Item 04 - 15371 Santella Ct, Lot 8 - Staff Report and Exhibits 1-8TOWN OF LOS GATOS ITEMN0:4
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Meeting Date: August 26, 2015
PREPARED BY :
APPLICATION NO.:
LOCATION:
APPLICANT/
PROPERTY OWNER:
CONTACT PERSON:
APPELLANT:
Jocelyn G. Puga, Assistant Planner
JPuga@losgatosca.gov
Architecture and Site Application S-15-001
15371 Santella Court, Lot 8 (south side of Santella Court)
Davidon Homes
SteveAbbs
Dave Weissman
APPLICATION SUMMARY: Consider an appeal of a decision of the Development Review
Committee approving an Architecture and Site application to
construct a new single family residence and the removal of large
protected trees on property zoned HR-2~:PD. APN 527-09-017
RECOMMENDATION:
PROJECT DATA:
CEQA:
Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Development
Review Committee to approve the application.
General Plan Designation:
Zoning Designation:
Applicable Plans & Standards:
Parcel Size:
Surrounding Area:
Hillside Residential
HR-2~:PD
PD Ordinance 2237
Hillside Development
Standards & Guidelines
Hillside Specific Plan
65,886 sq. ft.
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
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 2
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8/S-15-001
August 26, 2015
FINDINGS: • 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 223 7.
CONSIDERATIONS: As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for Architectural
and Site applications.
ACTION: The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed
within ten days.
EXHIBITS : 1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
BACKGROUND:
Location map
Required Findings and Considerations
Conditions of Approval (12 pages)
Project Data Sheet (two pages) received January 7, 2015
Consulting Architect report (four pages), received April 7, 2015
Arborist report: Pre-development plans (23 pages), received
January 17,2014
Arborist report: Post-development plans (34 pages), received
April27, 2015
Applicant's Response to the Arborist Report (one page), received
on May 27,2015
Applicant's Letter of Justification (three pages), received August
7,2015
Visibility Analysis (eight sheets), received July 29, 2015
July 14, 2015 Development Review Committee meeting minutes
(four pages)
Appeal letter (one page), received July 15, 2015
Development Plans (12 sheets), received July 29, 2015
The subject property is lot 8 in the Highlands of Los Gatos, a 19-lot Planned Development (PD),
originally approved by the Town Council in 2005 . On March 17, 2015 the Town Council
approved Ordinance 2237, a request to modify the existing PD to allow the use of color
averaging for non-visible homes within the development (see Item #2, Exhibit 2 of 15343
Santella Court). The property is located on the south side of Santella Court (see Exhibit 1). The
application was approved by the Development Review Committee on July 14, 2015. The
application was appealed on July 15, 2015.
Planning Commissio n Staff Report -Page 3
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8 /S-15-001
August 26, 2015
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The project site is located on the south side of Santella Court (Exhibit 1 ). The property is
surrounded by residential uses.
B. Architecture and Site Approval
Architecture and Site approval is required for construction 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 2,703-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 design of the house is very well done and consistent with the style and scale of
other homes approved in the subdivision (see Exhibit 5). The Architectural Consultant had
two recommendations: to carry the stone material around all sides of the residence and to
increase the width of the shutters on the front elevation or to utilize them selectively. The
applicant incorporated the Architectural Consultant's recommendation to increase the use
of stone material by adding it to the columns of the rear elevation and to the trash enclosure
along the right elevation. The applicant chose not to incorporate the second
recommendation to increase the width of the shutters on the front elevation or use them
selectively on other elevations. Staff supports the recommendation of the Consulting
Architect and recommends a condition that the applicant increases the width of the shutters
on the front elevation or uses them selectively on other elevations. Story poles were placed
on the site prior to the Development Review Committee meeting to aid in the review of the
project.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 4
15371 Santell a Court-Lot 8/S-15-001
August 26, 2015
The project is in compliance with the allowable floor area, architectural and landscape
design, and the HDS&G exclusive of grading requirements, driveway slope, and retaining
wall height. General project data is included in Exhibit 4.
B. House Size and Neighborhood Compatibility
The proposed residence and garage would be similar in size to 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 living and garage floor
area are within the ranges of those in the neighborhood. 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 4,457 904 5,361 Under Construction
2 15672 Shady Lane 7/3/2012 4t_652 737 5,389 Occupied
3 15644 Shady Lane 12/11/2013 5,120 1,172 6,292 Under Construction
4 15657 Shady Lane 7/30/2013 4,169 1,120 5,289 Under Construction
5 15615 Shady Lane 1211812012 4,658 740 5,398 Under Construction
6 15315 Santella Court 7/30/2012 4,534 817 5,351 Occupied
7 15343 Santella Court Pending 4,687 712 5,399 Pending approval
9 15365 Santella Court NIA ---N /A
10 15358 Santella Court Pending 5,385 859 6,244 Pending approval
11 15330 Santella Court 1/8/2013 4,625 746 5,371 Under Construction
12 15310 Santella Court 2/13/2013 4,660 1,011 5,671 Under Construction
13 15415 Santella Drive Pending ---Development Review
14 15574 Shady Lane 7/10/2012 4574 784 5,358 Occupied
15 15588 Shady Lane 12/1812012 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 5,398 Pending Permits
18 15685 Gum Tree Lane 7/3/2012 4,590 807 5,397 Occupied
19 15675 Gum Tree Lane 2/26/2013 4,602 765 5,367 Under Construction
8 15371 Santella Court Proposed Projeei 4,578 795 5,373
C. Vis ibility
The visibility analysis completed by the applicant states that the proposed residence would
be 2% visible from the southwest comer of Blossom Hill and Los Gatos Boulevard (see
Exhibit 1 0). A typo on the fourth page of the view analysis states the location of the
viewing platform is at the southwest comer of Blossom Hill and Cherry Blossom Lane. An
Planning Commission SudfReport-Page 5
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8/S-15-001
August 26,2015
alternate view analysis, 150 feet south of the southwest comer of Blossom Hill and Los
Gatos Boulevard viewing platform was also completed. The proposed residence would be
23% visible from the alternate location. A typo on the eighth page of the view analysis also
states the location of the viewing platform is 150 feet south of the southwest comer of
Blossom Hill and Cherry Blossom Lane. The E, D, C, and A markers on pages seven and
eight of the view analysis refers to story poles. The story poles on lot 7 are also . visible
from the alternate view analysis.
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 and
alternate 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 10). Staff is in the process of providing a more detailed
methodology for the Commission and Council to consider and incorporate into an
upcoming amendment to the HDS&G (see Item #2, Exhibit 10 of 15343 Santella Court).
The applicant's methodology complies with the current language and would conform to the
draft language being considered. Trees that are proposed to be removed should not be
considered part of the screening in the visibility analysis. Staff has requested the applicant
to provide this information for the meeting.
D. Grading
An exception to allow fill (HDS&G standard) greater than three feet is supported by the
need to provide a shared driveway between lots 8 and 9 that meets Town and County Fire
Department Standa.~. Due to the steep topography of the site, the property is only
accessible by the shared driveway between lots 8 and 9 (see Exhibit 9).
An exception to allow the slope of the driveway to exceed 15 percent (HDS&G standard) is
supported due to the steep topography of the site and shared driveway between lots 8 and 9.
The existing slope of the driveway is 23 percent. The slope of the proposed driveway
would be 18 percent, thus reducing the amount of fill that would be required in order to
achieve a driveway that has a slope of 15 percent or less. Shared driveways serving more
than one lot are encouraged by the HDS&G (see Exhibit 9).
An exception to allow a retaining wall higher than five feet (HDS&G guideline) in the rear
of the property is supported to minimize the impact to existing trees below the retaining
wall. A single retaining wall will preserve more trees than terraced walls and will require
less grading. The project is otherwise in compliance with the HDS&G.
Planning Commission Staff Report -Page 6
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8/S-15-001
August 26, 2015
E. Green Building
The project was reviewed using the Build It Green standards adopted by Town Council on
June 2, 2008, and it was determined that certification 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 of
building permits. The checklist must be completed by a Certified Green Building
Professional at time of building permit application.
F. Tree Impacts
Prior to preparation of the development plans, the site was reviewed by the Town's
Consulting Arborist (Exhibit 6). Then as part of the Development Review Application; the
development plans were reviewed 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 38 trees, 18 coast live oaks, 19 blue oaks, and one hybrid oak. Of the 38 existing
trees, 10 are considered large protected trees pursuant to Section 29.10.0955 of the Town
Code. Of the 10 large protected trees, six coast live oaks (#631, #632, #633, #634, #647,
#648), which are in poor, fair/poor, or fair/good condition are proposed to be removed to
accommodate the proposed residence.
A total of 13 trees (six large protected and seven protected) are proposed to be removed in
order to accommodate the proposed residence, all of which are in fair, fair/poor, or
fair/good condition (Exhibit 7). There are 11 additional trees which may be impacted by the
construction. The applicant submitted a letter regarding the debatable trees listed in the
report (Exhibit 8). Retaining walls 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 mitigate the loss of the trees
that are removed. A conceptual landscape plan is provided (Sheet L.1 of Exhibit 13) but is
only conceptual in nature and additional planting may be provided and/or required by the
Planning Commission.
G. CEOA 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.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 7
153 71 Santella Court -Lot 8/S-15-00 1
August 26, 2015
H. Development Review Com!!"itt~
The Development Review Committee (DRC) held a public hearing for the proposed
Architecture and Site application on July 14, 2015 (Exhibit 11 ). Written public hearing
notices were sent to surrounding property owners and tenants (minimum of 30).
Dave Weissman, a nearby property owner on Francis Oaks Way, was present at the DRC
hearing and discussed concerns regarding the project's compliance with the HDS&G in
terms of the methodology utilized for the visibility analysis.
The DRC found that the application was in compliance with the HDS&G exclusive of
grading requirements, driveway slope, and retaining wall height, the Hillside Specific Plan,
and the approved PD Ordinance.
The application was appealed by Dave Weissman (Exhibit 12). The appellant's concerns
are that the application does not comply with the HDS&G because:
1) The visibility analysis standards are being revised for Architecture and Site application
S-14-072 for 15343 Santella Court (lot 7) and should be applied to the subject
application.
2) The methodology utilized for the view analysis is unclear and was not peer reviewed.
The visibility analysis completed for the subject application does follow the same proposed
methodology that was utilized for 15434 Santella Court (lot 7). The visibility methodology
does not include a peer review and the Town uses a consistent approach with all hillside
applications.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION:
A. Con clu sion
The project is in compliance with the HDS&G exclusive of grading requirements, driveway
slope, and retaining wall height, the Hillside Specific Plan, and PD Ordinance 2237. The
proposed residence is well designed, is an appropriate size for the lot, and would b e
compatible with surrounding homes in the Highlands development. The proposed residence
would be less than 25 percent visible from the viewing platform and alternate location. The
same methodology that was used for Architecture and Site Application S-14--072 for 15343
Santella Court (lot 7) was applied to the subject application. The applicant's methodology
complies with the current and proposed language of the HDS&G.
Planning Commission Staff Report-Page 8
153 71 Santella Court -Lot 8/S-15-00 1
August 26 , 2015
Staff recommends that the application be approved as outlined in the recommendation
section below with a condition that the applicant increase the width of the shutters on the
front elevation or use them selectively on other elevations.
B. Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission take the following actions to deny the
appeal, uphold the decision of the DRC, and 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 exclusive of grading requirements,
driveway slope, and retaining wall height and the 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-15-001 subject to the conditions in Exhibit
3 and the development plans (Exhibit 13).
Alternatively, the Commission may take one of the following actions:
1. Grant the appeal and remand the application to the DRC with direction for revisions; or
2. Modify the conditions of approval in Exhibit 3 as deemed appropriate; or
3. Continue the application to a date certain with direction to staff and the applicant for
desired revisions; or
4. Grant the appeal and deny the Architecture and Site application.
repared b y:
J ocelyn G. Puga
Assistant Planner
LRP:JGP:cg
A~~·
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
Dave Weissman, 15431 Francis Oaks Way, Los Gatos, CA 95032
N :\DEV\PC REPORTS\2015\Santella 15371-appeal.docx
15371 Santella Court
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
DEVELOPMENT REVIE'V COMMITTEE -August 26, 201 5
REQUIRED FINDINGS & CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8
Architecture and Site Application S-15-001
Req uesting approval to construct a single-family r esidence on p roperty zoned HR-2 %:PD.
APN 529-09-017.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes
FINDINGS:
R equired f m dings f or C E Q A:
• An Envirorunental 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
with the following exceptions:
• An exception to allow fill (HDS&G standard) greater than three feet is supported by the
need to provide a shared driveway that meets Town and Fire Department Standards. Due
to the steep topography of the site, the property is only accessible by the shared driveway
between lots 8 and 9.
• An exception to allow the slope of the driveway to exceed 15 percent (HDS&G standard)
is supported due to the steep topography of the site and shared driveway between lots 8
and 9. The slope of the existing driveway is 23 percent. The slope of the proposed
driveway would be 18 percent, thus reducing the amount of fill that would be required in
order to achieve a driveway that has a slope of 15 percent or less. Shared driveways
serving more than one lot are encouraged by the HDS&G.
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
with the development criteria included in the Specific Plan.
EXBI.:BIT 2
Compliance with the approved Planned Development:
• The project is in compliance with the approved Planned Development (Ordinance 223 7).
CONSIDERATIONS:
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 :\DEWINDINGS\20 15\Santellal53 71-appeai.DOC
PLA..~l\lG COMMISSION-August 26, 2015
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
15371 Santella Court-Lot 8
Architecture and Site Application S-15-001
Requesting approval to construct a single-family residence on property zoned HR-2%:PD.
APN 529-09-017.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Davidon Homes
TO THE SATISFACTION OF 1HE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: All performance standards included in Planned
Development Ordinance 2237 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
CommWlity Development Director, the Development Review Committee, or the Planning
Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
3. EXPIRATION: The Architecture and Site approval will expire two years from the
approval date (August 26, 2017) pursuant to Section 29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless
the approval is v ested 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 defen~
indemnify, and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third
party to overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a
condition of approv al of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set
forth in the approval, and maybe secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
5. SHUTTERS : The width of the shutters on the front elevation shall be increased or the
shutters shall be used selectively on other elev ations.
6. EXTERIOR COLOR: The exterior colors of the house shall not exceed a light reflectivity
value of 30 and shall blend with the natural vegetation in conformance with the approved
PD Ordinance 2237.
7. DEED REST RICT ION: Prior to the issuance of a building permit, a deed restriction shall
be recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder's Office that requires
all exterior colors to be maintained in conformance \Yi th the approved PD Ordinance.
8. OUTDOOR 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.
9. FENCING: No fenci~g is being approved with this application. Any future fencing shall
comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines and must be reviewed
and approved by the Planning Division prior to installation.
10. 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
EXHIBIT .3
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page2of12
prior to issuance of a building permit.
11. 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 final inspection. An in-lieu fee may be paid for
trees that cannot be reasonably accommodated on the project site.
12. 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 27, 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.
13. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
14. 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 27, 2015, for details. Include a tree protection fencing plan with the
construction plans.
15. 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).
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
19. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted
with the building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT:
Building Division
20. PERMITS REQUIRED: A building permit 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).
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 3 ofl2
21. 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.
22. SIZE OF PLANS: Four sets of construction plans, maximum size 24" x 36". (Optional
30" x 42" maximmn is acceptable.)
23. 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.
24. 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.
25. FOUNDATION INSPECTIONS: A pad certificate prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
or Land Surveyor shall be submitted to the project building inspector at foundation
inspection. This certificate shall certify compliance with the recommendations as
specified in the soils report and that the building pad elevation and on-site retaining wall
locations and elevations have been prepared according to the approved plans. Horizontal
and vertical controls shall be set and certified by a licensed Surveyor or registered Civil
Engineer for the following items:
a. Building pad elevation
b . Finish floor elevation
c. Foundation comer locations
d. Retaining Wails
26. 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" minimwn) 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.
27. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy
Compliance Forms must be blue-lined, i.e. directly printed onto a plan sheet.
28. 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
Conditions of Approval
153 71 Santella Court
Page4ofl2
level rims less than 12-inches above the elevation of the next upstream manhole.
29. 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.
30. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: The project requires a Class A Roof assembly.
31. 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.
32. 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.
33 . 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 Government
Code Section 51182.
34. 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
35. BLUE PRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara County
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (24x36) shall be part of the
plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the Building
Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at San Jose Blue Print for a fee or online at
www .losgatosca. gov/building.
36. REQUIREMENTS FOR COPPER ROOFS & COPPER ARCHITECTURAL
FEATURES : Avoid or limit the use of Copper Roofs or Copper Architectural Features
and Elements. When used 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 prevents
further corrosion and runoff.
d. Implement the same BMPs during routine maintenance such as power washing, re-
patination, or reapplication of impervious coating.
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.
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 5 of 12
37. 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 ffiE DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
38. 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.
39. 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.
40. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: All work in the public right-of-way will require a
Construction Encroachment Permit. All work over $5,000 will require construction
security. It is the responsibility of the applicant/developer to obtain any necessary
encroachment pennits 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.
41. 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.
42. 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
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page6ofl2
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.
43. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the
job site at all times during construction
44. 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
45. INSPECTION FEES. Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to issuance
of any Permit or recordation of the Final Map.
46. 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.
47. 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.
48. CONSTRUCTION EASEMENT: Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, it shall be the
sole responsibility of the owner/applicant to obtain any and all proposed or required
easements and/or permissions necessary to construct the improvements located on the
neighboring property. Proof of agreement/approval is required prior to issuance of any
Permit. Such proof is required for construction of the shared driveway located on Lot 9.
49. TREE REMOVAL: Copies of all necessary tree removal permits shall be provided prior
to issuance of a grading permit/building permit.
50. SURVEYING CONTROLS: Horizontal and vertical controls shall be set and certified by
a licensed surveyor or registered civil engineer qualified to practice land surveying, for
the following items:
a. Retaining wall--top of wall elevations and locations
b. Toe and top of cut and fill slopes
51. 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.
52. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to issuance of any permit or the
commencement of any site work, the general contractor shall :
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 7ofl2
a. Along 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 c.ommencing work and that a copy of the project conditions
of approval will be posted on site at all times during construction.
53. RETAINING WALLS: A building permit, issued by the Building Department at 110 E.
Main Street, maybe required for site retaining walls. Walls are not reviewed or approved
by the Engineering Division of Parks and Public Works during the grading permit plan
review process.
54. 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 arc in accordance with the recommendations presented in Geotechnical
Exploration, Lot 8 The Hi~ands of Los Gatos, 15371 Santella Court prepared by
ENGEO, Inc. dated December 31,2014 and the peer review comments for Lot 8 prepared
by AMEC Foster Wheeler dated February 17, 2015. The applicant's soils engineer's
approval shall then be conveyed to the Town either by letter or by signing the plans.
55. 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.
56. 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.
57. UTILITY SETBACKS: House foundations shall be set back from utility lines a sufficient
distance to allow excavation of the utility without undennining 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.
58. UTILITY EASEMENTS: Existing public drainage facilities are not currently located in
easement. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the utilities or easements shall
be re-aligned such that easements fully encompass the utilities.
59. PRNATE EASEMENTS: Agreements detailing rights, limitations, and responsibilities
of involved parties shall accompany any proposed private easement, including the shared
access driveway. New private easements shall be recorded prior to issuance of building
permit.
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page8ofl2
60. TRENCHING MORATORIUM: Trenching within a newly paved street will be allowed
subject to the following requirements:
a. The Town standard "T" trench detail shall be used.
b. A Town approved colored controlled density backfill shall be used.
c. 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.
61. CURB AND GUTTER: The developer shall repair and replace to existing Town
standards any curb and gutter damaged now or during construction ofthis 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.
62. 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.
63. CONSTRUCTION STREET PARKING: No vehicle having a manufacture's rated gross
vehicle weight exceeding ten thousand (10,000) 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.
64. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00a.m. and 9:00a.m. and between 4:00p.m. and 6:00
p.m.). Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the developer shall work with the Town
Building and Engineering Department Engineering Inspectors to devise a traffic control
plan to ensure safe and efficient traffic flow under periods when soil is hauled on or off
the project site. This may include, but 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.
65 . CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and
9:00a.m. to 7:00p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities
shall be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 9of12
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.
66. CONSTRUCTION ~'IAGEMENT PLAN: The Applicant shall submit a construction
management plan that shall incorporate at a minimum the Earth Movement Plan, Traffic
Control Plan, Project Schedule, site security fencing, employee parking, construction
staging area, construction trailer, and proposed outhouse locations.
67. 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.
68. 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 flusing 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 pennit.
69. 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.
70. 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 b~ placed
for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and tor 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 corrtx.:tion notices,
citations, or stop work orders.
71. 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 permeable pavement surfaces on the driveway~ at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
Conditions of Approval
153 71 Santella Court
Page 10 of 12
72. 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
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 Effluent Levels. A
Rain Event 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.
73. 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.
74. CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: 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
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 11 of12
control ordinance and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control
as required by the Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
75. 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 stom1 system shall be stenciled/signed with appropriate "NO DUMPING -
Flows to Bay" 1'-lllDES 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 of way.
76. 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.
77. 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 COUN1Y FIRE DEPARTMENT:
78. 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.
79. 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 hydraulically 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
Conditions of Approval
15371 Santella Court
Page 12of12
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.
80. 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.
81 . 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.
82. 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 mm). Where access is by means of a private road
and the building cannot be viewed from the public way, a monument, pole, or other sign
of means shall be used to identify the structure. CFC Sec. 505.1.
N :\DEV\CONDITNS\20 15\Santella.l5371_ appeal. doc
15371 Santella Court-PROJECT DATA
EXISTING PROPOSED REQUIRED/
CONDITIONS PROJECT PERMITIED
Zoning district HR-2~ same -
Land use Single family home same -
General Plan Designation H!!!side residential same -
Lot size (sq. ft.)
• gross lot area 65,886 40,000 sq. ft. minimum
• net lot area 26,354 Same -
• acres 1.51 same .92 acres minimum
Exterior materials:
• siding -Stucco .
• trim -Brick/WOOd -
-Vinyl dad • windows -
• roofing -Concrete tile -
Building ffoor area:
• first floor -4,054 6,000 sq. ft. maximum
• second floor . 524
• cellar -2,703 exempt
• garage -795 400 sq . ft. exemption
• total (excluding cellar) -5,373 5 ,400 sq. ft. maximum
Setbacks (ft.): ··~·
-31'1" • front 30 feet minimum
-161'8" • rear 25 feet minimum
-20'7" • side 20 feet minimum
EXHIBIT 4
-20'2" • side 20 feet minimum
Average slope (%) -31.1 -
Maximum height (ft.) -22' 7" 25 feet maximum
Building coverage (%) -13 no maximum
Impervious coverage (%) -15.6 no maximum
Parking
• garage spaces -3
• uncovered spaces -3
Sewer or septic -sewer -
N :\DEV\JOCEL YN\ProjectDataSheds\Santellal537l .docx
April 7, 2015
Ms. Jocelyn Puga
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: HJghlanda: Lot 8
Dear Jocelyn :
ARCHITE CTURE PlANNING URBAN DESIGN
I reviewed the drawings, and previously visited the site prior to the start of home construction. My comments and
recommendations follow below.
Neighborhood Context
Lot 8 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 - 7 101"
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
EXHIBIT 5
TEL: 415.331.3795
CDGPlAN@PACBELLNET
Highlands: Lot 8
Design Review Comments
April 7, 2015 Page 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.
I have only two concerns.
1. Stone is utilized only on the front of the house which is not consistent with the Town's Residential Design
Guideline 3.2.2.
3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• Carry wall materials,. window types and architectural
details around all sides of the house. Avoid side and rear
elevations that are markedly different from the front elevation.
Recommendation: Carry stone around all sides of the house in a manner consistent with its use on the front
elevation.
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE . SU ITE 199 . LARKSP UR . CA . 94939
Highlands: Lot 8
Design Review Comments
Apri17, 2015 P2ge 3
·----· Mo.---... ---
... ;'=t,;• ...
..
Left Side Elevation
--··
·------··
Right Side Elevation
Rear Elevation
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRCLE. SUITE 199 . LARKSPUR. CA. 94939
Highlands: Lot 8
I>esigP Review Commeots
April 7, 2015 p 4
2. The single shutters used at the left side of the front elevation are not wide enough to cover the window open-
ing if they were operable which is not consistent with the Town's Residential Design Guideline 3.7.2 (see front
elevation illustration on page 3 above).
3.7.2 Match window types and proportions to the archi-
tectural styk and to the surrounding neighborhood
• Match the size and shape of window shutters to the shape
and size of the windows. Shutters that are large enough to
cover the windows, if closed, should be the goal. Hinges
on shutters to allow their closure are desirable. Avoid very
narrow shutters that are clearly not wide enough to cover
the window opening.
Shutters are utilized only on the front facade which is also not consistent with Guideline 3.2.2.
Single shutters too small to
fill
Recommendations:
1. Increase the width of the shutters, add a shutter on the other side of the window opening, or eliminate the
shutters.
2. Utilize shutters selectively on the other elevations.
I have no other concerns or recommendations for changes.
Jocelyn, please let me know if you have any questions, or if there are specific issues of concern that I did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
~~
Larry L. C annon
CANNON DESIGN GROUP 700 LARKSPUR LANDING CIRClE . SU ITE 1 99 . LARKSPUR . CA . 94939
§ e
17'1
PRELIMINARY ARBORIST REPORT
Highlands Lot 8
Los Gatos, California
Pr~pared for:
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos. CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Slls, M!.
Consulting Arbor/sf & Ho.t1iculturbt
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists
627
Board Certified Master Arborist WE.Q457B. lntematlonal Society of Arboriculture
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022. American Society for Hor1icuttura l Science
JANUARY 17.2014
Debora h El lis, MS
Cons ultin g Arborlet & Horticulturist
.rtt'flitf sirla 1984
621 &2t
RECEIVED
JAN 17 2014
C!llOeborah Ellis, 2013. This report may be reproduced ln whole or In part~>'/ only the d leilt and the d lent's authorized representatives and <~nlyT~~~~ GATOS
subject project and/or property. All other reproduction requires the expressed written or verbal consent of Deborah Ellis prior to reproduction . Pr..A'r:JN"ff.lt3 'nlVISION
[--. --·--·-. -POBox 37t4~sa~;;og-;,-CA95070. 408~725=!357. d;c:c~h@pa~beii.Mt-. -http :uwww--:dw;h.com. :J
Deborah Ellis, MS
Coneultlng Arbortst & Horticulturist
Sertlice sine:' 1984
Table of Contents
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. l
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Description of Project: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
Description of Existing Trees: ................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2 Trees with "Fair/Good" Preservation Suitability ................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 3 Trees with "Fair/Poor" Preservation Suitability ...................................................................................................................................................... 5
Table 4 Trees with "Fair" Preservation Suitabilty ................................................................................................................................................................ 6
RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... " .................................................................................................................. 7
APPENDIX ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. I
Table 5 Complete Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................ s
Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 0
Supporting Information ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 13
Purpose· & Use of Report .................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 13
Observations ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 1-4
Tree Protection Distances ................................................................................................................................................................................................. t 4
3 to 5 X DBH ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 14
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ....................................................................................................................................................................... 15
Tree Photos .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 16
Assumptions & limitations ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 18
Glossary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 20
Cover photo. the frontage of Lot 8 f rom Santella Court. Coast Uve oak #627 a nd blue oaks #628 ancl 629 ore labeled. All photos in
th1s report were token by D. Ellis on January 13, 2014.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@.)pacbell .nd. http://www.decah.com. I
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
TREE MAP
.J
.'
14•,.. . ·~·~ 640 )( , 8" 8'! .... .
,----···--------..; .... '\-"" o39
, .1#·~ ,~ .
. ..· £._____-LRDA 638 637 6J_6
....... /.t; .... / ~ i """ \
1/J·-, !<" • • ( , .. r~ ' , ' Ito ... / , ..
1,/ ~ ,' ~. ~ ~,j45 LOTS l ' ,
• ,-644 643 l
.1£ ' 646 "'"_., !.-' ··eo;, , ... -· • 642 I , ·2-f· , ,....., 34 ~ / ~6 :It ' ,,. 635 ~ •• ,
(l
... , •• ~ ' . .. ..
/ k_48 I
, 4f~· I
I / 651 ,· II .. ~2 650 633 J/~ '~ I
,. "",;,. 631 ' • ·'B" it r ~ ) ,·/ 6J ,
,
/ ,
,_;~
'T~
/
/
I
. ::r : '--~~~~29 legend
4i' Fair/Good * Fair
Fair/Poor
....
i
' .· 5'PUE V"B· .. -··.-----
'}-' ~/'· .
1/
./SANTELLA COURT
' (
s~ mcs 1984
f PO Box 3714. Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725~1357 . decah@poc:bell.net . http://IIIWW.decah .c:om. I
Arbor ist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014 . Page 1 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Co•ulttng Arborist & Horticulturist
Sca>ic.: s'irta J9G4
SUMMARY
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT:
A single family home will be designed for the Least Restrictive Development Area (lORA) shown on the Tree Exhibit Plan. After reviewing
this arborist report the project architects and engineers can try to design the improvements in order to retain trees as many trees as
possible with "Fair/Good" preservation suitability. Note that no trees on this lot have been rated as having "Good" preservation
suitability.
DESCRIPTION OF EXISTING TREES:
lhere are 25 protected trees1 within the lORA on lot 8. These trees are described briefly the Summary Tree Table (Table 1) on page 4
and in greater detail in the Complete Tree Table [able 5) on page 8. No tree disposition recommendations 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 wHI be helpful to the project architects however, in deciding which trees to retain and how
tar 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 Summary Table. In addition, trees in the various preservation suitabifity ratings have
been grouped into separate tables for quiclc reference. as Nsted below:
• Ten trees ore closslfted as having "Fair/Good" preservation sultabmty. lhese 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 5 .
• Twelve trees are classified as having "Fair/Poor" preservation sultabllly. I would not put any effort into retaining any of these trees.
which are listed in Table 3 on page 5 . Further evaluation of specific defects is recommended for several of these trees, if they may
be retained.
• Three trees ore classified as having "Fair" preservation suitability. These are "so-so" trees and I do not recommend going through
too much trouble to retain them. They are fisted in Table 4 on page 6.
1 For the purpose of this project, a protected tree in Los Gatos c:s defined in the Los Gatos Town Code. Division 2 Tree Protection. Section 29.10.0960. 1213/2010 the
Scope of Protected Trees is any tree with a 4-inch or greater diameter of any trunk, when removal relates to any review for which zoning approval or subdivision
aooroval is reauired. Town Street trees of any si ze are protected. Fruit trees less than 18 inches in trunk diameter are exempt.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dccah@pacbeU .nd. http://www.decoh .com .
Ar borist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014 . Page 2 of 21
Debor ah Ellis. MS
Consulting Arborfst & Horticulturist
Slr'llic• sinct :984
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 reduce construction impacts to
trees where possible. I wHI eventually prepare a Final Arborist Report listing trees to remain, trees to be removed and tree protection
specifications for those trees that will remain.
My general impresston of the trees on this site Is:
They ore not in good condition. although they are generally in betfer condition than on the adjacent Lot #7. Why are the trees on Lot 8
in better condition than the trees on Lot 7'? I am not sure, but it may be because there has been much more disturbance on Lot #7;
particularly large vehicle traffic close to and amongst the trees there.
Ib!...UY trees fqr thll site are:
Those 10 trees with "Fair/Good" preservation suitability: #627~ 629, 633, 637·639, 641,645,648 and 651 . Out of these trees. coast
live oalc # 627 ho1s the Jargest single trunk diameter at 26 inches, and this tree is located close to the entrance of Santella Coort.
Unfortunately. it may be difficult to design around t he tree in this location. Valley and blue oaks #637 -639 are nice trees that are
located in the North corner of the site. and hopefully these trees will be located for enough from development to be saved.
PO Box 3714. Soratoga , CA 95070. 40 8-725-1357. ckcah@pacbell.nct. http://www.decah .com,
Arborist ~port for Highlands Lot 8 , Jar.Jary 17. 2014. Pag& 3 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & HorUculturlst
S m:ice since 1984
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
Tree Common Trunk Preservation I Tree Common Trunk Preservation
# Name Ofam. Suitability I # Name Diam. Suitability
&27 ~cast live ~6 -. Fair/Good
a k
1641 coast live 23 Fair/Good
~ oak I
j 628 jblue oak ~--!Fair
f"ti29l@ue oak 117---!Fair/Good
1642 ~:st live 114,14,31 r a ir
630 Teoast live 1 13----,Fa ir
loak 1
1643 j::st live 113 ~Fair
!&31 j:ast live 130 l Fa ir/P o or
I k I
1644 Foa:st live F 1,23 tair
1632 j::st live !10.11.12 t air
!&33 rooast live 114.14,18 t alr/Good
! oak
j i4s j~:st live 16----~Fair/Good--
l 646 1::st live 114--l Fair
!634 coast live 15,16.19.23 Fair
; !Oak
j 647 ~ast live 110.10 .1 1 !Fair/Poor
1 oak I
1 635 blue oak 12 Fair
1 637 ~alle y oak j18 jFa ir/Good
[ 636l blue oak j12---f air/Poor
! 648 coast li ve 15,20 Fair/Good
! !oak
649 blue oak 12 Fair
650 blue oak 16 Fair
651 blue oak 19 Fair/Good
~ 638 jblue oak ~1 · fair/Good
I 639 /blue oak j13 !Fair/Good
I 640 l ~!~!?."'k~_je . 1-~--·-----"~-~;!_
25 Trees
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga. CA 95070. 408-725-1357. ~cah@pacbe11.~t. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 4 of 2 1
Deborah Ellis, MS
Con.sultlng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Smlia since 191J.:
TABLE 2 TREES WITH "F AIR/GOOD" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY
ITree Common Trunk
I Nlame Diam.
:&27 f~ast l~e o~k 26
. &29 fbtu-eoak -,17
: 633 jcoast live oakj14,14,18:
i 637 ~alley oak l1s ~
l W jblue oak !21
' 639 jblue oak j13
'641 coast live oak 23 ;
i 645 !coast live oak 16 :
; 648 lcoast live oak 15,20 ;
~65~ ~~~~.e oak Jt~ ' 10 Tre~s
TABLE 3 TREES WITH "FAIR/POOR" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY
~rae Common Trunk
I Name Dlam.
; SS1-~o~st live oak 30
:636 lblue oak 12
i 647 !roast live oak 10,10,11 : 3 Trees
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dec:oh@pocbcll.net. http://www.d&cah .eom. ~,
Arborist Report ft)r Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page. 5 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlet & Horticulturist
Service sina 1984
TABLE 4 TREES WITH "FAIR" PRESERVATION SUITABILITY
Tree Common Trunk
II Name Dlam .
----
'628 blue oak j14
-
, 630 Jcoast live oakl13
: 632 jcoast Jive oak j10,11,12
; 634 ~oast live oak 115,16,19,23
· 635 jblue oak !12
! 640 lblue oak j9,10
i 642 ~oast live oak 114,14,31
: 643 jcoast live oak jB
' 644 fcoast liVe oak j21,23
; 646 jcoast live oak j14
: 649 lblue oak j12
;6so lbJue oak -Jt6 ...... -...-...... -.. ,-..... _.T..... ...... -•. ~·····
12 Tre.u
I PO Box 3714, Scrotogcs, CA 95070. 408-725-1357_ decaht9pacbeii.Mt. http://www.decah _corn_ I
Arborist Rt:port for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014_ Page 6 of 21
Deb orah Ellis, MS
ConauiUng Arbori•t & Hortic ulturist
S trtlir.e Ji11J:r 1964
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Which trees to retain? Try to design around and retain as many of trees as possible w ith "Foir/Good" preservation suitabifity ratings.
Trees with "Fair" preservation suitability should be saved when possible, but I don't recommend making a significant effort to save
them. No effort should be made to retain trees with "Fair/Poor" preservation suitabirrty. Trees recommended for further evaluation by
the arborist should be evaluated in greater detail if they may remain. If no further evaluation wiD 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 Tree Exhibit Plan wlh 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 frees in the field. We are trying to keep the
numbers somewhat in sync with the other Jots, and since we cannot depend upon old tree tags always being on the trees we use our
own number togs. We removed the old number tags from the frees when possible.
3. The deciduous trees (blue oaks and valley oaks) should be re-evaluated by the arborist again after tun leaf-out, around m id-June.
Several of these trees had some dead branches but it is difficult to accurately assess the percentage of dead branches, thus the true
condition of these trees while they ore leafless during the winter.
4 . As a part of fhl! design process. try to keep Improvements (and any additional over-excavation or work area beyond the
improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. SxDBH2_ or the dripfine of the tree, whichever is greater. should be
used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk:. 3X08Hshould be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trun!c on!v. for root protection. Farther is better. of course. For
disturbances on muHiple sides of the trunk. then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
also be token i"nto consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary working margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usuaUy comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans I
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 ll'ree Protection Directions will be included in the Final Arborist Report for this project.
~ 3 & SxDBH: See oaae fur an exolanation of these calculations, which are used to estimate root orotection distances for trees.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dceah@pacbcll.net. http://www.decah.com.
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. PagE 7 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Sel'flic1 siw:? 1984
APPENDIX
TABLE 5 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
rnrs raore rs conrrnuea rnrou ~h page JU. uara neras rn rne 1a01e are expra1nea on pages 10 ro 1 "L
TREE ROOT
CONDmON PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES I
Tree & Trunk Size I! Pre8ervatlon Notes tl Common Olam. ... fi Suitability i X ~ Name 0 Ill , 0 0 b :II M ~ ;; C')
--·--
j 627 Quercus 26 30*20 75 60 Fair/Good 6 11 19
! agrifolia, l I I !coast live
' oak I
! 628 Quercus 14 ~5*30 60 50 Fair 3 6 14
douglas/i,
lbfue oak -! 629 jblue oak j11 150*35 I 75 I 60 !Fair/Good I I 4 17117
i 630 !coast Jive 11 3
1 loak
122*18 70 60 !Fair
r 831 lcoast live 130
i oak
140*30 60 SO !Fair/Poor
r 632,coastlive 110,11.12
! oak
70 145*35 50 IFair
; 133 !Coast five j14,14:18 -)45*45 I 75 I 60 tFair/Good
j !oak
Slightly subdued and a significant trunk crook due to nearness of adjacent larger
jtree #630. Small trunk canker, potentially with some decay.
.Re-evaluate for internal lower trunk decay.
Stump sprout tree
!Stump sprout tree
634,-coastiive 115.16,19,23,50*60 I 65 I SO jFair !Stumpsprouttree. Re-evaluatefortrunkdecay.
oak 1 I I 1
3 5 6
7 12 I 30
I sl9!11
8 1 13 1 16
I
12 I 20 I 36
l 635 lblue oak ··l12 --~8*251 60 I 50 'Fair ~ots of dead lower branches, probably due to shading. Trunk forks into co-I 3 I 5 ; I ominant "tuning fork" vertical scaffold branches. although crotch between them
; _j --··· ··--·· .. _ ····-·· .. •... . ·-· ------·· __ ---·--·-·· -·-·---·---··· ~s .!&~rlr._ ~~!_!~d ~o.~ -~~!o~!~~~~-b.~~·-Go~_rem~ial ~r:uni_n~ ~~---'-J _
9
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA. 95070. 40B-7Z5-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www .decah.com. .:=J
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 8 of 21
De borah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbortst & Horticulturist
SmMt si1zce 1984
CONOmON
iREEROOT_I
PROTECnON
Species DISTANCES
TI'H & Trunk Size Prnervation Notes • Common Diam. ! Suitability as i :c :z: ~ Name m II a c D > i )( : 0
tn
..,
l ------
I mprove tree structure.
'636 blue oak 12 16*22 60 40 Fair/Poor !Subdued and crooked trunk underneath adjacent larger tree canopy . 3 5 9
1'37 QufHCUS 1i3 50*45 70 70 Fair/Good 4 7 13
lobate,
I v~lley oak__ _ _ _ -------------------··-- ----------------------··--i -
1642 coast live 14,14,31 50* 50 70 50 Fair Stump sprout tree with fan-shaped trunk arrangement Basal cavity where a 11 19122
I oak previous smaner trunk broke out I
! 143 coast live 13 50*20 50 60 Fair Small basal trunk wound and cavity. 3 srs I oak
J644 coast live 21,23 ~·4o 65 50 Fair Some basal trunk decay due to previous trunks that were removed or failed; 8 14 25
I oak !recommend further investigation. I
1645 coast live 16 ~5*25 70 60 Fair/Good 4 6 8
I oak
~tlive 14 ~5"30 60 45 Fair Gmve-affected, distorted sbuc:lure. TIY k
1"7 coast live r0.10111 ~2*25 40 40 Fair/Poor Two 10-lnch diameter trunks emerge from a large, hollow central mother stump. 5 9 10
I oak Best to cut out two 1 0-inch trunks and save the 11-inch trunk, if any portion of this
I tree at all will be saved.
1648 'coast live oak
115120 150*40 I 70 I 60 jFair/Good I I 7
1
12
1
2,
I~49.J~'~:~eoa.~ 11 _2 _ _ __ 135·3~_l_!~ ___ J40 __ lf~-------___ T~-=-:=_-___ -_-. =-=~=-~~=-----~~~=--~--------=----.. -_ f)_TD 9 I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. deeGh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. f
Al"borist R£port for Highlands Lot 8. Jararary 17, 2014. Page 9 of 21
Debo rah Ellis, MS
Conaultlng Arborist & Hortlculturlat
SmN:t .Met 1984
TREE ROOT
~ONDmON PROTECTION
Species DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Notes tl Common Clam. f Suitability .. ~ X X N
Name 0 ID II A. 11:11 Q Q ~ > s II( : 0
fiJ
,.,
··j4o•3o r ... -
650 blue oak 16 60 60 Fair 4 6 16 -----~ ~--·--------jss1J~ueo~k. __ 11~. __ ..1~·3~ .L ?<! ... L~-.J~air/~-~.. _j __ .. ___ ----------· __ --· _J ~ l._s_J ~~.
EX,LANATION 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 shown and referenced.
2) Tree Name and Type:
Species: The G~nus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the pfant, for example Quercus agrifolio where Quercus is the Genus
and agrifolia Is the species. The scientific names of plants can be changed from time to time, but those used in this report are from the most 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 lfOund). This is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of los Gatos, in lieu of D8H1
• For
multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks. A number in parentheses (e.g. 2) after the trunk
diameter(s) indicates that it was not possible to measure the trunk at 3 feet (due to tree architecture) and so the diameter was measured at this altemate
height (in feet), which reflects a more realistic trunk diameter for the tree.
Examples: an "'18" In the Dfam~ter column means that the tree has a diameter of 18/nches at 4.5 feet above the ground. An "18 ( 2)" means that trunk
diameter was 18 Inches at 2 feet above the ground. "18, 7, 5" means that th;s Is a multi-trunk tree with trunk diameters of 18, 7 and 5 inches at 3 feet
above the ground •
. J ®k:f 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
helaht that is also used in manv tree-related calculations.
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408·725-1357. ~cah@?pccb£11.nct. http://www.dl!cah.com .
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 10 of 21
Deb o rah Ellis. MS
Consulting A rborlst & Horticulturist
Srrvict sincr 198.:
4) Size: tree size is listed as height x width In feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Cond"ltion Ratings : Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which Is rare -like
a supermodel in human terms). A 60 is naverage" (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condi tion -vigor and structure,
and each component Is rated separately. Averaging the two components is not useful because a very low rating for either one could be a valid reason to
remove a tree from a site -even If the other component has a high rating. Numerically speaking for each 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. "Is this tree worth keeping on this site, In this location, as explained in I.i.tll!.§ 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/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 slgniflcantly improved with just a small amount of work-and It would be worthw111e to
keep the tree it this were done. ·-II ·--·· ••U¥11 ..... _.. • .__..... .,._,, •• ..,,. ·-~~••••v••
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple
ExceHent functional and aesthetic benefits to the envirorvnent and the users of the site. These are
great trees with a minimum rating of "Good" for both vigor and structure. Equivalent to
academic_g_rade "A'.
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition flaws that can be
Good improved with treltment They arw not perfect but they are In relatively good condition and
provide at least one significant functional or aesthetic beneftt to the environment and the
users of the site. These are better than average trves equivalent to academ lc grade • B'.
These trees have moderate or greater health and/or structural defects that it may or may not
be possible to improve with treatment These are •average• trees -not great but not so
terrible that they absolutely should be removed. The maj ority of trees on most sites tend to
Fair fall Into this category. These traes wUI raquire more intensive management and monitoring ,
and may also haY& shorter life spans than trees tn the "Good" category. Retention of trees
with moderate suitability for preservation depends upon the degree of proposed site
_ chges. Ectuiyalentto ~cademicgrade ·c·.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga• CA 95070. 408-ns=li57 ~h@pacbell.net. http~.~~,n:---I
Arborist Repor t for Highlands Lo t B. January 17, 2014, Page 11 of 2 1
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticufturlat
Table ' Preservation SultabRity Rating Explanation (continued from the previous page} Service siru:t 1984
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
Poor management. lhe tree species themselves may have characteristics that are undesirable In
landscape settings or may be unsuitable for high use areas. I do not recommend retention of
trees with low suitability for preservation in areas where people or property Will be J)resent.
Equivalent to academic arade ·o·.
These trees are dead and are not suitable for retention in their location. In certain settings
None however, (such as Wilderness areas, dead trees are beneficial as food and shelter fer certain
animals and l!!l_nts includlna decom~rs. Eg_uivalent to academic ~rade 'F'.
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
impact (Including design changes) are presented here.
15. Tree Protection Distances (See page 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 & Develooment. 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 conditi ons, the Arborist may
omit this requirement and list onl y the 3 and SxOBH distances.
b. Canopy Protection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
[-PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah~pocbell.net. http://www.d~coh .com. -----I
Arborist R~port for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 12 of 21
De~ora h Ellis. MS
--------~-----·-----------~--~----------------------------------------------Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
SUPPORTING INFORMATION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
S r.cliet sine~ 1984
This survey and report was required by the Town of los Gatos as a port of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of the
report is to identify and describe the existing protected trees on si1e - -their size. condition and suitabifity for preservation. The aucli ence
for this report is the property owner. developer. project architects and contractors. and Town of los Gatos authorities concerned with
tree p reservation and tree removal. The gQg! of this report is to preserve the exis ting protec ted trees on site that are in acceptable
condition. are good species for the a rea and Will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
METHODOLOGY
I performed a basic evaluation of the subject trees on January 13, 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 APPraisal, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA.) and published by the
International Society of Arbonculture (ISA).
• Species Ctassfflcation and Group Assignment published by the Westem Chapter of the International Society of Arboric ulture (WCISA), 1992.
• Tree Hazard Evaluation Fotm taken from Evaluation of Hazard Trus In Utban Amas, 2rwl Ed., Matheny & Clar k, International Socay of
Arboriculture , 1994.
The . above three references serve as industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations.
I measured the trunlc 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 d istances and other t ree-related factors. The DBH figure is not included in
the Tree Tables . but I have used it to est imate 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 o f these photos are included in this report. but all phot os ore available from me by eman if requested.
I PO ~-;3714:-Sc;crtoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. de~h@J;cbell.n£t . http://www.decah .com. I
Arbor ist Report for HighiOflds Lot 8. January 17 , 2014. Page; 13 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Set'flit:e since 1984
There were no construction plans ovoftoble at the time that this report was prepared. My evaluation and recommendations therefore,
ore based upon the site "as Is", but understanding that it will someday be developed. I could not therefore, provide on Expected
Impact of Construction rating.
OBSERVATIONS
SITE CONDITIONS
There ore no improvements on this lot. Site topography is mostly sloping with a more level area up near the cul-de-sac of Sontena
Court, which will be used for the building pod. Sun exposure for the trees varies from full to portly shaded, depending upon proximity
to existing buildings and to other trees. Vegetation is native to the immediate area and of natural growth (it was not planted). There
are three tree species within the LORA; these are coast live oak (an evergreen oak species) with a lesser number of blue and volley
oaks, which are deciduous.
TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES
3T05X DBH
No one can estimate and predict with absolute urtointy how for a soil disturbance such as an ~cavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an
individual tree to affect tree stability or health at a low, moderate or severe degru-there are simply tao many variable involved thClt we cannot sa or
anticipate. 3xl>BH however, is a reasonable "rule of thumb• minimum distance (in fat) any excavation should be from the edge af the trunk on one side of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002, Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
DBHis trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and plonning phases of a construction
project in order to estimate root dam• to o tra due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper,
which is the orca in which the large buttrus rDDt.s'(main support roots close ta the trunk) rapidly decrease in diameter with increasing distance from the
trunk. For ~ample, using the 3X DBH guideline an ~cavation should be na closer than 4 .5 feet from the trunk of an 18-inc:h DBH tree. Such distances ore
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 fi~ld conditions we often find that much less root damage occurs than was anticipated by the guidelines . 3xl>BH may be more of an aid in
preserving tra stability and not necessarily long-term tree health. 5X l>BH or greater is the "preferred" minimum distance which should be strived for,
I ---PO Box 3~~aga. CA 9 5070 . 408-725-1357. deecm@ pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. ------]
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 14 of 21
Deborah E llis, MS
Consulting Arborfst & Horticulturist
s.ma ;;incr 1984
and this distance or gr.m.r shou(d probably be us&d wh£n there ore multiple trenches on more than one side of the tl'l.lnk. The roots bi!YOIICI the zone of
rapid f·aper form on extensive network of long, rope-like roots oM to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to GS transport
roots because they function primarily to transport water alld minerals. Maintaining a 5xD8H tl'U protection zone or greater-al'<lund a tree will preszrve
more of these transport l'<lots, which will have less of on impact on tra health than if the excavation we_re closer to the tr1mk.
OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE)
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the t"-lnk of the tree, all around the tree, that conrtruction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This method tales into aceount tree age, DBH and the
particulcr species tolerance to root disturbance . Atthough there are no sclentifiadty based methods to determine the minimum distance fOJ' construction
(for excunple,l'<lot severanc:e) from trees to assure their survival oiiCI stability, there are some guidelines that are often used in the arboricultural industry.
The most current guideline comes from the text. Trees c!e Development, Matheny et ol., International Society of Arboriculture, 1998. The tree protection
zon£ calculation ~Mthod in this text was us&d to obtain the OTPZ'~ provided in this report. Due to the cl'<lwded, constrained nature of m<lny building sites it
is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance r.tcommend&d for many of the trees --thuefore I haw. also listed al1ernate distances of 3 and 5X
DBH (SM ptJrtJgrtJph tlbtwe)
~--~·-~--~-·----·---~------~·-·---·----~·------~0 Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-72!5 -1357. decah@ pac be ll .net . http://www.de cah.com. J
Arbor is t Report for Highlands Lot 8 . .T011uary 17, 2014. Page 15 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
SttTiira si11CJ 1984
Top of Lot 8 near Santella Court,looking 1o the ~est . From left to right; blua oRk~ :t628 & 629. blue oak i:f649 (bockgroul'ld). coast
five oak #633 (center background} and coast live-oak #631
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408 -725-1357. de~ah@pacbell.n&t . http://www .~ech.~-- - - - - ]
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 16 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbortst & Horticult urist
S'"'ia si:ta 1911~;
From the north end of the lot looking south 1oward Santella Court at the top: ldt to r•ght, coast live oak #634, blu.e oak #635,
coast live oaks #631. 632 and 633.
[ -~ ~--Po8;;;37M.~f.;;. CA 95070. 408·125·1357. daccm @pacbell.net. htt p://www .de eah.co m. I
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17. 20l4. Page 17 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Set'(Jir.~ sf;lc~ 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 8 Tree Exhibit Plan that I was given. Tree locations are assumed to be accurate but should be verified in the
field.
2) Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated.
3) 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.
4) Loss or removal of any part of this report Invalidates the entire report.
5) Possession of this report. or any copy thereof, does not Imply rtght of pubUcatlon for use for any purpose by any person other than to
whom this report is addressed without my written consent beforehand.
6) This report and the values represented herein represent my opinion. My fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of o specified
value or upon any finding or recommendation reported.
7) This report has been prepared In conformity with generally acceptable appralsal/dlagnostlc:/reportlng methods and procedures and
is consistent with practices recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture and the American Society of Consulting
Arborists .
8) My evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is llmHed to visual examination of accessible Hems wHhout dlssecHon,
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.
9) I take no responsibility for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been dimbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only hove 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 excavations and evaluations
have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
1 0) The measures noted within this report are designed to assist In the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein. should
some or all of those trees remain. and to help In their short and long term health and longevity. This is not however; a guarantee that
any of these trees may not suddenly or eventually decline. fail, or die. for whatever reason. Because a significant portion of a tree's
roots ore usually far beyond its dripfine. even trees that are well protected during construction often decline, foil or die. Because
there may be hidden defects within the root system, trunk or branches of trees, it is possible that frees with no obvious defecfs 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 rislcs associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated w ith trees, particularly
large trees . If is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable.
[ PO Box 3714 , Saratoga. CA 95070. 408·725-1357. decah@pacbell .net . http ://www .dec ah .~. I
Arborist R~port for Highlands Lot 8 . January 17, 2014. Page 18 of 21
Debora h E llis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortic ulturist
Ser.lice si11ce 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 furtner assistance.
7J~UL
Deborah 8fis, MS.
Consulting Arborist &. Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA. Registered Consulting A.rborist #305
l.S.A. Board Certified Moster Arborist WE--4578
( PO Box 3714 , Sarat oga, CA 95070. 408-72 5-1357. deca h@pac bell.net . http://www.decah.com. :-J
Al'borist Report for HighiCIIIdS Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 19 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbortst & Hortlcultu rl•t
StrW:-: sin~ 1984
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 or the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that additional,
more detaned examination(s) be performed.
2) Canker: an area of dead bark. A localized lesion on a stem or branch , often sunken in appearance, commonly associated with a wound, decay or
death of internal tiasues. Cankers often extend beyond the extent of an original infection or wound, killing surrounding previously healthy tissue. If
decay is present and spreads into the wood. a very weak area is created because both the inner and outer growth rings are affected.
3) Co.-dominant refers to two leaders, branches or trunks that arise at the same point on a tree and are about the same diameter. This is an
undesirable strudural defed that is a weak point in the tree. Co-dominant stems typically lack the overlapping tissue present in a branch or trunk
collar. which may be why trees with this defect split so easily. Included bark between members also reduces the strength of the union. It is best
that branches or trunks originate with space between them, or if they arise at the same point that they be or different sizes. Co-dominant leaders
can often be corrected (one leader removed) when trees are young. When trees are older it is often better to subdue the smaller or more
undesirable member by reducing the length of and/or thinning the terminal half of the foliage by 25% to slow its growth and ultimate size relative to
the other member, rather than create a large wound by removing one of the members. Large wounds are much more subject to decay than are
smaller wounds and there is no natural decay barrier between the members.
4) Crooks are unnatural bends or sharp angles in branches or trunks caused by the removal of other attached branches or trunks; often with a
vertical growing side branch at the end. This concentrates weight at the end of the branch, and also over some inevitable decay from a pruning
wound.
5) Deciduous: a plant that sheds all its leaves at a specifiC time or 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.
6) Dripllne: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius or 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·.
7) 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.
8) Included blrk 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 will have a ridge or bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members. An
included bark branch 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 kill some portion of the included bark. When this occurs , a wound response is initiated .
As a consequence , cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such 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
[ -~ ~-~ ·--~-~ POBox3714,s;;rt.;g;:CA 950io. 408-725-1357. dccah@?pacbell.nd. http://www~h.~--)
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17, 2014. Page 20 of 21
Deborah Ellis, MS
Con sulting Arbo rts t & Hortlcultu,lst
S•r.lice sir.u 1984
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.
9) Root collar excavation and examination: 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.
1 0) Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches of the tree.
11) Stymp sprout nes are the result of a tree trunk baing cut down to a short stump close to the ground. If the tree survives, it sends out many
small shoots (suckers) from around the eut 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 al'le 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 ean also reduce mechanical stability.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA95070. 408~725-1357 . ~~@pacbeii.Nt. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for Highlands Lot 8. January 17,2014. Page 21 of 21
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arbo rist & Horti cu lturist
~
~·
~
ARBORIST REPORT 12
Project Addre ss:
15371 Santella Court (Highlands Lot B)
Los Gatos,. California
Property Owner:
Davldon Homes
Prepared for :
Jocelyn Puga
Town of Los Gatos Community Planning Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Prepared by:
Deborah Ellis, MS.
ConsultinGr Atborist & Horffculturist
Registered Consulting Arborist #305, American Society of Consulting Arborists
Board Certified Moster Arborist WE-04578, International Society of Arboriculture
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022, American Society for Horticultural Science
APRIL 27, 2015
Report Hist..ort: This is my second report for this project, replacing my first report dated January 17, 2014.
-...& I PO Box 3714, Saratogc, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pae bell.net. http:/ /www.cleeah.~
Service since 1984
RECEIVED
APR 2 7 2015
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Set'flice since 1984
Table of Contents
TREE MAP .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 1
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 2
The Project .................................................................................................... , ............................................................................................................................ 2
The Trees ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 2
The Trees & the Project ............................................................................................................................................................................................................ 2
Table 1 Summary Tree Table ................................................................................................................................................................................................. 3
RECOMMENDAnONS .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Purpose & Use of Report ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Plans Reviewed ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 8
Background Information ......................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 9
OBSERVATIONS .................................................................................................................................................................................................................. lO
Si t e Conditi ons ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
APPENDIX ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 11
Table 3 Complete Tree Table .............................................................................................................................................................................................. ll
Explanation of Tree Table Data Columns: ..................................................................................................................................................................... 18
Tree Protection Distances ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
3 to 5 x DBH .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 22
OTPZ (Optimum Tree Protection Zone) ........................................................................................................................................................................... 22
Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directi ons .................................................................................................................................................................. 23
Tree Photos .............................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 26
Assumptions & limitations ..................................................................................................................................................................................................... 28
Glossary .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Cover photo: Lot 8 from Santella Court to the south. Trees #627 aad 628 are labeled. All photos in this report were taken by D. Ellis on
ADril 9, 2015.
PO Box 37 14 , Sarat oga, CA 95070. 408-72!5-1357. decah@pac:bell.net. http:/ /www.decah.c:om.
TREE MAP
.....
'-'_ ... -
-~
...... ,.,., ., -........... 645
--296'--... ... 646
'o ::.:.."::::,.-.--' ;,.' -... ~ ........
........... ~ ... ~ ...... 'iJ,.c-0~
.,.,----·-----,,
Debora h Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Arborl1t & Horticulturist
I I ........... ;* I ... I
U >·-· 640 I ., ·..:......... ___ ,_
IINCIO•IO....,. • --.--~ I
637 • 639 I I
* *63 6
. ...
~
e Save Tre e * Debatable -
(Read about tree!
X Remove Tree
S ervice since 1984
I PO Box 3714, Sar at oga, CA 9507 0 . 408-725·13 57 . deca h@pacbell.net. http://www .decah.eom . I
Arborist Report for 1!5371 Santella Ct. (H ighlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 1 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
SUMMARY
THE PROJECT
A new two-story, single-family residence is proposed to be constructed on the site.
THE TREES
Servia since 1984
Thirty-three (38) orotected trees 1 are listed and described in this report. All of these trees are native to the immediate area and are
mostly likely all of natural growth, meaning that they were not planted. All of the trees are located on Lot 8 except for blue oaks
#604 and 60S which are on neighboring Lot 7, but adjacent to construction on Lot 8. Most of the trees on the project site are blue
oaks that are not in good condition. The condition of many trees has det eriorated since I first evaluated t hem in January 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 indirect damage such as soil compaction as well as direct tree damage such as mechanical wounds to trunks. Trees
with "Fair/Poor" or lesser preservation suitability that it may be possible to retain in view of proposed construction have been listed as
"Debatable". A good option would be to replace these trees w ith 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 trees, however. Newly planted trees (and all other landscaping) require regular irrigation until it is
established; usually 2 to 3 years otter planting.
THE TREES & THE PROJECT
A summary of all trees is provided in Table 1 on page 3, and a more detailed description of the trees is provided in Table 3 (the
Complete Tree Table) beginning on page 11 . 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.
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 t runk, when removal relates to any rev iew for wh ich zon ing approval or subdivision
,val is reauired . Town Street trees of anv size are orotected. 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.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April27, 2015 . Page 2 of 32
Deborah Ellis , MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Smticc since 1984
The best trees or• slfe. all cogst live oalq with "Fair/Good" preservation sultabllttv thgt cguld be sav,Jtd ar.li,
#602, 5-inch trunk diameter, Remove due to construction (but could be transplanted)
#627, 26 -lnch, "Debatable" preservation suitability due to Construction . See design change recommendations in Notes column
of the Complete Tree Table.
#639, 14-inch
#641 , 23-inch, (the best tree on site). See design change recommendations in Notes column of Complete Tree Table.
#645, 16-inch
TABLE 1 SUMMARY TREE TABLE
Continued on the next page
ITre•f Common
# Name Trunk ' rx Diam. Preservation SuitabilitY pacted Construction Impact Action Reason
296 !coast li ve osk j2 0, \2 ,F air/Poor JMode.ra te !Daoalabla jOver:~ll Condition
~~~~!.!_il~f:: ual' ---jr am.:iooo -----Se\.-r:re -------R~o\""' or Tr<!l'l:o •lo ,,~~; --------=·=-
~e c:.Jit 1 C lr 1lriPoJ0r ";fO'vP"•t: ~~~onstr .J' .hrln
------
Overa ll JOI w! r 1--:::7-:-I 0 ----+=-I I ,.zr..-.. ll9i:i9oak-~--,r:!'l•r ------rL-c:w -l~a;re _ --~---
r6o"ilb-tue o~k·--·l t:; ---·lF•n rl Poor ______ lL owtMode~---loab~ie ----~rall coOcilt~o~------
llli?:T-;;ii1!E_.;.,. ''"-= r···/Goo~o --------r.;;o, • .;;;.,s.v.,. . "'""" .. "" !c.,.,,""''"'---== kal -~~-~-k -h -·--J"::_u ~--·----_lr c~:__ ~----_ _l=v-________ jl ?,~er~~~nd~~--~-·------
1 629 biU!!t oak 111 1Fa1r1Poor Modarate IDebatabl.e Ovaran ConditJort
j GJO l~~-~~V\1 oak fJf·--Ta;r ---------~~-I O~hatabiA ·--~Con"i!NCt;;;n-S~~----
63 1 -,-;:asl-;~po --F 1llf"t:N lSi"<"" f: r~o"mr..;~-j <:~Fil •!) ·-·-
632 ~a.s· 'l11i o;~kj l" 1.-ril1~e\rreJ.o>emo\'f' !construction
f6331-;m;-,iC£o oa~, j14 1,41 , H: ~~~ rfGoCid !severe I R~mo~.;-!construction
@~1 -rN!" 03~t ·,6.11:! ?..>ll ·q·r ~--JS~!Vere___ _ _ ~-"l qeiT11:J~J;:; !construction
I ... ?0 ~:< 3 7t~l, S ar<ri·_~!l, C/\ 9 !'5010 . R~03 -!?.5-·t 3 5 7. clt:t:ah~)pncb~ll.n--a·~-h·;·;-p://~vww.d~c.<~~.r:~.::_,,_,_. ---------'
Arbor is t Repo rt f or 1.5371 Santella Ct. (H ighlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 3 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst ~ Horticulturist
Table 1 Summary of Trees (continued from the previous page) Service siflce 1984
trree Connon Trunk ~reservation Suitability Expected Construction Action Reason # Name Dlam. Impact
·-j·<J r 635 blue oak 1" Severe Remove Construction
!&36 ~lue oak 112 Fair/Poor Low Debatable Sm:cture
637 hybrid oak 18-jPoor Low Debatable Ova111.ll Cor'I.:Joli on
638 blue oak 21 Fair Low/Moderate ~ave
639 ~lue oak ~4 Fa•rl Go(.':(t, Low ~ave
640 blue oak j9-:\0 Fair Low Save
j 641 !coast 11~-e. oa.k j2'J !Fs.;r/Good !Moderate !save
!642 I O<:.~t h .. 1'1i)~ , I ,,. 31 F'l1r I=I"J Severe Rem ove Construction , Structure, Risk
643 jcrost live ttak i ~ Fair Low/Moderate Save
644 coasl hva oak 21.23 Fa~r Moderate Debatable Structute
!h n1Gnoci ILow IS ave I
Poo~ Low Debatable
r'nn: Severe Remove Constructio n, Overall Condition
.0 j f-;:~r iGI.1od !severe !Remove !construction
f_•ri'Paor Severe Remove Construction , Overall Condition
F:, Severe Remove Construction
!severe !Remove !construction
652 blue oak 11 F·wi G_aor.l Severe Remove Construction
653 ~lue oak 1:. F:J Severe Remove Construction . Structure
654 !b lue oak tol Poor
1
... ow/Moderate Debatable Overi!ll Cond•I·Oil
655 blue oak 11 Fain'POOI Low/Modera te Save
690 blue oak j 14 r:alr 1Poor Severe Debatable Con!truetJcm
691 ~ast lltJt:' 0<1~ j24 -awPC'Or Severe Remove Structure , Co nstru ction.
692 p:;ast Hve oak. 19 Fa~r Moderate Save
693 blue oak 1-'l "cor Moderate/Severe Remove Overall Condition ,
Construction -·
End of Table. 38 Total Trees
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah~ll.nd. http://www.decoh.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 4 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Co ns ulting Arborlet & Horttculturiet
Service SI1u:t 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 th1s
arborlst report. Some tree numbers, i.e. trees in adjacent lots, are missing on t he plans. Please show all tre es and numbers o n the
plans.
2. Remove the following 18 trees due to construction Impact or because I have recommended them for removal far other reasons: #602,
603,628-635,642,647-653,691 and 693 . Coast live oak #602 may be transplanted.
3. Trees listed as "Debatable" are: #296, 605, 627, 629, 630, 636, 637, 644, 646, 654 and 690. Read about these 11 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
"Debai·able" 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 ;n 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 th·e Comprete Tre e
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 whet her 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 be saved. These
trees are listed as having "Fair/Good" preservation suitability and are the better trees on site: #627, 641, 690 and 692.
5. for thc·se trees that will be retained on the site, follow the Town of Los Ggtos Tree trofecHon DlrecHons . included in this report on pages
23 through 25. At this time the following trees will m ost lilcely be save d: (#604, 638, 639, 640, 641, 6431 645, 655 aad 692). A
separate copy of the Directions is enclosed and must be incorporated into the project final plans. Additional tree prote::tion
information is also available from Deborah Ellis if necessary. Thes e Directions shall replace any tree protection no·tes, specifications or
other directions (including detail drawings) that are included in the plans.
6. Neighboring trees : whose canopies overhang the project site must receiv e tree protect ion in the same manner as existing trees to
remain on the p roject site : for example tree prote ction fencing and signage. The general contractor shall fe~ce 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
In order to avoid branch brealcage, the general contractor shall hire a qualified tree service to perform the minimum necessary
construction clearance pruning.
I PO Box 3714, Saratogc, CA. 95 070. 408-725-1357. decah@ pacbe ll .n et. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist P.eport for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). Apr il 27, 2015 . Page 5 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Serv;ia since 1984
7. I should review all site-based plans for this project: I have reviewed the plan sheets listed on page 8. 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.
8. As a part of the design process, try to keep Improvements (and any addJHonal over-excavation or work area beyond the
Improvement) as far from tree trunks and canopies as possible. 5xDBH2 or the dripline of the tree, whichever is greater, should be
used as the minimum distance for any soil disturbance to the edge of the trunk. 3xDBH should be considered the absolute minimum
distance from any disturbance to the tree trunk on one side of the trunk only, for root protection. Farther is better, of course. For
disturbances on multiple sides of the trunk:, then 5xDBH or greater should be used, and farther is also better here. Tree canopies must
also be taken into consideration when designing around trees. Don't forget the minimum necessary worlc:ing margin around
improvements as you locate those improvements. Disturbance usually comes much closer to trees than the lines shown on the plans!
9. Construction or landscaping work done underneath the drlpllne of existing trees should preferably be done by hand, talc:ing care to
preserve existing roots in undamaged condition as much as possible and cutting roots cleanly by hand when first encountered, when
those roots must be removed. A qualified consulting arborist (the project arborist) should be hired to monitor tree protection and
supervise all work underneath the dripline of trees. This also applies to trees on neighboring properties whose canopies overhang the
work site .
1 0. Landscaping:
a . This sHe contains oaks that are native to the Immediate area (coast live oak, Quercus agrifolia and blue oak, Quercus
douglasii). 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 of native oaks is nothing but their own natural leaf and twig litter mulch. Exceptions to irrigation
restriction include during the winter in extended drought periods, as temporary compensation for root foss due to construction,
and for newly planted trees during their 2 to 3 year establishment period after installation. Native oak species are often killed
due to inappropriate landscaping that is installed around them; mostly commonly landscaping that requires frequent irrigation
such as lawns or other high water-use plants. Large drought tolerant trees such as native oaks can become dangerous when
exposed to frequent irrigation, especially close to their trunks. California native oaks that are treated in this manner may
contract root rot diseases and fall over at the roots; often causing great damage and personal injury I there are targets in their
vicinity such as homes, cars and people. It is important to landscape correctly around our native oaks; e .g. summer dry. I
: See oaae 22 for an exolanation of these calculations which are used to estimate root orotection distances for trees.
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 6 of 32
1.4ndscape
plans must be
revised to
comply!
Landscape
plans must be
revised to
comply)
Debora h Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horttculturlst
S eroit;e sinu 1984
have att ached a publication entitled Uving 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 !•he native oalks: there shall be no planting or Irrigation (including drip Irrigation) within a minimum radius of 10 feet
from the trunks of the oaks or the inner half of the drlpline of the tree, whichever Is greater. Farther Is betJer. Within thl:; 1 0-foot
(or greater) radius around the trunk a 3 to 4-inch depth of coarse organic mulch such as wood or bark chips or t ree trimming
chippings shall be spread over the soil surface. Shredded redwood bark is not allowed. Keep the mulch off the root collar of
the trees . Beyond this 10-foot (or greater) protective, mulched area only drought-tolerant, summer-dry plant species,
preferably plant species that are native to the immediate area and grow commonly in association with the nati•.,e oe~ks, 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 1-gallon cans in holes that are hand-dug
manually with a shovel {no power equipment such as augers allowed). These plants must be spaced sparsely {e.g. planted no
closer than 4 feet apart) and watered with drip irrigation. The planting zone around these plants shall be mulche d 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 landscapP. plan slllows new coast riVe and valley oaks to be planted on the site. Eliminate the valley oaks and replace
them with blue oaks . There are no valley oaks on the site and this tree species requires a deeper soil that is loss droughty than
the existing site. That is why there are only blue and coast live oaks growing here naturally.
11. Trees to remain after adlacent trees are removed should be re-evaluated by me or the project arborist after the surrounding t rees
have been taken out.
12. General Tree Maintenance: Do no unnecessary pruning, fertilization or other tree work. Pre-construction pruning should be limited to
the absolute minimum required for construction clearance. A qualified tree service should be hired to provide svch pruning.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070 . 408-725-1357. decah@pacbcll.net. http://www.de cah.com. ---)
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 7 of 32
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Arbortst & Horticu lturist
Service since 1984
INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE & USE OF REPORT
This survey and report was required by the Town of Los Gatos as a part of the building permit process for this project. The purpose of 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, developer, project architects and contractors, and Town of los Gatos authorities concerned with
tree preservation and tree removal. The goal of this report is to preserve the existing protected trees on site that are in acceptable
condition, are good species for the area and will fit in well with the proposed new use of the site.
PLANS REVIEWED
Table 2
PLAN DATE SHEET REVIEWED Source NOTES I
Existing Site Topographic Map
includin_g_ existing tree trunk locations
p Site La_yout
Demolition
Construction Staging
Grading/Drainage 12104 C1 2 X HMH Engineering
Erosion Control
Underground Utility
Site & Building Sections 316/15 A1.7 X Bassenianll.agoni Architecture
Building Exterior Elevations 315/15 A1 .1 4. 5. X Bassenianllagonl Architecture
Roof ·
Shadow Study
Construction Details that would
affect trees (for example building
foundations, pavement installation
including sub-grade preparation,
underground utility_ Installation)
Landscape Plantlna 12118/14 L-1 X Nuvis Landscape Architecture Conceptual
Irrigation Plan
Landscape & Irrigation Details ----
Note: all plans are labeled as Preliminary and not for construction
I 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 8}. April 27, 2015. Page 8 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Cons ulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
My first report for this project. dated January 17, 2C14 evaluated the condition of the trees on Lot 8 with no construction plans-thus no
"Estimated Impact of Construction" was possible to be provided for the indiv idual trees. It is important to note that my pre vious
evaluation the trees wc.s performed in mid-January of 2014 when the deciduous trees on site {the blue oaks) were leafless . In that
previous report 1 mentioned that 1 could not accurately assess the condition of the deciduous trees due to their leafless state, a n d that
they should be re-evaluated after they were fully leafed out. In my most recent evaluation of these trees for this April 2015 repc•rt, the
blue oaks were mostly leafed out and I was able to see that they had many dead twigs and branches, which is part of :he reason that
the condition of most of these trees has been downgraded from my 2014 r eport. I do believe however, that the a ctual conditio n of the
blue oaks has deteriorated at least somewhat since I first observed them in 2014.
METHODOLOGY
I performed a brief evaluation of the subject trees on April 9, 2015. Tree characteristics such as form, weight distribution. foliage c olor and
density, wounds and indicators of decay were noted. Surrounding site conditions were also observed. Evaluation procedures were tali:en
from :
• Guide for Plant A.ooraisgl, 9th edition, 2000, authored by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and published by the lntramatlonal
Society of Arborieulture (ISA).
• Species Classification and Group Assignment published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture (WCISA), 1992 .
The above references serve a s industry professional standards for tree and landscape evaluations.
Each of the trees described in this report had been previous tagged in the field in January of 2014 with metal number tags t nat
correspond with the tree numbers referenced i n this re port and on the Tree MQQ. For this April2015 re port I only rechecked the si'ze and
condition of trees that were proposed to be saved on the c onstruction plans. I also checked to see if any t rees had been re moved since
my 2014 report. The size and cor.dition information on trees to be removed was copied from the 2014 report to this 20 15 report.
For those trees proposed to be saved on the plans, I measured the trunk diameter with a diameter tape at 3 feet above the gro~,;nd .
which is the required trun!< diameter measure ment height of the Town of Los Gatos. Trunli: diameter was rounded to the nearest in ch. I
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408·725-135 7. clecah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. _ I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot B). April 27, 2015. Page 9 of 32
Deborah Ellis. MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
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 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.
OBSERV AllONS
SITE CONDITIONS
There are no improvements on Lot 8 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 damage to the trees through unnecessary soil compaction as well as direct damage to the trees
(e .g. trunk wounding). The site topography slopes downward to the northwest. Sun exposure tor the trees 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 changes well, and are best removed and replaced with healthy, new native tree species.
L PO Box 3714, Sa~.CA 95070. 4os=-725~1357.-~@pacbell.net.-hffP:/I~~~~c~----I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 10 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Slt'UiCI! since 19&4
APPENDIX
TABLE 3 COMPLETE TREE TABLE
This Tobie is continued through page 18. Doto fields in the Tobie ore explained on pages 18 to 21.
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECllO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Dlam. ! : Suitability
Narne .. i Impact :z: :z: ~ 0 ID ID lCD Q 'a > i! )( 0 ; C") "' ·-_._...
296 Quercus 20,12 j5ox40 50 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Overall Construction : not numbered on plan. I 7
11 20
agrifolia, Condition ~his tag number was probably from a
coasttive previous ne survey (not ours).
I oak Proposed retaining wall13 feet from
l --r~o --~nk.
602 coast live 5 75 70
FaldGaod I'" Remove Con-r :Within proi>osed slalrway 11"" oak or o front door. This tree was pre\iously
!Transplant n Lot 7, and Its description Is taken
from my 1/16/14 report for that lot.
603 Quercus 16 ~0 50 50 Fair/Poor ~evere Remove Construction, Conslrudlon: propose< grading 3 feet 118
douglasii, Overall !from trunk, house 5 feet . This is
blue oak Condition obviously not going to work!
Condition: originally evaluated and
18 --~~~ ro ro
described for Lot 7 report dated 1/16/14.
rTwm* Fair Low Save
Construction: ,..pooed cents~iiie of r·T'T' l drain pipe 16.5 feet from trunk, house 28
feet. Not numbered on plan; this tree is il
. i . located on Lot 7 close to the property '
line. 1 ... r~oak 1'3 -~·-SoL Fair/Poor 1-... wi"-Overall ~ .... ..-.,,proposed grading,. a """T' ··a-~
Condition from trunk. Not numbered on plan ; this 1
t ree is on Lot 7 close to the prop,9rty line. I
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-135 7. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com . --· --.=:J
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 11 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulti ng Arborist & Horticulturist
Service .nnce 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size reservation !construction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. I!! Suitability Impact :1: ::1: Name ... ~ ~ 0 u ID ID m Q Q .... > :I ~ M 0 lA .,
. -
627 Fc>ast live 26 30.20 1s 1 so Fair/Good Moderate/ Debatable Construction !Construction: too much going on too 6 11 1s 1
oak Severe close to this tree. Limit of grading at 6 I !feet, centerline of drain pipes at 8 and 1 0
feet, retaining wall at 11 feet and house
at 22 feet. Move all improvements so
I
!that there is no soil disturbance closer I jthan 11 feet or remove the tree . This I
includes over-excavation. Erect story J
I
posts to assess effect of house on I
canopy. I I Condition: this is one of the better trees
on site. I
628 blue oak 14 45'"30 40 40 Poor Severe Remove Construction, ~onstruction: limit of grading at 3 feet 4 6 141 Overall from trunk, centerline of drain pipe at 6
Condition feel This tree is not worth saving.
Better to remove it and plant new native 1
I
! trees in better condition . I
Condition : many dead branches , very I sparse canopy.
629 lblueoak 17 so•3s 50 50 Fair/Poor Moderate Debatable Overall ~'onstruction: limit of grading at 5 feet, 4 7 17
Condition centerline of drain pipe at 9 feet,
retaining wall at 17 feet, and house at 25
I
feet. Erect story posts to see effect on
I
,, canopy. I 1 ~'ondition : concrete post dumped against
l root collar of tree. 1
630 coast live 13 22.18 85 50 Fair Severe Debatable Construction, Construction: limit of grading at 3 feet, 4 6 7 _I oak Structure centerline of drain pipe at 6 feet. House
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www.decah.com. :J
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot B). April 27, 2015 . Page 12 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consu Hing Arborlst & Horti culturist
S ervice sinct 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECno
N N Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk · Size Preservation ~onstruction Action Reason Notes # Common Dlam. ! Suitability
Name .. i Impact :z::: X ~ 0 CD CD 11:1 'a 0 ~ s: i! "' 0 ;; C') II)
--_._._~-· ! is 17 feet Move all soil disturbance so
!that there Ia none closer than 4 feet from
ltfle trunk of this tree.
Condition: slighdy subdued and a
I significant trunk crook due to nearness
of adjacent larger tree #630. Small trunk
canker, potentially with some decay. . This tree would be a bstiBr for adjacent I
I blue oak#829, if#6291s removod. I
-631 coast lve 130 1"30 T Fair/Poor Severe---r~ r·-Construction: within proposed-house. 7 -ur -oak ~~on: further evaluation of internal
l lower trunk decay \\'OUid be
recommended iftree might be retained. f632 lcoast live ]1 o, 11, 12 rs•ss 70 50 Fair 'Severe Remove Construction t" .... e ... ction: within proposed house.
1
6
1
s--r1,
oak 1 Condition: stump sprout tr.:e
j 633 l::stlive 114,1~'*451 75 l 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction construction: within proposed house-:--rs-r3T1-6
Condition: stump sprout tree
'834C0asulvo t6.1if"60 I esro JFair Severe Remove Construction construction: within proposed nouse:--·r2 -r0f36
oak 3 r Condition: stump sprout tree ·--·· --r-__
635 blueoak 12 138'*25 so 50 li=air -· Severe Remove Construction iConstruction: within proposed house. 3 5 9
' Condition: lots of dead lower branches,
I probably due to shading. Trunk forks
into co-dominant ''tuning fork" vertical
~caffold branches, although crotch
I
between them is fairfy wide and without l
obvious included bark. Good remedial
pruning can improve tree st:ructure.
1
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Sante lla Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 201 5. Page ;3 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size reservation ~onstructlor1 Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. Suitability f:! Impact ::z: ::r:: Name .. I N 0 I m ID a. 1:11 Q Q .... > liC liC 0
tn M .,
I --... -l I
.. -·· J
636 blue oak 12 16*22 60 40 Fair/Poor Low Debatable Structure !Construction: not numbered on plan. 19 3 5 9 I ~t from proposed grading.
!Condition: Subdued and crooked trunk I ~ndemeath adjacent larger tree canopy.
Not a great tree , but small and far I enough from house so that is should not j
cause a problem, at least in the short
~rm.
637 Quercus 18 50*45 40 40 IPoor Low Debatable !Overall Construction: not numbered on plan . 4 7 13
species,
j
Condition Condition: this oak is probably a ;
hybridoak I naturally occurring hybrid between valley I and blue oak. Many dead branches.
638 blue oak 21 50*40 80 50 Fair Low/ Save !Construction: not numbered on plan. 7 5 9 21 !
Moderate feet from end of proposed retaining wall I ·and grading.
IC_ondition: large scaffold branch removal
~ound to trunk ; with all of canopy above
~his.
639 blue oak 14 50*30 70 70 Fair/Good Low Save Construction : not numbered on plan. 30 4 6 181
l feet from proposed grading on Lot 8.
~onc:l..ition: poison oak growing al l over
_ ~nk . j
640 blue oak 9,10 25*20 60 60 Fair Low Save Construction : not numbered on plan. 30
!feet from proposed grading.
4 6 11
641 C08$tlive 23 30*35 75 70 Fair/Good Moderate Save !construction: proposed retaining walls 6 9 17
oak I 7.8 and 8.5 feet from trunk. House is 15
----- ----------~~~ -~--~ ~
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decak@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct . (Highlands Lot 8). April 27,2015. Page 14 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consultin g Arborlst & Horticulturist
S ervice since 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size reservation Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. ~ Suitability ~I Name ~ u Impact % :z:
Ill Ill a Q Q .... > :I .. ~ I< 0 Ui II)
..
feet The retaining wall may work as I long as there is no excavation closer
~an 6 feet from the trunk; preferably 9
I
feet or more. Erect story posts to see
how house construction will affect
I canopy. Recommend keeping house far
I I enough from tree so that no clearance
pruning will be required (for beth the
house and construction of the house).
I I Condition: this is the best tree on the site
I (see photos}. _ ·--·-~ ~--
642 coast live 14,14,31 so• so 75 40 IF air/Poor ~evere Remow Construction, Construction: proposed retaining wall4.5 11 22
oak Structure, Risk feet from trunks, house 16.5 feet. Not
rowrth redesigning around -remove tree.
It is not a good idea to haw a tree with
such poor structure so close to the
house anyway.
Condition: stump sprout tree with fan-
~haped trunk arrangement. Basal cavity
j !where a previous smaller trunk broke out
l . (see photos).
~r-l-r20 -~~, low/ Save Cons..-n: 15.5 feetflom proposed l3 -16 Moderate retaining wall,
Condition: small basal trunk wound and
cavity. rr ... r1.23140 -·-I
Structure ~onS1ruciion: 11:6 feet·ii.im,;,;;;;o.ed ·Tal14 · 25 70 50 iFalr Moderate Debatable
I retaining wall, 32 feet from house. ~
j I C...Qll.dition: Some basal trunk decay due 1
C PO Box 3714 , Saratoga ,CA 950 70. 408-725=i357~ca~be~ http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 1!5371 Sant~lla Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 15 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service sitta 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size reservation. Construction Action Reason Notes # Common Dlam. ! Suitability Impact Name ... ~ ::t: ::r: N 0 CD CD a. ell Q Q b > c IIC ~ -"" U)
.. r to previous trunks that 'N'ere removed or
failed; recommend further investigation.
645 coast live 16 145*25 70 60 Fair/Good Low Save Construction : 20 feet from proposed 4 6 s I
~ak retaining wall. Not numbered on plan. j
646 coast live 14 145*30 50 45 Poor Low Debatable Constructi_0_n: 18 feet from proposed 4 6 7 1
oak retaining wall. Not numbered on plan. l
I Construction: grove..affected, distorted j
I I
structure. Far enough from house so
that is should not cause a problem if it I remains in the short tenn.
647 coast live 10,10,11 ~2x25 40 50 Poor !Severe !Remove Construction , Construction: within proposed house. !
oak Overall Condition : Two 1 0-inch diameter trunks I
I
Condition emerge from a large, hollow central I • /'TlOther stump. .
I l
648 lcoast live !15,20 50x40 70 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction ll"onstruction: within proposed house. I oak I 1 ... blue oak 12 35x25 70 40 Fair/Poor Severe Remove ·Construction, !Construction: within proposed house. ! pverall
Condition
650 blue oak 16 140x30 60 60 Fair Severe Remove Construction .Construction: within proposed house.
651 blue oak 19 ~x35 70 60 Fair/Good Severe !Remove ponstruction ~~"ons1ruction: within proposed house . 5 8 24
652 blue oak 13 ~5 70 60 Fair/Good Severe Remove Construction 'Construction: within proposed grading 4 6 13 I
and drain pipe. This tree was previously i
~ Lot 9 and the description is from my
.,
2112114 report for that lot.
I J
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. dec:ah@pac:bell.net. http://www.decah.com . I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct . (Highlands Lot B). April 27 , 2015 . Page 16 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N
Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size Preservation Constructio" Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. ! Suitability
Name .. ~ Impact % : ~ 0 ID ID ct 0 0 s: :II ~ ~ OJ ~ ...._......._ __ ~ ..
653 blue oak 13 13ox2o 75 45 Fair Severe Remove Construction, Construction: within proposed grad ing. J
I
r-rr~ ~~r~ 1~ ~tructure i
654 blue oak Debatable 'Overall Can•-= not numbe!ed ., plan. an "T" ~ Moderate Condition. ~djacent Lot 9, close to property line. . .
Proposed limit of gradl ng is 6 fe$t from I ~
. ~nk. ---. -. ---~---
655 blue oak 11 25x22 50 60 Fair/Poor Low/ Save Construction : not numbered on plan. 3 5 11
Moderate Proposed grading 6.5 and 12.5 feet from
trunk.
~ndition: recent mechanical wound to
ttrunk has knocked a large patch of bark
1-prone to infection and decay In the ___ .. .. [future. .. . .. -.-;
690 blue oak
114
:38x3-0 50 eo Fair/Poor Severe Debatable Construction Construction : proposed retaining wall 3 4 6 15
feet from trunk. This is too close -move
wall farther so that there is no soil
disturbance within a minimum of 6 feet
from trunk. This means retaining wall
must be farther than 6 feet in order to
I I include over-excavation . coastiNeT ~45 !Severe -6 ··--· 691 70 40 Fair/Poor Remove Structure, Construction : proposed retaining wall 4 10 ·ta
[oak ConstrucHon. feet from trunk. Soil disturbance
(because on multiple sides of trunk)
I should be a minimum of 10 feet from
trunk. But this tree is not worth saving
~ue to poor structure. Remove it and ! I replace with a new, native tree species i in good condition. I
I PO Box 3714, Saratogci, CA 95070. 408-725-l357~ca~bel~ httP:I/www.decah.com. )
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 17 of 32
Deborah Ellis. MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
TREE ROOT
CONDITIO PROTECTIO
N N Species Expected DISTANCES
Tree & Trunk Size reservation ~onstruction Action Reason Notes # Common Diam. Suitability ! Impact % % Name ... ::J N 0 u ID ID 0.. a Q 0 ... > c IC IC 0 -"" .,
tn
··-· ..
I
. -·-·--r ·-l ----· ----------------·-cci_ndjtion : deep trunk-cavitY With inte-rior-. -·l
r.vood rat's nest (cavity probably large). j
692 coast live 19 35x25 60 50 Fair Moderate Save Construction: proposed retaining wa ll 8 5 8 14
oak feet from trunk. Move wall farther so that ' l
there is no excavation within 8 feat of I
j runk. i
693 blue oak 16 f40x30 40 40 Poor Moderate/ Remove Overall Construction: proposed retaining wan 5 4 7 2o I
Severe Condition, feet from trunk. This may work If there is ,
I Construction no excavation closer than 4 feet from the I
!trunk, but really th is tree is not worth j
~aving . I Condition: very sparse canopy with lots
of dead tenninal twigs and larger I
I I -~J I I ~nch*'_~·~----___________ --·-
_ __ I
EXPLANATION OF TREE TABLE DATA COLUMNS :
1) Tree Number (the field tag number of the existing tree). Each existing tree in the f ield is tagged with a 1.25 Inch 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 Genus and species of each tree. This is the unique scientific name of the plant, for example Quercus agrifofia where Quercus is the Genus
and agrifofia 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 f irst occurrence in the Tree
Table, along with the regional common name. After that only the common name is used.
L PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725·1357. decah@pacbell .net. http:/ /www.de cah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct . (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015 . Page. 18 of 32
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Con s ulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servia sinct 1984
3) Trunk diameter (at 3 feet above the sround). This Is the trunk diameter measurement height required by the Town of Los Gatos, In lieu of DBH3
• For
multi-trunk trees, trunk diameter is measured for the largest trunk and estimated for all smaller trunks.
4) Size: tree size is listed as helght x width in feet, estimated and approximate and intended for comparison purposes.
5) Condition Ratings: Trees are rated for their condition on a scale of zero to 100 with zero being a dead tree and 100 being a perfect tree (which is rare-
like a supermodel in human terms}. A 60 is "average•· (not great but not terrible either). There are two components to tree condition-vigor and
structure, and each c·;,mponent 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 separat e component:
100 is equivalent to E;occellent (an 'A' academic grade), 80 Is Good (B), 60 is Fair (C), 40 Is Poor (D), 20 is Unacceptable (F) and 0 is C.tead.
6) Relative to the scope of work for thls 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 the site to provide an opinion on ·the tree's
Preservation Suitability Rating (i.e. •1s this tree worth keeping on this site, in this location, as explained in Table 4 below and on the next page. This is
based upon the scenario that the tree is given enoug~1 above and below-ground space to survive and llve a long life on the site. Ratings such as
"Fair/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 wou!d be worthwhile to
keep the tree if this were done.
E:.:cellent
Good
Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation (continued on the next page)
Such trees are rare but they have unusually good health and structure and provide multiple functional
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'. --I
These trees may have some minor to moderate structural or condition llaws that can be improved 1
with treatment They are not perfect but they are .. in relatively good condition and pi'O'~da at least o .. ne I
significant functional~r aesthetic benefit to the environment and the users of the site. These are ,_j
J Q.W::1. is tree trunk diameter in inches "at breast height", measured at 4.5 feet above ground level. This is the foresby and arboriculbJral standard measurement
heklht that is also used in manv tree-related calculations .
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 19 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Table 4 Preservation Suitability Rating Explanation (continued from the previous page) Seroi{:$ since 1984
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
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 defecls 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 grade ·o·.
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 ~I ants including decoml)osers. Egulvalent to academic grade · F'.
8) Action (Disposition):
a) Sove: it should be no problem save this tree utilizing standard tree protection measures.
b) Remot~e: 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 this tree. Find out why In the Reason and Notes columns of the Complete Tree Table.
Examples are:
• The tree is shown to be sayed (and may be a desirable tree to save) but proposed constructjon is too close or is uncertain and may cause too
much damage to retain the tree. Design changes may be recommended to reduce damage to the tree so that it can be saved.
• Further evaluation of the tree Is necessary (e.g. the tree requires further, more detailed evaluation that is beyond the scope of this tree survey
and report. Examples are advanced internal decay detection and quantification with resistance drilling or tomography, a .. pull test" to assess
tree stability from the roots, or tissue samples sent to a plant pathology laboratory for disease diagnosis.
• Condition: the tree is in "so-so" or lesser condition and an argument could be made to either save or remove the tree as it stands now. In
some cases the owner will make the decision to save or remove the tree based upon the Information provided in this report as well as the
owner's own preferences.
• Species: the tree may be a poor species for the area or the Intended use of the developed site.
• Uncertain construction Impact
• Other (as explained for the individual tree)
J 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 8). April 27,2015. Page 20 of 32
Deborah Ellis , MS
Con suiU ng Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service nnct 1984
9) Reason (for trE!e removal or to explain why a tree Is listed as .. DebatableH 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. J:Oor tree condition-either vigor, structure or both)
• Landscaping (the tree Is being removed because it does not fit In with or conflicts with proposed new landscaping)
• OWII~r's D«lslon (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 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.
11} Tree Protection Distances (See page 22).
a) Root Protectjgffi
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
50% of the 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.
il) 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 poss!ble to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for trees on many projects due to crowded site conditions, the Arborist may omit this
requir·!!ment and list c·nly the 3 and SxDBH distances.
b) canopy Prgtection: Additional space beyond root zone protection distances may be necessary for canopy protection.
I -PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. ----:J
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 21 of 32
TREE PROTECTION DISTANCES
3 TO 5 X DBH
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst &'. Horticulturist
Servia since 1984
No one can estimate and predict with absolute certainty how far a soil disturbance such as an excavation must be from the edge of the trunk of an
individual 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 howe~r. is a reasonable "rule of thumb" minimum distance (in feet) any excavation should be from the edge of the trunk on one side of
the trunk. This is supported by several separate research studies including (Smiley, Fraedrich, & Hendrickson 2002. Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories.
D8His trunk "diameter at breast height" (4.5 feet above the ground). This distance is often used during the design and planning phases of a construction
project in order to estimate root damage to a tree due to the proposed construction. It tends to correlate reasonably well with the zone of rapid toper,
which is the 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 s ide of the trunk. The roots beyond
the zone of rapid taper form an extensi~ network of long, rope-like roots one to two inches in diameter. These woody perennial roots are referred to as
traMport 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 ho~ less of an impact on tree health than if the excavation were closer to the trunk.
OTPZ (OPTIMUM TREE PROTECTION ZONE)
OTPZ is the distance in feet from the trunk of the tree, all around the tree. that construction or other disturbance should not encroach within. If this
zone is respected, then chances of the tree surviving construction disturbance are very good. This metkod takes into account tree age , DBH and the
pcrticular species tolerance to root d isturbance. Although there are no scientificolly based methods to determine the minimum distance for constr uction
(for example, root s everance) from t rees to assure their survival and stability, there are some guidelines that ore often used in the orboriculturol
industry. The most current guideline comes from the text, Trees & Development, 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 s ites it is often not be possible to maintain the OPTZ distance recommended for many of the trees --therefor e I have also listed alternate
distances of 3 and 5X DBH (see porogroplr abo~).
I 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 8). April 27, 2015. Page 22 of 32
Debor ah Ellis, MS
Co nsulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
.\'r.rr;ia since 1984
LOS GATOS GENERAL TREE PROTECTION DIRECTIONS
Note that the following is excerpted from Division 2 (l'ree Protection} of the Los Gqfos Town Code and does not con.stitute the cc,mplete
Division 2 text. The owner /applicant is responsible for implementing an pertinent requirements of the· Code relative to free protection.
Au gust 7, 2014
Sec. 29.10.100Q New Property Development
{11 The fi nal aporoved Tree Preservation Report shall be included in the building oermit set of development plans and odD~
sheets titled: 1ree Preservation Instruction {Sheet T-1. T-2. etc.). These Sheets shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition,
utility, landscape, irrigation) where tree impacts from Improvements may be shown to occur.
{3.b.l Th e site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However. the plans do not constitute approvaiJQ
remove g tree until a separate 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.
(3 .e.l Pro tective fencing inspection: Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building pennit, 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.
(~.g.! An gpplicar.t with g prop·osed development which reguJw..liD.derqrou.nsi utilities shall avojd the installation of said utilities within
the dripline of existing trees whenever possible. In the eve nt that this is unavoidable. all tren c hing shall b e done using directional boring,
air-spade excavation or by hand, taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the d ripline of existing
trees shall be supervised at all ti mes by a certified or c onsulting arbo ri st.
Section 29.10.1 00~ Protection o~ Trees during Construction
a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:
1) Size and materials: A five (5) or six (6) foot high chain link fen cing. m o unted on two-inch diameter galvanized iro n posts, sh all be
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two (2) feet a t no more than 1 0-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be
demolished and when stipulated in a tree preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
I PO Box 3714 , Saratoga, CA 9 5070 . 408-725-1357. decah@ pacbell.net. http://www .decah.com . I
Ar bori st Re port f or 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 23 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
s~rvice since t9B4
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 arborist4 • ~:Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence
around the entire planter strip to the outer branches. Type Ill: Protection for a tree located in a small planter cutout only (such as
downtown): orange plastic fencing shall be wrapped around the trunk from the ground to the first branch with 2-inch wooden
boards bound securely on the outside. Caution shall be used to avoid damaging any bark or branches.
3) Duration of Type I, II, Ill fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place
until final landscaping is required . Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree
protection fence.
4) Warning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11-inch sign stating: 'Warning-Tree Protection Zone-this
fence shall not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025". A template sign has been provided to
be used on the project site .
b) All persons. shall comply with the following precautions:
1 ) Prior to the commencement of construction, Instal the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an
approved arborist report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and
prohibit any storage of construction materials or other materials or vehicles inside the fence. The dripiine shall not be altered in any
way so as to increase the encroachment of the construction .
2) Prohibit excavation, grading, drainage and levelng within the dripline of the tree unless approved by the director.
3) Prohlbtt disposal or depositing of ol, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the drlplne of or In drainage channels,
swales or areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree
4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
5) Design uttnty services and Irrigation Unes to be located outside of the dripline when feasible .
6) Retain the services of the certified or consutting arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the health of those trees to
be preserved. The certified or consulting arborist shall be p resent whenever activities occur that pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved.
7) The director and project arborlst shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that
proper treatment may be administered.
4 If it is not possible to place Type 1 or Type 2 tree protection fencing at the drlpline due to the construction, then place the fencing as far from the t runk as possible,
including as much of tile 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 bV to fence off as much area under tile canoov as oossible, do not be irresoonsible about this.-
PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. d~cah@pacbell .net. http://www.decah .com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page24 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Hortlcu lturfat
Service since 1984
kction 29.10.1010 Pruning and Maintenance
All pruning of protected trees shall be consistent with the current edition of Best Management Practices -Tree Pruning, established by
the lntemational Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and any special conditions as determined by the Director. For developments, which
require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving protected
trees including cabling, and fertilizing if specified.
1) Any public utility Installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pies or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall
obtain permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injliry to a protected tree (e.g.
cable TV /fiber optic t renching, gas, water, sewer trench. etc.)
2) Pruning for clearance of utility Ones and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the
American National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1) -Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pru ning is
prohibited.
[ PO eox 3 ~4, So~~togc~A 95070. 408-725-13 57. deeah@pocbe ll .net. http:/ /www .decClh.com.
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 201!5 . Page 25 of 32
TREE PHOTOS
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service sina 1984
Left photo: blue oaks #628 aad 629, close to the Santella Court. #628
wi II be removed due to construction and #629 is "Debatable" due to condition.
Right photo: Coast live oaks #641 aad 642. #641 is the best tree on
site. See the next page for more information on #642.
I PO Box 3714, Saratogo, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pac:bell.net. http://www.decah.com . I
Arborist Report f or 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27. 2015. Page 26 of 32
Upper Left and Center: coast
live oak #642, with poor
structure (multiple trunks with
included bark between, and a
cavity with decay). This tree is
recommended for removal and is
not worth redesigning around to
save .
Lower Center: typical sparse
foliage and branch death on
aaany of the blue oaks on this
s ite.
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Servia fitt~ 1984
Above: mechanical wound on blue
oak #655, due to lack of tree
protection on the Highlands project
in general.
C ----PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com .:J
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct . (Highlands Lot 8). April 27 , 2015. Page 27 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arbortst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
ASSUMPTIONS & LIMITATIONS
1. Tree locations were provided by HMH Engineers and are shown on the Tree Mao 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 (bees #296, 636, 637, 638, 639,
640, 645,655,654, 655). We have numbered these trees on the Tree Map; please include these tree numbers on the
construction plans.
3. A Basic Evaluation ofthe subject trees described In this report was performed on Aprll9, 2015 for the purpose of this report. A basic
evaluation is a visual evaluation of the tree from the ground, without climbing into the tree or performing detailed tests such as
extensive digging, boring or removing samples. This is an initial screening of the tree after which the evaluator may recommend that
additional, more detailed examination(s) be performed if deemed necessary.
4. Trees on neighboring properties were not evaluated. They were only viewed cursorily from the project site . I did not enter the
neighboring property to inspect these trees up close.
5 . Any information and descriptions provided to me for the purpose of my investigation In this case and the preparation of this report
are assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. I assume no
responsibility for legal matters In character nor do I render any opinion as to the quality of any title.
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 written consent beforehand.
9. 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.
10. This report has been prepared In conformHy 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 evaluation of the trees that are the subject of this report Is lmifed to visual examination of accessible items wHhout 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.
12 . I fake no responsibility for any defects In any tree's structure. No tree described in this report has been climbed and examined from
above the ground, and as such, structural defects that could only have been discovered hove not been reported, unless otherwise
L PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 28 of 32
Deborah Ellis , M S
Cons ulting Arborlst & Horticulturis t
Service since .1984
stated. Structural defects may also be hidden within a tree, in any portion of a tree. Likewise, root collar excavations and
evai1Jations have not been performed unless otherwise stated.
13. The measures noted within t his report are designed to assist in the protection and preservation of the trees mentioned herein, should
some or all of those t!"ees 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 obvitJus
defects can be subj ect to failure without warning. The current state of arboricultural science does not guarantee the ·:Jccurate
detection and prediction of tree defects and the risks associated with trees. There will always be some level of risk associated with
trees, particularly Iorge trees. It is impossible to guarantee the safety of any tree. Trees are unpredictable .
••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
I certify that the information con1ained in this report is correct to the best of my knowledge, and that this report was prepart~d in good
faith. Thank you for the opportunity to provide service again. Please call me if you have questions or if I con be of f urther assistance.
~UL
Deborah Ellis, MS .
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Certified Professional Horticulturist #30022
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #305
I.S.A. Board Ce1ified Master Arborist WE-4578
I.S.A. Tree Risk Assessment Qualified
Enclosures:
• Town of Los Gatos General Tree Protection Directions (to be included in the final project plan set)
• Los Gatos Tree Protection Sign template (to be placed on tree protection fencing)
• Living among the Oaks-a Management Guide for Landowners. Johnson. University of California Cooperative Extension, Natural
Resources Program. No dote.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .~ httP:/tWww~.~-;;--I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 29 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
GLOSSARY
1. Arborist. Project. The arborist who is appointed to be in charge of arborist services for the project. That arborist shan also be a qualified
consulting arborist (either an International Soc iety 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 protection fencing and other tree protection procedures, and
being available to assist with tree-related issues that come up during the project.
2 . Arborisl qualified Consulting: must be 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.
3. Canker: an area of dead bark. A localized lesion on a stem or branch, often sunken in appearance, commonly associated with a wound, decay
or death of internal tissues. Cankers often extend beyond the extent of an original infection or wound, killing surrounding previously healthy
tissue. If decay is present and spreads into the wood, a very weak area is created because both the inner and outer growth rings are affected .
Internal decay can sometimes spread outward ktnlng bark and new wood tissue -this is called a canker rot.
4. Co-dominant refers to two leaders , branches or trunks that arise at the same point on a tree and are about the same diameter. This is an
undesirable structural defect that Is a weak point in the tree. Co-dominant stems typically lack the overlapping tissue present In a branch or trunk
collar, which may be why trees with this defect split so easily. Included bark between members also reduces the strength of the union. It is best
that branches or trunks originate with space between them, or if they arise at the same point that they be of different sizes . Co-dominant leaders
can often be corrected (one leader removed) when trees are young. When trees are older it Is often better to subdue the smaler or more
undesirable member by reducing the length of and/or thinning the terminal half of the foliage by 25% to slow its growth and ultimate size relative
to the other member, rather than create a large wound by removing one of the members. Large wounds are much more subject to decay than
are smaller wounds and there is no natural decay barrier between the members.
5. Crooks are unnatural bends or sharp angles in branches or trunks caused by the removal of other attached branches or trunks; often with a
vertical growing side branch at the end. This concentrates weight at the end of the branch, and also over some inevitable decay from a pruning
wound .
6. Dec iduous: 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 reta in their leaves In living condition all year long, never dropping all their leaves at once.
7. DriDI!ne: the area under the total branch spread of the tree, all around the tree. Although tree roots may extend out 2 to 3 times the radius of the
dripline, a great concentration of active roots is often in the so il directly beneath this area. The dripline is often used as an arbitrary "tree
protection zone•.
8. 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.
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decah@pacbell .nd. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. {Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 30 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist g, Horticulturist
Service since 1984
9. Included bark is bark sandwiched between adjacent branches, a branch and the trunk, or two or more trunks, ofl:en appearing as a seam. In
contrast, a normal attachment will have a ridge of bark protruding upwards and a continuous wood connection between adjacent members. An
included bark branch or trunk attachment is weaker than a normal attachment As branches or trunks with included bait !;Jrow, they expand in
diameter, squeezing the bam along the seam. This may kill some portion of the included bam. When this occurs, a wound response is initiated.
As a conseque11ce, cracks can be generated, leading to breakage. Such defects can often be completely removed when a tree is young (e.g.
the c·ffending members equal or less than 2 inches in diameter}. Older, larger cuts (such as 6 inches in diameter or more) could cause decay to
spre;id into the remaining member, which is undesirable. In these cases it may be best to thin one member (usually the smaller membor) by
25% to slow its growth and ultimate size. ·
10. Multiple trunks (leaders) or branch attachments are a common structural defect in many tree species such as ash ancl flowering pear. In this
condition, more than one brarJch or trunk originates at the same point. These attachments are not as strong as well-spaced branches or trunks,
particularly if Included bark between them that prevents a solid wood connection .
11. Root collar & root collar excavation and examination: The root collar Ounction 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 exarnined to
assess its health and structural stability. Buttress roots may be traced outward from the trunk several feet. ~sessment of the lame roots
close to the truuk (buttress roots) involves additional testing such as drilling to extract interior wood with a regular drill, or the use of a resistance -
recording drill to check for changes in wood density within the root; as would be caused by decay or cavities. It is important to note that root
decay often begins on the underside of roots, which is not detectable In a root collar excavation unless the entire circumference of the root is
excavated and visible. Drill tests may detect such hidden decay. Note that it is not possible to uncover and evaluate the entire p•Jrtion 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 ma~· fail even though uncovered and examined roots in accessible locations appear to be round.
12. !2m rot digase 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 ade.pted 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.
13. Scaffold branch: a primary structural branch arising from the trunk of a tree. Usually the largest and often the lowest branches d the t ree .
14. Stump sprout trees •re 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 raduces 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
assoeiated with the mother stump , which can also reduce mechanical stabUity.
15. 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 irl 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 treatme nt
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 9 5070. 408-725-1357. decah@pa cbell .net. http://www.decah.com. :J
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 31 of 32
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborist & Horticulturist
Service since 1984
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, untH they are "established•) and also during droughts that occur during the nonnal rainy
season.
16. 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 wot1<. 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 Arboricultural Operations . 2006 Edition. Ibid. (Covers safety).
I PO Box 3714, Saratoga, CA 95070. 408-725-1357. decoh@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. I
Arborist Report for 15371 Santella Ct. (Highlands Lot 8). April 27, 2015. Page 32 of 32
ES
May 27, :lOlS (via hand delivery)
Jocelyn Puga RECI:IV!D
Town ofLos Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031 MAY 2 7 2015
Re: Highlands of Los Gatos Tract 9969
Lot 8 Response to Arborist Report
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING DIVISION
Dear Ms . Puga,
This letter addresses comments and recommendations in regards to "Debatable" Trees and trees recommended for
removal, made in Arborist Report #2 for Lot 8, 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:
#296 The tree is outside the LRDA. 'Ihe retaining has' been removed and the limits of grading shifted even
further from the tree.
~27 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 1 0' away from the trunk of tree.
#629 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 12' away from the trunk of tree.
#630 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 10' away from the trunk of tree.
#636 No changes to design. Tree in fair/poor condition, but intend of preserving.
#637 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend of preserving.
#644 The retaining has been removed and the limits of grading shifted 11 ' from the tree.
#646 No changes to design. Tree in poor condition, but intend of preserving.
#690 The retaining has been shifted to 5' from the from the tree also wall alignment revised to impact only one
side of the tree.
Below is a list of the "Recommended for Removal" trees identified and how each will be saved:
#603 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 5' from the trunk of the tree. Preserve.
#628 The grading daylight line has been shifted to 10' away from the trunk of tree. Preserve.
#642 The grading daylight line has b e en shifted to 8 .5 ' away from the trunk of tree. Preserve.
#653 Removal is not necessary with this application, but will be with Lot 9 application. Preserve
#691 The retaining has been shifted to 7' from the from the tree also wall alignment revised to impact only one
side of the tree. Preserve.
#693 The rataining has been shifted to 8' from the from the tree also wall alignment revised to impact only one
side of the tree. Preserve.
EXHIBIT 8
Vice Preside nt, 5ite D e velopment
1600 SOUTH MAIN STREET, SUITE 150, WALNUT CREEK, CALI FORNIA 94596-5394
TELEPHONE (925) 945-8000 • FACSIMILE (925) 256-0140
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank