 16.8% 40% m axi mum
Floor Area Ratio (%) House = 18.8%
Garage = 4%
house Livin g area s= 9% 3,197 S.F. 4,316 sq. ft. maxi mum
garage Other st ructures= 5% 696 S.F. 1,128 sq . ft. max imum
Parking 3-Ca r ga r age+
2 spaces req u i red
2-Drivewa y
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
Town of Los Gatos
Community Development Department
Civic Center
11 0 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, California 95031
Re: 15565 Camino del Cerro
Letter of Justification
Mark Gross & Associates, Inc.
ARCH I TECTURE • PLANNING
September 21, 2016
Camino del Cerro Holdings LLC is proposing to demolish the existing buildings on 15565 Camino del
Cerro, and to build three approximately 3100 square foot homes with attached garages. Several factors
have influenced the layout of the homes on the lot. The first consideration is zoning; the project is
designed to conform to all zoning requirements with no exemptions being requested. Secondly, the
property is flat and rectangular shaped, and has no topographical features that impact the layout of the
homes on the land. As a result, the property has been subdivided into three, roughly equal lots with gross
square feet for parcels 1, 2 and 3 of 17,106, 17,680, and 18,332 respectively. As the lots are longer than
they are wide, the development takes advantage of the property's depth by having slightly greater front
setbacks, while maintaining compatibility with the neighborhood . The slight variation in setback creates
variation to the eye, and increases each residence's sense of individuality.
The previous owner used the property both as a personal residence and a nursery. The property
currently has several buildings on the site - a one story house separated by a carport, a one story
accessory building , a greenhouse, a small shed and barn. As indicated by the Condition of Structure
Report by 4x Engineering, Inc., the buildings are in poor condition and do not comply with the current
construction and code requirements . Indeed, 4x Engineering has stated in its conclusion that it feels that
the existing structures have "completed their economic life cycle, and are a current threat to public
society."
The parcel is zoned R-1 :8 with the setback requirements of 25' in front, 20' at rear and 8' at sides. The
development's residences meet or exceed all setback requirements . The project's architectural designs,
and the locations of the neighbors nearby, negates any shadow cast by the houses and garages. The
maximum height allowed for R-1 :8 zoning is 30' from the natural or finished grade. The proposed
residences comply with this requirement at the two story level. The maximum allowable building area for
R-1 :8 zoning is 40%, including any type of accessory buildings. Architecturally, we believe that these
homes each have an individual character. The homes work well cohesively as a development, and are
consistent with the ne ighborhood's scale, texture and atmosphere. The project's low building lot coverage
ratio-only 17% for parcel1; 16% for parcel 2 and 16.8% for parcel 3 -means that much of the natural
setting of the land has been preserved , which we expect to enhance with sympathetic landscaping .
Housing which blends in pleasingly with the landscape is another unique and lovely Los Gatos feature .
E XHIBIT 6
8881 Research Drive, I rvine, Ca lifo rni a 926 1 8 • 9 49 .387.3800 • fax 9 4 9.387.7800
-Page 2-
With respect to the Town of Los Gatos Single and Two Family Resident ial Guidelines, and the "Read
Your Neighborhood" workbook , the development has selected three architectural styles that are believed
to be consistent with both the surrounding community and with Los Gatos' unique feel. On neighboring
streets, examples of each of the development's architectural styles can be found-Trad itional , Craftsman
and Farmhouse. Earth tones and natural building materials assist the houses to meld agreeably and
elegantly with the surrounding area, increasing the feel of belonging. By varying the housing styles of
each of the lots, we have striven to eliminate the "cookie cutter feel" of a mass produced housing product.
Lot 1 is a two-story Traditional style home. A steep central roof form conceals the second floor rooms
and is punctuated by gabled and shed roofed dormers. A prominent front porch and steep gable roof are
the focal point of the front elevation. Horizontal siding combined with stucco exterior provides
compatibility with the neighboring homes.
Lot 2 is a two-story Craftsman style home and features large gabled roof forms and a w ide front porch .
The exterior style is further enhanced with Craftsman detailing such as shake sid ing , board and batten
gable accents and brackets, and stone column bases and fireplace chimneys. One and two story
elements provide variation to the elevation massing.
Lot 3 is a two-story Farmhouse style home with a multi-gable roof form. A large front porch dominates the
front elevation with a low pitched metal roof. The exterior finishes are a combination of board and batten
siding and stucco to blend with the existing neighborhood. One and two story elements provide variation
to the elevation massing .
The homes are well situated to eliminate privacy concerns for the neighbors. The project is amply
setback from the properties found in the front and the rear. Existing fencing and mature landscape
provide significant screening for the neighbors on each side , where the setback meets code
requirements. The plans have no upper decks, minimizing the feeling that the neighbors can be viewed
from above .
In conclusion , we believe the Camino del Cerro project proposes t hree unique, beautiful homes which
compliment the surrounding neighborhood . While each house has an ind ividual character, we feel they
also work well cohesively. Architecturally , the homes are built very much w ithin the Los Gatos aesthetic,
and are respectful of the neighborhood's scale , texture and atmosphere. Indeed , we extended our
workbook study to include all our surrounding neighbors to ensure that examples of our architectural
styles could be found in close proximity. Additionally , every effort has been made to design the project in
complete accordance with current zoning so that the project's design reflects Los Gatos' wishes. Finally,
our low building to lot ratio means that much of the natural setting of the land has been preserved , which
we expect to enhance with sympathetic landscaping .
Sincerely,
Douglas McBeth
Mark Gross & Associates , Inc.
888 1 R esea r c h Dri ve, Ir v in e , Ca lifornia 926 1 8 • 9 4 9 .387 .3800 • f ax 9 4 9 .387.7800
(".!
I
""'
Deb o rah Ellis, MS
Consulting A rbori st & Horti culturist
Service si11ce 1984
ARBORIST REPORT #1
Tree Inventory, Tree Descriptions and Recommendations Relative to Proposed Construction
15565 Camino Del Cerro,
Los Gatos
Property Owner:
Camino Del Cerro Holding LLC
Prepared for:
Jocelyn Puga
Town of los Gatos Community Planning Department
11 0 E. Main Street
los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Ellis , MS .
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Regis t ered Consulting Arborist #305, Ameri can Society o f Consu lting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-0457B , ln temational Society of Arboricult ure
Certified Professional Horticulturis t #30022, Ameri c an Society for Horticultural Science
JULY 28,2016
----
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 950 70. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. http://www.decah.com. I
:EXHIBIT 7
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Tabl e o f C o ntents
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 4
INTRODUC TI ON .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Pu rpose & Use o f Re p ort ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Site Conditions ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... a
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
Table 3 Com plete Tree Ta ble ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
Expla n a tion of Tree Table Data Colum ns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Tree Root Pro t ect ion Dista nc e s ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 21
Los G atos Tre e Pro t ection Require ments ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Tree Ph o t os .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 27
Assump tions & Li mita t ions ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Enclosures : ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 32
Re f erences: .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 33
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 33
Cover photo : the northern two-thirds of the project site viewed from Camino Del Cerro Road to the west . Douglas fol' #7, blue Atlas
cedal' #13 and deodal' cedai'S #16-18 are labeled. These trees are on Lots 2 and 3 . All photos in this report were taken by D. Ellis on
July 11 , 2016 .
I PO Bo x 3714, Sarat oga, CA 95070. 408-725-1 357. d~cah@pacbell.nd. http ://www.d~cah .com . I
J • I
I
I
I,
~
I
I
I
~
I --i
II
Deborah Ellis, MS
Cons ult ing A rbo r ist & Hortic ulturist
S ervice si11 ce 19 84
TREE MAP
l:r
PARCEl. I ,.
[-PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725 -135 7. decah@pacbe ll.net. htt p:/ /ww w.decah.com . ----)
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . Jul y 28 , 2016 . Pa ge 1 of 34
I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consult ing A rborist & H ortic ult ur ist
Service since 1984
SUMMARY
Thirty (30) protected trees 1 on the project site are listed and described in this report. Most of these trees are not in good condition and will
be removed due to proposed construction. In total 20 trees are proposed to be removed and 10 of the trees are proposed to be saved.
Out of these 10 trees however, I have listed 9 as "Debatable" save or remove due to proposed improvements being too close and/or the
condition or species of tree. Practically speaking, I think it will only be reasonable to save one tree, which is #13, a 20-inch trunk diameter
blue Atlas cedar. This is probably the best tree on the site. If this cedar will be saved some design changes are necessary.
A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 below and on the next page, and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in
Table 3 (the Complete Tree Table) beginning on page 9 . The Complete Tree Table also explains why trees are listed as "Debatable" and
includes recommended minimum root protection distances for those trees that will or may be saved, and other important information
about individual trees .
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
Thi s table is continued on the next page.
*Denotes tree species native to the area within the vicinity of the site. All other tree species are not nativ e t o the immediate area.
~ree Trunk Preservation Expected
Common Name Value Construction Action Reason # Diam. Suitability Impact
1 American sweet gum (sweet gum) 11 Fa ir $1 ,670 Severe Debatable Construction
2 Japanese black pine 6 Fa ir/Poor 1 ,050 Severe Debatable Construction , Crowding , Overall Condition I
3 !Japanese black pine I 8 IF air I 42o lsevere I Debatable !construction
4 sweet gum 13 Fair/Good 2,330 Severe Debatable Construction
I 5 _!deodar cedar 1 11 .. Fa ir/j=loo"._. ___ j _1..Q20JSev~re ___ ._jD~b~tablejConstru ction , Structure J
1 For the purpose of this reoort a protected tree is: all trees which have a (4) four-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which
zoning approval or subdivision approval is required. Ex ceptions are : fruit or nut trees that less than eighteen (18) inches in diameter or any of the following species
that are less than 24 inches in diameter: black acacia (Acacia melanoxy!on), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), tree-of-Heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Tasmanian blue
gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globu/us), Red River gum Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), other Eucalyptus species (E. spp.) (Hillsides only), glossy privet
Uaustrum lucidum) and and oalms (exceot Phoenix canadensis).
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com.
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28 , 2016. Page 2 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturis t
Table 1 Summary Tree Table (continued from the previous page) Service si11ce 1984
Tree !Tru nk Preservati on Expected
Common Name Value Construction Action Reason # Diam. Suitability Impact
.. 6 Calif. bay 4 Fair/Poor 480 Severe Debatable Construction , Structure I
I 7 !Douglas fir I 31 !Fair/Poor I 5,7oo iModerate IDebatable lstructure
I 8 !Japanese black p1ne I 6 IFatr I 1,280 !Low/Moderate jRemove INot specified ! I 9 ~estern redbud I 7 !Fair/Good I 1,330 !severe jRemove !construction I I 1 0 lcoast redwood j 11 .6 IFatr I 1.820 !severe !Remove !construction I I 11 !Japanese black pine I 12 IFa1r I 1.460 jsevere jRemove !construction
12 deodar cedar 13,14 Fair 5,400 Severe Remove Construction I
j 13 jbl u e Atlas cedar j20 (4) !Fair/Good I 5,900jModerate jsave I I
14 Japanese black pine 6 Fair/Good 1,430 Severe Remove Construction
15 sweet gum 7 Fa1r/Poor 1,050 Severe Remove Construction , Overhead w1res
16 deodar cedar 7 Fair/Poor 1,430 Severe Remove Construction , Overhead wtres
17 deodar cedar 4 Fatr/Poor 670 Severe Remove Construction, Overhead wires
18 deodar cedar 7 Poo r 1,050 Severe Remove e Construction , Structure
19 Japanese black pine 5 Poor/Unacceptable 190 Severe Remove Construction , Overall Condition
20 Japa nese black pine 5 Fair 670 Moderate/Severe Remove Construction
21 Japanese black pine 13,13 Poor 3 ,470 Severe Remove Construction, Overall Conditton I I 22 jJapanese black pine I 7 I Poor I 860 jSevere jRemove !construction . Overall Cond ition
.. 23 coast live oak 8 ,9 Fatr/Good 600 Severe Remove Construction
24 Evergreen flowenng pear 11 Poor/Unacceptable 80 Moderate/Sev ere Remove Overall Condition , Construction
25 ~apanese black ptne 25 Poor 7,200 Moderate Remove Structure I
26 evergreen ash 20 Fa ir 1,540 Severe Debatable Construction
27 fAu stralia n brush cherry 7 Fa ir/Poor 1,050 Severe Debatable Construction, Structure
28 queen palm 9 Poor/Unacceptable 0 Severe Remove Overall Condition, Construction
29 UNKNOWN 4x6 Fatr/Poor 3,100 Moderate/Severe Remove Structure. Construction
30 Jstlk oak 14 Fatr/Poor 500 Moderate Remove Species J
End of Table
[ PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. htt p:/ /www.decah.com. I
Arbo ri s t Re port f or 15565 Camino Del Ce rro. Jul y 28. 2016 . Page 3 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Existing trees to be saved or removed should be numbered on all site-based plans to match the tree tag numbers that are used In this
arborist report. All trees to be saved shou ld be shown as a large bold dot that is easy to see, symbolizing the trunk, along wit h the tree
number. All trees to be re moved shall also be shown with a large black 'X' along with the tree number.
2) Do not remove or prune to remove more than 25% of the live branches of any protected tree until a valid tree removal permit has
been obtained from the Town of Los Gatos.
3) Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #1, 2, 3,4,5,6,7 ,26 and 27 . Read about these 9 trees in the Notes Section of the Complete Tree
Table in o rder to determine what to do with t hem (can they be saved or should they be removed)? A "Debatable" designation
means that there is a problem with ret aining that tree, such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor species for the site , or in
poor condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too close to it. The reason for
t he "Debatable" designat ion can be found in the "Reason " and "Notes " column o f the Complete Tree Table. Additional action or
decisions are necessary on the part of th e tree owner, p roject architects or others involved in the project design and construction are
necessary in o rd er t o resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved or removed.
4) If tl'ee #13 blue Atlas cedal' will be saved, some design changes are necessary. See the Notes column o f the Complete Tree
Table for this tree.
5) For those trees that will be retained on the site , follow the Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions , included in this report on pages
22 through 26 . A separate copy of th e Directions is attached and mus t be incorporated into the final project plan set. Additional tree
protection information is a lso available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. These Directions shall replace any tree protection not es ,
specifications or o ther directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans .
6) I have also included, as a separate attachment, Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications to supplement the tree
protection requirements of the Town of Los Gatos.
7) Neighboring trees : whose canopies overhang th e project site must receive tree protection in t he same manner as exis ting trees to
remain on the p roject site; for example tree protection fen cing and sig nage. The general contra c t or sha ll fence off t he dripline of
these trees as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath t he canopy. If pruning is
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15 565 Ca mino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 4 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arb orlst & H orticult uri st
Service since 1984
necessary in order to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service2 to perform the minimu m
necessary construction clearance pruning.
8) I should review all site-based plans for this project. I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on pages 6-7. Additional improvements on
plans that were not reviewed or have been revised may cause additional trees to be impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by
the arborist should be full-size, to-scale and with accurately located tree tru nks and canopy driplines relative to proposed
improvements. Scale should be 1:20 or 1:10 .
9) As a part of the design process, try to keep improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the
improvement} as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible . 6xDBH 3 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, sho ul d be
used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the t run k only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 6xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer t o trees than the lines shown on the p lans!
1 0) Construction or landscaping work done underneath the dripllne of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to
preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first enco untered, when
those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired t o monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the
work site.
11 ) Landscaping:
a) New landscaping and irrigation can be as much or more damaging to existing trees than any other type of construction . The
same tree root protection distances recommended for general construction should a lso be observed for new landsc aping. Within
the root protection zone it is usually best to limit landscape changes to a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood
or bark chips or tree trimming chippings spread over the soil surface. The environment around existing trees should be changed
very carefully or not at all-please consu lt with me regard ing changes in the landscape around exis t ing trees and/or have me
review the landscape and irrigation plans for this project.
2 Terms highlighted at their first occurrence in this report are explained in the Glossarv on pages 33 -34.
3 See oaae 21 for an exola nation of tree orotection root distances.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www .d ecah.com .
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 5 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
12) Trees to remain after adjacent trees are removed shou ld be re-evaluated by me or the project arborist after the surrounding trees
have been take n out.
13) General Tree Maintenance:
a) The root collars and lower trunks of some o f the trees were o b scu red from view by vegetation, excess soil or other covering. Such
portions of th e tree should be uncovered and the tree re-evaluated by the arborist.
b) Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work . Pre-construction pruning should be limited to the absolute minimum
required for constru c t ion clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide suc h pruning.
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by th e Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of the
report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees o n site--their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience
for this report is the prope rty owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with
tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is t o p reserve t he existing protect ed trees o n site that are in acceptable
conditio n. are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the si t e.
PLANS REVIEWED
·able 2 (continued on the next page)
PLAN DATE SHEET REVIEWED SHOULD NOTES I REVIEW
Existing Site Topographic Map 4/7/16 T-1 X Te ntative Lot Map
including existing tree trunk locations
Proposed Site Layout
Demolition X
Construction Staging
Grading/Drainage 6/6/16 C2 X
Erosion Control 6/6/16 C4 X Storm wate r management control plan
Underground Utility
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com . ·~
Arborist Report for 15565 Ca mino Del Ce rro. July 28, 2016. Page 6 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consu lting Arbor ist & Horticulturist
Table 2 Plans Reviewed or not Reviewed (continued from the previous page) Service siu ce 1984
PLAN DATE SHEET REVIEWED SHOULD NOTES REVIEW
Site & Building Sections 6/6/16 C3 X
Building Exterior Elevations X
Roof
Shadow Study
Construction Details that would
affect trees (for example building
foundations, pavement installation X
including sub-grade preparation,
underoround utilitv installation)
Landscape Planting X
Irrigation Plan X
Landscape & Irrigation Details X
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation o f the subject trees from the ground on July 11, 2016. Tree characteristi cs such as form, weight distribution,
foliage color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Eva luation
procedures were taken from:
• American National Standard A-300 (Part 5)-2012 for Tree Care Operations-Tree. Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management-Standard
Practices (Management of Trees. & Shrubs During Site Planning. Site Development and Construction).
• International Society of Arboriculture, Best Management Practices:
• Managing Trees during Construction . 2008
• Tree Inventories. 2013
The above ref erences serve as indus try p rofessional standards for tree evaluation and written findings and recommendations for trees on
construction sites prior, during and after site development.
Each of the trees was tagged in the field (exceptions noted) with metal number tags t hat correspond with the tree numbers referen ced
in this report and on the Tr ee Map. I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a d iameter tape at 4.5 feet above t he ground (DBH),
which is also t he required trunk d iameter measureme nt height of the Town of Los G atos. DBH is use d calculate tree protection d istances
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@ pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28, 2016 . Page 7 of 34
Deborah Ellis, M S
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service sin ce 1984
and other tree-related factors. 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.
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
The project site is an old, abandoned plant nursery. Despite the previous nursery history, many of the trees have been poorly pruned,
including topping. Site topography is mainly level. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon
proximity to existing buildings and to other trees. Some or all of the trees may have been irrigated in t he past, but none of the t rees are
irrigated now except possibly those that are adjacent to neighboring properties where irrigation is close by.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. u-:=1
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016 . Page 8 of 34
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborist & Hortic ulturist
Service siuce 1984
APPENDIX
TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TAB LE
This Table is continued through page 15. Data fields in the Tab le are explained on pages 16 to 20.
* Denotes tree species native to the area within the vicinity of the site. A ll other tree species are not native to the immediate area. --r-------~-------
TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size f Preservation Value Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. .. :I Suitability Impact :I: :I: N
Name 0 .. Ill Ill Q. Cl u c c 1-> :I .. )( )( 0 .. M CD (/)
1 Liquidambar 11 20x14 100 50 Fair $1,670 Severe Debatable Construct ion Construction: retaining wall 5 6 8
styraciffua, and drainage swale are both
American less than 4 feet from trunk _
sweet gum Condition : topped at 8 feet.
(sweet gum)
2 Pinus densiflora, 6 9x7 60 50 Fair/Poor 1,050 Severe Debatable Construct ion, Construction : house is 5 feet 5 5 5
Japanese black Crowding , from trunk. Not enough room
pine Overall to build ho use and save tree.
Condition Al so need access around
house.
Condition : suppressed and
crowded.
3 Japanese black 8 25x16 70 60 Fair 420 Severe Debatable Construction Construction : same as 5 5 6
pine previous .
4 sweet gum 13 32x20 90 60 Fair/Good 2 ,330 Severe Debatable Construction Construction : same as 3 7 10
previous.
Condition : topped at 10 feet
long ago.
5 Cedrus deodara, 11 40x20 80 40 Fair/Poor 1,020 Severe Debatable Construction, Construction : same as 5 6 6
deodar cedar Structu re previous.
-----~---
C PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4 08-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28 , 2016. Page 9 of 34
Deborah Ellis, M S
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
-----·-··--TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Preservation Expected
# Common Diam. Size I!! Suitability Va lue Construction Acti on Reason Notes ::c ::c ~ ::3 Impact N
Name 0 u m m D. C» 0 0 ..... > ::3 ~ >< >< 0 -C') CD tf)
6 Umbellu/aria 4 18x6 60 40 Fair/Poor $480 Severe Debatable Construction, Construction: t ree not 5 5 5
californica, Structure included on plans , but trunk is
Calif. bay probably 5-6 feet from
centerline of drainage swale,
and 10 feet from corner of
house.
7 Pseudotsuga 31 50x40 80 40 Fa ir/Poor 5,700 Moderate Debatable Structure Construction: main 8 16 39 1 menziesii, construction impact is demo
Doug las fir of shed behind tree, and I ex isting driveway.
lrondition: topped at 25 f eet
long ago and large
horizo ntally oriented scaffold
b ra nches emerge close t o
topp ing cut s. Tree has poor
st ruct ure and may not adapt
well to site changes and new
landscaping .
8 Japanese black 6 16x12 75 60 Fair 1,280 Low/ Remove Not specified Construction: demo of 5 5 5
pi ne Moderate driveway is nearest work, but
tree will not tolerate site
changes and new
landscaping well , so better to
remove .
9 Cere is 7 18x15 80 60 Fair/Good 1,330 Severe Remove Construction Construction: with in proposed 5 5 9
oxiden ta/ls, house.
west ern redb ud
I PO Bo x 3714, S aratoga. CA 95070 .u 4o8~725-1 357. d e cah@pa~~~~~,;t. http://www.decah.co m. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Ca mino De l Cer r o. July 28, 20 16 . Page 10 of 34
De borah E lli s, MS
C onsulti ng Arbo rist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984 --------------------
!cONDITION
TREE ROOT
PROTECTIO N
Species Expected
DISTANCES
Tree & Trun k Size ! Preservation Value Construction Action Reason Notes # Common D iam. ... :::J Suitability Impact J: J: N
Name 0 -m m a. Cl u c c 1-> :::J )( )( 0 ... -(") CD fl)
10 Sequoia 11,6 40x18 75 50 Fair $1 ,820 Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed 5 7 7
I sempervirens, house.
coast redwood
11 Japanese black 12 16x16 75 50 Fair 1,460 Severe Remove Construction Construction: within deck of 5 6 12
pine proposed house.
12 deodar cedar 13,14 15x22 85 50 Fair 5,400 Severe Remove Construction Construction: at edge of 5 11 16
proposed driveway.
13 Cedrus atlantica 20 (4) 35x27 90 40 Fair/Good 5,900 Moderate Save Construction: centerline of 5 10 20
'Giauca ', drainage swales are 6 and 11
blue Atlas cedar feet from trunk, whic h is
underneath the low spreading
canopy of this tree . Covered
porches from 2 houses are
123 and 17 feet. Drainage
catch basin 1 0 feet. Bottom
line: there must be no soil
disturbance w ithin a minimum
of 10 feet from the trunk or 2
~eet beyond the dripline of the
tree, wh ichever is larger. The
dripline is not shown to scale
on the plan -it is much
smaller than actual. Show
the dripline of this tree
accurately if you wish to try to
save it. Also, the property
line (and probably a new
fence) is 3 feet or less from
the tru nk . The fence will need _,__
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.de cah.com. I
Arborist Report tor 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 1 1 of 3 4
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
---TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Preservation Expected
Size Q) Value Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. ... Suitability :I: :I: ... ::J Impact N
Name 0 0 co co Q. C) 0 0 1-> ::J )( )( 0 ... .. M co f/)
to be eliminated wh ere the
I branches of the t ree cross the
property line. Do not thi n k
that you can remove lower
branches in order to bu ild the
ence -this will destroy the
branch structure an d
aesth etics of the tree.
Condition: top ped at 9 feet
an d h igher, b ut sti ll a beaut iful
I tree t hat coul d be made b etter
with good st ruct ural
improvement p ru ning.
14 Japa nese b lack 6 12x9 70 80 Fair/Good 1,430 Severe Remove Co nstru ct ion Constru ction: wi thi n proposed 5 5 5
pine dri veway and sidewa lk.
15 sweet gum 7 16x12 70 40 Fair/Poor 1,050 Severe Remove Constru cti on, Co nst ruction : wi t hi n proposed 5 5 5 I Overhead s idewalk.
~ires Condition: topped,
underneath overhead electric
wires.
16 deodar cedar 7 25x10 70 80 Fair/Poor 1,430 Severe Remove Construction, Construction: within proposed 5 5 5
Overhead sidewalk.
rovires Conditio n : planted too close
to overhead electric wires.
17 deodar cedar 4 22x8 60 80 Fair/Poor 670 Severe Remove Con stru ction , Constru cti on : 5 feet from 5 5 5
Overhead driveway and centerline of
~ires sanitary sewer, two sides of
t ru nk; excavations will be
I PO Bo x 37 14 , Sarat oga , CA 9 50 70. 4 08-725-1357. decah@pac bell.net. http://www.decah.com . I
Arborist Re port f or 155 6 5 Camino De l Cerro. Jul y 28, 2016 . Page 12 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
-------------------------------------TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Preservation Expected
Size ! Value Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. ... :::J Suitability Impact :r: :r: N
Name 0 -m m 0. C) u c c .... > j ... )( )( 0 -M fD
U)
closer.
Condition: farther from wires
than previous deodars , but
still really too close .
18 deodar cedar 7 25x12 70 40 Poor $1,050 Severe Remove e Construction , Construction : within walkway 5 5 5
Structure to front door of hou se.
Condition : topped and
underneath wires .
19 Japanese black 5 10x10 20 20 Poor/Unacceptable 190 Severe Remove Construction , Construction: tree not 5 5 5
pine Overall included on plan, but is over
Condition the centerline of a sanitary
sewer line .
Condition : nearly dead .
20 Japanese black 5 10x16 70 70 Fair 670 Moderate/ Remove Construction Construction: less than 5 feet 5 5 5
I pine Severe from walkway and drainage
catch basin .
21 Japanese black 13,13 40x30 50 40 Poor 3,470 Severe Remove Construction, Construction : tree on 5 10 20
pine Overall ce nterline of sanita ry sewer
Condition line.
Condition : topped , many dead
bran ches.
22 Japanese black 7 22x7 50 40 Poor 860 Severe Remove Co nstruction , Construction : within deck of 5 5 5
pine Overall proposed house .
Condition Condition : topped and
suppre ssed .
23 coast live oak 8,9 25x25 80 60 Fa ir/Good 600 Severe Remove Co nstruction Co nstructio n : within proposed 5 5 5
I house.
Condition : leans on ground
I PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbe ll.net. ht tp:/ /www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 13 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consultin g A rbor lst & Hortic ulturist
Seroice since 1984
-TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES
T ree & T run k Preservation E x p ected
Size e Value Construction Action Reason No t es # Common D iam . ... :J Su itability Impact :I: :I: N
N ame 0 -m m D. Cl u 0 0 1-> :J >< >< 0 ... -M co
fl)
:
and downside of trunk
obscured from view.
24 Pyrus kawakami, 11 15x12 10 10 Poor/Unacceptabl e 80 Moderate/ Remove Overall Construction: l ess tha n 10 5 6 11
Evergreen Severe Condition , feet from proposed house .
floweri ng pear Constru ction Condit ion : nearl y dead.
25 Japanese black 25 40x30 80 40 Poor 7,200 Moderate Remove Structu re Construction: 28 feet from 6 13 25
pi ne proposed house and closer to
drain catch basins, but not
worth keeping in any case.
Condition : topped at 18 feet
and 2 large horizontal scaffold
branches emerge close to
topping cuts
26 Fraxinus uhdei, 20 50c30 80 60 Fai r 1,540 Severe Debatable Construct ion Construct ion : proposed house 5 10 15
evergreen ash i s 6 feet from tru nk,
Drainage swale at trunk. This
will not work; remove tree or
provide it with adequate
space for roots and canopy.
Also access is needed
between property line/fence
and house. T ree is really not
worth saving, except for
screening .
Condition : lower 20 feet of
trunk covered with ivy and
obstructed from view by
fence. Should be uncovered
so arborist can re-assess
- -
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com. - ]
Arborist Report fo r 15565 Camino De l Ce rro. July 28, 2016. Page 14 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Sel'llice siuce 1984 --~--------~--------~----------~------,--------TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species Expected
D ISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size Cll Preservation Va lue Construction Action Reason N otes # Common Diam. ... ... Suitability :I: :I: ::J Impact N
Name 0 -In In 0.. Cl u 0 0 ~ > ::J ... )( )( 0 -M tD (/)
entire tree proj ect redes igned I and t ree may be saved.
27 Syzygium 7 20x16 70 40 Fair/Poor $1,050 Severe Debatable Construction, Constructio n : proposed 5 5 7
paniculatum, Structu re chimney less than 3 feet from
Australian brush trunk . T his will not wo rk
cherry (same general comments as
for adjacent tree #26).
Condi tion : growing against
fence and lower trunk
I obscured by fence and ivy .
Topped.
28 Syagrus 9 16x15 40 20 Poo r/Unacceptable 0 Severe Remove Overall Construction : pa lm is less 5 5 5
romanzoffianum, Cond ition, than 3 feet from proposed
queen palm Construction house.
Condition : trunk cracked and
leaning just below fronds, and
I most fronds are dead .
29 Unknown 4x6 35x30 75 50 Fair/Poor 3,1 00 Moderate/ Remove Structure, Construction : 6-7 feet from 5 9 13
species Severe Constructio n centerline of drain swale , 10-
11 feet from drainage catch
basin . T ree not worth saving.
Condition : st ump sprout of a
deciduous broadleaf tree .
30 Grevillea 14 45x22 80 60 Fair/Poor 500 Moderate Remove Species Construction: most of 5 7 14
robusta, construct ion impact is demo .
silk oak Tree may not adapt well to
altered site .
End of Table
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Repor t for 15565 Camino De l Ce rro. July 28, 2016. Page 15 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
S ervice since 1984
EXPLANA TIO N 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 aluminum number tag that
corresponds to its tree number referenced in the arborist report, Tree Map, Tree Protection Specifications and any other project plan s 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 agrifolia is the species . The scienti fic names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation. Th e scien tific name is presented at its first occurrence in the Tree
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used .
3) Trunk Diam . (Trunk Diameter): Tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height" (DBH) measured at approximately 4.5 feet above ground level. This is
the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement height that is also used in many tree-related calculations. It is also the trunk di ameter
measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos . For multi-trunk trees, trunk diam eter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all
smaller trunks. Trunk diameter is measured when possible, and estimated when it is not possi ble or safe to physi cally measure. A number in
pare ntheses (3) after the trunk diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 4 .5 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the
diameter was measured at this alternate height (in feet), which r eflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree.
Examples: an "18" in the Diameter column means that the tre e has a diameter of 18 inches at 4.5 fee t above the ground. An "18 {3}" means
that trunk diameter was 18 inches measured at 3 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5 " means that this is a multi-trunk tree with trunk diameters of
18, 7 and 5 inch es at 4.5 feet above th e ground.
4) Size : tree size is listed as height x width in feet , estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings : Tree s are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 wit h zero being a dead tree and 100 bei ng 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 components to tree condition-vigor and
structure, and each component is rated sepa rately. Averaging the two components i s not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a
valid re as on to remove a tree from a si te --even if the other component ha s a high rating. Numerically speaking for each se parate compone nt:
100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is Dead.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com . I
Arborist Report for 15565 Ca mino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016 . Page 16 of 34
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
• Relative to the scope of work for this report, tree Condition has been ra ted but not exp lained in detail and recommendations f or the management
of tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ell is for additional information on tree condition and specific
recom mendations for the general care of individual trees re lative to their condition.
• The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or f1,.1ture intended use of t he site to provide an opinion on the
tree's Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e . "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in th is location, as explai ned in Tab le 4 be l ow. This is based upon
the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below-g round space to survive and live a long life on the si t e. Ratings such as "Fa i r/Good"
and "Fair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rati ng 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.
Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide
Excellent multiple functional and aesthetic benefi ts to the envi ro nment and the users of the site.
These are great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure.
Equivalent to academic grade 'A '.
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can
be improved with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relati vely good
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 grade '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 maj ority of trees on
Fair most sites tend to fall into this category . These trees will require more intensive
management and monitoring, and may also have s ho rter life spans than trees in the
I "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
I
depends upon the degree of proposed site changes . Equ ivalen t 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 I
Poor regardless of management. The tree species themselves may have characteristics I
that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas . I
do not recommend retention of trees with low suit ability for preservation in areas
where people or property will be presen t. E~uivalent to acade micgrade ·o·.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. htt p://www .d ecah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 17 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consu l t i ng Arborist & Horti c u ltu rist
Servia since 1984
6) Value: Tree monetary appraisal is based upon : (1) Cost of Installation plus (2) its increase in value over a container-size tree if a larger size tree being
appraised. This value is then adjusted according to: (a) Species (according to regional published species ratings), (b) Condition of the tree, and (c)
Location of the tree (an average of the sub-categories of Site, Contribution and Placement). The methodology and calculations for the Trunk Formula
Method are taken from two industry standard texts-The Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, edited by the Council of Tree & landscape
Appraisers and published by the International Society of Arboriculture, and the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004, published by the
Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The cross-sectional trunk diameter price presented in th is text has been adjusted slightly
downward to match the current actual average wholesale cost of a 24-inch box nursery tree i n this area . Note th at the v al ues produced for this r eport
are meant for reference only and may not reflect the true value of the tree that could be calculated by a thorough and more detailed analysis of each
individua l tree.
a) Caveats regarding tree values: The values in this report have not been subjected to a "reasonableness t es t " which compares the value of trees and
landscaping to the total value of the property. The values in the report were calculated quickly and are intended to be approximate and for
reference only. Re search on tree and landscape values ha s shown that landscaping can contribute up to 20 % of the total property value. In some
cases however, t ree appraisals have produced tree values that exceed the value of the entire property. Performing a reasonableness test screen s
f or this error. For certain trees in this report I have decrea sed or increased tree values when I felt that the calculated values were too high or too
low.
b) The Trunk Formula Method is used for trees that are too large for practical replacement with a similar size nu r se ry container-grown tree. Thi s
method applies to trees with trunk diameters that are larger than 8-inches, measured at 12 inches above the ground. For the purpose of this
report, all trees with trunk diameters of 8 inches or greater measured at DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method .
c) The Replacement Cost Method is u sed for smalle r trees with trunk diameters up to 4 -inches in diameter m eas ured at 12 inches above the ground.
This i s generally equivalent to a 48-inch box-size tree. The replacement cost for such a tree shall be the average wholesale cost of the tre e
m u ltiplied by two to include transportation to the site, pla nting and other cost s. Th is price is then adjusted (usually downward) ba sed upon the
Condition ratings percentages for the appraised t ree. For the purpose of this report, all trees with trun k diameters of 7 inches or less measured at
DBH (4.5 feet above the ground) are appraised by this method . The followi ng cost ba sis is used (ba sed upon the average of wholesale tree prices
from Boething Treeland Nursery, Portola Valley and Valley Cre st Tree Nursery, Sunol, 2/29/2016):
Trunk DBH
<1" to 1"
2-3 "
4 -5 "
6-7 "
Reolacement tree size Reolacement Tree Wholesale Cost x 2 (for installation. etc.)
15 gallon $47.50 x 2 = $95
24" box $182 .50 x 2 = $365
36 " box $475 x 2 = $950
48" box $950 x 2 = $1900
I PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www .decah.com. I
Arbori st Report f or 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28 , 2016. Page 18 of 3 4
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consu lting Arborist & Hortic ulturist
S ervice si nce 1984
The replacement cost is also used for palms. which are priced based upon li near foot of clear trun k, wh ich is the height of the trunk from the
ground to the ba se of the live frond s. Palm species are priced (wholesale at nursery) per foot of clear trunk (trunk foot, TF) us ing the prices listed i n
the 2004 Species Classification and Group Assignment plus compounded inflation at 3% per year . The current inf l atio n-adj usted wholesa le price
per foot of trunk for queen palm (the palm species found on the project site) is $64.16.
d) Tree values for tree protection bonds : Prior to commencing work, the tree-re gulating authority may require t hat the contractor furnish a bond
equa l to some portion of the total appraised va lue of the trees on t he site based upon the va lues p rese nted in t he Arbori st Report. Bond money
will be returned to the contractor upon the completion of the project with deductions or additi onal fines imposed based upon tree protection
compliance and the final condition of the trees . Tree values are often used to establish a benchmark amount to fine the contractor if non-
co mpliance with the Tree Protection Specifications or other negligence causes a subject t ree to be removed or unnecessari ly damaged. Th e full
value amount should be charged to the contractor if a tree is damaged to the degree that it must be removed . A portion of t he value of the tree
plus any neces sary remediation costs, as determined by the tree owner, should be charged to the contractor if the tree is damaged but does not
have to be removed.
7) Action {Disposition):
a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing sta ndard tree protection measures .
b) Remove : this recommendation is ba sed upon tree condition, preservat ion suitability, 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 t ree to save) but proposed construction is t oo 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 t hat it can be saved.
• Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g . the tree requires further, more detail ed eva luation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantificati on with resistance drilli ng or tomography, a "pull test " to asse ss
tree stability from the roots, or tiss ue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis.
• Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in th is report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• Species: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertain construction impact
• Other (a s exp lain ed for the individual tree)
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://ww w.de cah.c om . ]
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28 , 2016. Page 19 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consult ing A rborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
8) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree is l isted as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple rea so ns may be provided, with the most signi ficant
reason listed first. Reasons can include but are not limited to :
• Construction (excessive construction impact is unavoidable and it is not worthwhile 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 land scaping )
• 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 sufficie ntly mitigated)
9) Notes: This may include any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this
report, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact.
10) Tree Protection Distances :
a) Root Protection: see the ne xt page for a detailed explanation.
b) canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be ne cessary for canopy protection .
c) I have i ncreased a few of the calculated tree protection d is tances for certain individual trees based upon my profess ional judgment and relative to
site constraints. For example the minimum root protection distance I will list for any tree is 5 feet.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28, 2016. Page 20 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TREE ROOT PROTECTION DISTANCES
No on e 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
individua l tree to effect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree--there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or
anticipate. 3xD 8H however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any soil disturbance should be from the edge of the trunk on one
side of the trunk. This is supported by se veral separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartle tt Tree Re search
Laboratories). DBH is trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning 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 taper, which is the area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diamete r with increasing distance
from the trunk. For example, using the 3X DBH guideline an excavation should be no closer than 4.5 feet from the trunk of an 18 -inch DBH tree. For trees
with multiple trunks , an adjusted DBH is often calculated using 100% of the largest trunk plus 50% of the remaining smaller trunks. Such distances are
guid e lines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. I will generally not recommend a
root protection distance of less than 5 feet for any tree, even ve ry small trees. It is also important to understand that in actual field conditions we often
find t hat much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3xDBH may be more of an aid in preserving tree stability and not
nece ss arily long-term tree health.
6 to 18 X DBH is the minimum distance which is recommended in the ANSI (American National Standard) A300 (Part 5)-2012 Management of Trees &
Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, & Construction, and also in the companion publication from the International Society of Arboriculture, Best
Manag e ment Practices, Managing Trees During Construction, 2008. When the 6 to 18 x DBH distance cannot be met , "appropriate mitigation or
de t ermination that the work will not impact tree health and stability shall be performed". according to the ANSI Standard. ANSI A300 (Part 8)-2013
Root Ma na gement , states: "When roots are damaged within 6 times the trunk diameter (DBH) mitigation shall be r e comme nde d." For practical purposes I
use the 6 x DBH distance as t he minimal distance acceptable (in mo s t circumstances) in order to maintain good tree health and structural stability. The 6 x
DBH di s tance or greate r should de finitely be used when there a r e soi l disturbances on more than one side of the trunk.
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree, that construction or other disturbance
should not encroach within. This gu ideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Soci e ty of Arboriculture, 1998. If the
OTP Z is res pecte d, then chance s of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method take s into account tre e ag e and the particular
spe ci e s tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction (for
e xampl e , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural indu s try. Due
t o t he crowde d, cons trained nature of many building sites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recomme nded f or many of the tree s--
the refore I have also listed alternate distance 6X DBH. The 6xDBH guideline is more curre nt than the OPTZ and has bee n incorporated into the curre nt
arboriculture industry Tree Protection BMP and also the ANSI Standard (see second paragraph).
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.de cah .com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. J uly 28, 2016. Page 21 of 34
LOS GATOS TREE PROTECTION REQUIREMENTS
LOS GATOS TOWN CODE
Chapter 29-ZONING REGULATIONS
Article I. -IN GENERAL
Division 2. TREE PROTECTION
Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction.
(a} Protective tree fencing shall specify the following :
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbori st & Ho rticult u rist
Service since 1984
(1} Size and materials. Six (6} foot high chain link fencing , mounted on two -inch diameter galvanized iron posts , shall be driven into the ground
to a depth of at least two (2} feet at no more than 1 0-foot spacing . For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree
preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base .
(2} Area type to be fenced. Type 1: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ),
when specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the
entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as downtown}: orange
plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden boards bound securely on the
outside . Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches .
(3} Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition , grading or construction permits are issued and remain in
place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection
fence.
(4} Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11 -inch sign stating : 'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this fence
shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10 .1025".
(b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
(1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ} when specified in an
approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any
storage of construction materials or other materials , equipment cleaning , or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be
altered in any way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction .
(2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation , grading , drainage and leveling within th e
dripline of the tree unless approved by the Director.
(3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels ,
swale s 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 .
I PO Bo x 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . Jul y 28, 2016 . Page 22 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Hortic ultur ist
Service since 1984
(6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project
site and the health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential
threat to the health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits .
(7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper
treatment may be administered.
(Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance.
All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Ma nagement Practices-Tree Pruning
and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree , Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by
the Director. For developments , which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities
in volv ing protected trees, including pruning , cabling and any other work if specified.
(1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree
shall obtain permission from the Director before perform ing any work , including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e .g .
cable TV/fiber optic trenching , gas, water, sewer trench , etc.).
(2 ) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1 )-Pruning , Section 5.9 Utility Prun ing. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning , except
where no other alternative is available , is prohibited.
(3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting
twenty-five percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except f or
pollarding of fruitless mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other species approved by the Town Arbori st. Appl ications for a pruning permit sha ll
include photographs indicating where pruning is proposed .
(4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four
(4) inches in diameter (12.5" in circumference) without f irst obtaining a permit pursuant to this division .
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1015. No limitation of authority.
Nothing in this division limits or modifies the existing authority of the Town under Division 29 of Title 29 (Zoning Regula tions). Title 26 (Public
Trees) or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines to requ ire trees and other plants to be identified, retained, protected, and/or planted as
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 23 of 34
Deb o rah Ellis, MS
Consulti ng Arborlst & Horticulturist
S eroice since 1984
conditions of the approval of development. In the event of conflict between provisions of th is division and conditions of any permit or other approval
granted pursuant to Chapter 29 or Chapter 26 of the Town Code or the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines . The more protective
requirements shall prevail.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1020. Responsibility for enforcement.
All officers and employees of the Town shall report violations of this division to the Director of Community Development. Whenever an
Enforcement Officer as defined in Section 1.30.015 of the Town Code determines that a violation of this code has occurred, the Enforc ement Officer
shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation pursuant to the provisions of Section 1.30 .020 of the Town Code
Whenever an Enforcement Officer charged with the enforcement of this Code determines that a violation of that provision has occurred ,
the Enforcement Officer shall have the authority to issue an administrative citation to any person responsible for the violation.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§I , II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1025. Enforcement-Remedies for violation.
In addition to all other remedies set forth in this code or otherwise provided by law. the following remedies shall be available to the Town for violation
of this division :
(1) Tree removals in absence of or in anticipation of development. If a violation occurs in the absence of or prior to proposed development,
then discretionary applications and/or building permit applications will not be accepted or processed by the Town until the violation has been
remedied to the reasonable satisfaction of the Director. Mitigation measures as determined by the D irector may be imposed as a condition of
any subsequent application approval or permit for development on the subject property. A m itigation plan shall include specific measures for
the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of ea ch hillside tree that was rem oved illegally
with a new tree(s) in the same location(s) as those illegally removed tree(s ). The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that
required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this division . If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree
or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation , the trees shall be permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition . The
property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town. For those trees on public property, replacement is to
be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the Director of Parks and Public Works.
(2) Pending development applications. Incomplete applications will not be processed further until the violation has been remedied . If
an application has been deemed complete , it may be denied by the Director or forwarded to the Planning Commission with a
re commendation for denial at the Director's discretion. Mitigation measures as determined by the director may be imposed as a condition of
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28 , 2016 . Page 24 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Hortic ulturist
S eroicc since 1984
approval. A mitigation plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any remaining trees on the property, and shall provide for
the replacement of each hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location (s) as those illegally removed tree(s).
The replacement ratio shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of th is
division. If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation, the trees sha ll be
permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with
the Town . For those trees on public property, replacement is to be determined by the Director of Community Development or by the D irector
of Parks and Public Works .
(3) Projects under construction.
a. If a violation occurs during construction. the Town may issue a stop work order suspending and prohibiting further acti vi ty on the
property pursuant to the grading. demolition. and/or building permit(s) (including construction. inspection , and issuance of certificates of
occupancy) until a mitigation plan has been filed with and approved by the Director, agreed to in writing by the property owner(s) or the
applicant(s) or both , and either implemented or guaranteed by the posting of adequate security in the discretion of the D irector. A mitig ation
plan shall include specific measures for the protection of any rema ining trees on the property, and shall provide for the replacement of each
hillside tree that was removed illegally with a new tree(s) in the same location (s) as those ill egally remove d tree(s). The replacement ratio
shall be at a greater ratio than that required in accordance with the standards set forth in Sec. 29.10.0985 of this d ivision. If the court or the
Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violat ion, the trees shall be permanently maintained
in a good and healthy condition. The property owner shall execute a five-year written maintenance agreement with the Town . For those
trees on public property , replacement is to be determined by the D irector of Community Development or by the Directo r of Parks and Publ ic
Works .
b. The violation of any provisions in this division during the conduct by any person of a tree removal , landscaping , construction or other
business in the Town shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person.
(4) Civil penalties.
Notwithstanding section 29.20 .950 relating to criminal penalty. any person found to have violated section 29.10.0 965 shall be liable to pay
the Town a civil penalty as prescribed in subsections a. through d .
a. As part of a civil action brought by the Town , a court may assess against any person who commits , allows, or mainta ins a vio lat io n of
any provision of this division a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per violat ion.
b. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree. the civil penalty shall be in an amount not to exceed five thousand
dollars per tree unlawfully removed. or the replacement value of each such tree . whichever amount is higher. Such amount shall be payable
to the Town and deposited into the Tree Replacement Fund . Replacement value for the purposes of this section shall be determ ined
utilizing the most recent edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, as prepared by the Council of Tree and Lands cape Appraisers and the
Species and Group Classification Guide published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture .
c . If the court or the Director directs a replacement tree or trees to be planted as part of the remedy for the violation. the trees shall be
permanently maintained in a good and healthy condition . The property owner shall execute a five year written maintenance agreement with
the Town.
d. The cost of enforcing this division, which shall include all costs, staff time, and attorneys' fees .
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@p acbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com. ·---]
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28, 2016 . Page 25 of 34
Deborah E lli s, MS
Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
(5) Injunctive relief. A civil action may be commenced to abate , enjoin, or otherwise compel the cessation of such violation.
(6) Costs. In any civil action brought pursuant to this division in which the Town prevails , the court shall award to the T own all costs of
investigation and preparation for trial , the costs of trial, reasonable expenses including overhead and administrative costs incurred in
prosecuting the action , and reasonable attorney fees .
(Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03 )
Sec. 29.10.1030. Fees.
The fee , as adopted by Town Resolution, prescribed therefore in the municipal fee schedule shall accompany the removal or pruning permit
application submitted to the Town for review and evaluation pursuant to this division .
(Ord. No . 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1035. Severability.
If any provision of this division or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held to be invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction,
such invalidity shall not affect any other provision of this division wh ich can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end
the provisions of this division are declared to be severable.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II , 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1040. Notices.
All notices required under this division shall conform to noticing provisions of the applicable Town Code.
Sec. 29.10.1045. Appeals.
Any interested person may appeal a decision of the director pursuant to this division in accordance with th e procedures set forth in section
29.20.260 of the Town Code. All appeals shall co mply with the public noticing provisions of section 29.20.450 of the T own Code.
(Ord . No. 2114 , §§ I, II , 8-4-03)
I PO Bo x 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arbori st Report for 15565 Ca mino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016 . Page 26 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
TREE PHOTOS
Northeast corner of the site near Camino Del Cerro Road , Lot 3 . Several of the trees proposed to be
saved are on the right side of the dr iveway (#1-4). A drainage swale will be at or very c lose to the
trunks of these trees, however .
Se1'1lice si11ce 1984
I PO Box 37 14, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28, 2016 . Page 27 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Douglas fil' #7 . It should be possible to
save this tree if demo around it is done
carefu l ly. Th is is not really a good tree to
save from a stuctural and site adaptablility
standpoint , though .
Blue Atlas cedal' #13 , spanning lots #2
and 3 . This tree proposed to be saved and
reasonable to save . A few design changes
are necessary , however.
Service since 1984
Evel'gl'een ash #26 , south perimeter of
the site, Lot 1 near Cammo Del Cerro Road .
The proposed house is 6 feet from the
trunk and a drainage swale is at the trunk ,
however .
( PO -s;;-x 3l14, S~t~, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 28 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service siuce 1984
Douglas fil' #7 at right , with neighboring tl'ees (coast l'ed'Wood and coast live oak) on adjacent
properties to the north and west. This is the northwest corner of the site. These neighbor ing trees must be
protected (e .g . tree protection fenc ing) as per Town of Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 4 08-725-1357. decah@pacbell.ne t. http:/ /www.decah.com. I
Arbori st Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 29 of 34
Deborah E llis, MS
Consulting Arborist & H orticult urist
Se rvice si11ce 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1. Tree locations were provided by NNR Engineering civil engineers and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report . The tree
map is a reduced partial copy of the Grading & Drainage plan that I was given. Tree locatio ns are assumed to be accurate but
should be veri fi ed in the field.
2. Some of the trees described In this report were not included on the plans (bees #6, 19 and 27 ) and so we t entat ively plotted the
approximate locations o f these trees on the Tree Map. Th ese trees shou ld b e accura tely surveyed in the field and p lotted on the
appropriate site-based plans. The trees should then be re-evaluated re lat ive t o their estimated expected construc t ion impact.
3. A Level 2 Basic Evaluation o f the subject trees described in this report was performed on July 11 , 2016 for t he purpose of this report.
This is a brief visua l evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detail ed t ests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples . The tree is viewed by walking a ll around it, unless this is not possible. This type of
evaluation is an initial screenin g o f the tree after w hi c h the evaluator may recommend that additional, more detailed
examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary. An a ssess ment of tree risk was not performed during the evaluation .
4. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. Th ey were only viewed cursorily from the project site . I did not enter the
neighborin g property to in spect these trees up close.
5. Some trees had their root collars and or lower trunks covered wit h so il, vegetation or debris and were obstructed from view when I
conducted my tree evaluat ion. If these trees may remain , the obstruct ions should be removed and I should re-examine these
p reviously covered areas.
6. I did the best I could at estimating construction Impacts to trees based upon the plans, but th is Is difficult to accomplish with
certainty at a scale of 1 :20. I do not have knowledge about the const ru c ti o n methods that will be used on this projec t and how the
site will be st aged for construction-these factors ca n increase or decrease the effect of construction on trees. How heavy
equipment will move on the site is another factor we are unaware o f -even though tre es may not be located close to
improvement s, they may be lo cated within equipment travel or staging areas. It is possible therefore, that more trees will need to be
removed than are presently listed for removal in t his report. O n the other hand I may have overestimated construction impac t in
some cases -so t hat some trees that are listed for removal may not end up having to be removed after all.
7 . 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 titl es and ownerships t o any property are assumed t o be good and marketable. I assume no
responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as t o th e quality o f any title .
8 . The Information contained in this report covers only those Items that were examined and reflects the condition of th ose items a t the
time of inspectio n .
9. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates th e entire report .
1 0. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not Imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed w ithout my written consent beforehand.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arbori st Report for 15565 Cami no Del Cerro. July 28, 20 16. Page 30 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consult in g Arborist & Horticulturist
S ervice since 1984
11 . This report and the ratings or values represented herein represent my opinion . M y fee is in no w a y contingent upon the reporting of
a specified value or upon any finding or re comme ndation reported.
12 . This report has been prepared in conformity with generally acceptable appraisal/diagnostic /reporting methods and procedures
and is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture a nd the American Society of Consulting
Arborists .
13 . My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection ,
excavation, probing or coring . There is n o warranty or g uarantee, expressed or implied, that problems or deficiencies of the p lants
or propert y in questi o n may not arise in the future.
14. I take no responsibility for any defects in any tree 's structure . No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from
above th e ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been d iscovered have not been report ed, unless o therwise
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree . Likewise , root collar excavations and
evaluations have not been performed unless o therwise stated.
15. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should
some or all of those trees remain , and t o help in their short and long term health and longevity. Th is is not however; a guarantee
that any o f these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline. fai l. or die, for whatever reaso n . Be cause a significant portion of a
tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline. even trees t hat are w ell protected during construction often decline, fail o r die.
Because there may be hidden defects w ithin the root sys t em, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees w ith no obvious
defects can be subject to failure without warning. The current sta te of a rboricultural sc ience does not guarantee the accurate
detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with t rees. There will a lwa ys be some level of risk associated with
trees, partic ularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee t he safe ty of any t ree. Tr ees are unpredictable .
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www .decah .com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Ca mino Del Cerro. July 28 , 2016 . Page 31 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horti culturist
Service since 1984
*********************•········
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good
faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further assistance.
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578
I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
ENCLOSURES:
• Town of Los Gatos General Tr ee Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set)
• Recommended Supplemental Tree Protection Specifications. D. Ellis, September 2, 2015.
• Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing)
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 32 of 34
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consu lting Arbor i st & Horticult urist
Service sir~ce 1984
REFERENCES:
• Americ an Natio nal Standard A300 (Part 51-2012 for Tree Care Operations-Tree , Shrub & Other Woody Plant Management-
Standard Pra c tices:
o (Part 5) -2012 --Management of Trees & Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, & Construction.
o (Part 8)-2013 . Root Management.
o (Part 9)-2011. Tree Risk Assessment. Tree Structure Assessment.
• Be st Management Practices, International Society of Arboriculture :
o Managing Trees during C o nstruction. 2008
o Tree In ventories. 2013 .
• The Guide fo r Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000 , edited by the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers and p ublished by the
International Society of Arboriculture .
• Species Classification & Group Assignment. Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. 2004.
GLOSSARY
1. Dripline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree , all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline , a great concentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree
protection zone".
2. Project Arborist. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist 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.
3. qualified Consulting Arborist: 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.
4. qualified Tree Service: A tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of
Arboriculture) Certified Arborist for at least 5 years , 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
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www.de cah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro . July 28, 2016 . Page 33 of 34
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticultu rist
Service since 1984
General Liability Insurance. The person(s) performing the tree work must understand and adhere to the most current of the following
arboricultural industry tree care standards:
• Best Management Practices. Tree Pruning . International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129. 217-355-
9411
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).
• ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultural Operations. Ibid. (Covers safety).
5. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar Uunction 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 large roots
close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance-
recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root
decay often begins on the underside of roots , which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is
excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the
root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Deca yed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the
extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound .
6. Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches of the tree.
7. Stump sprout trees are the result of a tree trunk being cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If the tree survives , it sends out man y
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 their 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.
8. Topped (Topping} is the practice of indiscriminately cutting back large diameter branches of a mature tree to some predetermined lower height;
to reduce the overall height of the tree. Cuts are made to buds, stubs or lateral branches not large enough to assume the terminal ro le.
Reputable arborists no longer recommend topping because it is a particularly destructive prun ing 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 weakly attached to the tree and
are in danger of splitting out. Large topping cuts may have significant decay associated with them , which weakens the branch as well as the
attachment of any secondary branches attached nearby. Topping may be useful however, for immediately reducing the risk of a high risk tree
that will soon be removed .
( PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. (
Arborist Report for 15565 Camino Del Cerro. July 28, 2016. Page 34 of 3 4
July 18, 201 6
Ms. Jo celyn Puga
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 9503 1
RE: 15565 Camino Del Cerro
Dear J ocely n :
ARCH ITECTURE PLANNING URBAN DES IGN
I reviewed the drawings and eval u ated the site context. My comm ents and recommendations are as foiJows:
Neighborhood Context
The site is large in size. It is surrounded on three sides by traditional sin gle fa mily detached homes. Condominiums are
located im med iately across Camino Del Cerro from the site. Photos of the si te and surrounding neighborhood are shown o n
the fo llowing page.
700 LARKSPUR LAND ING C IRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKS PUR . CA . 94 9 39
EXHIBIT 8
TEL : 41 5 .331 .379 5
CDGPLA @f't\(Bt l l.NE I
The Si t e
Condomin iums across Cam ino Del Cerro
Nparby house
CANNON DES IGN GROUP
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Design Review Co mments
July 18,2016 Page 2
Con domini ums across Camino D el Cerro
Nearby house
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
Issues and Recommendations
1 5565 Camino Del Cerro
Design Review Comments
July 18,2016 Page 3
The proposed homes are modest in size compared t o the lot sizes, and are similar to other homes in the immediate neigh-
borhood -see a ir photo with structures below.
CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDI NG C IRCL E . SUITE 199 . LA RKSPUR . CA . 94939
15565 Camino Del Cerro
Design Re view Co mments
J uly 18,2016 Page 4
The homes are traditional in their architectural style and should fit comfortably into this neighborhood. I see only two
issues that need to be addressed.
0
FRONT ELEVATION
•
The lack of materials used on the front
elevation Is not consistent with
Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2
LEFT SIDE ELEVATION
1. The shingle s on the Lot 2 house wrap from the
front elevation to the left side elevation and ter-
minate in the same plane as the stucco side wall.
A similar condition occurs on the side elevations
on Lot 3. This is not consistent with Residential
Design Guideline 3.8.4. Termination at the side
yard fence is not adequate unless the front facade
shingles and siding are no higher than the fence
height.
3.8.4 Materials changes
materials in the same plane
Is consistent with Residential
Design Guideline 3.8.4
~Wall ......
' Inside YES Inside
1Applied ~ .,_!!0
Outside materi al Outside
or col or
Change materials Not at
and colors at outside
inside corners corners
• Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look.
Reco mme nd a ti o n : Modi ~' the desi gn to address rhb iss ue-see Iss u e# 2 be low.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LA RKSP U R LANDING C IR CLE . SU ITE 1 99 . LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
15565 Cami no Del Cerro
Design Re view Comments
Ju ly 18,2016 Page 5
2. The rea r el evation o n Lor I and the side and rea r elev atio ns fo r the ho uses on Lo ts 2 and 3 are rel ati vel y plain
stucco whil e the fro nt faca d es are treated with shingles (Lot 2) and board a nd b atte n siding (Lot 3). his is no t con-
sis tent w ith Resid ential D es ign G uid elin e 3.2.2.
3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• Carry wall ma terials, window types and a rchitectural details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rea r
eleva tions tha t are markedly diffirmt .from the .front rkvation .
Rc:commt•JHiation: Modi!)• thl side: and rc:a1 tlc:vatwm to significantly incorporate: materials from tht· front ckvatiom .
Jocelyn , please le t me know if you h ave any sp eci fic ques ti ons o r n ee d any other s p ec ifi c iss ues ad d resse d .
Si n cerel y,
C ANN O N DESIGN G ROU P
C7f~~
La rry L. Cannon
CANNON DES IGN GROUP 700 LA RKSPUR LANDING CI RCLE . SU ITE 1 99. LA RKSPUR . CA . 94939
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank