Item 03 - 15358 Santella Ct, Lot 10 - Staff Report & Exhibits 1-8TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEM NO: 3
PLAl'I"NING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 26, 2015
PREPARED BY:
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
Jocelyn G. Puga, Assistant Planner
JPuga@losgatoscagov
Architecture and Site Application S-15-004
15358 Santella Court, Lot 10 (North side of Santella Court)
Davidon Homes
SteveAbbs
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Requesting approval to construct a new single-family
residence and the removal of large protected trees on property
zoned HR-2Yz:PD. APN 527-09-019.
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DATA:
CEQA:
FINDINGS:
Approval, subject to conditions.
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans & Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Hillside Residential
HR-2Yz:PD
PD Ordinance 2237
Hillside Development
Standards & Guidelines
Hillside Specific Plan
2.63 acres
I Existing Land Use i General Plan
South l Single..~amily R~~d~_!al LBPJ~~!~e Resi~ep_!!_~
Zoning --HR-2Yz:PD 1--·-·---~! ...... .L .. unde~~l~p-~---··············----u~m~-~~~ Re~~~-~!!!!~ HR-2Yz :PD
-·~·--·~OROO_O_O_O·--·· N~!ih jJJndevel<?ped _ __j Hillside Residential HR-2Yl:PD
West . I Undevelop_ed I Hillside Residential HR-2Yz :PD
An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the
Planned Development and was certified by the Town Council
on December 19, 2005. No further environmental analysis is
required for the individual lot development.
• That the project is consistent with the Hillside Development
Standards & Guidelines .
• That the project is consistent with the Hillside Specific Plan.
• That the project is consistent with Planned Development
Ordinance 2237.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 2
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26, 2015
CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting
approval of an Architecture and Site application.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days.
EXHffiiTS: I.
2.
3.
4 .
5.
6 .
7.
8.
9.
10.
BACKGROUND :
Location map
Required Findings and Considerations (one page)
Conditions of Approval (12 pages)
Project data sheet (two pages), received March 2, 2015
Consulting Architect report (three pages), received April 7,
2015
Arborist report: Pre-development plans (21 pages), received
February 13 , 2014
Arborist report: Post-development plans (34 pages), received
April28, 2015
Applicant's Response to the Arborist Report (two pages),
received June 2, 2015
Visibility Analysis (four sheets), received July 29, 2015
Development Plans (13 sheets), received June 29, 2015
The subject property is lot 10 in the Highlands of Los Gatos, a 19-lot Planned Development
(PD), originally approved by the Town Council in 2005. On March 17, 2015 the Town
Council approved Ordinance 223 7, a request to modify the existing PD to allow the use of
color averaging for non-visible homes within the development (see Item #2, Exhibit 2 of
15343 Santella Court). The property is at the north end of Santella Court (see Exhibit 1). The
lot is identified as lot 12 in the original PD Ordinance, but was renumbered to lot 10 when the
Tentative Map was approved by the Development Review Committee on July 11, 2006. The
Architecture and Site application is being considered by the Planning Commission because
PD Ordinance 2237 states that lot 12 (now lot 10) shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission due to visibility concerns.
On September 24, 2008 the Planning Commission approved Architecture and Site application
S-08-049 to construct a new single-family residence on the subject lot. The application was
never vested by the previous developer, Highlands of Los Gatos LLC and the approval
expired pursuant to Section 29 .20.320 of the Town Code.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 3
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26, 2015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surro~di_1.1g_Neighborhood
The project site is located on the north side of Santella Court (Exhibit 1 ). The property i s
surrmmded by residential u s es .
B. Architecture and Site Approval
Architecture and Site approval is required for con struction of a new residence.
C. Zoning Compliance
The total proposed floor area for the residence and garage is within the allowable floor
area for the property and the proposed residence complies with setback and height
requirements of the approved PD. A single-family residence is permitted on this lot by
the approved PD Ordinance.
ANALYSIS:
A . Architecture and Site
The proposed residence appears one story from the street and steps down to two stories
at the rear elevation. The proposed 2 ,857-square foot cellar is exempt and is not
included in the floor area total. The house is well articulated with varying roof forms
and includes a mix of materials to provide interest and break up the massing.
The Town's Architectural Consultant reviewed the plans, visited the site, and
commented that the house is very well designed with a consistent style and scale to the
other homes in the subdivision (sec Exhibit 5). The Architectural Consultant had one
recommendation to integrate the use of stone along the rear elevation for consistency
with the front elevation. The applicant addressed the Architectural Consultant's
recommendation by adding additional stone on the rear central building element. Story
poles were placed on the site prior to the Planning Commission meeting to aid in the
review of the project.
The project is in compliance with the HDS&G, allowable floor area, and architectural
and landscape design. General project data is included in Exhibit 4.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 4
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26, 2015
B. House Size and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed residence would be the largest in terms of square tbotage to the other
approved homes within the Highlands development. Lot sizes within the PD range from
1.09 to 4.18 acres. Approved home sizes are shown in the table below. The proposed
square footage of the single-family residence would be the largest home within the PD.
The house is well designed, is proposed to be set down into the site, and have a low
profile from the street. Visibility of the rear of the home is discussed in the visibility
section below.
House
Size (sq. Garage Total
Lot Address Date Approved ft.) (sq. ft.) Floor Area Current Status
1 15685 Shady Lane 4/29/2014 4457 904 5,361 Under Construction
2 15672 Shady Lane 7/3/2012 4,652 737 5,389 Occupied
3 15644 Shady Lane 12111/2013 5,120 1,172 6);92 Under Construction
4 15657 Shady Lane 7/30/2013 4 ,169 1,120 5,289 Under Construction
5 15615 Shady Lane 12118/2012 4658 740 5,398 Under Construction
6 15315 Santella Comt 7/30/2012 4,534 817 5,351 Occupied
7 15343 Santella Court Pending 4687 712 5,399 Pending approval
8 15371 SanteDa Court Pending 4,578 795 5,373 Pending approval
9 15365 Santella Comt N/A ---N/A
11 15330 Santella Court 1/8/2013 4 ,625 746 5,371 Under Construction
12 15310 Santella Court 2113/2013 4660 1,011 5671 Under Construction
13 15415 Santella Drive Pending ---Development Review
14 15574 Shady Lane 7/10/2012 4,574 784 5,358 Occupied
15 15588 Shady Lane 12118/2012 4,508 802 5 310 Under Construction
16 15602 Shady Lane 8/14/2012 4,331 950 5,281 Occupied
17 15630 Shady Lane 8/20/2013 4,712 686 5398 Pending Permits
18 15685 Gum Tree Lane 7/3/2012 4,590 807 5,397 Occupied
19 15615 Gum Tree Lane 2126/2013 4,602 765 5,367 Under Construction
10 15358 Santella Court !Proposed Plo.Jec• 5,385 859 6,144
C. Visibility
The visibility analysis states that the proposed residence would be 23% visible from the
North West comer of Los Gatos Almaden Road and Selinda Way (see Exhibit 9). The
applicant's methodology for the visibility analysis involved modeling the terrain of the
existing site and the proposed residence. Photographs from the viewing platform were
taken with a 50 MM and 300 MM lens. The photographs and modeling were then
aligned to determine the areas of the proposed residence that would be visible (see
Exhibit 9). Staff is in the process of providing a more detailed methodology for the
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 5
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26,2015
Commission and Council to consider and incorporate into an upcoming amendment to
the HDS&G (see Item #2, Exhibit 10 of 153 43 Santella Court). The applicant's
methodology complies with the current language and would conform to the draft
language being considered.
D. Green Building
The project was reviewed using the Build It Green standards adopted b y Town Council
on June 2, 2008, and it was determined that certifi.cation requirements can be met. A
preliminary checklist completed by the applicant shows that the project will exceed the
minimum number of points (50) needed to achieve certification with a score of 71 .
Condition #9 of Exhibit 3 requires the project to be certified as green prior to issuance o f
building permits. The checklist must be completed by a Certified Green Building
Professional at time of building permit application.
E. Tree Impacts
Prior to preparation of the development plans, the site was reviewed by the Town's
Consulting Arbo rist (Exh ibit 6). Then as p~~ of the 1\rchitecture and Site application,
the development plans were reviewed again by the Town's Consulting Arborist,
Deborah Ellis, and a report was prepared (Exhibit 7). The impacted area of the site (and
adjoining properties) contains 37 trees, 22 Coast Live Oaks, 13 Blue Oaks, one Valley
Oak, and one Barberry Oak. Of the 3 7 existing trees, 1 0 are considered large protected
trees pursuant to Section 29.10.0955 of the Town Code. Of the 10 large protected trees,
three coast live oaks (#709, #712, and #720), which are in poor to fair/poor condition,
are proposed to be removed to accommodate the proposed residence.
A total of eight trees (three large protected and five protected) are proposed to be
removed in order to accommodate the proposed residence, all of which are in good to
fair/poor condition (Exhibit 7). Eighteen additional tr~~s are debatable due to
construction and/or overall condition. The applicant submitted a letter regarding the
debatable trees listed in the report (Exhibit 8). Retaining wall s and grading limits were
revised based on the recommendation of the Consulting Arborist to result in less of a
construction impact on the existing trees. Replacement trees are required to be planted to
m itigate the loss of the trees that are removed. A conceptual landscape plan is provided
(Sheet L.l of Exhibit 1 0) but is only conceptual in nature and additional planting may be
provided and/or required.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26, 2015
F. CEQA Determination
An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the Planned Development and was
certified by the Town Council on December 19, 2005. No further environmental
analysis is required for the individual lot development.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Conclusion
The project is in compliance with the HDS&G, the Hillside Specific Plan, and PD
Ordinance 223 7. The proposed residence is well designed, is an appropriate size for the
lot, and would be compatible with surrounding homes in the Highlands development.
The proposed residence would be less than 25 percent visible from the viewing
platform. The applicant's methodology complies with the current language of the
HDS&G and is supported by staff.
Staff recommends that the application be approved as outlined in the recommendation
section below.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to approve
the Architecture and Site application:
1. Find that no further environmental analysis is required (Exhibit 2);
2. Find that the project is consistent with PD Ordinance 2237 (Exhibit 2);
3. Find that the project is consistent with the HDS&G and Hillside Specific Plan
(Exhibit 2);
4. Find that the project is consistent with the considerations for approval of
Architecture and Site applications; and
5. Approve Architecture and Site application S-15-004 subject to the conditions in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans (Exhibit 1 0).
Alternatively, the Commission may take one of the following actions:
1. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 4 as deemed appropriate; or
2. Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for
desired revisions; or
3. Deny the Architecture and Site application.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 7
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10/S-15-004
August 26,2015
~~?'1?-
Jocelyn G. Puga
Assistant Planner
LRP:JGP:cg
Approved by:
Laurel R. Prevetti
Assistant Town Manager/ Director of
Community Development
cc: Steve Abbs, Davidon Homes, 1600 S. Main Street, Suite 150, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
N :\DEV\PC llliJ>ORTS\20 15\Santellal SJSS.doc
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
15358 Santella Court
0
(!)
5
.;
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION -August 26, 2015
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10
Architecture and Site Application S-15-004
Requesting approval tu construct a single-family residence on property zoned HR-2Yl:PD.
APN 527-09-019.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes
FINDINGS:
Required f"mdings for CEQA:
• An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Planned Development and was
certified by the Town Council on December 19,2005. Required technical reviews (arborist,
architect and geotechnical) have been completed for the project and no further environmental
analysis is required for this application.
Compliance with Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines:
• The project is in compliance with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines
Compliance with Hillside Specific Plan
• The project is in compliance with the Hillside Specific Plan in that it is a single-family
residence being developed on an existing parcel. The proposed development is consistent
w ith the development criteria included in the Specific Plan.
Compliance with the approved Planned Development:
• The project is in compliance with the approved Pl anned Development (Ordinance 2237).
CONSIDERAT I ONS :
Considerations in review of-Architecture and 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 I S\Santella l53S8 .DOC
EXIUBIT 2
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION-August 26, 2015
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15358 Santella Court-Lot 10
Architecture and Site AppHcation S-15-004
Requesting approval to construct a single-family resi dence on. p r operty zoned HR-2 Yz:PD.
APN 527-09-019.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: All performance standards included in Planned
Development Ordinance 2 236 are incorporated herein by this reference as conditions of
approval applicable to this application. This applies to all departments and divisions.
2. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the
conditions of approval listed below and in substantial compliance with the approved
plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, the Development Review Committee, or the Planning
Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
3. EXPL.~TION: The Architecture and Site approval will expire two years from the
approval date (August 26, 2017) pursuant to Section 29.20.320 ofthe Town Code, unless
the approval is vested prior to expiration.
4. 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 pennit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approval of all such pennits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and maybe secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
5. EXTERIOR COLOR: The exterior colors of the house shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value of 30 and shall blend with the natmal vegetation in conformance with the approved
PD Ordinance 2237.
6. DEED RESTRICTION: Prior to the issuance of a building pennit, a deed restriction shall
be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires
all exterior colors to be maintained in conformance with the approved PD Ordinance.
7. OlJIDOOR LIGHTING: House exterior and landscape lighting shall be kept to a
minimum, and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto
adjacent properties. The outdoor lighting plan will be reviewed during building plan
check. Any changes to the lighting plan shall be approved prior to installation.
8. FENCING: No fencing is being approved with this application. Any future fencing shall
comply w ith the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and must be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation.
EXHIBIT 8
Co11ditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 2ofl2
9. GREEN BUILDING: The house shall be designed to achieve compliance with
GreenPoint Rated Standards for green building certification. The GreenPoint checklist
shall be completed by a Certified Green Building Professional and submitted to the Town
prior to issuance of a building permit.
10. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be issued for trees to be
removed. Replacement trees shall be selected based on the Hillside Development
Standards and Guidelines and shall be planted based on the Canopy Replacement Table
in the Tree Protection Ordinance prior to fmal inspection. An in-lieu fee may be paid for
trees that cannot be reasonably accommodated on the project site.
11. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations made by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's
report, dated April 28, 2015, on file in the Community Development Department. A
Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared 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. Throughout construction, a certified
arborist will monitor the development of the site to ensure compliance. Monitoring will
occur on a monthly basis.
12. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
13. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing shall be placed at the drip line of existing trees
prior to issuance of demolition and building permits and shall remain through all phases
of construction. Fencing shall be six foot high cyclone attached to two-inch diameter steel
posts driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no further than 10 feet apart. Refer to
the report prepared by the Town's Consulting Arborist identified in the Arborist's report,
dated April 28, 2015, for details. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the
construction plans.
14. LANDSCAPE PLAN: The final landscape plan shall comply with the Hillside
Development Standards and Guidelines criteria for planting (ornamental planting shall be
confined to areas within 30 feet of the house, inclusive of decks, patios and driveway).
15. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall
meet the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water Efficient
Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. 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.
16. BMP IN-LIEU FEE: A Below Market Price (BMP) in-lieu fee (6% of the building
valuation as determined by the Building Official) shall be paid by the developer prior to
issuance of an occupancy permit for the new residence.
17. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
18. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted
with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page3 o/12
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
Building Division
19. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Building Pemrit shall be required for the construction of the
new single family residence. Separate permits are required for electrical, mechanical,
and plumbing work as necessary. Site Retaining Walls 4 feet high or greater from the
bottom of the footing shall be under separate Permit(s).
20. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue-lined in full
on the cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be
prepared and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions
of Approval will be addressed.
21. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36". (Optional
30" x 42" maximum is acceptable.)
22. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendations, shall be submitted
with the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil
Engineer specializing in soils mechanics.
23. NPDES-C.3 DATA FORM: A copy of the NPDES C.3 Data Form (updated based on the
final construction drawings) must be blue-lined in full on the plans. In the event that this
data differs significantly from any Planning approvals, the Town may require
recertification of the project's storm water treatment facilities prior to the release of the
Building Permit.
24. 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 Smveyor or registered Civil
Engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b . Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation comer locations
d. Retaining Wails
25. 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 with an 18-inch
clearance at interior strike edge.
d. Door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page4 of12
26. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE : All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined, i .e . directly printed onto a plan sheet.
27. 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.
28 . 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.
29. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly .
30. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located in a Wildland-Urban
Interface Fire Area and must comply with Section R327 Materials and Construction
Methods for Exterior Wildfire Exposure of the 2013 California Residential Code.
31. PROVIDE DEFENSIBLE SPACE/FIRE BREAK LANDSCAPING PLAN : Prepared by
a California licensed Architect or Landscape Architect in conformance with California
Public Resources Code 4291 and California Government Code Section 51182.
32. PRIOR TO FINAL INSPECTION: Provide a letter from a California licensed Architect
or Landscape Architect certifying the landscaping and vegetation clearance requirements
have been completed per the California Public Resources Code 4291 and Govenunent
Code Section 51182.
33. 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
34. 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
Divi sion Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at
www .l o sgatosca. gov /building.
35. REQUIREMENTS FOR COPPER ROOFS & COPPER ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES: Avoid or limit the use of Copper Roofs or Copper Architectural Features
and Elements. When u sed implement the following BMPs, Best Management Practices,
as required by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program, in
order to prevent prohibited discharges to storm drains:
a. If possible, purchase copper materials that have been pre-patinated at the factory.
b . If patination is done on-site discharge the rinse water to landscaping or dry well to
ensure that the rinse water does not flow to the street or storm drain. Block off the
storm drain inlet if necessary.
c. Consider coating the copper materials with an impervious coating that prev ents
further corrosion and runoff.
d. Implement the same BMPs during routine maintenance such as power washing, re-
patination, or reapplication of impervious coating.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page5 o/12
e. At copper gutters and downspouts, create a percolation area at the downspout outlet
for the roof runoff to soak into the ground rather than flowing to a storm drain or
water course.
Please note that if you are responsible for a discharge to the storm drain of runoff from
copper Architectural features, you will be in violation of the municipal storm water
ordinance and may be subject to a fine.
36. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development-Planning Division: Jocelyn Puga at (408) 354-6875
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: Michael Weisz at (408) 395-5236
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.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
37. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Drawings and the Town Standard Specifications. 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.
38. 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 development plans. Any changes or modifications to the approved plans or
conditions of approvals shall be approved by the Town Engineer.
39. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Pennit. 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), SBC, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water
District, California Department of Transportation. Copies of any approvals or permits
must be submitted to the Town Engineering Department prior to releasing any permit.
40. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The developer or his 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.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 6 ofl2
41. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The developer shall repair or replace
all existing improvements not designated for removal that are damaged or removed
because of the developer's operations. Improvements such as, but not limited to: curbs,
gutters, sidewalks, driveways, signs, pavements, raised pavement markers, thermoplastic
pavement markings, etc. shall be repaired and replaced to a condition equal to or better
than the original condition. 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. Developer shall request a walk-through with the
Engineering Construction Inspector before the start of construction to verify existing
conditions.
42 . SITE SUPERVISION : The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction
43. 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
44. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance
of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
45 . GRADING PERMIT: Grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work
except for exemptions listed in Section 12 .20.015 of the Town Grading Ordinance. The
grading permit application (with grading plans) shall be made to the Engineering
Division of the Parks & 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.
46. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the recordation of a subdivision map (except
maps for financing and conveyance purposes only) or prior to the issuance of any
grading/improvement permits, whichever comes first, the applicant shall: a) Design
provisions for surface drainage; and b) Design all necessary storm drain facilities
extending to a satisfactory point of disposal for the proper control and disposal of storm
runoff; and c) Provide recorded copy of any required easements to the Town.
47. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior
to issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
48. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by
a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for
the following items:
a. Retaining wall-top of wall elevations and location.
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
49. PAD CERTIFICATION : A letter from a licensed land surveyor shall be provided stating
that the building foundation was constructed in accordance with the approved plans shall
be provided subsequent to foundation construction and prior to construction on the
structure. The pad certification shall address both vertical and horizontal foundation
placement.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 7 ofl2
50. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING : Prior to issuance of any permit or the
commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall:
a. Aiong with the project applicant, attend a pre-construction meeting with the Town
Engineer to discuss the project conditions of approval, working hours, site
maintenance and other construction matters;
b. Acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the project conditions of
approval, and will make certain that all project sub-contractors have read and
understand them prior to commencing work and that a copy of the project conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
51. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, may be required for site retaining walls. Wails are not reviewed or approved
by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan
review process.
52 . SOILS REVIEW: The applicant's soils engineer shall review the final grading and
drainage plans to ensure that designs for foundations, retaining walls, site grading, and
site drainage are in accordance with the recommendations presented in the Draft
Geotechnical Exploration, Lot 10 TI1e Highlands of Los Gatos prepared by ENG EO, Inc.
dated January 8, 2015 as well as the peer review recommendations presented in the
February 17, 2015 letter for Lot 10 by AMEC Foster Wheeler. The applicant's soils
engineer's approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the
plans.
53. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all
excavations and grading shall be inspected by the applicant's soils engineer prior to
placement of concrete and/or backfill so they can verify that the actual conditions are as
anticipated in the design-level geotechnical report, and recommend appropriate changes
in the recommendations contained in the report, if necessary. The results of the
construction observation and testing should be documented in an "as-built" letter/report
prepared by the applicants' soils engineer and submitted to the Town before final release
of any occupancy permit is granted.
54. 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.
55. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient
distance to allow excavation of the utility without undermining the house foundation. The
Town Engineer shall determine the appropriate setback based on the depth of the utility,
input from the project soils engineer, and the type of foundation.
56. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed
subject to the following requirements:
a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used.
b. A Town approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page8ofl2
c. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of 3-inches or shall match the existing
thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall be 1.5-inches of half inch medium
asphalt. The initiallift(s) shall be of three quarter inch medium asphalt.
d . The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place.
e. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending his
assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend
the full width of the street and shall extend 5-feet beyond the longitudinal limits of
trenching. Slurry seal materials shall be approved by the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector prior to placement. Black sand may be required in the slurry
mix. All existing striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion
of slurry seal operations.
57. CURB AND GUTIER: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town
standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction of this project. New
curb and gutter shall be constructed per Town Standard Details. The limits of curb and
gutter repair will be determined by the Engineering Construction Inspector during the
construction phase of the project.
58. 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 traffic impact mitigation fee for this
project using the current fee schedule is $8,130.08 (SFR). The final fee shall be
calculated from the final plans using the rate schedule in effect at the time the building
permit is issued, using a trip generation rate based on the auto dealer use.
59. 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.
60. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a .m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p .m . and 6:00
p .m .). 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 is not limited to provisions for the developer/owner
to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of construction and
hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with other
significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil, sand,
and other loose debris.
61. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00p.m., weekdays and
9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
eighty-five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located
within a structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to
twenty-five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of
the property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 9 of 12
62. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimmn the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic
Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction
staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations.
63 . WVSD (West Valley Sanitation District): Sanitary sewer laterals are televised by West
Valley Sanitation District and approved by the Town of Los Gatos before they are used
or reused. Sanitary Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line or
location specify by the Town.
64. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which
have flood level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the
next upstream manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system
serving such drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an
approved type backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through
the backwater valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not
incur any liability or responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the
property owner or other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the
Uniform Plumbing Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional
operation condition. Evidence of West Sanitation District's decision on whether a
backwater device is needed shall be provided prior to issuance of a building permit.
65. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT: Construction activities including but not limited to
clearing, stockpiling, grading or excavation of land, which disturbs 1 acre or more which
are part of a larger common plan of development which disturbs less than 1 acre are
required to obtain coverage under the construction general permit with the State Water
Resources Control Board. You are required to provide proof of WDID# and keep a
current copy of the storm water pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) on the construction
site and shall be made available to the Town of Los Gatos Engineering and/or Building
Department upon request.
66. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMP's): The applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures
are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed
for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during
construction activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to
comply with the construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices,
citations, or stop work orders.
67. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate the following measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b . Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use penneable pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimmn.
e. Use landscaping to treat stonnwater.
68 . EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and
submitted to the Engineering Department of the Parks & Public Works Department. A
Notice of Intent (NOI) and Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) shall be
submitted to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board for projects
disturbing more than one acre. A maximum of two weeks is allowed between clearing of
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 10ofl2
an area and stabilizing/building on an area if grading is allowed during the rainy season.
Interim erosion control measures, to be carried out during construction and before
installation of the final landscaping shall be included. Interim erosion control method
shall include, but are not limited to: silt fences , fiber rolls (with locations and details),
erosion control blankets, Town standard seeding specification, filter berms, check dams,
retention basins, etc. Provide erosion control measures as needed to protect downstream
water quality during winter months. The grading, drainage, erosion control plans and
SWPPP shall be in compliance with applicable measures contained in the amended
provisions C.3 and C .l4 of most current Santa Clara County NPDES MRP Permit.
Monitoring for erosion and sediment control is required and shall be performed by the
QSD or QSP as required by the Construction General Permit. Stormwater samples are
required for all discharge locations and projects may not exceed limits set forth by the
Construction General Permit Numeric Action Levels and/or Numeric Effiuent Levels. A
Rain Ev~nt Action Plan is required when there is a 50% or greater forecast of rain within
the 48 hours, by the National Weather Service or whenever rain is imminent. The QSD or
QSP must print and save records of the precipitation forecast for the project location area
from (http://www.srh.noaa.gov/forecast) and must accompany monitoring reports and
sampling test data. A Rain gauge is required on site. The Town of Los Gatos Engineering
and Building Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout
the recognized storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit
and Stormwater ordinances and regulations.
69. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so
that paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of
grading, and by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks
shall be present and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to
blowing dust shall be watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum
of three 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 streets
soiled or littered due to this construction activity shall be cleaned and swept on a daily
basis during the workweek to the satisfaction of the Town. Demolition or earthwork
activities shall be halted when wind speeds (instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 MPH . All
trucks hauling soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
70. CONSTRUCTION ACTNITIES: All construction shall conform to the latest
requirements of the CASQA Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks for
Construction Activities and New Development and Redevelopment, the ABAG Manual
of Standards for Erosion & Sediment Control Measures, 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.
71. 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 ~
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 11 o/12
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 10' minimum from adjacent property line and/or
right ofway.
72. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of contractor
and home owner to make sure that all dirt tracked into the public right-of-way is cleaned
up on a daily basis. Mud, silt, concrete and other construction debris SHALL NOT be
washed into the Town's storm drains.
73. 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 COUNlY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
74. WILDLAND-URBAN INTERFACE: This project is located within the designated
Wildland Urban Interface Area. The building construction shall comply with the
provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7 A. Note that vegetation
clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final
approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements.
75. 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 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. Note: Covered porches, patios,
balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. For buildings in excess of
6200 square feet, the ( 4) four most hydrauiically demanding heads in a room or
compartment shall be calculated Fire Department Connection. For buildings in excess of
6200 square feet, a Fire Department (FDC) shall be provided. The FDC shall consist of at
least one 2.5" hose connection that is connected to the sprinkler riser with a pipe not less
than the diameter of the sprinkler rise. 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 .
Conditions of Approval
15358 Santella Court
Page 12ofl2
76. 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 if 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.
77 . CONSTRUCTION FIRE SAFETY: All construction sites must comply with applicable
provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7.
Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the
project. CFC Chp. 33 .
78. 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 (101.6 mm) high with a
minimum stroke width of0.5 inch (12.7 nun). 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
of means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1.
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2053\Santellal5358.doc
15358 Santella Court -PROJECT DATA
EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/
CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITTED
Zoning district HR·Z~ same -
Land use Single family home same -
General Plan Designation Hillside residential same -
lot size (sq. ft.)
• gross lot area 114,871 40,000 sq. ft. minimum
• net rot area 45,948 same -
• acres 1.05 same .92 acres minimum
Exterior materials:
• siding . Hardie board -
• trim -Wood/stone/brick -
-Vinyl clad • windows -
• roofing -Concrete tile -
Building floor area:
• first floor -4,504 6,000 sq. ft . maximum
• second ftoor -881
• cellar . 2,857 exempt
• garage -859 400 sq. ft. exemption
• total (excluding cellar) -6,244 6,400 sq. ft. maximum
Setbacks (ft.):
-35.14 • front 30 feet minimum
-199.77 • rear 25 feet minimum
-76.76 • side 20 feet minimum
EXH1BIT '4
-20.46 • side 20 feet minimum
Average slope (%) -30.75
~
-24'10" Maximum height (ft .) 2 5 feet maximum
Building coverage (%) -17.5 no maximum
Impervious coverage (%) -21.2 no maximum
Parking
• garage spaces -3
• uncovered spaces -5
Sewer or septic -sewer -
N:\DEWOCEL YN\ProjectDataSheetsiSanteUal S3S8.docx
April 7, 2015
Ms. Jocelyn Puga
Community J.>evelopment Department
Town of los Gatos
110 E . Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: Higblanda: Lot 10
Dear Jocelyn:
ARCHITECTURE PlANNING URBAN DESIGN
I reviewed the drawings, and previously visited the site prior to the start of home construction. My comments and
recommendationa follow below.
Neighborhood Context
Lot 10 is located at the end of a cul-de-sac containing several homes previously reviewed and approved by the Town.
The aerial photo below shows the site location. Previously reviewed structures are shown with gray plan footprints or
yellow dots, The general topography of the site is shown in the photo on the following page.
700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
RECEIVED
APR -.7 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DMSION
EXHIBITS
TE L: 415.331.3795
CDGPLAN@PACBELL.NET
Highlands: Lot 10
Design Review Comments
April 7, 2015 P3ge 2
Concerns and Recommendations
The design of this home is very well done, and consistent with the style and scale of other homes already approved in
the subdivision.
Rear Elevation
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
Highlands: Lot 10
Design Review Corruneots
April 7, 2015 Page 3
Left Side Elevation
Right Side Elevation
I have only one recommendation. Vv'hile the 1110ne utilized on the front elevation is used elsewhere around the house,
the clarity of the front elevation is not reflected on the rear elevation. The front elevation reads as a stone central
building with wood side wings. That expression is not carried around to the rear elevatiOn. My recommendation
would be to consider adding stone to the rear walls of the central building form as noted on the illustration below.
I have no other concerns or recommendations for changes.
Jocelyn, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there art specific issues of concern that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
c?f~~
Larry L. Cannon
CANNON DESIGN CROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE SUITE 199. LARKSPUR . CA. 94939
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLEASE NOTE
Exhibit 7 for Item 3
(15358 Santella Court – Lot 8)
Exhibit 7 is the Arborist Report and was
mislabeled with the wrong address at the bottom
of the page.
We have verified this is the correct report for
15358 Santella Court – Lot 8.
PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT
Highlands Lot 1 0
Los Gatos, Californ ia
Prepared for.
Suzanne ,\,vita
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horlfcutturist
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-04578, lntemational Society of Arboriculture
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science
FEBRUARY 13,2014
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Smlice sittu 19lf4
RECENED
FEB 1 g 2015
~Deborah Ems, 20g. This report may be reproduced in whole or in part by only the client and the clienrs authorized representatives and only for use with ~eLOS GATOS
subject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduction. T~~~NG DiVISION
PO Box 3714, Scratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
--------------------------------~------------------------~--------~----------------------------~
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Table of Contents
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Description of Existing Trees: ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
Table 2 Trees with "Good" or "Fair/Good" Preservation Suitabifity ............................................................................................................................... 4
Table 3 Trees with "Fair" Preservation Suitability ................................................................................................................................................................ 4
Table 4 Trees with "Poor" or "Fair" Preservation Suitability ............................................................................................................................................... 5
RECOMMENDAnONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 7
Table 5 Complete Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ 7
Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ....................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Supporting Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Purpose & Use of Report .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Observations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 13
Tree Protection Distances ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
3 to 5 x DBH ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Tree Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
Assumptions & Limitations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 17
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
Cover photo: the front of Lot 10 from Santella Court. Coast live oaks #686, 219 aa~d 220 are visible and labeled . All photos in this
report were taken by D. Ellis on February 10, 2014.
PO Box 3714, Sarotoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1 357. decah@pacbell .net . http://www.decah.com.
TREE MAP
713
-t, .
', \ ,_ ~ ------
~
-o~;q -e Fair/Good or
Good * Fair
-707
...................... , ____ ...... , ;:; -
A Fair/Poor or Poor ', ......
689 •
Deborah Ellis, MS
Co nsulting Arbor lst & Horticult urist
703 • 704.1! I.
702 -701
·it
fit , ,-.................
•8 I
705 ~~ 698 / 695
706 *" 697 .. ,/ ~~
"i .... 'll / ....
' I
, , ,
"~I .w.;J
/ 694
Service since 1984
Page 1 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TREES:
There are 35 protected trees 1 within the LDRA on Lot 10. These trees are described briefly the Summary Tree Table (Table 1 l on page 3
and in greater detail in the Complete Tree Table (Tgble 5} beginning on page 7. No tree disposition recommendations are provided in
this report because construction plans have not yet been developed, and so this is a Preliminary Arborist Report. The tree Preservation
Suitability ratings and Tree Root Protection Distances will be helpful to the project architects however, in deciding which trees to retain
and how far improvements should be located from these trees, during the design process. Trees are coded as to their preservation
suitability on the Tree Map on the previous page, and also in the Summarv Table. In addition, trees in the various preservation suitability
ratings have been grouped into separate tables for quick reference, as listed below:
• Seven trees are classified as having "Good" or "Fair/Good" preservation suitability. These are the better trees on the site, and those
that are most worthy of retaining or transplanting. They are listed in Table 2 on page 4.
• Nineteen trees are classified as having "Fair" preservation sulablllty. These are "so-so" trees and I do not recommend going
through too much trouble to retain them. They are listed in Table 3 on page 4.
• Nine trees are classified as having "Poor" or Fair/Poor" preservation suitability. I would not put any effort into retaining any of these
trees , which are listed in Table 4 on page 5. Further evaluation of specific defects is recommended for several of these trees, if they
may be retained .
As the construction plans for the project are developed I will review these plans and produce additional reports describing the
expected impact of construction on those trees that will remain . I can work with the architects to help reduce construction impacts to
trees where possible. I will eventually prepare a Final Arborist Report listing trees to remain, trees to be removed and tree protection
specifications for those trees that will remain.
1 For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos as defined in the Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tree Protection. Section 29 .10.0960. 12/3/2010 the
Scooe of Protected Trees Is any tree with a 4-lnch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision
val is r ulred. Town street trees of an size are ected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exem
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 2 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
My qenerqllmpresslon of the frees on this site Is:
Similar t<> adjacent lot #9, the majority (80%) of the trees on Lot #10 have "Fair", 11 Fair/Poor" or "Poor" preservation suitability. The
remaining 20% of the trees have .. Fair/Good" or "Good" preservation suitability. Uke Lot #9 there has also been a good deal of
disturbance on Lot 10, such as a dirt road running t hrough the lot, and heavy equipment traveling through or being parked by many of
the trees. This distu rbance (both recent and long ago} has probably affected the condition of the t rees -along w ith a third year of
drought for this area.
The key frees for this site gre:
The 7 trees with "Fair/Good" or "Good" preservation suitability listed in Tgb!e 2 on page 4. These are 6 blue oaks and one coast live oak
with trunk diameters ranging from 8 to 23 inches.
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
lrrae Common !Trunk Diam. Preservation !Tree Common !Trunk Dlam. Preservation ., Name @3ft. Suitabllty ., Name @3ft. SultabiHty (ln.) (ln.)
lrree Common !Trunk Dlam. Preservation ., Name @3ft. SultabiUty (ln.)
686 coast live oak 12,13,14 Fair 698 coast live oak 27 Fair 710 coast live oak ~2 Poor ·--687 !coast live oak 8,12,13 Fa ir/Good 699 lblue oak ~ Poor 711 blue oak 15 Fair
688 blue oak 19 Fair 700 blue oak 12 Fair/Poor j 712 1coast live oak j35 !Fair/Poor
689 coast live oak 18 Fair 701 coast live oak 19 Fa ir 713 barberry oak 6,4 Fair
690 !blu e oak 15 Fair/Good 702 blue oak 16 Fair 714 blue oak 14 Fair/Poor
691 !coast live oak 24 Fair/Poor 703 lbl ue oak 14 !Good
I
I
692 coast live oak 19 Fair J704 ~alley oak Ia Fair
!693 jblue oak 116
-
1715 Jcoast live oak j2 5 !Fair
716 coast live oak 8 Fair __ :]
Fair 705 lblueoak 18 Fair/Good
!694 jblue oak ~2 Good ·706 blue oak 12,10 Fair
695 blue oak j13 Fair 707 coast live oak 18,10 Fair
696 !blue oak 120 Fair/Good 708 jblueoak 123 Good
717 coast live oak 13 Fair l
718 coast live oak 13,15 Fair -·-··j 719 coast live oak 15 Fair
720 coast live oak 124 Poor l I
697 blue oak 18,19 Fa ir/Poor 709 Jcoast live oak 12 7 Poor
35 Tr ees
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@paet.ll.net. http:/ /www.decan.co m. :
Preliminar·t Arborist R'!port for Highlands Lot 10 . February 13, 2014. Page 3 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Seroice since 1984
TABLE 2 TREES WITH "GOOD" OR "FAIR/GOOD" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY
'
T~ ' ~runk Diam~ i
Common : @3ft. t
Preservatlori
#: Name : Suitability ! ' (in.) l
i i :
687 ~astliveoak 8,12,13 Fair/Good
690 blue oak 15 Fair/Good
694 blue oak 22 Good
696 ~ueoak 20 Fair/Good
703 blue oak 14 Good
705 blue oak 18 Fair/Good
708 ~lue oak 23 Good 7 Trees
TABLE 3 TREES WITH "FAIR" PRESERVATION SUITAB ILI TY
Tree. Common Trunk jTree Common : Trunk
. Dlam. @3 ft. piam. @3ft. # Name (in.) #· Name (ln.) .
686 coast live oak 12,13,14 706 1blue oak 12,10 I
!
688 1blue oak 19 707 coast live oak 18,10 I
689 Fc>ast Hve oak 18 711 plue oak 15
692 Fc»ast live oak 19 713 ~arberry oak ~.4
693 blue oak 16 I 715 ~coast live oak 25
695 blue oak 13 716 coast live oak 8
698 Foast live oak 27 717 :COast live oak 13 !
701 coast live oak 19 718 coast live oak 13,15
702 blue oak 16 719 1'coast live oak 15 · 19 Trees
704 ~lleyoak 8
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 4 of 19
De bo rah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TABLE 4 TREES WITH .. POOR" OR '''FAIR" PRE SERVATION SUITAB ILI TY
Tree Common · TrunkDiam. F'reservatlori ~ @3ft. #· Name ' (ln.) Suitability
.
691 coast live oa_k 124 Fair/Poor
697 blue oak 118,19 !Fair/Poor ·-
r69s · ~lue oak l8 ~:;Poor ··-r ~~~-blue ~ak -112 --
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Which trees to retain? Try to design arouncl and retain as many of trees a s possible with "Good" and "Fair/Good" preservation
suitability ratings. Trees with "Fair" preservation suitability should be saved when possible, but I don't recommend malcing a signlftcant
effort to save them. No effort should be made to retain trees with "Fair/Poor" or "Poor" preservation suitability. Trees recommended
for further evaluation by the arborist should be evaluated in greater detail if they may remain. If no further evaluation will be
performed on these trees then it is probably best to remove these them for reasons of safety.
2. Please replace the tree tag numbers shown on the Topographic Map and/or Tree ExhlbH Plan with the new tree numbers used In this
report. Thanks to HMH however, because having these old numbers on the plan did help us to locate the trees in the field. We are
trying to k:eep the numbers somewhat in sync with the other lots, end since we cannot depend upon old tree tags always being on
the trees we use our own number tags. We removed the old number tags from the trees when possible.
[ PO Box 3714, Sclratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dcc:ah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com .
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 5 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
3. The deciduous trees (blue oaks and valley oaks) should be re-evaluated by the arborlst again after full leaf-out, around mid-June.
Several of these trees had some obvious dead branches but it is difficult to accurately assess the percentage of dead branches and
overall fofiage quantity and quality; thus the true condition of these trees while they are leafless during the winter.
4. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any addHional over-excavation or work area beyond the
Improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be
used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then SxDBH or greater should be used. and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
a lso be taken into consideration when designing around trees . Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
5. Please submit the proposed site plan and other construction plans to me for review of construction Impacts to trees, when these plans
are available.
6. The Los Gatos Tree Protection Directions will be included in the Final Arborist Report for this project.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10 . February 13 , 2014. Page 6 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
APPENDIX
TABLE 5 COMPLETE TREE TA BL E
This Table is continued through page 9. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 9 to 11. : ,;
i CONDITION
, Species trrunlt
rrree: . & ' ~.,iam. @II iSize11 • ,.reservatio"
' # ; ; c:' . ;-,..) 1 • : 1 ~ Suitability ,
Service since 1984
; TREEROOT !
! PROTECTION]
; DISTANCES i
: : 1~, 'i ' J ~
~--~~ ~~ • ~ . --·,--~--+--~1---i
686 Quercusagrifol/a ,l12,13,14 l40x25 75 160 Fair ~psproutwithbasaUyjoinedtru";,ks. 6 111 19
~ast live oak l I
687 ~oastliveoak la,12,13l4QX40l 75l7o Fair/Good I --------------------6 9 11
6aa ~:':Ciouglasll,l19--·r~6()leo Fair 1 -----------------15 a 19 : =~~-=-Fs~=~ ~~ : ~:~/Good I ---~-------~==--==--f :---~-. fi-
691 coast live oak 124 j38x45 80 40 Fair.'PO'Or Deep trunk cavity wtth interior wood rat's nest(so cavity Is-probably large) ... T·-s ·l·1o-· "18-·
!Evaluate further if may retain tree.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decoh.com.
Pr~liminar'l Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 7 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Smri~ since 1984
Species
&
Common
Name
I 700 !blue oak
701 coast live oak
702 jblue oak
703 !blue oak
704 Quercus lobata,
vaney oak
7.05 blue oak
706 blue oak
I 707 !coast live oak
708 !blue oak
709 coast live oak
710 coast Hve oak
711 blueoak
1712 Ft Dve oak
713 Quercus
berberidlfolia,
barberry oak
714 blue oak
715 coastlve oat<
716 coast five oak
717 coast live oak
_718 coast live oak
'
•
1
· ! jcONDITIOH
I I ~runk 1 ! '
1 Diam. @31 I!Sizei I!! Preservafiol ~-! . ; ~ :II · Suitability~!
i ~ln.) il. 1,~ i ;r g ! I
; ' i ~ I~ ~ ! I r ~
12
19
16
14
18
12,10
18,10
23
27
22
15
6.4
14
25
8
13
13,15
140X18 60 40 Fa ir/Poor
I40X25 60 60 Fair
140X30 60 60 Fair
14Bx35 85 70 ~
I20X18 60 50 Fair
38x25 70 60 Fair/Good
30X22 60 50 Fair
I20X28 70 60 Fair
jl45x50 80 70 ~
IJ5x35 50 20 Poor
IJOX25 50 20 Poor
I40X30 70 60 Fair
!40x35 60 40 Fair/Poor
18x22 60 60 Fair
I40X25 50 40 Fair/Poor
f45x35 60 50 Fair
I20x9 60 70 Fair
l45x20 60 50 Fair
f40X30 60 60 Fair
Notes
leans and sweeps significantly; very grove affected .
Large trunk cavitY with 2 openings. Several large decayed areas in large
branches.
Wounds and internal cavity in trunk, canopy very sparse.
Two fused trunks of about 19 and 16 inches each . One trunk has wound
and decay -eval uate further if may retain this tree.
Very shaded by overstory trees.
Smal opening in trunk should be evaluated further if tree may be retained.
Very shaded by larger overstory trees.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014.
TREEROOT i
: PROTECTION
; DISTANCE~ i
3 5 12
5 8 14 I
4 6 16
3 6 14 .
2 3 6
4 7 18
4 7 17
6 9 17
6 9 28
7 11 20
5 9 16
4 6 15 I I
2
3 6 14
6 10 18
2 3 4 '
3 5 6
5 9 11
Page 8 of 19
Deborah Ellis , MS
ConsuiUng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Silroia since 1984
I
I . TREE ROOT ; I I ~ONDITIOM : PROTECTION I : Species .lrrunk I
DISTANCES '
rr~ I & :l)iam.@31 !size! ' Jlreservati~ Notes I
i #:: e C.ommon ~ e-,.., : Suitability I ' . i .. il ::1: :X: ~ ; I Name : l 0 ' CD al
CD Q ~ I ; I , I > j ~ i I
'r I :
! I
f .. '_. I I C r h ~Ox20 so-1 Fai r 'PeaC:t branc'he~ to~4 1ncl;S In diameter. _ ..
719 coast Uva oak 15 60 4 6 7
1720 coast live oak --··-· ~4 j35x25 70 30 Poor ncluded bark with internal trunk crack (unstable condition). [sl1-~] 1s
EXPLANATION OF TRE E TAB LE DATA C OL UMNS:
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 plans where existing
trees must be shown and referenced.
2) Tree Name and Type:
Species: The G.enus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Qliercus agrifotia where Quercus is the Genus
and ogrifolia Is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used In this report are from the most current
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Pub lishing Corporation. The scientlflc name Is presented at its first oco:urrence In the Treg
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used .
3} Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the around). This is the trunk d iameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, .in l ieu of P.JHl· For
multi-trunk trees, -:runk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks.
4) Size : tree size is listed as height x width In feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare -like
a supermodelln human terms). A 60 Is "ave rage" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition -vigor and structure,
J DBH is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the forestry and arboricultural standard measurement
hei ht that is also used in man tree-related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 9 of 19
I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to
remove a tree from a site --even if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component:
• 100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good {B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 Is Dead.
Relative to the scope of work for this report tree condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of tree
condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific recommendations
for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition .
The condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of the site to provide an opinion on the tree's
Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. uls this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 6 below and on the next page. This is
based upon the scenario that the tree is given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Ratings such as
"Fair/GoodH and .. Fair/Poor" are intermediate In nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for
example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly Improved with just a small amount of work-and it would be worthwhile to
keep the tree if this were done.
Table 6 Preservation Suitabi!Jn' Ratil'lg Ex:l)lanation ~ontinued on the next pagel
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple
Excellent functional and aesthetic benefits to the environment and the users of the site. These are great
trees with a mininum 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
Good with treatment They are not perfect but they are In relatively good condition and provide at least
one significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These
are better than average trees eQuivalent to academic grade ·a·.
These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not be
possible to improve with treatment These are ·average• trees -not great but not so terrible that
they absolutely should be removed . The majority of trees on most sites tend to faR into this
Fair category. These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also
have shorter life spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate
suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site changes. Eqtjyalent to
academic_grade 'C'.
These trees have significant structural defects or poor health that cannot be reasonably improved
with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree
Poor species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be
unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for
preservation in areas where people or property will be present EQuivalent to academic arade 'D'.
PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725·1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014 . Page 10 of 19
J
Deborah Ellis, MS
ConsuHing Arborlst & Horticulturist
a le 6 Preservation SuHabil Servia .sina 1984
None
14. 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. When reasonable, methods of reducing construction
rmpac:t (including design changes) are presented here.
15. Tree Protection Distances {See pages 13 and 14).
a. Root Protection:
• 3 and SxDBH ~ Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the largest trunk Is added
to SO% of the DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculations.
• OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development, Matheny et al., International Society of
Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may
not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arbo rlst may
omit this requirement and list only the 3 and SxDBH distances.
b. Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The Quroose of the
report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on site --their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience
for this report is the property owner, developE~r. project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with
tree preservation and tree removal. The 9QQl of thls report Is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable
condition. are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dec<lh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.corn.
Preliminar-y Arborist R~port for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 11 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
METHODOLOG Y
1 performed a basic evaluation of the subject trees on February 10,2014. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage
color and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures
were taken from:
• Guide for Plant Aooraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
• Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA). 1992.
The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations.
I measured the trunk diameter of each tree with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground, which is the required trunk diameter
measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunk diameter was extrapolated to DBH (diameter at breast height, 4.5 feet above the
ground) because DBH is also used calculate tree protection distances and other tree-related factors. The DBH figure is not included in
the Tree Tables, but I have used it to estimate construction impacts to trees . Trunk diameter was rounded to the nearest inch. I
estimated the tree's height and canopy spread. Tree Condition (structure and vigor) was evaluated and I also recorded additional
notes for trees when significant. Tree species and condition considered in combination with the current or (if applicable) proposed use
of the site yields the Tree Preservation Suitability rating. The more significant trees (or groups of trees) were photographed with a digital
camera. Some of these photos are included in this report, but all photos are available from me by email if requested.
There were no construction plans available at the time that this report was prepared. My evaluation and recommendations therefore,
are based upon the site "as is", but understanding that it will someday be developed. I could not therefore, provide an Expected
Impact of Construction rating.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 12 of 19
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITIO NS
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consunlng Arborlst & Horticulturist
S ervics: since 1984
The only improvements on the lot ore an old dirt road, a new drainage ditch and outlet and a fire hydrant next to the curb at Sar.tella
Court. Site topography Is mostly flat and gently sloping. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to partly shaded, depending upon
proximity to other trees. Vegetation is native to the immediate area and of natural growth (it was not planted). There ore three four
species within the LDRA; these are blue oaks (a deciduous native oak species) with a lesser number of coast live oaks (evergreen) and
valley oaks, which are also deciduous. There is also one barberry oak. a small shrubby oak species.
TREE PROTECTION DISTANCE S
3T05X DBH
No one can estimat~ and predict with absolut~ urtainty how far a soil disturbanu such as an excavation must be from th~ ~ge of the trunk of an
individual tree to affe:t tree stability or health at a low , rnoderate or severe degree --th~re are simply too many variab le involved that we cannot see or
anticipate. 3x[)BH ho\vever, is a reasonable ·rule of thumb• minimum distanu {in feet) any excavation should~ from the edge of the trunk on one sit:le of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate re5eGI'ch studies including (Smiley, Fr~drich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
08His trunk •diameter at breast height" (4.!J f~t ·above ·rhe ground). This distance is often used during the design and plClrlning phflSes of a construction
project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper,
which is the area in which the large bu'f1ress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter 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 lB·inch DBH tree. Such distance.s are
guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, signif icant leans, decay, structural problems, etc. It is also important to understand
that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3x[)BH may be more of an aid in
preserving tree stability and not neussarily long·term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the ·p~ferred" minimum distance which should be: strived for,
and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond the zone of
rapid taper form an extensive network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as transport
twtsbecause they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5x[)BH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will preserve
more of these transport roots, which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72!;-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 13 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTEC7JION 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. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction dist urbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age , DBH and the
particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction
(for example , root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry.
The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & peveloement, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection
zone calculation method in this text was used to obtain the OTPZ's provided in this report. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many building sites it
is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees --therefore I have also listed alternate distances of 3 and 5X
DBH (see paragraph above).
TREE PHOTOS
Blue oak #690 in the
foreground , with coast live
oaks #691 and 692 in the
background . Preservation
suitability for these trees is
•Fair/Good" for #690, RFair/Poor"
for #691 and •Fair" for #692.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 14 of 19
Upper left: blae oaks #694-696, with the Santa Clara Valley
behind in the background . These trees are near the edge of the LDRA .
Lower right: blae oak #708, one of the best trees on the site with
MGoodn preservation suitability.
Debor ah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
S ervia since 1984
PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-725-1357 . dccah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.co~=
Preliminary Arborist R.tport fo r Highlands Lot 10 . February 13 , 2014. Page 15 of 19
Oeboral1 Ellis, MS
Con :s u!t lng A rbori st & Horticultu r ist
Coast live oaks
#7181 719 aad 720
along Santella Court.
Unfortunately, a backhoe
is parked underneath the
' unfenced trees in this
area. Trees #718 and
719 have ·FairH
preservation suitability,
but #720 is •poor"
because it has a
significant internal trunk
crack.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 16 of 19
Deb o r a h Ellis, MS
ConsuiUng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servir~ since 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1) Tree locations were provided by HMH Engineers and are shown on the Tree Map on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a reduced
partial copy of the Lot 10 Topographic Map that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the
field.
2) The Information contained In this report covers only those lems that were examined and reflects the condition of those !tems at the
time of inspection.
3) Loss Oil' removal Cot any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
4) Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not Imply right of pubHcatlon for use for any purpose by any person other-than to
whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand.
5) This report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified
value or upon any finding or recommendation reported.
6} 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 and the American Society of Cor'!sulting
Arborists.
7) My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is nmtted to visual examination of accessible Hems without dissection,
excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied. that problems or deficiencies of the plants or
property in question may not arise in the future.
8) I take no responslbDity for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been cnmbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root collar excavatk:>ns and evaluations
have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
9) The measures noted wtthin this report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should
some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that
any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail. or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's
roots are usually far beyond its dripline. even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, fail or die. Because
there may be hidden defects within the root system. trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious defects can be
subject to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate detection and
prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with trees, particular1y
large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@paebell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10. February 13, 2014. Page 17 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
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.
Sincerely,
~~
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S .A. Board Certified Master Arborist WE-4578
GLOSSARY
1) Basic Evaluation (of Trees): A visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional,
more detailed examination(s) be performed.
2) Deciduous: a plant that sheds all its leaves at a specific time of the year, usually during the winter when the weather is cold. As opposed to
"evergreen· which are plants that retain their leaves in living condition all year long, never dropping all their leaves at once.
3) Oripline: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, aM around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline, a great concentration of active roots Is often in the soil directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree
protection zone•. ·
4) Grove: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements, having "knit" canopies. If of the same
species, there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of one
or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have
asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals.
PO Box 37 14 , Sarat oga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 10 . February 13, 2014. Page 18 of 19
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborl st & Horticulturist
Seroice since JQ84
5) Root collar excavation and examination: The root collar Ounction between trunk and roots) Is critical 1o whole-tme health and stt~biiity. A root
collar excavation carefully uncovers this area (with hand digging tools , water or pressurized air). The area is then examine •:t to assess its health
and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feel
6) Stump serout 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 many
small nhoots (suckers) from around the cut stLJmp. Some of these suckers may survive and grow to become significant trunks. Th9se 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 structuraly 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.
7) Sweep: a tree branch, portion of the canopy or entire canopy that abruptly juts outward beyond the normal, expected symmetrical canopy shape.
This is a less stable condition than a symmetrical canopy.
PO Box 3714, Sarat oga, CA 9 50 70. 408 -725 -13 57. dec:o.h@pacbell.net. ht t p://www.decah.com.
Preliminary Arborist Report for Highlands Lo t 10. February 13, 2014. Page 19 of 19
ARBORIST REPORT
Project Address:
15358 San&ella Court (Highlands Lot 10)
Los Gatos, California
Property Owner:
Davldon Homes
Prepared for:
Jocelyn Puga
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Depariment
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horficutfurlst
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Master Arborist WE-04578. International Society of Arbon culture
Certified Professional Horti culturist #30022, Am erican Society for Horticultural Science
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbo r ist & Horticult ur ist
RECEIVED
APR 2 8 Z015
APRIL 27,2015 TOVIIN OF LOS GATOS
Report Hist.QCt: This is my second report for this project, replacing my first report dated February 13, 2014. PLANNING DIVISION
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725·1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist 8 Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TABlE OF CONTENTS
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Project ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Trees ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
The Trees & the Project ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 3
Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
RECOMMENDATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 6
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Purpose & Use of Report ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
Background lnformation ....................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 10
OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 11
Site Conditions ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12
Table 3 Complete Tree Table .............................................................................................................................................................................................. 12
Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 19
Tree Protection Distances ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3 to 5 x DBH .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Tree Photos .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Assumptions & Limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 29
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 31
Cover photo: the front of Lot 10 viewed from the cul-de-sac at Santella Court. Coast li•e oaks #686 aad 720 are labeled. All photos in this report
were taken b Deborah Ellis on A ril15, 2015.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
. --· ..........
~OTI
..
_ ... -········
~ .........
,•
-· .-·· ·~'* 697
~ .. 698
*699
lOS
*
• ., 268
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
UJ 7
1 INCM•10FEET
~
• SaveTree * Debatable-
(Read about tree)
I Remove Tree
\
\
\
LOT"
ec ... · ..
. •.
~-.
+
.. •,
Service since 1984
TREE MAP
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 2.7, 2015. Page 1 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
SUMMARY
THE PROJECT
A new two-story, single-family residence is proposed to be constructed on the site.
THE TREES
SmJice since 1984
Thirty-seven (37) protected trees 1 are listed and described in this report. All of these trees are native to the immediate area and most
likely of natural growth , meaning that they were not planted. All of these trees are located on lot 1 0 except for t.-ee• #267, 268,
269,690,691 aa~d 691 which are on neighboring lot 11 but adjacent to construction on Lot 10. Tfl'ee #693 is a borderline tree
whose trunk st raddles the property line between Lots 10 and 11 . I have added 3 additional trees on Lot 10 labeled 'A', ·a• and ·c•
which were not originally evaluated for my first report, because they were thought to be sufficiently far from the proposed work area.
Most of the trees on the project site are coast live oaks and blue oaks that are not in good condition. The condition of many trees has
deteri orated since I first evaluated them in February of 2014. Their deteriorated condition is probably due to the continuing drought as
well as construction vehicle traffic and material storage on the site, which has caused soil compaction and some direct tree damage.
Trees w ith "Fair/Poor" or lesser preservation suitabin ty that it may be possible to re t ain in v iew of proposed construction have been listed
as "Debatable". A good option would be to replace these trees with replaced with new. young native tree species (either coast live
oak or blue oak) that will grow well and not present later problems on the developed site. It may be best to wait until the current
drought has ended to plant the new t rees. however. Newly planted trees {and all other landscaping) require regular irrigation until
established; usually 2 to 3 years after planting.
After review of the current plans and in light of current tree condition, I have listed 8 trees for removal. 18 trees as "Debgtable" and 11
trees that should be agmg .
1 For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos as defined in the Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tree Protection. Section 29 .10.0960. 12/3/2010 the
Scooe of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdiviSion
a roval is r uired. Town Street trees of an size are tected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exem .
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.ne.t. http://www.deeah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (H ighlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 2 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service si1u:e 1984
THE TREES & THE PROJECT
A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page 4, and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table~ (the
Complete Tree Table) beginning on page 12. This Table also provides recommended minimum root protection distances for those trees
that will or may be saved, as well as other Important information about individual trees.
The best trees on !f!e, all coast live oajg_ with "Fair/Good" preservation sultabilitv that can be saved are:
'C', 30-inch trunk diameter, "Debatable" preservation suitabUity due to construction. See design change recommendations in
Notes column of the Complete Tree Table.
#221 , 20 & 21-inch
#687,8, 12 & 1~nch
#716. 8-inch
Thrre are two cocnt live oaks wlh "G~" or "Fair/Good" preservation suitabilttv that are listed gs "Debgtable" but whl~
would also be nice trees to save. Colllfructlon must be modified In order to reduce damage to these trees:
'A•, 29-inch coast live oak. The best tree on site .
#269, 41 -inch coast live oak
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408-725-13 57. de coh@pocbell.net. http://www.decoh.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 3 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
c t' on mue d on th t enex pa~e
Tree Common ~runk Dlam. Preservation Expected Construction Action Reason # Name @3ft. Suitability Impact (ln.)
A ~oast live oak 29 Good Moderate/Severe !Deb atab le Construction
1(3~7) coast live oak 31 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Overall Condition
c coast live oak 30 Fair/Good Low/Moderat e !Save
(326) ----267 coast live oak 11 '12 Fair !Moderate Is av e I
268 coast live oak 19,24,26 Poor Moderate/Severe Debatable Overall Condition , Risk, Construction
269 ~ast live oak 41 c:::air/Good Moderate/Severe !D ebatable Construction
271 coast live oak 20,21 Fa ir/Good Moderate Save
686 coast live oak 12,13,14 Fair Moderate Save
687 !COast live oak 8 ,12,13 Fair/Good Low/Moderate !Save
1688 [blue oak 19 Fair/Poor Moderate/Severe Deb ata b le Con stru ctio n , Ove rall Condition
689 coast live oak 18 Fa ir Severe ~~~•rtn•e or '"' r.l ar
690 blue oak 14 Fair/Poor Severe Debatable Co nstruction (Lot 8), Overall Condition
695 blue oak 13 Fair ~ow !Save
697 blue oak 18,19 Poor Low Debatable Overall Condition
698 !COast live oak 27 Fair Low/Moderate Save
699 blue oak 8 Poor Low Debatable Overall Condition
700 blue oak 12 Poor Low Debatable Overall Condition
701 coast live oak 19 Fair/Poor Low Debatable Structure
702 blue oak 16 Poor Moderate Debatable Construction, Overall Condition
703 blue oak 14 Fair/Poor ~ow/Moderate Debatable Overall Condition
1704 r-'alleyoak 8 Fair/Poor Moderate/Severe Debatable Construction, Structure
705 blue oak 18 Poor Moderate/Severe Debatable Overall Condition, Construction
706 blue oak 12,10 Poor !Moderate/Severe Debatable Overall Condition, Construction
l PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot B). April 27, 2015. Page 4 of 32
Debor ah Ellis, MS
ConsuiUng Arboriat & Hortlc ult urtst
Tabl 1 Tree Summary (continued from the previous page) Smlice since 1984
~rae Common Trurlk Dlam. Preservation ~xpectad Construction @3ft. Action Reason .. Name (l n.) Suitability Impact
707 r.:oa~l live oa.k t8.10 Fair MooorateiSevere Oebalable Constru c1 1on
l .. oa 1· ·., ·-:-;---------:;~-~~···m-..-------~~emow . ~~~-~trudlun ------.. 1-·-l ro9 1 .a!> h~e o,;l/< 1 001 _Ls• e111 l ~amu~oe leor.:.tru ctlon, Ov•·r ·' c.. qn ,
~ r~-;:lllvn O<JI1 h ' -. -.Wf fSc.re ~~·•'J1(.1\ I 1-.~~tluf 1 .n , Vlll-!I Ct 1tll~'on -1---v -----rs;;era l ~erno~e !Construction
··-1 biLH ••, .1~ Fa1r
1 2 = 'olt: G;:t • F ---· r .,,r ~='nor IR.,rr1ove ~Construction, Structure
··-...,., ·'2-
713 oar'b~··y nd~ ,6,6,6 F~;;lr M <2t:!BiO~t'l r'}avG
714 .IU".! i.ht~. 1 I r,,r/Poo r SPV~r." Remove ponstruction, Overall ConditiOn
l 7 1 5 l.:..oast··,;..,PJ~I\~ ~air/Poor Sever~± Debatable pyerall Condition, Construction.
716 I oa:sl l "'tt oai< fa t...cn.~i ~ave ai.riGoo:;<i
~~·-r--lr:air ILo1!vlM"dt:rBtc.:< !Save I
·-717 l":Qafll.li•Jt' 0<:;~. ~-!·
718 roa!t l ·,;~!!oak 13 ,1 /S___ r:ii it' 1~!)\·\l !S ave I ·-----
j719fr.'oaS_"0lva oak 15 -----):~1r/Poo r jModeraic !Debatable !Overall Condition
·--
·-1"'20 1("1 ~~),;; !Remove !Construction, Structure
End of Table. 37 Trees.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070 . 408-72!5-135 7. decah@pacbeii.Mt . http://www.decah.c:om.
Arborist Report for 15371 S antella Ct. (Hig hlands Lot 8). Apr il 27, 2015. Page 5 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & 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. Some tree numbers, I.e. trees in adjacent lots, are missing on the plans. Please show all trees and numbers on the
plans.
2. Remove the following 8 trees due to construction impact or because I have recommended them to be removed for other reasons:
#689, 708-712,714 aDd 720.
3. Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #"A', ·a•, #268, 269,688,690,697, 699-707,715 aad 719. Read about these 18 trees in the
Notes Section of the Complete Tree Table in order to determine what to do with them {will they be saved or removed)? A
"Debatable" designation means that there is a problem with retaining that tree, such as a tree that is shown to be saved but is a poor
species for the site, or in poor condition. Another common cause is that the tree is shown to be saved but construction may be too
close to it. The reason for the "Debatable" designation can be found in the "Reason" and "Notes" column of the Complete Tree
Table. Additional action or decisions are necessary on the part of the tree owner, project architects or others involved in the project
design and construction are necessary in order to resolve whether a debatable tree will be saved or removed.
4 . Design changes are recommended around the following trees in order to adequately protect them so that they can actually be
saved. These trees are listed as having "Fair/Good" preservation suitability and are the better trees on site: ·a•, ·a• and #269.
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
23 through 25. At this time the following 11 trees will most likely be saved: r c•, #267, 271, 686,687, 695, 698, 713, and 716·
718). A separate copy of the Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans. Additional tree protection
information is also available from Deborah Ellis it necessary. These Directions shall replace any tree protection notes, specifications or
other directions {including detail drawings) that are included in the plans.
6. Remove concrete slurry dumped on Lot 10 (see photos, page 28} by hand manually, with a flat-blade shovel and a wheelbarrow.
Note that the dumping of materials such as concrete slurry in future landscape (or natural-growth woodland areas) is prohibited
relative to tree protection.
7. Neighboring trees : whose canopies overhang the project site must receive tree protection in the same manner as existing trees to
remain on the project site; for example tree protection fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fence off the dripline of this
tree as much as possible in order to avoid damaging branches and compacting the soil beneath the canopy. If pruning is necessary
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 6 of 32
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Coneultlng Arborllt & Hortlculturllt
Sr.n>i ;e since 1984
in ordE~r to avoid branch breakage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary
construction clearance pruning.
B. I should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 9. Additional improvements on
plans that were not reviewed may cause additional trees to be Impacted and/or removed. Plans reviewed by the arborist should be
full-size, to-scale and with accurately located tree trunks and canopy driplines relative to proposed improvements. Scale should be
1 ;20 or 1:10.
9. AJ o port ofthe design process, try to keep Improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the
Improvement) as for from tree trunks and canopies as possible. ~2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be
used a s the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. ~should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther Is better, of course. For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
also be taken into consideration when designing around trees . Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
10. Construction or landscaping work done underneath the drlpline of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, taking care to
preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when
those roots must be removed. A qualitied consu lting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applie·s to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the
work site.
11. Landscaping:
a. This sHe contains oaks that are native to the Immediate area (coast live oak. Quercus agrifolia, blue oak, Quercus douglasii
and one valley oak, Quercus Iobato). This tree species fares best with no irrigation during the normal dry months of the year.
The best treatment of the ground beneath the canopies o f native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter
mulch. Exceptions to irrigation restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation
for root loss due to construction, and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation.
Native oal< species are often kTIIed due to inappropriate landscaping that is installed around them; mostly commonly
landscaping that requires frequent irrigation such as lawns or other high water-use plants. Large drought tolerant trees such as
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 7 of32
Landscape
plans must be
revised to
comply!
Landscape
plans must be
revised to
comply!
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
native oaks can become dangerous when exposed to frequent irrigation, especially close to their trunks. California native
oaks that are treated in this manner may contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots; often causing great damage
and personal injury I there are targets In their vicinity such as homes, cars and people. It is important to landscape correctly
around our native oaks; e.g . summer dry. I have attached a publication entitled Living among the Oaks. to assist in best
managing the oaks on the property, as well as the directions to follow in items 'b' and 'c' below.
b . Around the native oaks: there shall be no planHng or Irrigation (Including drip Irrigation) within a minimum radius of 10 feet
from the trunks of the oaks or the inner hal of the drlpllne of the tree, whichever Is greater. Farther is better. Within this 10-foot
(or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or tree trimming
chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the root collar of
the trees. Beyond this 1 0-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought-tolerant. summer-dry plant species,
preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the native oaks, may
be planted. Only summer-dry tolerant plants are allowed within the outer half of the dripline of the tree or 20 feet from the
trunk, whichever is greater. Such plants may be planted from no larger than !-gallon cans in holes that are hand-dug
manually with a shovel (no power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparsely (e.g. planted no
closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants shall be mulched in the same
manner previously described. The drip irrigation for these plants should preferably be abandoned after a 2 to 3 year
establishment period.
The landscape plan shows new coast live and valley oaks to be planted on the site. Eliminate the valley oaks and replace
them with blue oaks. There is one small, young valley oak on this site (#704 ) and it is not doing well. Valley oaks require a
deep soil that Is loss droughty than found throughout the majority of the existing site. That is why there are mainly blue and
coast live oaks growing here naturally.
12. Trees to remain after adJacent trees are removed should be re-evaluated by me or the project arborist after the surrounding trees
have been taken out.
13. General Tree Maintenance: Do no unnecessary pruning, fertlllzaHon or other tree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to
the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide such pruning .
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page 8 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
SmJia since 1984
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This surv€~Y and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The mu:~ of the
report is to identity and describe the existing protected trees on site --their size, condition and suitability for preservation. The audience
for this report is the property owner, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of Los Gatos authorities concerned with
tree preservation and tree removal. The SQQ! of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable
condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
PLANS REVIEW ED
Table 2
PLAN DATE SHEET REVIEWED Source NOTES
Existing Site Topographic Map
includltiiJ existing tree trunk locations
Propoeed Site Layout
Demolition
Construction Staalna
Gradinglpraina~ 12/14 C1 &2 X HMH Engineering
Erosion Control
Underground Utii~W_
Site & Bulldlna ~ons 316115 A1 .7, .8, .9 X Basseni-11 annnj Architecture
Bulldl_ng Exterior Elevations 316/15 A1.1 .4, .5 X Bassenian/lagoni Architecture
Ro-of 3!6/15 A1.6 X Bassenian/Lagoni Architecture
Shadow Study
Conetructlon Datab that would
affect trees (for example building
foundations, pavement installation
including sub-grade preparation,
...J!E_deraround utility installation)
Landscape Planting 12/18/14 L-1 X Nuvis Landscape Architecture Conce!;!!ual --Irrigation Plan
Landscape & Irrigation Details
Note: all plans are labeled as Preliminary and not for construction
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5 070. 408-7 25-1357 . decah@pacbell .net. http://www.d e cah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 9 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arboriat & Horticulturist
Service sina 1984
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
My first report for this project, dated February 13, 2014 evaluated the condition of the trees on Lot 10 with no construction plans -thus no
"Estimated Impact of Construction" rating for the individual trees was possible. It is important to note that my previous evaluation the
trees was performed on February 10 of 2014 when the deciduous trees on site (the blue and valley oaks} were leafless. In that previous
report I mentioned that I could not accurately assess the condition of these trees due to their leafless state, and that they should be re-
evaluated after they were fully leafed out. In my most recent evaluation of these trees for this April20 15 report, the blue oaks and valley
oaks were mostly leafed out and I was able to see that they had many dead twigs and branches, which is part of the reason that the
condition of most of these trees has been downgraded from my 2014 report. I do believe however, that the actual condition of most of
the trees has deteriorated at least somewhat since I first evaluated them in 2014 .
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees Aprll9 and 15, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution, foliage color
and density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed . Evaluation procedures were
taken from:
• Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the International
Society of Arboriculture (ISA).
• Soecies Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992.
The above references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations.
Each of the trees described in this report had been previous tagged in the field in February of 2014 with metal number tags that
correspond with the tree numbers referenced in this report and on the Tree Map. Exceptions to the tagging are coast live oaks 'A', 'B 1
,
and 'C' which are labeled on the tree map but are not tagged in the field . For this April 2015 report I only rechecked the size and
condition of trees that were proposed to be saved on the construction plans. Trees I A ', 'B', and 'C' were evaluated tor the first time in
April of 2015, however. While on site I checked to see if any trees had been removed or damaged since my 20 14 report. The size and
condition information on trees that will definitely need to be removed due to construction was copied from the 2014 report to this 2015
report.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72!5-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page 10 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
ConsuiUng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
For those trees propcsed to be saved on the plans, I measured the trunlc diameter with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the ground
(DBH), which Is also the required trunk: diameter measurement height of the Town of Los Gatos. DBH is used calculate tree protection
distances 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 sign ificant. Tree species
and condition considered in combination with the proposed use of t1"1e 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
There am no improvements on Lot 10 yet. There has been quite a bit of vehicle traffic through the lot as well as some material storage
on site, however. This has caused indirect domage to the trees through unnecessary soil compaction and some direct damage to the
trees (e .g. trunk wounding). Site topography slopes downward to the east. Sun exposure for the ~rees varies from full to partly shaded.
depending upon proximity to other trees. Most of the trees on the site, particularly the blue oaks, seem to be suffering from drought
stress and have sparse canopies with a large percentage of dead twigs and branches. Such weakened trees will not tolerate
construction damage and significant site ch<Jnges well, and are best removed and replaced with healthy, new native tree species.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408~725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page 11 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
APPENDIX
TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
This Table is continued through page 18. Data fields in the Table are explained on pages 19 to 22.
r----r: -----TREE ROOT
CONDITION !PROTECTION
Species ~runk DISTANCES
Tree & Diam. Preservation Expected
Size ! Construction Action Reason Notes # Common @3ft. ... ~ Suitability Impact :I: :I: N
Name (ln.) 0 m m D. &:a c i 1-> ~ ~ 0
··-
A !Quercus 29 45x60 85 80 Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction !Construction : 6-7 feet from edge of 8 12 22
agrifolia, Severe ~-rad i ng, 7 .5 feet from retaining wall , 13
coast live oak eet from house (on plans) but canopy
edge 8 feet from story posts. Not tagged.
Was not included in original tree survey
because did not think construction would
I
be so close to tree. There must be no
fso il disturbance closer than 8 feet from
the trunk.
B coast live oak 31 35x30 50 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Overall Construction : 12 feet from grading, 13 8 13 23
(327) Condition rom retaining wall, 20 from house. Has
previous tag (not ours) #327. Not
I included in our original tree survey
because did not think construction would
I be so close to tree.
c coast live oak 30 40x50 65 60 Fair/Good low/ Save Construction : 21-22 feet from grading . 8 13 23
(326) Moderate Has previous tag (not ours) #327. Not
included in our original tree survey
because did not think construction would
be so close.
267 coast live oak 11,12 30x25 65 40 Fair r ode rate Save Construction : 18 feet from sewer 4 7 13
cleanout, 20 feet from edge of grading .
On adjacent lot #11 , but canopy
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbel l.net . http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April27, 2015. Page 12 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortlculturiat
Service since 1984 ------·-·---------·-·---·--------·------.---------·-·--------... --.. ---·-· ----.. -----TREE. ROOT-
jcONDITION PROTECTION
Species Trunk DISTANCES
Tree & Di21m. Preservation Expected
Size e Construction Action Reason Noas " Cornmon @3ft. ... ti s Llltability Impact % X ~ Name (in.) 0 liD ID a! ~ Cl > ~ Jl 0
--.. ~-.. ·-.
1
~verhangs project site. Fenc.e and l supplies on Lot 11 are 5 feet from trunk. .... -r., ... ;;;., oak 35x4o ----:--' ·---·----·-· -r--19, 24, 40 50 Poor Moderato/ Debatable Overall Co .. ., ........ ~ ..... : 26 feet from grading on Lot 12 20 36
26 Severe Condition, 1 0 . On adjacent lot #11, but canopy
Risk, ~verhangs Lot 10 project sites. looks
Construction like tree is dying ; probably due to
construction on Lot 11 including cut and
! Ifill very close to trunk. Fill soil is now
l !within 181nches of trunk. Green grass ,_ ___ I -co-· . (irrigated?) 3 feet from trunk.
41 269 41 -----coast live oak 50x50 75 60 Fair/Good Moderate/ Debatable nstruction Construction : 5-6 feet from edge of 10 117
~vere grading, 20 feet from house. Keep all ~
soil disturbance including grading a I minimum of 10 feet from trunk. on·
I adjacent lot 11 but trunk only a few feet
ltnim property line.
i Condition: recent 1 Q-inch diameter I branch failure with no decay. A whole i
I
vertical scaffold this branch failed from
should be removed at its point of
connection to the trunk, ever. though this
I j will create a large wound. Some
I ! ~xcavated soil over root collar. Should
I pe fenced off from construction now.
U1 .oom i ~~T)'Tf ' 60 Fair/Good Moderate Save eo._, 12-13 .... from odg·~rf 13 31 I
I
grading. Boundary line tree with adjacent
lot #11.
Condition: Green grass {irrigated?)
upslope of trunk .
PO Box 3714, Scratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.de cah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, Z015. Page 13 of 32
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Serrlice since 1984
·--.------------·---------·-··-· ------__ _, ___ ----
TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECnON
Species Trunk DISTANCES
Tree & Dlam. Preservation Expected
Size e Construction Action Reason Notes # Common @3ft. .. :J Suitability Impact ::1: ::1: N
Name (ln.) 0 -ID ID CL. CD u Q Q t5 > ~ I( I(
C") II)
686 k:oast live oak 12,13,14 40x25 80 60
r·'·
~ode rate Save Construction : 5 .5 feet from grading, 10 6 11 19
I eet from driveway. Move grading at
I least another foot from trunk, to obtain 6
l
oot minimum distance.
Condition: stump sprout with basally
'oined trunks.
r87 fast live oak 18,12,13 140x401 75 I 60 Fair/Good Low/ Save Construction: 16 feet from grading, 29 6 9 11
Moderate eet from house.
688 Quercus 19 40x30 50 50 Fair/Poor ~ode rate/ Debatable Construction. Construction : 3.5 feet from grading, 6 5 8 19
I<Jouglasii, Severe !overall eet from pathway to front door, 15 feet
blue oak Condition from house. Move grading farther from
j runk so that there will be no disturbance
I within a minimum of 5 feet from the trunk.
I I i Erect story posts to see effect on canopy.
I I Condition: lots of dead branches.
689 1coast live oak 18 22x28 70 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction Construction : within proposed house. 4 7 13
1-ru·~ 14 38x30 50 60 Fair/Poor !Severe Debatable Construction Construction : see 4/13/15 report for Lot 8
Lot 8), or construction on that lot. For Lot 10:
lbverall ~rading 7 feet from trunk, house 32 feet.
Condition This is acceptable, but barely (for the
. I 1 grading). Better to move grading farther .
105 blue oak 13 35x22 75 50 Fair Low Save Construction: 73 feet from limit of grading 3 5 13
(tree shown on plan)
Condition: Tree not tagged in field due to
heavy poison oak; also could not
evaluate tree up close and all around.
697 blue oak 18,19 45x40 40 40 Poor Low Debatable !Overall Construction : 30 feet from limit of 7 12 28
I I Condition !grading and downslope of house.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408·125·1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 14 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortlculturtst
·---·-------·--....-·---·--·----·· ---------------·· --------··---------
Servia sif!U 1984
TREE~OOT
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
CONDITION
Species !Trunk Expected Tree & Diam. Size !
Pre·servation Construction Action Reason Notes ., Cornmon @3ft. ~ i Suitability Impact Nama (ln.) 0
1:11 > ~
p •• .. ----~-.---~---+--~--~·~~-----~----~--~~----~.--------.------------------------~---~~--~
1.· Condition; lots of dead branches. Wood
I
I rat nest obstructs lower trunk on one
II I ' side . Recheck tree after poison oak
i--::-::--:-1---:-:----.,-;=----: removed .
698 coast live oak ~7 ·rx40 60 60 , r .. Fair----rLow/Moderate Save ~~~~~~-ction: 24 feet from limit of
I Condition: canopy is somewhat sparse.
1699illue oak 8 -~~18x12 20 20 ·~ .. ,.Poor l-ow-----+D-e_b_ata_b_le-;-Ove-r-al-1 ----FCo==:ms:tru:Jct:::tl.lon: 19 feet from limit of'-· ·-l Tl3 6
Condition grading.
CondiUon : a crooked, suppressad
understorJ tree. 1 I~· r·· ·~r2 rl: x18 40 40 i;;:iil;Poollow Debatable OveraU Construction: 17-18 feet from g:adi9'5-12 Condition and sheltered by several trees between it
and the house.
!Condition : leans and sweeps I
~ignificantly; very gro\·e affected .
:701 coast-i;eoai(·l:,-g--14()1-,5 160 rair/PCOr ..ow Debatable s..,..;;-,;-· Construction, 12 feet from griidtng; as-·r-s -18_14_ I . -lfeet from house. If tree will remain, pay
attention to root protection distances.
702,b1ue oak 16 141 Ox30 140 ISO r .. Poor M:-co~de_rat_e----I:D:-e~bata___,b..,.le--+Co~n-st_ru_ctio_' -n--. t::C-onstiUction: 4 feet from grading , 12 fe"Eii-4-l'-6 -r·s-1 Overall lfrom centerline of drain pipe, 24 feet from
Condi1ion house. I would prefer to see grading at 1
least 6 feet from the trunk. j
7o3 !lbiueoak 114 ix351 41150 Fair/Poor Low/ Debatable overall leonstructlo_n: 8 teet from grading. 13 teet 3 .. 6-"14
Moderate pondition !from end of retaining wall, 28 feet from
house.
7 11 20
7041Querc~---18 ---12ox18 60 ! 40 tair/Poor !Moderate/ IDebatab.le ~onstruction, Construction: 3 feet from centeriine'Ot ___ l_21 3--i,-
Vobata , I I ; jSevere tructure drain pipe, 4 feet from grading, 4 feet I
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.nd. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 15 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Seroiu since 1984
,..----· ,-------·--r-· ·-·--·-.. --TREE ROOT
CONDITION !PROTECTION
Species rrrunk DISTANCES
Expected Tree & Diam. Size ! Preservation Construction Action R eason Notes # Common @3ft. ... ::I Suitability Impact :r: :r: ~ Name (ln.) 0 u 11:1 11:1
ell Q Q .... > ::I )( )( 0 ...
0 C") II)
valley oak rom retaining wall, 16-17 feet from
house. Drain pipe trenching will likely be
oo close to tree. Move drainpipe so that
here will be no soil disturbance closer
han 3 feet from trunk, although this tree
is not worth going through too much
rouble to save. Also not worth
transplanting . rr oak r -· -, ... 40 50 Poor Moderate/ Debatable Overall Construction: 3.5 feet grading, 11 feet ' 4 7 18
Severe Conditio n, rom centerline of drain pipe, 24 feet from
I I Construction house. If tree will remain, pay attention
to root protection distances.
706 blue oak 12,1 0 30x22 40 50 Poor Moderate/ Debatable Overall Construction: 4.5 f rom grading, 16 feet 4 7 17
Severe Condition , rom centerline of drain pipe, 28 feet from
Construction house. If tree will remain, pay attention
o root protection distances.
707 coast live oak 18,10 20JC28 60 60 Fair ·Moderate/ Debatable Construction Construction : 4.5 from grading, 9 feet 6 9 17
Severe rom centerline of drain pipe, 28 feet from '
I house. If tree will remain, pay attention
o root protection distances.
708 jblue oak ~3 45x50 80 70 .Good ~evere Remove !Construction Constr.u_ction: within proposed house. 6 9 28
-ioo r ive ""' 27 35x35 50 20 Poor Severe Remove Construction, . Construction: within a few feet of 7 11 20
Overall proposed house.
I
Condition Condition: large trunk cavity with 2
~~n ings. Several large decayed areas
in large branches .
71 0 coast live oak 22 30x25 50 20 Poor Severe Remove Construction, Construction: within proposed house 5 9 16
Overall Condition: wounds and internal cavity in
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. {Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page 16 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlat & Horticulturist
Service .-ina: 1984 -· ---··-·-··-r-------------------r ------r-------.-·-··---..---·---·-----------·-····---------TREE ROOT
Species
Tree &
# Cornmon
Nama
ifrunk
Dla:m.
@3ft.
(in.}
CONDJnON
Size
Expected
Preservation Construction
S1ultability Impact
Action Reason Notes
PROTECTION
DISTANCES
Condition runk, canopy very sparse.
711jblueo~l15~ j4ox30 70 so Fair --+1s·-e-v-ere----;lr-R-em-.. -ov_e__,l;-c-onst11Jction ~nstruction~within-proposedhO~se:----·4-·rs·· -15·
rin'~~·· ... -SSt .llv1oak_ --n5 601140 Fair/lor . evere . nnstructlon, Construdlori: within proposed house 9 14 35 ructure Condition : two fused trunks of about 19
and 16 inches each . One trunk has
wound and decay-evaluate further if
may retain this tree .
Save --COnstTUciiOii: 4.5-ftOmgrading, 6 feet-··-3 4 8 713 Quercus
berberidifolla,
barberry oak
~.5,6 18x22 60 60 Fair Moderate
from end of retaining wall, 16 feet from
house.
Condition: condition should improve as
several previously shading trees
removed . Soil and debris covers upslope
root collar. 711"· ... ,-rox:iS ~50 140 . Fair/Poor lsev.;e!Remove ~ELdion~ j••otnJCI!on: within proposed hou;.;: --3·r-14
1-::-:--+-------~----·~ ····--·-·· -t--:-::-+-:-::-1 715 coastlive oak 25 45x35 50 40 Fair/Poor Severe Debatable Overall Construction: 4.5 feetfrom grading, 19 6 10 18
, Condition, lfeet from house. There must be no soli
Construction. ~isturbance closer than 6 feet from the
~nk, or remove this tree. You may want
o remove it anyway, due to condition.
~his is a large tree!
!Condition: small open ing in trunk should
lbe evaluated further If trae may be
retained . A fungal wood decay conk
emerges from this opening. The tree has
dead branches to 8 Inches in diameter.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.deeah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands l.ot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page 17 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Semce since 1984
·-r · --·---······----TREE ROOT
CONDITION PROTECTION
Species rrrunk DISTANCES
Expected Tree & Dlam. Size ! Preservation Construction Action Reas on Notes # Common @3ft. .. ~ Suitability Impact J: ::1: N
Name (ln.) 0 ID ID a. ., Q Q b > ~ ~ >C
II)
i Green grass (irri gated?) to trunk on one
side.
716,coast live oak 8 20x9 60 70 Fair/Good Low Save Constru_ction : 15 feet from grading, 21 2 3 4
eet from driveway, 35 feet from house.
I
Condition : since previous trees removed,
I his tree is less shaded and should fare
better. Green grass (Irrigated?) 12
' inches from trunk . I
717,coast live oak 13 45x20 60 50 Fair low/ Save Construction : 9 .5 feet from grading , 8 3 5 6
Moderate eet from proposed sewer connection to
existing manhole, 17 feet from driveway,
I 33 feet from house.
Condition: recent mechanical wounding
of trunk although no work has begun on
~ite (see photo).
718 coast live oak 13,15 40x30 60 60 Fair low Save Construction : 12 feet from grading, 15 5 9 11
eet from driveway.
Condition: some dead branches to 3
inches in diameter.
719 coast live oak 15 f40x20 50 40 Fair/Poor !Mode rate Debatable Overall Construction : 6 feetfrom grad ing, 10feet 4 6 7
Condition ~rom driveway, 11 feet from proposed
~ewer connection to manhole.
Condition : dead branches to 4 inches In
diameter. no lcoast live oak 24 35x25 70 30 Poor Severe Remove Const ruction, Construction: within proposed house. 6 10 18
Structure Condition: Included bark with internal
wnk crack (unstable condition). I
End of Table
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 1537 1 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 18 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulttng Arbor lst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS :
1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the Existing tree). Each existing tree in the 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 plans where existing
trees must be shc>wn and referenced. Exception: trees 'A', 'B', and 'C' are not tagged in the field.
2) TreE! Name and Type:
Spet:i~: The Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the p lant, for example Querrus agrifolia where Quercus is the Genu s
and agrifolia is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most current
edition of the Sunset Western Garden Book (2012) Sunset Publishing Corporation. The scientific name is presented at Its first occurrence in the Tree
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used .
3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the pound). This is the trunk diameter rr.easurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, in lieu of DBH 3 • For
multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks.
4) Size : tree size is Hsted as height x width In feet, estimated and approximatE: and intended for comparison purposes.
5} Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which i s rare-
like .~ supermodel in human terms}. A 60 is Naverage" (not great but not terrible either}. There are two components to tree condition-vigor and
structute, and each component is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a
valld reason to remove a tree from a site·· !!ven if the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each separate component:
100 is equivalent to Excellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 is Poor (0), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 Is Dead.
6) Relative to the scooe of work for this report. tree Condition has been rated but not explained in detail and recommendations for the management of
tree condition have not been included. The tree owner may contact Deborah Ellis for additional information on tree condition and specific
recommendations for the general care of individual trees relative to their condition.
7) The Condition of the tree is considered relative to the tree species and present or future intended use of t he site to provi de an opinion on the tree's
Preservati on Suit:~bility Rating (i.e. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 4 below and on the next page . Th i s is
based upon the scenario that the tree Is given enough above and below-ground space to survive and live a long life on the site. Ratings such as
3 DBH is tree trunlc diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level . This is the forestry and arboriculb.Jral standard measurement
he' ht that is also used in ma tree-related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408-72!5-1357. decah@pacbell.net. ht tp://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 19 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborls t & Horticultur ist
Servia sittt:e 1984
NFair/Good" and .,Fair/Poor" are intermediate in nature. The Preservation Suitability rating is not always the same as the Condition Rating because (for
example) some trees with poor condition or structure can be significantly improved with just a small amount of work-and it would be worthwhile to
keep the tree if this were done.
Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple functional
Excellent and aesthetic benefits to the environment 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
Good with treatment. They are not perfect but they are in relatively good condition and provide at least one
significant functional or aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are
better than average trees equ ivalent to academ ic 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
Fair absolutely should be removed. The majority of trees on most sites tend to fall into this category.
These trees will require more intensive management and monitoring, and may also have shorter life
spans than trees in the "Good" category. Retention of trees with moderate suitability for preservation
depends upon the degree of proposed site changes . Equivalent to academic _grade ·c·.
These trees have signifiCant structural defects or poor heaHh that cannot be reasonably improved
with treatment. These trees can be expected to decline regardless of management. The tree
Poor species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable in landscape settings or may be
unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of trees with low suitability for
preservation in areas where people or property will be present. Equivalent to academic grade 'D'.
These trees are dead and/or are not suitable for retention in their location due to risk or other Issues.
None In certain settings however, (such as wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter
for certain animals and plants including decompasers. Equivalent to academic grade 'F'.
8) Action (Disposition}:
a) Save: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection meas u res .
b) Remove: this recommendation is based upon tree condition, preservation suitability, expected impact of construction, poor species for the site or
any combination of these factors.
c) Debatable: there is a problem with potentially retaining th is tree. Find out why In the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table.
Examples are:
• The tree is shown to be saved !and may be a desirable tree t o save) but proposed construction is too close or is uncertain and may cause t oo
much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved .
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. htt p:/ /www .decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). Ap ri l 27, 2015. Page20 of 32
Debora h Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlat & Horticulturist
Service tina 1984
• Further evaluation of the tree is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a "pull test" to assess
tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis.
• Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the information provided in this report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• ~: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertain construction imoact
• Other (as explained for the individual tree)
9) Reason (for tree removal or to explain why a tree Is listed as "Debatable" or "Uncertain"). Multiple reasons may be provided, with the most significant
reason listed first. 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)
• Lllndscaplng (the tree is being removed because it does not fit In with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping)
• 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 sufficiently mitigated)
10} Notes: This may indude any other information that would be helpful to the client and their architects and contractors within the scope of work for this
repc•rt, such as a more detailed explanation of tree condition or expected construction impact.
11} Tree Protection Distances (See page 22).
a) Root Protection:
i) 3 and SxDBH: Both the 3 and SxDBH distances are listed for each tree. For multi-trunk trees 100% of the DBH of the largest trunk is added to
SO% of t he DBH for all other trunks in order to compute the operational DBH to use for these the Tree Protection Distance calculations . For
practical purposes, the minimum 3xDBH distance listed is 3 feet and the minimum SxDBH distance is 4 feet. If disturbance cannot be kept at
least 3 feet from the trunk of a tree, the tree should normally be removed .
ii) OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone): This is calculated as per the text, Trees & Development. Matheny et al., International Society of
Arboriculture, 1998. This method takes into account tree age and the particular tree species tolerance of root disturbance. Because it may not
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. {Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 21 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this
requirement and list only the 3 and SxDBH distances.
b) Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES
3 TO 5 X DBH
No one con estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from t~ edge of the trunk of an
individual tree to affect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degree -there are simply too many variable involved that we cannot see or
anticipate. 3xDBH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be from t~ edge of the trunk on OM side of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fro.edrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
!)BHis trunk "diameter at breast ~ight• (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 t~ proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid taper,
which is t~ area in which the large buttress roots (main support roots close to the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter 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. Such distances
are guidelines only, and should be increased for trees with heavy canopies, significant leans. decay, structural problems. etc. It is also important to
understand that in actual field conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines. 3xDBH may be more of
an aid in preserving tree stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X DBH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be
strived for, and this distance or greater should probably be used when there are multiple trenches on more than one side of the trunk. The roots beyond
the zone of rapid taper form an extensive network of long , rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as
transport roots because they function primarily to transport water and minerals. Maintaining a 5xDBH tree protection zone or greater around a tree will
preserve more of these transport roots. which will have less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to t~ trunk.
OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE)
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of t~ tree, all around the tree, that construction or ot~r disturbance should not encroach within. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method takes into account tree age, t>BH and the
particular species tolerance to root disturbance. Although there are no scientifically based methods to determine the minimum distance for construction
(for example, root severance) from trees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural
PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 22 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlat & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984.
industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees cl pevelop1Dent, Matheny et al., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree
protection zone calculation method in this text wos used to obtain the OTPZ's provided in this report. Due to the crowded, constrained nature of many
building sites it is often not be possib~ to maintain the OPTZ d istance recommended for many of the trees •• therefore I hcve also listed alternate
distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see porograph above).
LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECT IONS
Note that the followjng Is excerpted ft'om Division 2 (free Protection) of the Lgs Ggtos Town Code and does not constitute the complete
Division 2 text. The owner /applicant Is responllble for Implementing all pertinent requirements of the Code relative to free protection.
August 7, 2014
Sec. 29.10.1000 New Property Development
l 1 I The final approv~ Tree Preservgtjon Report shall be included jn the building permit set of development plans and printed on a
sheets titled: Tree Preservation Instruction (Sheet T-1, T-2. etc.l. These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets {cMI, demolition.
utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur.
(3.b.l The! site or landscape plans shall !ndicat~ which trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approval to
remove a tree until a seoarate permit is granted. The property owner or applicant shall obtain a protected tree removal permit, as
outlined in section 29.10.0980 for each tree to be removed to satisfy the purpose of this definition.
l3.e.l Protective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall
submit to the building department a written statement verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees
and protected trees in accordance with the Tree Preservation Report .
.Q..g.l An applicant ·Nith a oroposed dev~ment which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of sqid utilities within
the drjpline of exjstjng trees whenever possjble. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring,
air-spade excavation or by hood, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the drlpline of existing
trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or consulting arborist.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72~-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. =-
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 23 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
Section 29.10.1005 Protection of Trees during Construcflon
a) Protective tree fencing shall specitv the following:
l} Size and materials: A five (5} or six (6} foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2} feet at no more than l 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. ~: 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 4 • ~: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip : chain link fence
around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Tyoe 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. Caut ion shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing . Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place
until final landscaping is required. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
4) Waming 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 .10.1 025". A template sign has been provided to
be used on the project site .
b} All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
l) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ} when specified in an
approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and
prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripline shall not be altered in any
way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction.
2} Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the drlplne of the tree unless approved by the director.
3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil , gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drlpf!ne of or in drainage channels,
swales or areas that may lead to the drlpline of a protected tree
4} Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any p rotected tree.
5) Design utility services and Irrigation Ones to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
4 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the dripline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the trunk as possible,
lnduding as much of the dripline as possible, while still allowing for enough room to build improvements. If this happens to be within all or some of the dripline, then
so be it. But the contractor must to fence off as much area under the cano as ssible do not be irres nsible about this .-
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408·725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http:/ /www .decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 24 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
6) Re·taln the services of the c:erHfted or consulting arborlst for periodic: monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to
be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be present whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved.
7) The director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that
proper treatment may be administered.
Section 29.10.1010 1•runlng gnd Maintenance
All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning, established by
the International Society of Arboriculture {ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which
require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected
trees including cabling, and fertilizing if speci'lied.
1 ) Any public utUfty Jnstaling or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall
obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree (e.g.
cable TV /fiber optic trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.)
2) Pruning for c:leare~nc:e of utility lines and en·ergized c:ondudors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 {Part 1)-Pruning. Section 5.9 Utffity Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning is
prohibited.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.coln.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 25 of 32
TREE PHOTOS
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
Upper Left: coast live oaks #707 and ~a~, close to the story posts,
from the west.
Lower Left: same as above, from the south.
RighT. coast live oak #'107 from the west. Downslope and behind this
tree (arrow) there is a dead coast live oak. This tree's cause of death should
be investigated by me-it could be Sudden Oak Death Disease. But poison
oak needs to be cleared away before this can happen .
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8}. Apr il 27, 2015. Page 26 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
ConsuiUng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service .Iince 1984
Upper Left: coast live oak
#268 (actually on adjacent Lot
#11). Construction damage has
come close to the trunk of this
oak, and the tree is probably
dying .
Upper Right: close-up of
construction on Lot 11 relative
tooak#268.
Lower Left: note the
abnormally sparse canopy of
oak #268, a symptom of
extreme tree stress.
Lower Right: coast Uve oak
#269, also on adjacent Lot 11,
but this tree is/will be close to
construction on both lots.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9!5070. 408-725-1 357. dec:ah@pacbsll.net. http://www.decah.c:om.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 27 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Ar borlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
Existing Tree DCllftOge on Lot 10, where construction
has not even started yet
Upper Left: truck parked on Lot 10 under trees; no tree
protection fencing in place . Arrows point to concrete slurry
that has been dumped on the soil surface. It is difficult to
see all of the slurry in this photo , due to the dappled sunlight.
This slurry should be. removed by hand with a flat-blade shovel
and a wheelbarrow.
Upper Right: close-op of concrete slurry, and my sh~.
Lower l..£ft: blue oak #711 with a recent large mechanical
wound caused by a vehicle operating on site. This tree will be
removed , but even so this tree damage should not have
occurred. Such damage predisposes trees to wood fungi decay
organisms that can cause the. decline, death or failure of the
victim trees in the future.
Lower Right: coast live oak #13 with a recent mechanical
trunk damage (circled).
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net . http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 28 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Co nsulting Arbort et & Horticulturist
SerW:e sin ce 19<'14
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1. Tree l ocations were provided by HMH Engineers and are shown on the Tree MQQ on page 1 of this report. The tree map is a
reduced partial copy of the Grading and Drainage Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be
verified in the field.
2. Some of the trees described In this report were not numbered on the Grading & Drainage Plan It•••• #2&7 1 288, 2&9 aad 271.)
Please also label new trees 'A', 'B', and 'C•. We have numbered these trees on the Tree Map; p lease include these tree numbers
on the const ruction plans.
3. A Basic Evaluation of the subject trees described In this report was performed on April 9 and 15, 2015 for the purpose of this report. A
basic evaluation is a visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing int.o the tree or performing detailed tests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples . This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that
addil·ional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary.
4. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site. I did not enter the
neighboring prcperty to inspect these trees up close.
5 . Any information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my investigation In this case and the preparation of this report
are anumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. 1 assume no
responsibility for legal matters in character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title.
6. The Information contained In this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the
time of inspection.
7. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
8. Possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not Imply right of publication for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed without my writt en consent beforehand.
9 . Thts report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting o f a
specified value or upon any finding or recommendation reported.
10. 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 and the American Society of Consulting
Arborists .
11. My evaluaHon of the trees that are the subject of this report Is limited to visual examination of accessible Hems wHhout dissection,
excavation, probing or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, t hat problems or deficiencies of the plants
or property in question may not arise in the future.
12 . I take no responslblltty for any defects In any tree 's strudure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered have not been reported, unless otherwise
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408-725 -1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 201!5 . Page 29 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Ukewise, root collar excavations and
evaluations have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
13. The measures noted within this report are designed to assist In the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, shou ld
some or all of those trees remain, and to help in their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee
that any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline, fail, or die, for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a
tree's roots are usually far beyond its dripline, even trees that are well protected during construction often decline , fail or die.
Because there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that trees with no obvious
defects can be subject to failure w ithout warning . The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the accurate
detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees . There will always be some level of ris k asso ciated with
trees, particularly large trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable .
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I certify that the information contained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepared in good
faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I can be of further a ssistance.
Sincerely,
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS.
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professi onal Horticult urist #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 Tree Protection Directions (to be included in t he fina l project p lan set)
• Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on t ree protection fencing)
• Uving among the Oaks-a Management Guide for Landowners. Johnson . University of California Cooperative Extension , Natural
Resources Program . No date.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page30 of 32
Debor a h Ellis, MS
ConsuHing Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servir.e .rince 1984
GLOSSARY
1. Arborist. Projecl. 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 (I SA) 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 protecUon fencing and other tree prote:rtion procedures, and
being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project.
2. A!:Qerist. Qualified Consulting: must be either an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Board-Certified Master Arbor ist or an American
Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA) Registered Consulting Arborist that has suffiC ient knowledge and experience to perform the specific work
required.
3. ~: the fruiting body (reproductive structure) of a wood decay fungus, from which spores are released. It usually assumes a •shelf-like·
orientation when growing from the side of a trunk or branch. On top of roots, conks often assume a flat or "tabletop• shape. Conks are often a
sign that extensive decay has already occurred within the wood.
4. peciduous: a plant that sheds all its leaves at a specific time of the year, usually during the winter when the weather is cold. As opposed to
"evergreen· which are plants that retain their leaves in living condition all year long , never dropping all their leaves at once .
5. .PJ:iR!.!.DI: the area under the total branch spmad of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline, a great c.oncentration of active roots is often in the soil directly beneath this area . The dripline Is often used as an arbitrary •tree
protection zone". .
6. Grov!: is a group of trees that located close together that shelter each other from wind and the elements , having "knit" canopies. If of the same
species, there is usually root grafting between trees, which lends support from the ground, as well as water and mineral sharing. Removal of
one or some grove members could cause remaining members to be unstable due to a reduction of previous shelter. Grove trees often have
asymmetrical canopies when viewed as individuals.
7. Included bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the trunk, or two or more trunks, often appearing as a seam. In
contrast, a normal attachment wUI have a ridge of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members. An
included bark bra.nch or trunk attachment is weaker than a normal attachment. As branches or trunks with included bark grow, they expand in
diameter, squeezing the bark along the seam . This may kiR some portion of the included bark. When th is occurs, a wound response is initiated.
As a consequence, cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Su.ch defects can often be completely removed when a tree is young (e.g.
the offending members equal or less than 2 inches in diameter). Older, larger cuts (such as 6 inches in diameter or more } could cause decay to
spread into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to thin one member (usually the smaller member) by
25% to slow its growth and ultimate size.
8. Ba2.t collar & ro21,collar excavation and e:gmination: The root collar (junction 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 Ia rae roots
close to the trunk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as d1illing 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
PO Box 37 14 , Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408-725-1357. cle cah@ pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). Apr il 27, 2015. Page 31 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1.984
decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable in a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is
excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire portion of the
root system that is responsible for whole-tree stability. Decayed roots that are inaccessible (e.g. underneath the trunk) can be degraded to the
extent that the whole tree may fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be sound.
9. Root rot disease is caused by wet, poorly aerated soil conditions. Degradation of roots (root rot) and sometimes the lower trunk (crown rot)
ensues on weakened, susceptible plant species not adapted to such a soil environment. Opportunistic plant root pathogens (such as watermold
fungi) are often the secondary cause of the problem. Root rot is a particular problem among drought tolerant plants that are not adapted to
frequent irrigation during our normally rain-free months, such as many of our California native plants. The problem is often worsened in fine-
textured heavy clay soils that retain water more than do the coarser, fast-draining soils such as occur in the natural environment of many of our
native plants.
10. Sudden Oak Death (SOD) SHORT: Sudden oak death CSODl is a potentially lethal water and airborne fungal disease of tan oak (Uthocarpus
densiflorus) coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) and several other native and non-native tree and shrub species. California bay tree (Umbellularia
californica) is a major spreader of the disease to susceptible oak trees. Learn more about this disease from the California Oak Mortality Web
Site, http://www.suddenoakdeath.org/.
11. 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 many
small shoots (suckers) from around the cut stump. Some of these suckers may survive and grow to become significant trunks. These trunks are
spaced very close together and usually have included bark between them, which reduces the strength of 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.
12. Summer Drv: Our native oak species are adapted to our "summer dry" climate. When the soil in their root system is kept moist during our
normally dry months, these oaks are predisposed to attack by fungal root rot pathogens that are usually present in our soils. Therefore it is
important to keep irrigation as far from the tree trunk (preferably beyond the mature dripline) as possible. The best landscape treatment
underneath native oaks is non-compacted soil covered with a 3 to 4-inch depth of oak wood, leaf and twig litter (the tree's natural litter). Keep
this mulch 6 to 12 inches away from the root collar (junction of trunk and roots). An exception to the no summer water rule would be newly
planted oaks (for the first 2 to 3 years after planting, until they are "established.) and also during droughts that occur during the normal rainy
season.
13. Tree Service. qualified: A tree service is a company that performs tree pruning and tree removals as their main business. A Qualified Tree
Service is a tree service with a supervising arborist who has the minimum certification level of ISA (International Society of Arboriculture)
Certified Arborist and acts in a supervisory position on the job site during execution of the tree work. The tree service shall have a State of
California Contractor's license for Tree Service (C61-D49) and provide proof of Workman's Compensation and General Liability Insurance.
The person(s) performing the tree work must adhere to the most current of the following arboricultural industry tree care standards:
• Best Management Practices, Tree Pruning. 2008. International Society of Arboriculture, PO Box 3129, Champaign, IL 61826-3129.
217-355-9411
• ANSI A300 Pruning Standards. 2008 Edition. Ibid. (Covers tree care methodology).
• ANSI Z133.1 Safety Requirements for Arboricultura/ Operations. 2006 Edition. Ibid. (Covers safety).
PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http:/ /www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 32 of 32
I
June 17,2015 (via hand delivery)
Jocelyn Puga
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: Highlands of Los Gatos Tract 9969
Lot 10 Response to Arborist Report
Rf:C!IVED
JUN 2 2 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Ms. Puga,
This letter addresses comments and recommendations, made in Arborist Report for Lot 10,
prepared by Deborah Ellis, dated April27, 2015.
Below is a list of the "Debatable" trees identified and how the impact to each will be mitigated:
#A The retaining wall and grading limits were shifted to 8' away from the trunk of the tree.
#B No changes to design. Tree in fair/poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#268 This tree is on Lot 11. It has been determined by the arborist that this tree needs to be
removed due to safety.
#269 This tree is on Lot 11 . The grading daylight line has been shifted to 10' away from the
trunk of tree.
#688 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 5' away from the trunk of tree.
#697 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#699 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#700 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#701 No changes to design. Tree in fair/poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#702 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#703 No changes to design. Tree in fair/poor condition, but intend on preserving.
#704 The drainage system has shifted an additional 2' from the tree trunk.
EXHIBIT 8
1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 150, WALNUT CREEK, CALIFORNIA 94596-5394
TELEPHONE (925) 945-8000 • FACSIMILE (925) 256-0140
#705 The grading limits were shifted an additional 3' away from the trunk of the tree.
#706 The grading limits were shi:ft~d an additional 3' away from the trunk of the tree.
#707 The grading limits were shifted an additional 3' away from the trunk of the tree.
#715 The grading limits were shifted to 6' away from the trunk of the tree.
#701 No changes to design. Tree in fair/poor condition, but intend on preserving.
No additional trees were recommended for removal. All changes made above are per the
recommendations per the arborist report. Proper implementation of the tree protection will be
strictly adhered to throughout the construction of this lot.
Based on the changes made, the plan fully complies with the arborist's recommendations.
Steve Abbs
Vice President, Site Development