Item 3 - Staff Report with Exhibits.16666 Topping Way
PREPARED BY: Sean Mullin, AICP
Associate Planner
Reviewed by: Planning Manager and Community Development Director
110 E. Main Street Los Gatos, CA 95030 ● (408) 354-6872
www.losgatosca.gov
TOWN OF LOS GATOS
PLANNING COMMISSION
REPORT
MEETING DATE: 02/24/2021
ITEM NO: 3
DATE: February 19, 2021
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Joel Paulson, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-Family Residence,
Construction of a New Single-Family Residence, and Site Improvements
Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8 Located at 16666
Topping Way. APN 532-09-018. Architecture and Site Application S-19-044.
Property Owner/Applicant: Arthur Lin. Project Planner: Sean Mullin.
RECOMMENDATION:
Consider approval of a request for demolition of an existing single-family residence,
construction of a new single-family residence, and site improvements requiring a Grading
Permit on property zoned R-1:8.
PROJECT DATA:
General Plan Designation: Low Density Residential
Zoning Designation: R-1:8 – Single-Family Residential, 8,000-square foot
lot minimum
Applicable Plans & Standards: General Plan; Residential Design Guidelines
Parcel Size: 14,528 square feet
Surrounding Area:
Existing Land Use General Plan Zoning
North Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
South Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
East Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
West Residential Low Density Residential R-1:8
PAGE 2 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
CEQA:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
FINDINGS:
▪ As required, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines fo r the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction.
▪ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing
structures.
▪ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
▪ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single -family
residences not in hillside areas.
CONSIDERATIONS:
▪ As required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for granting approval of an Architecture
and Site application.
ACTION:
The decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed within ten days.
BACKGROUND:
The project site is located on the south side of Topping Way between Englewood Avenue and
Hilow Road (Exhibit 1). The subject property was annexed into the Town in 2017 and many of
the properties in the surrounding neighborhood were located in the County prior to the 2019
island annexations completed by the Town. The subject property is approximately 0.33 acres
(14,528 square feet) and developed with a one-story 1,384-square foot single-family residence
with a 560-square foot carport. This Architecture and Site application has been referred to the
Planning Commission because the residence would be the largest in terms of square footage
within the immediate neighborhood.
A previous application (S-17-011) was referred to the Planning Commission on December 13,
2017 due to concerns related to:
• Size: The proposed residence would have been the largest in terms of square footage in
the immediate neighborhood;
PAGE 3 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
BACKGROUND (continued):
• Bulk: Concerns related to Residential Design Guidelines (RDG) Section 1.6 – How to Read
Your Neighborhood: Relate a structure’s size and bulk to those in the immediate
neighborhood; and
• Garage Design: Concerns related to RDG Section 2.4.2 – Minimize the impact of garage
doors on the streetscape; Section 3.4.1 – Limit Prominence of garages; and Section 3.4.2
– Minimize the visual impact of larger garages.
During the December 13, 2017 meeting, the Planning Commission expressed concerns related
to the size, bulk, design, and privacy impacts of the proposed residence and continued the
matter with direction to the applicant. On April 11, 2018, the applicant presented a revised
project responding to the direction of the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission
approved the revised project with conditions.
Following the Planning Commission approval of the project, the applicant submitted their
application for a Building Permit. During review of the permit, the applicant informed staff that
they no longer wished to pursue the approved design. Staff informed the applicant that a new
design would require the filing of a new Architecture and Site application. This application was
submitted on December 20, 2019 and deemed complete on December 14, 2020. As stated
above, this Architecture and Site application has been referred to the Planning Commission
because the residence would be the largest in terms of square footage within the immediate
neighborhood.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A. Location and Surrounding Neighborhood
The subject property is approximately 14,528 square feet, located on the south side of
Topping Way and developed with a single-family residence and a carport. Single-family
residential development surrounds the property.
B. Project Summary
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing residence and carport, and construction
of a two-story residence with an attached three-car garage. The project includes areas of
below grade square footage that would not count toward the size of the residence. The
project also includes site work requiring a Grading Permit.
PAGE 4 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
PROJECT DESCRIPTION (continued):
C. Zoning Compliance
A single-family residence is permitted in the R-1:8 zone. The proposed residence is in
compliance with the allowable floor area, height, setbacks, and on-site parking
requirements for the property.
DISCUSSION:
A. Architecture and Site Analysis
The applicant proposes demolition of the existing single-family residence and carport, and
construction of a new 3,976-square foot two-story residence and a 749-square foot
attached garage (Exhibit 9). The residence includes 2,305 square feet of below-grade
square footage that does not count toward the size of the residence. The proposed
residence would be sited in the middle of the property, utilizing the area of existing
development. The maximum height of the proposed residence is 28 feet, eight inches,
where a maximum of 30 feet is allowed.
The proposed project materials include painted stucco siding, cementitious board and
batten siding, stone cladding, metal-clad wood windows, wood garage doors, wood trim,
timber brackets, and an asphalt shingle roof. A color and materials board is included with
this staff report (Exhibit 4). The applicant has provided a Project Description/Letter of
Justification summarizing the project (Exhibit 5).
Building Design
The applicant proposes construction of a two-story residence with an attached garage. The
proposed residence would utilize the area of existing development in the center of the
property. The limited second story would be set in from the front and side elevations,
allowing for a transition in scale from the proposed residence to the neighboring
residences. The second story aligns with the first floor at the rear elevation and includes
roof projections that break up the two-story massing and provide visual relief at this two-
story wall.
The attached three-car garage would be located on the east side of the residence and
consists of two bays: a two-car bay and a one-car bay. The one-car bay on the east side of
the front elevation has been set back from the main front elevation of the residence by two
feet, six inches in an effort to limit the visual prominence of the garage by subordinating the
one-car bay from the primary mass of the first floor.
PAGE 5 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
The Town’s Consulting Architect reviewed the proposed residence and noted that the
design of the residence is substantially improved from the two iterations included with a
previous application (Exhibit 6). The Consulting Architect discussed several inconsistencies
with the Residential Design Guidelines related to distribution of materials, window forms,
and details. The Consulting Architect made 11 recommendations to address consistency of
the project with the Residential Design Guidelines. The applicant responded to the
recommendations and submitted revised development plans to address each of the
recommendations as follows:
1. Use stucco on the second-floor bay windows in lieu of the proposed board and
batten siding.
2. Eliminate the small stone dormer on the second floor.
3. Limit the board and batten siding to the gable eaves.
4. Locate roof brackets in a consistent manner at all second-floor hip roofs.
5. Use open gable eaves that are more typical of this architectural style.
6. Reduce the size of the round window on the front facade.
7. Return the stone on the front facade bay windows to an inside corner at the main
wall.
8. Eliminate the board and batten siding from the right-side elevation.
9. Clarify the relationship between the first-floor gable roof end and the angled bay
window below on the right-side elevation.
10. Eliminate the round second floor window on the rear facade or match its size to the
round window on the front facade.
11. Add landscaping to buffer the left side elevation.
The recommendations of the Consulting Architect have all been incorporated into the
development plans (Exhibit 9). The applicant has addressed recommendation nine by
adding a note to Sheet A-5 clarifying that the angle walls of the bay would be continued in
the gable end. This is also shown on Sheet A-4, which further clarifies that the roof eaves at
the gable end would not be angled as the walls below.
PAGE 6 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
B. Neighborhood Compatibility
The subject property is 14,528 square feet and the maximum allowable floor area is 3,977
square feet for the residence and any accessory structures, and 1,065 square feet for the
garage. The table below reflects the current conditions of the residences in the immediate
area and the proposed project.
FAR Comparison - Neighborhood Analysis
Address Zoning
Residential
SF*
Garage
SF
Total
SF**
Lot Area
SF
Residential
FAR
No. of
Stories
16625 Topping Way R-1:8 1,872 995 2,867 10,050 0.19 1
16665 Topping Way R-1:8 3,751 612 4,363 13,974 0.27 2
16677 Topping Way R-1:8 1,983 445 2,428 10,496 0.19 1
16490 Englewood Ave R-1:8 1,772 528 2,300 10,593 0.17 1
16700 Topping Way R-1:8 2,735 567 3,302 11,388 0.24 1
16678 Topping Way R-1:8 3,238 619 3,857 11,770 0.28 1
16650 Topping Way R-1:8 2,225 264 2,489 10,001 0.22 1
16636 Topping Way R-1:8 1,564 560 2,124 10,129 0.15 1
16666 Topping Way (E) R-1:8 1,384 560 1,944 14,528 0.10 1
16666 Topping Way (P) R-1:8 3,976 749 4,725 14,528 0.27 2
* Residential square footage does not include garages.
** The total square footage numbers do not include below grade square footage.
The eight properties in the immediate neighborhood are developed with one- and two-story
residences and include a mix of architectural styles. The property sizes within the
immediate neighborhood range from 10,001 to 14,528 square feet. Based on Town and
County records, the square footage of the residences located in the immediate
neighborhood range from 1,564 square feet to 3,751 square feet. The FAR of the
residences in the immediate neighborhood range from 0.15 to 0.28. The applicant is
proposing a 3,976-square foot residence and a FAR of 0.27 on a 14,528 square foot parcel.
The proposed project would be the largest residence in terms of square footage by 225
square feet and the second largest in terms of FAR.
The applicant has provided a Letter of Justification for the size of the residence indicatin g
that the proposed residence is on the largest lot in the immediate neighborhood and is
sized in proportion to the size of the property (Exhibit 5). Further, the applicant highlights
that the original homes in the immediate neighborhood were constructed in the 1940s and
1950s when the average home size was significantly smaller. The two homes in the
immediate neighborhood built after 2000 have FARs that are more consistent with that of
the proposed home. Citing the large lot size, transitional nature of the neighborhood, and a
PAGE 7 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
FAR consistent with homes constructed more recently, the applicant states that the
proposed residence is compatible with the neighborhood.
C. Site Design
The proposed residence would be situated similarly to the existing residence utilizing the
existing area of development. A new driveway would be located on the eastern portion of
the property and walkways would provide pedestrian access to the front entry. Light wells
for the proposed below-grade living areas would be located on both the left (east) and right
(west) sides of the residence. The larger of the two light wells on the right side would
provide a limited outdoor patio adjacent to the below-grade living space. The rear yard
would include a new wood deck and patio area framed by low seat walls and a lawn.
D. Tree Impacts
The development plans were reviewed by the Town ’s Consulting Arborist who identified 10
protected trees within the project area (Exhibit 7). The Consulting Arborist evaluated the
impacts of the project and provided recommendations for increasing the tree conservation
suitability of each tree (Exhibit 7, pages 15 through 21). The applicant considered the
recommendations of the Consulting Arborist and revised the project by incorporating the
recommendations and clarifying the proposed tree removal. The project proposes removal
of five protected trees as summarized in the table below. The trees proposed for removal
are located within or close to the area of development where impacts to the trees would be
significant. The Town Code requires the planting of 16 replacement trees to offset the
proposed tree removal. The Landscape Plan includes 17 trees in the proposed landscape
design fulfilling this requirement. If the project is approved, all required tree protection
measures would be implemented prior to construction and maintained for the duration of
construction activity. Planting of replacement trees and/or payment of in-lieu fees would
be required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy pursuant to Town Code. Arborist
recommendations for tree protection have been included in the Conditions of Approval to
mitigate impacts to protected trees (Exhibit 3).
Proposed Tree Removal
Tree
Number
Species Diameter
(inches)
Condition
Rating
41 Hackberry 13.6 70%
42 Holly Oak 11.2 80%
43 Unknown 35 35%
44 African Sumac 7.1 30%
46 African Suma 11.5 66%
PAGE 8 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
DISCUSSION (continued):
E. Grading Permit
The project includes site improvements with grading quantities exceeding 50 cubic yards,
which require approval of a Grading Permit. The proposed grading is required to adjust the
slightly sloping site for the driveway, patio, walkways, and drainage. A Condition of
Approval has been added requiring that the applicant obtain a Grading Permit for the
proposed work (Exhibit 3).
CEQA DETERMINATION:
The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the Implementation
of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New Construction.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Story poles and project signage were installed on the site by February 12, 2021, in anticipation
of the February 24, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. Public comments received by 11:00
a.m., Friday, February 19, 2021, are included as Exhibit 8. All comments were forwarded to the
applicant upon receipt. Included in Exhibit 8 is the applicant’s response to the comments that
were available ahead of the publishing of this report.
CONCLUSION:
A. Summary
The applicant is requesting approval of an Architecture and Site application for demolition
of an existing single-family residence, construction of a new a single-family residence, and
site improvements requiring a Grading Permit. The project is in compliance with the
objective standards of the Town Code related to size, height, setbacks, and on-site parking
requirements. The project was reviewed by the Town’s Consulting Architect who provided
recommendations to address the consistency of the project with the Residential Design
Guidelines. The applicant incorporated all recommendations into the project and the
project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines and consistent with the
Zoning and General Plan Land Use designation for the property. The application was
referred to the Planning Commission because the residence would be the largest in terms of
square footage in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant provided justification for the
size of the proposed residence citing the large lot size, transitional nature of the
neighborhood, and a FAR consistent with homes constructed more recently.
PAGE 9 OF 9
SUBJECT: 16666 Topping Way/S-19-044
DATE: February 19, 2021
CONCLUSION (continued):
B. Recommendation
Based on the analysis above, staff recommends approval of the Architecture and Site
application subject to the recommended conditions of approval (Exhibit 3). If the Planning
Commission finds merit with the proposed project, it should:
1. Make the finding that the proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to the
adopted Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act,
Section 15303: New Construction (Exhibit 2);
2. Make the findings as required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the
demolition of existing structures (Exhibit 2);
3. Make the finding that the project complies with the objective standards of Chapter 29 of
the Town Code (Zoning Regulations) (Exhibit 2);
4. Make the finding required by the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines that the project
complies with the Residential Design Guidelines (Exhibit 2);
5. Make the considerations as required by Section 29.20.150 of the Town Code for
granting approval of an Architecture and Site application (Exhibit 2); and
6. Approve Architecture and Site Application S-19-044 with the conditions contained in
Exhibit 3 and the development plans in Exhibit 9.
C. Alternatives
Alternatively, the Commission can:
1. Continue the matter to a date certain with specific direction; or
2. Approve the application with additional and/or modified conditions; or
3. Deny the application.
EXHIBITS:
1. Location Map
2. Required Findings and Considerations
3. Recommended Conditions of Approval
4. Color and materials board
5. Project Description and Letter of Justification
6. Consulting Architect’s Report, dated January 7, 2020
7. Consulting Arborist’s Report, dated January 17, 2020
8. Public comments received by 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 19, 2021
9. Development Plans, received January 28, 2021
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
ENGLEWOOD AVTOPPING
W
Y
MARCHM
O
N
T
D
R
LOMA ST
LITTLE
F
I
E
L
D
L
N
E LA CHIQ
U
I
T
A
A
V
16666 Topping Way
0 0.250.125 Miles
°
EXHIBIT 1
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
PLANNING COMMISSION –February 24, 2021
REQUIRED FINDINGS AND CONSIDERATIONS FOR:
16666 Topping Way
Architecture and Site Application S-19-044
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence,
Construction of a New Single-family Residence, and Site Improvements
Requiring a Grading Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-09-018.
Architecture and Site Application S-19-044.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Arthur Lin.
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin.
FINDINGS
Required finding for CEQA:
■ The project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to the adopted Guidelines for the
Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15303: New
Construction.
Required finding for the demolition of existing structures:
■ As required by Section 29.10.09030(e) of the Town Code for the demolition of existing
structures:
1. The Town's housing stock will be maintained as the two-family residence will be
replaced.
2. The existing structure has no architectural or historical significance and is in poor
condition.
3. The property owner does not desire to maintain the structures as they exist; and
4. The economic utility of the structures was considered.
Required compliance with the Zoning Regulations:
■ The project meets the objective standards of Chapter 29 of the Town Code (Zoning
Regulations).
Required compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines:
■ The project is in compliance with the Residential Design Guidelines for single-family
residences not in hillside areas. The project was reviewed by the Town’s Consulting
Architect who made recommendations to increase the consistency of the project with
the Residential Design Guidelines related to materials, window forms, and detailing.
EXHIBIT 2
The applicant responded by incorporating the recommendations of the Town’s
Consulting Architect into the development plans.
■ The project is not the largest for FAR and is not the first two-story residence in the
immediate neighborhood. The project is the largest by floor area in the immediate
neighborhood and the applicant has provided justification citing the large lot size,
transitional nature of the neighborhood, and a FAR consistent with homes constructed
more recently.
CONSIDERATIONS
Required 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.
PLANNING COMMISSION –February 24, 2021
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
16666 Topping Way
Architecture and Site Application S-19-044
Requesting Approval for Demolition of an Existing Single-family Residence,
Construction of a New Single-family Residence, and Site Improvements Requiring a
Grading Permit on Property Zoned R-1:8. APN 532-09-018. Architecture and Site
Application S-19-044.
PROPERTY OWNER/APPLICANT: Arthur Lin.
PROJECT PLANNER: Sean Mullin.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
Planning Division
1. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all of the conditions of
approval and in substantial compliance with the approved plans. Any changes or
modifications to the approved plans and/or business operation shall be approved by the
Community Development Director, DRC or the Planning Commission depending on the
scope of the changes.
2. EXPIRATION: The approval will expire two years from the approval date pursuant to Section
29.20.320 of the Town Code, unless the approval has been vested.
3. OUTDOOR LIGHTING: Prior to final occupancy all exterior lighting shall be kept to a
minimum and shall be down directed fixtures that will not reflect or encroach onto adjacent
properties. All exterior lighting shall utilize shields so that no bulb is visible and to ensure
that the light is directed to the ground surface and does not spill light onto neighboring
parcels or produce glare when seen from nearby homes. No flood lights shall be used unless
it can be demonstrated that they are needed for safet y or security.
4. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT: A Tree Removal Permit shall be obtained for any protected trees to
be removed, prior to the issuance of a building or grading permit.
5. EXISTING TREES: All existing trees shown on the plan and trees required to remain or to be
planted are specific subjects of approval of this plan and must remain on the site.
6. TREE FENCING: Protective tree fencing, and other protection measures shall be placed at
the drip line of existing trees prior to issuance of demolition and building p ermits and shall
remain through all phases of construction. Include a tree protection plan with the
construction plans.
7. TREE REPLACEMENT: Prior to issuance of final occupancy replacement trees must be
planted.
8. TREE STAKING: All newly planted trees shall be double-staked using rubber tree ties.
9. FRONT YARD LANDSCAPE: Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy the front yard
must be landscaped.
EXHIBIT 3
10. ARBORIST REQUIREMENTS: The developer shall implement, at their cost, all
recommendations identified in the Arborist’s report. These recommendations must be
incorporated in the building permit plans, and completed prior to issuance of a building
permit where applicable. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prepared by the applicant
and submitted with the building permit application detailing how the recommendations
have or will be addressed.
11. WATER EFFICIENCY LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE: The final landscape plan shall meet the
requirements of the Town of Los Gatos Water Conservation Ordinance or the State Water
Efficient Landscape Ordinance, whichever is more restrictive. Submittal of a Landscape
Documentation Package pursuant to WELO is required prior to issuance of a building
permit. 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. A
completed WELO Certificate of Completion is required prior to final inspection/certificate of
occupancy.
12. SALVAGE OF BUILDING MATERIALS: Prior to the issuance of a demolition permit, the
developer shall provide the Community Development Director with written notice of the
company that will be recycling the building materials. All wood, metal, glass, and aluminum
materials generated from the demolished structure shall be deposited to a company which
will recycle the materials. Receipts from the company(s) accepting these materials, noting
the type and weight of materials, shall be submitted to the Town prior to the Town’s
demolition inspection.
13. STORY POLES: The story poles on the project site shall be removed within 30 days of
approval of the Architecture & Site application.
14. TOWN INDEMNITY: Applicants are notified that Town Code Section 1.10.115 requires that
any applicant who receives a permit or entitlement from the Town shall defend, indemnify,
and hold harmless the Town and its officials in any action brought by a third party to
overturn, set aside, or void the permit or entitlement. This requirement is a condition of
approval of all such permits and entitlements whether or not expressly set forth in the
approval and may be secured to the satisfaction of the Town Attorney.
15. COMPLIANCE MEMORANDUM: A memorandum shall be prepared and submitted with the
building plans detailing how the Conditions of Approval will be addressed.
Building Division
16. PERMITS REQUIRED: A Demolition Permit is required for the demolition of the existing
single-family residence and attached garage. A separate Building Permit is required for the
construction of the new single-family residence and attached garage.
17. APPLICABLE CODES: The current codes, as amended and adopted by the Town of Los Gatos
as of January 1, 2020, are the 2019 California Building Standards Code, California Code of
Regulations Title 24, Parts 1-12, including locally adopted Energy Reach Codes.
18. ENERGY REACH CODE: One of the requirements of the Town’s newly adopted Energy Reach
Code require that all new homes use electricity as the only source of energy for space
heating, water heating (including pools and spas), cooking appliances, clothes drying
appliances, and other features for both interior and exterior applications. Only electric
appliances shall be referenced on the submitted drawings.
19. RESIDENTIAL SOLAR: If the California Energy Code calculations require the installation of a
Photovoltaic System (PV) on this residence, the Building Division will require a separate
Building Permit for the PV System. Please add a note to the cover sheet of the plans stating
the following, “A separate building permit is required for the PV system that is required by
the Energy Calculations compliance modeling. The separate PV System permit must be
finaled prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
20. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: The Conditions of Approval must be blue lined in full on the
cover sheet of the construction plans. A Compliance Memorandum shall be prep ared and
submitted with the building permit application detailing how the Conditions of Approval will
be addressed.
21. SIZE OF PLANS: Minimum size 24” x 36”, maximum size 30” x 42”.
22. REQUIREMENTS FOR COMPLETE DEMOLITION OF STRUCTURE: Obtain a Building
Department Demolition Application and a Bay Area Air Quality Management District
Application from the Building Department Service Counter. Once the demolition form has
been completed, all signatures obtained, and written verification from PG&E that all utilities
have been disconnected, return the completed form to the Building Department Service
Counter with the Air District’s J# Certificate, PG&E verification, and three (3) sets of site
plans showing all existing structures, existing utility service lines such as water, sewer, and
PG&E. No demolition work shall be done without first obtaining a permit from the Town.
23. SOILS REPORT: A Soils Report, prepared to the satisfaction of the Building Official,
containing foundation and retaining wall design recommendation s, shall be submitted with
the Building Permit Application. This report shall be prepared by a licensed Civil Engineer
specializing in soils mechanics.
24. SHORING: Shoring plans and calculations will be required for all excavations which exceed
five (5) feet in depth or which remove lateral support from any existing building, adjacent
property, or the public right-of-way. Shoring plans and calculations shall be prepared by a
California licensed engineer and shall confirm to the Cal/OSHA regulations.
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 th e Soils
Report, and that the building pad elevations 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 corner locations
d. Retaining wall(s) locations and elevations
26. TITLE 24 ENERGY COMPLIANCE: All required California Title 24 Energy Compliance Forms
must be blue-lined (sticky-backed), i.e. directly printed, onto a plan sheet.
27. TOWN RESIDENTIAL ACCESSIBILITY STANDARDS: New residential units shall be designed
with adaptability features for single-family residences per Town Resolution 1994-61:
a. Wood backing (2” x 8” minimum) shall be provided in all bathroom walls, at water
closets, showers, and bathtubs, located 34 inches from the floor to the center of the
backing, suitable for the installation of grab bars if needed in the future.
b. All passage doors shall be at least 32-inch wide doors on the accessible floor level.
c. The primary entrance door shall be a 36-inch-wide door including a 5’x 5’ level landing,
no more than 1 inch out of plane with the immediate interior floor level and with an 18 -
inch clearance at interior strike edge.
d. A door buzzer, bell or chime shall be hard wired at primary entrance.
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 level rims less than 1 2 inches above the
elevation of the next upstream manhole.
29. HAZARDOUS FIRE ZONE: All projects in the Town of Los Gatos require Class A roof
assemblies.
30. 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.
31. BLUEPRINT FOR A CLEAN BAY SHEET: The Town standard Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program Sheet (page size same as submitted drawings) shall be
part of the plan submittal as the second page. The specification sheet is available at the
Building Division Service Counter for a fee of $2 or at ARC Blueprint for a fee or online at
www.losgatosca.gov/building.
32. APPROVALS REQUIRED: The project requires the following departments and agencies
approval before issuing a building permit:
a. Community Development – Planning Division: (408) 354-6874
b. Engineering/Parks & Public Works Department: (408) 399-5771
c. Santa Clara County Fire Department: (408) 378-4010
d. West Valley Sanitation District: (408) 378-2407
e. Local School District: The Town will forward the paperwork to the appropriate school
district(s) for processing. A copy of the paid receipt is required prior to permit issuance.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PARKS & PUBLIC WORKS:
Engineering Division
33. GENERAL: All public improvements shall be made according to the latest adopted Town
Standard Plans, Standard Specifications and Engineering Design Standards. All work shall
conform to the applicable Town ordinances. The adjacent public right-of-way shall be kept
clear of all job-related mud, silt, concrete, dirt and other construction 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 by the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department. The Owner/Applicant'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 issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work orders and the Town
performing the required maintenance at the Owner/Applicant's expense.
34. APPROVAL: This application shall be completed in accordance with all the conditions of
approval 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.
35. CONSTRUCTION PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Construction drawings shall comply with Section 1
(Construction Plan Requirements) of the Town’s Engineering Design Standards, which are
available for download from the Town’s website.
36. 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 Owner/Applicant to obtain any necessary encroachment permits from
affected agencies and private parties, including but not limited to, Pacific Gas and Electric
(PG&E), AT&T, Comcast, Santa Clara Valley Water District, California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans). Copies of any approvals or permits must be submitted to the
Town Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to releasing any
permit.
37. PUBLIC WORKS INSPECTIONS: The Owner/Applicant or their 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 penalties and rejection of any work that occurred without
inspection.
38. RESTORATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner/Applicant or their representative
shall repair or replace all existing improvements not designated for removal that are
damaged or removed because of the Owner/Applicant or their representative'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. Any
new concrete shall be free of stamps, logos, names, graffiti, etc. Any concrete identified
that is displaying a stamp or equal shall be removed and replaced at the Contractor’s sole
expense and no additional compensation shall be allowed therefore. Existing improvement
to be repaired or replaced shall be at the direction of the Engineering Construction
Inspector and shall comply with all Title 24 Disabled Access provisions. The restoration of
all improvements identified by the Engineering Construction Inspector shall be completed
before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The Owner/Applicant or their
representative shall request a walk-through with the Engineering Construction Inspector
before the start of construction to verify existing cond itions.
39. SITE SUPERVISION: The General Contractor shall provide qualified supervision on the job
site at all times during construction.
40. STREET CLOSURE: Any proposed blockage or partial closure of the street requires an
encroachment permit. Special provisions such as limitations on works hours, protective
enclosures, or other means to facilitate public access in a safe manner may be required.
41. PLAN CHECK FEES: Plan check fees associated with the Grading Permit shall be deposited
with the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department prior to the
commencement of plan check review.
42. INSPECTION FEES: Inspection fees shall be deposited with the Town prior to the issuance of
any grading or building permits.
43. DESIGN CHANGES: Any proposed changes to the approved plans shall be subject to the
approval of the Town prior to the commencement of any and all altered work. The
Owner/Applicant’s project engineer shall notify, in writing, the Town Engineer at least
seventy-two (72) hours in advance of all the proposed changes. Any approved changes shall
be incorporated into the final “as-built” plans.
44. PLANS AND STUDIES: All required plans and studies shall be prepared by a Registered
Professional Engineer in the State of California and submitted to the Town Engi neer for
review and approval. Additionally, any studies imposed by the Planning Commission or
Town Council shall be funded by the Owner/Applicant.
45. GRADING PERMIT: A grading permit is required for all site grading and drainage work except
for exemptions listed in Section 12.20.015 of The Code of the Town of Los Gatos (Grading
Ordinance). After the preceding Architecture and Site Application has been approved by
the respective deciding body, the grading permit application (with grading plans and
associated required materials and plan check fees) shall be made to the Engineering
Division of the Parks and Public Works Department located at 41 Miles Avenue. The grading
plans shall include final grading, drainage, retaining wall location(s), 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). Prior to Engineering signing off
and closing out on the issued grading permit, the Owner/Applicant/Developer’s soils
engineer shall verify, with a stamped and signed letter, that the grading activities were
completed per plans and per the requirements as noted in the soils report. A separate
building permit, issued by the Building Department, located at 110 E. Main Street, is needed
for grading within the building footprint.
46. DRIVEWAY: The driveway conform to existing pavement on Topping Way shall be
constructed in a manner such that the existing drainage patterns will not be obstructed.
47. DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT: Prior to the issuance of any grading/improvemen t permits, the
Owner/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 a recorded copy of any required easements to the
Town.
48. PRECONSTRUCTION MEETING: Prior to the commencement of any site work, the general
contractor shall:
a. Along with the Owner/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 as well prior to commencing any work, and that a copy of the project
conditions of approval will be posted on-site at all times during construction.
49. SOILS ENGINEER CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION: During construction, all excavations and
grading shall be inspected by the Owner/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 shall be documented in an “as-built” letter/report prepared by the
Owner/Applicant’s soils engineer and submitted to the Town before a certificate of
occupancy is granted.
50. SOIL RECOMMENDATIONS: The project shall incorporate the geotechnical/geological
recommendations contained in the project’s design-level geotechnical/geological
investigation as prepared by the Owner/Applicant’s engineer(s), and any subsequ ently
required report or addendum. Subsequent reports or addendum are subject to peer review
by the Town’s consultant and costs shall be borne by the Owner/Applicant.
51. WATER METER: The existing water meter, currently located within the Topping Way right -
of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question, directly behind the public right -
of-way line. The Owner/Applicant shall repair and replace to existing Town standards any
portion of concrete flatwork within said right-of-way that is damaged during this activity
prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
52. SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT: The existing sanitary sewer cleanout, currently located within
the Topping Way right-of-way, shall be relocated within the property in question, within
one (1) foot of the property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or
at a location specified by the Town. The Owner/Applicant shall repair and replace to
existing Town standards any portion of concrete flatwork within said right -of-way that is
damaged during this activity prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy.
53. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS: The following improvements shall be installed by the
Owner/Applicant. Plans for those improvements shall be prepared by a California
registered civil engineer, reviewed and approved by the Town, and guaranteed by contract,
Faithful Performance Security and Labor & Materials Security before the issuance of any
grading or building permits or the recordation of a map. The improvements must be
completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued.
a. Topping Way: 2” overlay from the centerline to the southern edge of pavement, or
alternative pavement restoration measure as approved by the Town Engineer.
54. CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY: The Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works
Department will not sign off on a Temporary Certificate of Occupancy or a Final Certificate
of Occupancy until all required improvements within the Town’s right-of-way have been
completed and approved by the Town.
55. FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS: The Owner/Applicant shall be required to improve the
project’s public frontage (right-of-way line to centerline and/or to limits per the direction of
the Town Engineer) to current Town Standards. These improvements may include but not
limited to curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approach(es), curb ramp(s), signs, pavement,
raised pavement markers, thermoplastic pavement markings, storm drain facilities, traffic
signal(s), street lighting (upgrade and/or repain t) etc. The improvements must be
completed and accepted by the Town before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new
building can be issued.
56. UTILITIES: The Owner/Applicant 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.
The Owner/Applicant is required to obtain approval of all proposed utility alignments from
any and all utility service providers before a Certificate of Occupancy for any new building
can be issued. The Town of Los Gatos does not approve or imply approval for final
alignment or design of these facilities.
57. 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. All necessary utility trenches and related pavement cuts shall be consolidated to
minimize the impacted area of the roadway.
d. The total asphalt thickness shall be a minimum of three (3) inches, meet Town
standards, or shall match the existing thickness, whichever is greater. The final lift shall
be 1.5-inches of one-half (½) inch medium asphalt. The initial lift(s) shall be of three-
quarter (¾) inch medium asphalt.
e. The Contractor shall schedule a pre-paving meeting with the Town Engineering
Construction Inspector the day the paving is to take place.
f. A slurry seal topping may be required by the construction inspector depending their
assessment of the quality of the trench paving. If required, the slurry seal shall extend
the full width of the street and shall extend five (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 exis ting
striping and pavement markings shall be replaced upon completion of slurry seal
operations. All pavement restorations shall be completed and approved by the
Inspector before occupancy.
58. SIDEWALK/CURB IN-LIEU FEE: A curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee of $12,320.00 shall be paid
prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. This fee is based on 88 linear feet of curb
at $68.00 per linear foot and 396 square feet of 4.5 -foot wide sidewalk at $16.00 per square
foot in accordance with Town policy and the Town’s Comprehensive Fee Schedule. The
final curb and sidewalk in-lieu fee for this project shall be calculated using the current fee
schedule and rate schedule in effect at the time the fee is paid.
59. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE PARKING: Construction vehicle parking within the public right-of-
way will only be allowed if it does not cause access or safety problems as determined by the
Town.
60. HAULING OF SOIL: Hauling of soil on- or off-site shall not occur during the morning or
evening peak periods (between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00
p.m.), and at other times as specified by the Director of Parks and Public Works. Prior to the
issuance of a grading or building permit, the Owner/Applicant or their representative shall
work with the Town Building Department and Engineering Division 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
Owner/Applicant to place construction notification signs noting the dates and time of
construction and hauling activities, or providing additional traffic control. Coordination with
other significant projects in the area may also be required. Cover all trucks hauling soil,
sand and other loose debris.
61. CONSTRUCTION HOURS: All construction activities, including the delivery of construction
materials, labors, heavy equipment, supplies, etc., shall be limited to the hours of 8:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays. The Town may
authorize, on a case-by-case basis, alternate construction hours. The Owner/Applicant shall
provide written notice twenty-four (24) hours in advance of modified construction hours.
Approval of this request is at discretion of the Town.
62. CONSTRUCTION NOISE: Between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m., weekdays and 9:00
a.m. to 7:00 p.m. weekends and holidays, construction, alteration or repair activities shall
be allowed. No individual piece of equipment shall produce a noise level exceeding eighty-
five (85) dBA at twenty-five (25) feet from the source. If the device is located within a
structure on the property, the measurement shall be made at distances as close to twenty -
five (25) feet from the device as possible. The noise level at any point outside of the
property plane shall not exceed eighty-five (85) dBA.
63. CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN SHEET: Prior to the issuance of any grading or
building permits, the Owner/Applicant’s design consultant shall submit a construction
management plan sheet (full-size) within the plan set that shall incorporate at a minimum
the Earth Movement Plan, Project Schedule, employee parking, construction staging area,
materials storage area(s), concrete washout(s) and proposed outhouse location(s). Please
refer to the Town’s Construction Management Plan Guidelines document for additional
information.
64. 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. A Sanitary
Sewer Clean-out is required for each property at the property line, within one (1) foot of the
property line per West Valley Sanitation District Standard Drawing 3, or at a location
specified by the Town.
65. SANITARY SEWER BACKWATER VALVE: Drainage piping serving fixtures which have flood
level rims less than twelve (12) inches (304.8 mm) above the elevation of the next upstream
manhole and/or flushing inlet cover at the public or private sewer system serving such
drainage piping shall be protected from backflow of sewage by installing an approved type
backwater valve. Fixtures above such elevation shall not discharge through the backwater
valve, unless first approved by the Building Official. The Town shall not incur any liability or
responsibility for damage resulting from a sewer overflow where the property owner or
other person has failed to install a backwater valve as defined in the Uniform Plumbing
Code adopted by the Town and maintain such device in a functional operation condition.
Evidence of West Sanitation District’s decision on whether a backwater device is needed
shall be provided prior to the issuance of a building permit.
66. BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs): The Owner/Applicant is responsible for ensuring
that all contractors are aware of all storm water quality measures and that such measures
are implemented. Best Management Practices (BMPs) shall be maintained and be placed
for all areas that have been graded or disturbed and for all material, equipment and/or
operations that need protection. Removal of BMPs (temporary removal during construction
activities) shall be replaced at the end of each working day. Failure to comply with the
construction BMP will result in the issuance of correction notices, citations, or stop work
orders.
67. SITE DESIGN MEASURES: All projects shall incorporate at least one of the following
measures:
a. Protect sensitive areas and minimize changes to the natural topography.
b. Minimize impervious surface areas.
c. Direct roof downspouts to vegetated areas.
d. Use porous or pervious pavement surfaces on the driveway, at a minimum.
e. Use landscaping to treat stormwater.
68. EROSION CONTROL: Interim and final erosion control plans shall be prepared and submitted
to the Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department. A maximum of two
(2) 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 Town of Los Gatos
Engineering Division of the Parks and Public Works Department and the Building
Department will conduct periodic NPDES inspections of the site throughout the recognized
storm season to verify compliance with the Construction General Permit and Stormwater
ordinances and regulations.
69. DUST CONTROL: Blowing dust shall be reduced by timing construction activities so that
paving and building construction begin as soon as possible after completion of grading, and
by landscaping disturbed soils as soon as possible. Further, water trucks shall be present
and in use at the construction site. All portions of the site subject to blowing dust shall be
watered as often as deemed necessary by the Town, or a minimum of three (3) 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 shall 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 (1) 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 twenty (20) miles per hour (MPH). All trucks hauling
soil, sand, or other loose debris shall be covered.
70. AIR QUALITY: To limit the project’s construction-related dust and criteria pollutant
emissions, the following the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD)-
recommended basic construction measures shall be included in the project’s grading plan,
building plans, and contract specifications:
a. All exposed surfaces (e.g., parking areas, staging areas, soil piles, graded areas, and
unpaved access roads) shall be watered two times per day, or otherwise kept dust -free.
b. All haul trucks designated for removal of excavated soil and demolition debris from site
shall be staged off-site until materials are ready for immediate loading and removal
from site.
c. All haul trucks transporting soil, sand, debris, or other loose material off -site shall be
covered.
d. As practicable, all haul trucks and other large construction equipment shall be staged in
areas away from the adjacent residential homes.
e. All visible mud or dirt track-out onto adjacent public roads shall be removed using wet
power vacuum street sweepers at least once per day, or as deemed appropriate by
Town Engineer. The use of dry power sweeping is prohibited. An on-site track-out
control device is also recommended to minimize mud and dirt -track-out onto adjacent
public roads.
f. All vehicle speeds on unpaved surfaces shall be limited to fifteen (15) miles per hour.
g. All driveways and sidewalks to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible.
Building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders
are used.
h. Post a publicly visible sign with the telephone number and person to contact at the lead
agency regarding dust complaints. This person shall respond and take corrective action
within forty-eight (48) hours. The Air District’s phone number shall also be visible to
ensure compliance with applicable regulations. Please provide the BAAQMD’s
complaint number on the sign: 24-hour toll-free hotline at 1-800-334-ODOR (6367).
i. All excavation, grading, and/or demolition activities shall be suspended when average
wind speeds exceed twenty (20) miles per hour.
j. Vegetative ground cover (e.g., fast-germinating native grass seed) shall be planted in
disturbed areas as soon as possible and watered appropriately until vegetation is
established.
71. 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 Town's grading and erosion control ordinance,
and other generally accepted engineering practices for erosion control as required by the
Town Engineer when undertaking construction activities.
72. SITE DRAINAGE: Rainwater leaders shall be discharged to splash blocks. No through curb
drains will be allowed. 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. Stormwater treatment facilities shall be
placed a minimum of ten (10) feet from the adjacent property line and/or right-of-way.
Alternatively, the facility(ies) may be located with an offset between 5 and 10 feet from the
adjacent property and/or right-of-way line(s) if the responsible engineer in charge provides
a stamped and signed letter that addresses infiltration and states how facilities,
improvements and infrastructure within the Town’s right-of-way (driveway approach, curb
and gutter, etc.) and/or the adjacent property will not be adversely affected. No
improvements shall obstruct or divert runoff to the detriment of an adjacent, downstream
or down slope property.
73. SILT AND MUD IN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY: It is the responsibility of Contractor and
homeowner 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.
74. 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 Owner/Applicant'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 penalties and/or
the Town performing the required maintenance at the Owner/Applicant's expense.
75. COVERED TRUCKS: All trucks transporting materials to and from the site shall be covered .
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT:
76. GENERAL: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access,
water supply and may include specific additional requirements as they pertain to fire
department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to
determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work, the
applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all
applicable construction permits.
77. Fire Sprinklers Required: (As noted on Sheet AT-1) An automatic residential fire sprinkler
system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and
two-family dwellings and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are
made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one -time
addition to an existing building that does not total more than 1,000 square feet of building
area. Note: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor(s) o r subcontractor(s) are
responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any
modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. A State of California
licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed
permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to
beginning their work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LGTC.
78. Construction Site Fire Safety: (As noted on Sheet AT-1) All construction sites must comply
with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification
S1-7.
79. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan submittals, as appropriate to the project.
CFC Chp. 33.
80. Water Supply Requirements: (As noted on Sheet AT-1) Potable water supplies shall be
protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the
responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water
purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that
purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire
protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that
may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing
contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the
system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the
requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having
been met by the applicant(s). 2019 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7.
81. Address identification: (As noted on Sheet AT-1) 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. Where requ ired by the fire code
official, address numbers shall be provided in additional approved locations to facilitate
emergency response. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters.
Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high wit h a minimum stroke width of
0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a private road and the building cannot be
viewed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to
identify the structure. Address numbers shall be maintained. CFC Sec. 505.1.
82. General: This review shall not be construed to be an approval of a violation of the provisions
of the California Fire Code or of other laws or regulations of the jurisdiction. A permit
presuming to give authority to violate or cancel the provisions of the fire code or other such
laws or regulations shall not be valid. Any addition to or alteration of approved construction
documents shall be approved in advance. [CFC, Ch.1, 105.3.6]
N:\DEV\CONDITIONS\2021\Topping Way, 16666 - A&S PC COA - 02-24-21.docx
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
STUCCO TEXTURE
MEDIUM DASH {NO COLOR}
STONR WAINSCOT
EUROPEAN LEDGE
{BY ELDORADO STONE}
COLOR - IRONMILL
16666 TOPPING WAY
NEW 2-STORV SFR
MATERIALS & COLORS
; ;E,.
BODYCOLOR-QE6398 TRIM COLOR-DE6394
LOUISIAN MUD EAGLE'S View
DUNN EDWARDS PAINTS
SHAKE ASPHALT ROOFING
PRESIDENTIAL TL
{BY CERTAINTEED}
COLOR- WEATHERWOOD
CASEMENT WINIDOW
SITELINE RECESSED SASH
DUAL PANE G. (BY JELDWEN)
EXTERIOR COLOR
OFF WHITE (MOCHA CREAM)
EXHIBIT 4
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
January 12, 2021
It is understood that a major concern of the proposed project of 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos
is the size of the house.
The proposed house is 7,030 square feet, but it would consist of a first floor of 2,448 square
feet and a second floor of 1,528 square feet for a total above ground square footage of 3,976
square feet. Over a third of the proposed total square footage is to be a 2,305 square foot
basement that would not create any visual impact and is not factored into the Floor Area Ratio
(FAR).
The proposed living space of 16666 Topping Way is proportionate to the lot size and meets the
requirements of the Town of Los Gatos. While the size of the proposed living space of the
project is 3,976 square feet, the lot size is the largest by a big margin in the neighborhood at
14,528 square feet and brings the calculation of the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) to 27.36%, which is
well within the Town guidelines for R1 zoned structures.
Based on the comparison of the eight immediate neighbors, 16665 Topping Way has a FAR
calculation of 26.84% and 16678 Topping Way has a FAR value of 27.51%. Both were built after
the year 2000. Most of the other six properties with smaller FAR values were built in the 1940’s
when architecture and lifestyle changes were quite different from modern standards.
The expanded neighborhood search shows that there are many more houses that match or
exceed the FAR that we propose for our residence, some by a great margin. Of the homes in
the immediate and expanded neighborhoods, nearly all of the properties that have small valued
FARs (19% or less) were built in the 1940’s and 1950’s when homeowner’s design preferences
were quite different from today. All of the properties in both categories of neighbors
(immediate and expanded) that show higher FAR figures were built in 2006 or later.
Due to the large size of the lot, the proposed house can have a larger footprint due to the FAR
calculations and no exception is being requested for this approval.
Regards,
Arthur
EXHIBIT 5
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
January 7, 2020
Mr. Sean Mullin
Community Development Department
Town of Los Gatos
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
RE: 16666 Topping Way
Dear Sean:
I have previously reviewed two other deisgns for this site in 2017 and 2018. I have reviewed the new drawings,. My
comments and recommendations on the new design are as follows:
NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT
The site is located in an established neighborhood of one and two-story homes. I have previously reviewed six other
nearby houses in this neighborhood. Photographs of the site and surrounding context are shown on the following page.
EXHIBIT 6
16666 Topping Way
Design Review Comments
January 7, 2020 Page 2
The Site and existing house House immediately across Topping Way
House to the immediate left
Nearby House across Topping Way
Nearby House to the left Nearby House to the right
House to the immediate right
Nearby House across Topping Way
16666 Topping Way
Design Review Comments
January 7, 2020 Page 3
ISSUES AND CONCERNS
Overall, this design is substantially improved from the previous two design iterations which I reviewed. There are,
however, a few inconsistencies with the Town’s Residential Design Guidelines and with the proposed architectural style.
These include the following:
1. The substantial use of stone on the front facade without carrying it around on all sides of the house would not be
consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2.
3.2.2 Design for architectural integrity
• In general, it is best to select a clear and distinctive architectural style rather than utilizing generic design elements or mixing ele-
ments from different architectural styles.
• 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.
2. The use of stone on the roof dormers is visually heavy and not consistent with this traditional architectural style.
3. The roof brackets are an appropriate detail to the design, but their locations are inconsistent and arbitrary;
4. The smaller, isolated stone dormer does not add to the visual unity of the design.
5. The round window on the front elevation second floor appears too large.
6. The use of closed eave returns on the gable roof ends is not typical of this architectural style, and would not be
consistent with Residential Design Guideline 3.2.2 - see guideline above in comment #1.
16666 Topping Way
Design Review Comments
January 7, 2020 Page 4
7. There are some instances where there is a change of material at an outside corner which would not be consistent
with Residential Design Guideline 3.8.4.
3.8.4 Materials changes
• Make materials and color changes at inside corners rather than outside corners to avoid a pasted on look.
8. The second floor round window on the rear elevation appears too small, and is not shown on the floor plans.
9. Landscape buffering is missing along the left
side property line where the elevation is less well
developed than on other portions of the home.
16666 Topping Way
Design Review Comments
January 7, 2020 Page 5
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Use stucco on the second floor bay windows in lieu of the proposed board & batten siding.
2. Eliminate the small stone dormer on the second floor.
3. Limit the board & batten siding to the gable eaves.
4. Locate roof brackets in a consistent manner at all second floor hip roofs.
5. Use open gable eaves that are more typical of this architectural style.
6. Reduce the size of the round window on the front facade.
7. Return the stone on the front facade bay windows to an inside corner at the main wall.
8. Eliminate the board & batten siding from the right side elevation.
9. Clarify the relationship between the first floor gable roof end and the angled bay window blow on the right side
elevation.
16666 Topping Way
Design Review Comments
January 7, 2020 Page 6
10. Eliminate the round second floor window on the rear facade or match its size to the round window on the front
facade.
11. Add landscaping to buffer the left side
elevation.
Sean, please let me know if you have any
questions, or if there are other issues that I
did not address.
Sincerely,
CANNON DESIGN GROUP
Larry L. Cannon
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
1 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Assessment of Ten (10) Protected-Size Trees
At and Adjacent to
16666 Topping Way
Los Gatos, California
Prepared for:
Sean Mullin, Associate Planner
Town of Los Gatos Community Development Department
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95030
Field Visit:
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA)
1/10/2020
Report by CTA
1/17/2020
EXHIBIT 7
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
2 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Table of Contents
1.0 Summary __________________________________________________________________________ 3
2.0 Assignment & Background __________________________________________________________ 11
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected? ________________________________________ 12
4.0 Recommendations _________________________________________________________________ 14
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town Code ______________________________ 21
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code ___________________________________ 25
7.0 Author’s Qualifications _____________________________________________________________ 27
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions _________________________________________________ 28
9.0 Certification _______________________________________________________________________ 29
10.0 Digital Images ____________________________________________________________________ 29
11.0 Tree Data Table ___________________________________________________________________ 34
12.0 Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA ____________________________________________________ 41
13.0 Attached: Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA _____________________ 41
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
3 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1.0 Summary
a. Matrix style overview of protected-size trees (non-exempt species, 4-inches diameter at 4.5 feet above grade). Below, the CTA (Contract Town Arborist)
has outlined expected impacts to each tree, along with suggestions for adjustments to the plan set (if applicable) that will optimize tree survival over the
long term.
The CTA calculated the appraised value of each tree, which can be used as a tool for determining the proper security bond amount to have the applicant
post with the Town as a hedge against site plan-related tree damages (if applicable). Appraised values can also be used to determine damage fees if trees
are determined during or after construction to have been damaged such that mitigation is required.
Mitigation replacement rate and size is noted for each tree in the case that removal or damage to trees occurs.
Note: Only trees within relatively close proximity of proposed work are included in this tree study (e.g. tree trunks located between approximately zero and
30 linear feet of current proposed new grading, utility trenching, excavation, haul routes, landscaping, etc. as shown on proposed plans, and trees with
canopy driplines that encroach onto the subject property.
Table 1.0(a) (REFER TO THE CTA’S TREE MAP MARKUP WHEN REVIEWING THIS MATRIX)
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
4 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
1 41
Shown on
applicant’s plans
as to remain,
but the
proposed new
driveway
footprint at 1 to
2 feet offset
from the trunk
edge of this tree
may cause
severe root loss
(see tree map
by the CTA).
Tree may end
up being
removed. Note
possible future
conflict between
tree and PG&E
high voltage
wires overhead
if tree is not
removed.
7 feet
TCS rating is
“Poor” if take into
account the current
proposed driveway
footprint. However,
if driveway is
floated above
grade using a
geogrid
underlayment, the
TCS might be
boosted to
“Moderate”.
$4,300
Alternative 1: Use a
geogrid such as Tensar
TriAx TX140, or Mirafi
Miragrid, to float the entire
driveway including
baserock, etc. over
existing soil grade, thereby
lifting up finish grade of the
drive, but preserving roots
extended from the tree.
Alternative 2: Move the
proposed driveway to 7
feet offset from trunk, and
build using standard
methods and materials.
(Alternative 3: Remove
tree and charge
replacement feet of
$1,000.)
$250X4 =
$1,000. 24” box
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
5 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
2 42 Retain 6 feet
TCS is “Poor” to
“Moderate” if take
into account the
current proposed
multiple trenches
that are shown
routed just a few
feet from trunk, and
proposed new
driveway base
section prep is
excavated below
grade as would be
the standard
procedure.
$4,790.
TCS boosted to “Good” if
all proposed impacts were
to be eliminated or pushed
to 6 feet (or greater) offset
distance from trunk edge,
including joint trench
alignment, new stormwater
swale alignment, new gas
pipe alignment, and new
driveway and driveway
edging.
$250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
3 43 Removal n/a n/a $2,410. n/a $250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
4 44
Retain
(the CTA
suggests
removal due to
decay at fork)
4 feet TCS: Poor to
Moderate $830. No plan changes required
to retain tree.
$250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
6 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
5 45 Retain 4 feet TCS: Moderate $1,100. No plan changes required
to retain tree.
$250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
6 46
Removal due to
very poor
condition
(5% out of
100%)
4 feet
TCS: Poor
(Tree is Almost
Dead)
$30.
(Author suggests removal
of tree). This would be a
no-fee removal.
(No fee) (No fee)
7 47 Retain 5 feet TCS: Moderate $1,920.
Push proposed turf grass
lawn out to farther from
tree so that root protection
zone fencing can be
erected at 10 feet or more
offset from trunk during
construction and
landscape development.
(Critical Root Zone is 5
feet, but canopy is
lopsided northward, which
means that protective
fencing will need to be at
least 10 feet out from trunk
on the north side).
$250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
7 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
8 48 Retain
(Neighbor tree) 12 feet TCS: Good $12,700.
Fence off the entire
southwest corner of the
16666 Topping property
per the red dashed line on
the CTA’s tree map
attached to this report,
such that no activity occurs
within 20 feet of the
property corner. This is a
valuable, neighbor-owned
oak specimen in good
overall condition.
n/a n/a
9 49 Retain
(Neighbor tree) 6 feet TCS: Moderate $1,830.
No plan changes required
to retain tree in its current
condition. The existing
storm drain pipe in the
City’s easement is large
enough that it is likely
blocking all lateral root
growth eastward into the
16666 Topping property,
which means that the tree
should not be impacted by
the applicant’s proposed
plans, as long as
protective chain link
fencing remains erected
along the property line or
east of the property line
over the City “drainage
easement” throughout the
construction process.
$250X3 =
$750. 24” Box
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
8 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Line
Number
Tree Tag
Number /
Common
Name
Expected Tree
Disposition
Critical Root Zone
(CRZ) Radius
Suggested for
Optimal Structural
Stability
Large Protected
Tree (LPT)?
Tree Conservation
Suitability Rating
(TCS)?
Appraised
Value
Suggested Changes to
Applicant’s Proposed
Plans to Boost Tree
Conservation Suitability
Rating (TCS) to
“Moderate” or “Good”
Replacement
Rate Per
Canopy Lost
Replacement
Size Tree
10 50 Retain
(Neighbor tree) 8 feet TCS: Moderate $3,770. (Same as tree #49 above) $250X4 =
$1,000. 24” Box
2019-20 Town of Los Gatos In-lieu fee equivalent = $250 per each required 24” box mitigation tree planting not installed on the site.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
9 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
1.0 (b) Summary of tree disposition and tree issues, based on the applicant’s most current grading and drainage plan sheet C2 by
SMP Engineers of Los Altos, dated 12/5/2019, and the current proposed landscape plan sheet L1 by Todd Kalbfeld Landscape
Design of San Jose, dated December, 2019.
1. TREE IMPACTS EXPECTED IF THE PROJECT WERE TO BE BUILT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT:
1.1. Hackberry #41 vs. Driveway
Hackberry #41 will be severely impacted by proposed new driveway work, unless the drive were to be built as a floating system with all baserock
placed over grade over a biaxial or triaxial geogrid.
Note however that the tree canopy may also interfere with vehicles moving on the driveway. The tree may need to be removed if the driveway
were to be built at its current proposed footprint.
Options:
A. Remove tree #41 and build as currently proposed. This would avoid tree canopy airspace conflicts with vehicles, and avoid
maintaining an “impacted” tree.
B. Relocate the driveway to 7 feet offset from trunk. Canopy of tree may still conflict with vehicle airspace, even at this distance.
C. Install a triaxial or biaxial geogrid as an underlayment to allow for driveway construction at its current proposed location, albeit with
expected airspace conflicts between vehicle movement and the canopy of tree #41 which has a radius of 15 feet.
D. Relocate the entire proposed driveway and garage to the west side of the property.
1.2. Oak #42 vs. Utilities and Driveway
Oak #42 will be severely impacted by the assumed proposed new joint trench, new storm drain, new gas pipe line, and new driveway and
driveway edging. It is not clear if one, some, or all of these impacts can be relocated or otherwise relocated to farther offset from the trunk of oak
#42 to optimize root preservation.
Recommendations:
Relocate joint trench to 7 feet or more offset from trunk edge.
Relocate stormwater drainage swale cut to 7 feet or more offset from trunk edge.
Relocate gas pipe trench to 7 feet or more offset from trunk edge.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
10 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Utilize a triaxial or biaxial geogrid pinned down over the existing soil surface as an underlayment, within 20 feet of the tree trunk, in
order to bump up the driveway construction sandwich of materials such that all of the base section baserock and surface materials are
placed over the geogrid and literally over existing soil grade elevation. This is called a “no dig” system, and has been used on many
University-funded driveway, parking lot, and sidewalk construction projects at Stanford University, Palo Alto since 2018 per the
recommendation of Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist. Use of the geogrid also allows for elimination of any “subbase over-excvation”
and elimination of any “subbase recompaction”.
Keep all new “driveway edging” at or above the elevation of the geogrid so that it is essentially floating over the geogrid and does
not require any excavation into the oak #42 root zone below existing soil grade elevations.
1.3. Grass Lawn/Irrigation Pipe Trenching vs. African sumac #47
The current proposed grass lawn appears to encroach to roughly 5 feet or less from the trunk of tree #47.
Recommendation:
Push out the proposed grass lawn and any associated irrigation pipe trenching routes such that there is an offset of at least 8 to 10 feet
from the tree’s trunk (the tree #47 location as shown on the CTA’s tree map markup is NOT accurate).
1.4. Oak #48 on Neighbor’s Property
It is not clear why proposed landscape plan sheet L2 shows various shrub plantings for the area within the canopy dripline of neighbor oak #48.
This tree has a canopy extension that encroaches to at least 12 to 15 feet east of the property corner, and the root system is likely extended into
the 16666 Topping Way property by at least 40 to 50 feet radius.
Recommendation:
Erect protective fencing at least 15 to 20 feet east of the property corner, in order to optimize root preservation around this tree, and also
minimize any potential conflicts with the canopy.
Redesign the proposed landscape plan to eliminate all proposed landscape irrigation pipe trenching and eliminate all proposed
landscape plantings at this corner, again, in order to optimize root preservation around this tree. The CTA suggests eliminating all work
within roughly 15 or 20 linear feet of the property corner.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
11 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
2. NEW LANDSCAPE AND IRRIGATION
Landscape plan sheets L1 and L2 by Kalbfeld, dated December, 2019, were reviewed for this assignment.
The plans show installation of twelve (12) 36” box size trees.
If irrigation delivery piping has to be placed within 15 feet of any existing tree, then use over-grade trenchless tubing such as ½” diameter
UV-resistant flexible tubing pinned down over-grade and covered with mulch. As noted above in item 1.4, the CTA suggests eliminating all
irrigation and planting within 15 or 20 feet of the oak #48 property corner area, in order to preserve oak roots in this area.
3. TREE REMOVALS / FEES OR IN-LIEU PLANTINGS COVERED 100% BY PROPOSED NEW LANDSCAPE TREE INSTALLATIONS:
Only tree #43 is shown on the applicant’s plans as a removal. Fee for this removal is $750 or installation of three (3) 24” box size trees, as noted
above in the summary table. However, the applicant’s landscape plan shows proposed installation of 12-count 24” box size trees at the site, which
reduces the removal fee to zero.
If tree #41 is removed as suggested by the CTA in order to allow for the new driveway to be installed as currently proposed, then the removal fee
would be an additional $1,000 or installation of four (4) 24” box size trees as noted in the summary table above. Again, this requirement is covered by
the applicant’s plan to install 12-count 24” box size trees on site.
The CTA suggests removing African sumac #46 which has structurally failed, and is laying on the ground (no fee).
2.0 Assignment & Background
Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist (CTA) was directed to tag and assess all Protected-Size (4-inch diameter and greater) trees in relatively
close proximity to the proposed site plan project area, including off-site trees on neighboring properties which were expected to be negatively
impacted by the applicant’s planned work.
The site is an older single story residence property, on which the existing structures are all to be demolished. The CTA assessed the proposed
grading and drainage plan sheet C2 dated 12/5/2019 by SMP Civil, which shows both the existing residence and proposed new residence work,
utility joint trench routing, storm drain pipe trenching, gas pipe trench, driveway work, an existing 10 foot wide Town of Los Gatos drainage
easement, and other items. This sheet was used to prepare the tree location and protection map markup attached to the end of this report.
The CTA also assessed the proposed landscape sheets L1 and L2 dated December 2019. There is currently no irrigation pipe trenching plan sheet
available from the applicant for review.
For purposes of long term planning, the CTA assumed that any tree that rated out between 0% (“dead”) and 10% overall condition (“very poor”) was
deemed a removal tree for safety purposes.
The site was assessed by the CTA on 1/10/2020.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
12 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Trees were tagged by the CTA at eye level using racetrack shaped tags numbering “41” through “50”: a total of 10 trees. Trees #48, 49, and #50 are
all neighbor-owned trees.
Tree data were collected and assembled by the CTA in section 11.0 of this report.
The CTA’s recommendations in section 4.0 of this report are based on published information in various standard arboriculture texts, such as the
series of Best Management Practices (BMP) companion publication (booklets) published by International Society of Arboriculture that are
periodically updated over time. The series of BMP booklets accompany the ANSI-A300 USA standards for tree care used by U.S.-based tree care
companies.
Additional supporting information includes digital images archived by the CTA and included in section 10.0, and a tree map markup attached as
section 12.0.
The CTA utilized a forester’s D-tape to determine tree mainstem (trunk) diameters at 4.5 feet above grade. The D-tape is a circumferential tape that
converts actual trunk circumference to an averaged diameter in inches and tenths of inches.
Tree heights were determined using a digital Nikon Forestry Pro 550 hypsometer.
Tree canopy spread diameters were estimated visually or paced off. The tree canopy driplines shown as black clouding on the tree map markup are
approximate only.
The tree trunk plot dot locations shown on the CTA’s tree map markup are also approximate only, and in many cases are not accurate. However, the
plot dots used for trees #41 and #42 are those plotted by the project civil engineer SMP, and are therefore considered accurate.
3.0 Town of Los Gatos – What Trees are Protected?
Per the most recent (2015) iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance (Town Code Chapter 29 – Zoning Regulations, Article 1), the following
regulations apply to all trees within the Town’s jurisdiction (wordage adjusted):
1. All trees with at least a single mainstem measuring four (4) inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Protected Trees” when
removal relates to any development review.
2. 12 inch diameter (18 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review.
3. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) blue oak (Quercus douglasii), black oak (Quercus kellogii), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and
Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) on developed residential lots not currently subject to development review.
4. 8 inch diameter (8 inch multistem total) trees on developed residential property not currently subject to development review, on lots in the designated
Hillside Area per the official Town map.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
13 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. All trees with a single mainstem or sum of multiple mainstems totaling 48 inches diameter or greater at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large
Protected Trees” (LPT).
6. All oak species (Quercus spp.), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii) with one or more mainstems
totaling 24 inches diameter or more at 4.5 feet above grade are considered “Large Protected Trees” (LPT).
7. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-
year period, affecting 25% or more of any Protected Tree (including below ground root system).
8. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to prune, trim, or cut any branch or root greater than four (4) inches in diameter of a Large
Protected Tree.
9. Section 29.10.0965. Prohibitions: A permit is required to conduct severe pruning on any protected tree. Severe pruning is defined in section
29.10.0955 as “topping or removal of foliage or significant scaffold limbs or large diameter branches so as to cause permanent damage and/or
disfigurement of a tree, and/or which does not meet specific pruning goals and objectives as set forth in the current version of the International Society
of Arboriculture Best Management Practices-Tree Pruning and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub, and Other Woody Plant Management-Standard
Practices, (Pruning).”
10. Exceptions:
Severe Pruning Exception in Town Code section 29.10.1010(3) “…..except for pollarding of fruitless mulberry (Morus alba) or other species approved
by the Town Arborist….”.
Protected Tree Exceptions:
a. Edible fruit or nut bearing trees less than 18 inches diameter (multistem total or single stem), including fruiting olive trees.
b. Acacia melanoxylon (blackwood acacia) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
c. Liriodendron tulipifera (tulip tree) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
d. Ailanthus altissima (tree of heaven) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
e. Eucalyptus globulus (Tasmanian blue gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
f. Eucalyptus camaldulensis (River red gum) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
g. Other eucalyptus species (E. spp.) not noted above, less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
(REMOVAL O.K. ONLY AT HILLSIDE AREA LOCATIONS PER OFFICIAL TOWN MAP):
www.losgatosca.gov/documentcenter/view/176
h. All palm species (except Phoenix canariensis) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
i. Ligustrum lucidum (glossy privet) less than 24 inches (multistem total or single stem)
Note that per the exception in part ‘a’ above, fruiting olive trees with stems totaling less than 18 inches are considered non-
protected.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
14 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
4.0 Recommendations
1. Project Arborist (“PA”):
Initial Signoff
It is recommended that a third party ASCA registered consulting arborist or ISA Certified Arborist with good experience with tree protection during
construction be retained by the applicant, to provide pre-project verification that tree protection and maintenance measures outlined in this section of
the arborist report are adhered to. Periodic (e.g. monthly) inspections and summary reporting, if required as a project condition of approval, are
suggested in order to verify contractor compliance with tree protection throughout the site plan project. This person will be referred to as the project
arborist (“PA”). The PA should monitor soil moisture within the root protection zones of trees being retained, using a Lincoln soil moisture probe/meter
or equivalent. If required, inspection reports shall be sent to Mr. Sean Mullin, Associate Planner (smullin@losgatosca.gov ). Sample wordage for a
condition of approval regarding monitoring of tree protection and tree condition:
“The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained
and documented in a monthly site activity report sent to the Town. A mandatory Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent at least once monthly to the
Town planner associated with this project (smullin@losgatosca.gov) beginning with the initial tree protection verification approval letter”.
1. (Continued) PROJECT ARBORIST “PA” / SPECIAL SITE MONITORING:
The PA shall work with the project team to directly monitor a portion of the following items such as, but not limited to the following:
1a. Installation of a layer of biaxial or triaxial geogrid over the soil grade surface between oak #41 and out to at least 20 linear feet from the trunk
edge of oak #41 in all directions, as an underlayment for the baserock base section of the proposed new driveway.
The PA shall verify that proposed new driveway work “edging” involves a cut down to existing soil surface grade elevation only, and does not involve
any edging prep excavation for installation of the driveway edging/paver restraints.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
15 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
2. Project Team Pre-Project Adjustments, Clarifications, and Limits Suggested or Required:
2a. Hackberry #41:
Applicant’s project team shall verify whether this tree is to be removed to accommodate the
current proposed driveway footprint. There are potentially both root conflicts and canopy
conflicts that seem to be issues related to retention of this tree, given the proposed driveway
footprint.
If the tree is to be retained and protected in place, then it is suggested that the team plan to
use a biaxial or triaxial geogrid underlayment placed directly at soil surface grade elevation
over which the baserock base section shall be placed for driveway construction floating over
the root system of tree #41. See sample image at right showing a recent 2020 project in
Menlo Park on which The CTA had the owner install Tensar TriAx TX140 triaxial geogrid to
avoid base section excavation and to also avoid any subbase overexcavation or subbase
recompaction.
2b. Oak #42:
Geogrid: Utilize a geogrid system consisting of a triaxial or biaxial geogrid layer pinned down
over existing soil grade between the trunk of the tree and 20 feet out from the trunk in all
directions. Do not compact the subgrade soil beneath the geogrid. The geogrid will provide
lateral load bearing capability to the driveway such that precompaction of the subbase (root
zone of tree) is not necessary. Place baserock over the geogrid, and compact per standard
engineering specifications. Lay surface materials over the baserock per plans. See sample
image at right. Our local supply house of Reed and Graham, San Jose (contact Mr. Dan
Toda at dan@rginc.com). Dan can consult on all types of projects, and will identify specific
geogrid models for certain situations, depending on the amount of load-bearing capability
required.
Canopy conflicts: In addition to the use of a geogrid, it is further suggested that the team push the proposed driveway footprint to 10 or 15 feet offset
from trunk, both to avoid root loss to the oak, and to avoid a conflict between driveway users and the very low hanging canopy. Pruning to clear the
driveway airspace may in itself have a significant to severe negative impact on the tree. The extent of horizontal and vertical airspace clearance
pruning depends on the final layout of the driveway in relation to the tree.
Joint trench: Project team shall verify whether a joint trench is to be cut within the canopy dripline of oak #42. If a joint trench is required, then relocate
the entire trench to a distance of at least 7 feet or more from trunk edge, or use directional bore technology to install all utilities using a “trenchless”
bore machine.
Gas pipe: Team shall verify whether a gas pipe is to be upgraded within the canopy dripline of oak #42. If gas service is to be upgraded, then relocate
the entire gas trench to a distance of at least 7 feet or more from trunk edge, or use a directional bore machine to install the gas pipe as “trenchless”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
16 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Earthen swale stormwater drainage: The proposed stormwater swale is currently shown to be cut at roughly 1 or 2 feet offset from the trunk of this
oak. It is suggested that this swale be relocated to at least 7 feet offset from the trunk edge of the oak, or eliminated altogether from this area of the
property.
2c. Protective Tree Fencing:
Project team shall verify that chain link root protection zone fencing will be erected per the CTA’s red dashed lines on the tree map markup attached to
this report.
2e. Additional “Suggested Removals” in Addition to Tree #43:
As noted above, tree #41 may need to be removed, if the proposed driveway is built as currently shown on the applicant’s plan sheets.
Tree #44 is in poor overall condition and exhibits advanced decay at the fork. This tree is suggested to be considered for additional removal.
Tree #46 has an overall condition rating of 5% which is considered “dead”, due to its structural failure. It is currently laid horizontally on the ground.
The CTA suggests that this tree be removed (no fee required).
There will not be any fees incurred as a result of removals, even if trees #41, 43, 44, and 46 are all removed, since the canopy replacement fees for all
of these trees total $2,500 or installation of ten (10) 24” box trees on site. Since the project is already proposing to install twelve (12) 36” box size
trees, the current proposed landscape plan will exceed the Town’s canopy replacement requirement in terms of new on-site mitigation plantings.
2f. Landscape Shrubs for Near Oak #48 / Eliminate:
The applicant’s current proposed landscape plans dated December 2019 show new shrubs to be installed near the southwest corner of the site. The
CTA suggests eliminating all proposed irrigation pipe trenching and all landscape plant installations for the area between the southwest corner of the
site and out to roughly 15 or 20 feet from that corner, in order to preserve and protect lateral woody and fine roots growing out from the valuable
neighbor-owned coast live oak #48 which is valued at $12,700.
The CTA suggests that this entire corner be fenced off at approximately 20 feet radius out from the southwest property corner.
2e. Irrigation Piping (not reviewed by the CTA as of the date of writing):
Keep all new rigid PVC irrigation piping offset at least 15 feet from the trunk edges of all trees being retained at 16666 Topping Way and being
retained on the adjoining neighbor properties. If this distance cannot be achieved, then utilize a “no dig” type system of UV-resistant piping that can be
laid directly over-grade, and covered with mulch, such that the piping is at zero inches cut depth below existing tree root zone soil grade.
The irrigation piping shall be kept at least 15 feet offset from the southwest corner of the 16666 Topping Way site, in order to preserve approximately
15 to 20 feet of radial root zone extended into the Topping Way site from neighbor-owned oak #48: a native tree specimen in good overall condition
valued at $12,700.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
17 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
3. Pruning & Tree Maintenance:
3a. ISA Certified Arborist:
Retain the services of an ISA Certified Arborist to perform pruning work on trees requiring clearance pruning or other tree maintenance.
All pruning work on trees at this project will need to be performed directly by an ISA Certified Arborist, or under full-time on-site direct supervision of an
ISA Certified Arborist.
All pruning shall conform to the most current iteration (2017) of ANSI-A300 tree, shrub, and other woody plant maintenance / pruning and the Best
Management Practices companion pamphlet to the ANSI-A300 pruning standards, published by International Society of Arboriculture.
3b. Pruning of oak #42:
Do not prune more than 25% of the live canopy of oak #42. If possible, limit all pruning to branches measuring 1 inch diameter or less, when clearing
vertical and horizontal airspace for the proposed new driveway.
4. New Irrigation Piping and Landscape Plantings:
4a. Review:
Provide an irrigation plan sheet to Town Staff for review. Per item #2e above in this recommendations section, all new irrigation hard PVC pipe
trenching shall be offset at least 15 feet from the trunk edge of any tree being retained both on and off site.
For areas within 15 feet of a tree being retained, use only over-grade “trenchless” systems such as flexible ½” diameter tubing that is UV-resistant and
rated for installations on-grade, in order to avoid trenching which would otherwise destroy root systems of trees being retained.
If possible, eliminate all new proposed plantings within 15 to 20 feet of the southwest corner of the property, in order to avoid causing unnecessary
damage to the root system of oak #48 which likely extends at least 40 to 50 feet radius through the 16666 Topping Way site.
The proposed grass lawn area may also need to be reduced in extent in order to avoid causing damage to African sumac tree #47. The suggested
optimal offset is 10 feet radius from trunk. Current proposed turf lawn appears to encroach to roughly 4 to 6 feet from trunk edge (not verified as of the
date of writing).
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
18 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
5. Trunk Buffer Wrap Type III Protection:
Prior to demolition commencement, install trunk buffers around all trees being retained on-site:
Wrap one (1) entire roll of orange plastic snow fencing around the trunk of each single tree, between grade
and 6 to 8 feet above grade to create a padding of at least 1 to 2 inches thickness around each tree trunk.
Stand 2x4 wood boards upright, side by side, around the entire circumference of the orange plastic wraps. Affix
using duct tape (do not use wires or ropes). See spec image above right showing the wooden boards correctly
mounted against one entire roll of orange snow fencing, such that the wood does not actually touch the trunk at
all.
6. Chain Link Fencing Type I and/or Type II Root Protection Zone (RPZ):
Prior to demolition commencement, erect chain link fencing panels set on moveable concrete block footings (see
sample image below right). Wire the fence panels to iron layout stakes pounded 24 inches into the ground at the
ends of each fence panel to keep the fence route stabilized and in its correct position. Do not wire the fence
panels to the trunks of the trees. These panels are available commonly for rent or purchase.
Alternative Fencing / Tube Posts and Rolled Chain Link: Using a professional grade post
bounder, pound 7-foot long 2-inch diameter iron tube posts 24-inches into the ground, at 6
to 10-foot spacing maximum on-center, and hang steel chain link fencing material minimum
5-feet height on the tube posts. These materials are available for purchase at many retail
and wholesale construction supply houses such as Home Depot, Lowe’s, Grainger’s, White
Cap, Harbor Freight, etc.
Pre-construction fence routes for trees being retained within 30 feet of new work:
See the CTA’s red dashed lines indicating chain link fence routing, on the attached
tree map markup. Tree fencing around many of the site trees and neighbor trees is
considered “not finalized”, given that:
• Hackberry #41 may need to be removed to allow for construction of the current
proposed driveway.
• Oak #42 should be fenced at least 7 feet radius offset from the trunk edge, but
current proposed utilities and driveway work all encroach to closer than this offset distance.
• African sumac #44 and #46 both probably need to be removed due to health and/or structural issues discussed elsewhere in this
report.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
19 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
• Neighbor oak #48 requires at least 15 to 20 radial feet of protective fencing, but the current proposed landscape plan shows shrub
installations for within this area.
• Neighbor trees #49 and #50 are fenced at the property line, but should be fenced 5 to 10 feet east of the property line in order to better
protect the canopy wood from above-ground damages.
This fencing must be erected prior to any heavy machinery traffic or construction material arrival on site.
The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. No materials, tools, excavated soil, liquids, substances, etc. are to be
placed or dumped, even temporarily, inside the root protection zone or “RPZ”.
No storage, staging, work, or other activities will be allowed inside the RPZ except with PA monitoring.
7. Signage: The RPZ fencing shall have one sign affixed with UV-stabilized zip ties to the chain link at eye level for every 15 linear feet of fencing,
minimum 8”X11” size each, plastic laminated or printed with waterproof ink on waterproof paper, with wordage that includes the Town Code section
that refers to tree fence protection requirements (wordage can be adjusted):
TREE PROTECTION ZONE FENCE
ZONA DE PROTECCION PARA ARBOLES
-NO ENTRE SIN PERMISO-
-LLAME EL ARBOLISTA-
REMOVAL OF THIS FENCE IS
SUBJECT TO PENALTY ACCORDING TO
LOS GATOS TOWN CODE 29.10.1025
PROJECT ARBORIST:
TELEFONO CELL: EMAIL:
Note: Walter Levison, Contract Town Arborist is an independent consultant working for Town of Los Gatos Planning Division Staff, and is
not the “PROJECT ARBORIST”.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
20 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
8. Water Spray:
Spray off foliage of all trees within 20 feet of construction activity using a very high power garden hose or a
pressure washer system set on low pressure to wash both the upper and lower surfaces of foliage. This helps keep
the gas portals (stomata) unclogged for better gas exchange which is crucial for normal tree function.
Spray should be applied approximately once-monthly, or when ambient airborne dust concentration is unusually
high.
9. Tree Removal Permitting / Removal of Protected-Size Trees / Mitigation:
It is suggested that the Town permit the removal of tree #43 per the applicant’s plan sheets.
It is further suggested that the Town permit the removal of possibly trees #41, 44, and #46. Tree #41 appears to be
in conflict with the current proposed driveway plan, and will likely require removal unless the driveway and garage
are flipped to the opposite side of the property. Trees #44 and #46 have health and/or structural issues.
Note that the applicant’s installation of twelve (12) 36” box size trees per the current proposed
landscape plan sheet L-1 is equivalent to a landscape credit of greater than the canopy replacement
fees that would be due to the Town for removal of trees #41, 43, 44, and #46.
New Plantings / Spec Install:
Ideally, two (2) high flow type adjustable bubblers each emitting 2 gallons per minute (2GPM) are
set over the rootball of each single tree planting, and each tree is installed with two (2) wooden planting
stakes (not the shipping stake), with a set of figure-8 Cinch Ties ™ affixed per the standard spec image
below right.
Note how the tree stakes are cut to just above the elevation of the Cinch-Ties to avoid abrasion
between the stakes and the limbs and trunk during wind movement.
A watering berm consisting of site soil is formed around the outside edge of the rootball to force
irrigation water to pool up directly over the rootball, as seen in the image at right and below right on
page 21 of this report.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
21 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
RIGHT: Proper installation of a new 24” box size tree with dual high flow type
2 gallon-per-minute flood bubblers seen inside a steeply sloped watering
berm built using site soil. The berm is built up directly over the rootball edge,
which forces irrigation water directly downward into the rootball via gravity.
10. Temporary Irrigation During Construction (If Any):
Volume per week: TBD.
Application locations: TBD.
Application methods: TBD.
See image at right showing a 100-foot long soaker hose setup with wood chip
mulch around a large coast redwood specimen being retained during construction
on a Walter Levison project. Palo Alto, California.
Other over-grade temporary irrigation techniques can be used, including a tow-
behind water tank/spray apparatus, water truck, garden hose, high flow type
bubblers, etc.
5.0 Tree Protection and Maintenance Directions per Town
Code
The following is excerpted directly from the 2015 iteration of the Town of Los Gatos tree
ordinance sections which provide specific tree protection directions and limitations on root
pruning and above-ground pruning:
Sec. 29.10.1000. New property development.
(a) A tree survey shall be conducted prior to submittal of any development application
proposing the removal of or impact to one or more protected trees. The development
application shall include a Tree Survey Plan and Tree Preservation Report based on this
survey. The tree survey inventory numbers shall correspond to a numbered metal tag
placed on each tree on site during the tree survey. The tree survey plan shall be prepared
by a certified or consulting arborist, and shal l include the following information:
(1) Location of all existing trees on the property as described in section 29.10.0995;
(2) Identify all trees that could potentially be affected by the project (directly or indirectly- immediately or in long term), such as upslope grading or
compaction outside of the dripline;
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
22 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
(3) Notation of all trees classified as protected trees;
(4) In addition, for trees four (4) inches in diameter or larger, the plan shall specify the precise location of the trunk and crown spread, and the
species, size (diameter, height, crown spread) and condition of the tree.
(b) The tree survey plan shall be reviewed by the Town’s consulting arborist who shall, after making a field visit to the property, indicate in writing or as
shown on approved plans, which trees are recommended for preservation (based on a retention rating of high/moderate/low) using, as a minimum, the
Standards of Review set forth in section 29.10.0990. This plan shall be made part of the staff report to the Town reviewing body upon its consideration of the
application for new property development;
(c) When development impacts are within the dripline of or will affect any protect ed tree, the applicant shall provide a tree preservation report prepared
by a certified or consulting arborist. The report, based on the findings of the tree survey plan and other relevant information, shall be used to determine the
health and structure of existing trees, the effects of the proposed development and vegetation removal upon the trees, recommendations for specific
precautions necessary for their preservation during all phases of development (demolition, grading, during construction, landscapin g); and shall also
indicate which trees are proposed for removal. The tree preservation report shall stipulate a required tree protection zone (TPZ) for trees to be
retained, including street trees, protected trees and trees whose canopies are hanging over the project site from adjacent properties. The TPZ shall be
fenced as specified in section 29.10.1005:
(1) The final approved tree preservation report shall be included in the building permit set of development plans and printed on a sheet titled:
Tree Preservation Instructions (Sheet T-1). Sheet T-1 shall be referenced on all relevant sheets (civil, demolition, utility, landscape,
irrigation) where tree impacts from improvements may be shown to occur;
(2) The Town reviewing body through its site and des ign plan review shall endeavor to protect all trees recommended for preservation by the
Town’s consulting arborist. The Town reviewing body may determine if any of the trees recommended for preservation should be removed, if
based upon the evidence submitted the reviewing body determines that due to special site grading or other unusual characteristics
associated with the property, the preservation of the tree(s) would significantly preclude feasible development of the property as described in
section 29.10.0990;
(3) Approval of final site or landscape plans by the appropriate Town reviewing body shall comply with the following requirements and conditions of
approval:
a. The applicant shall, within ninety (90) days of final approval or prior to issuance of a grading or building permit, whichever occurs
first, secure an appraisal of the condition and value of all trees included in the tree report affected by the development that are required to
remain within the development using the Tree Value Standard methodology as set forth in this Chapter. The appraisal of each tree shall
recognize the location of the tree in the proposed development. The appraisal shall be performed in accordance with the current edition of
the Guide for Plant Appraisal published by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers (CTLA) and the Species and Group Classification
Guide published by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant's
expense, and the appraisal shall be subject to the Director's approval.
b. The site or landscape plans shall indicate which trees are to be removed. However, the plans do not constitute approval to remove a
tree until a separate permit is granted. The property owner or 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 division.
(d) Prior to acceptance of proposed development or subdivision improvements, the developer shall submit to the Director a final tree preservation
report prepared by a certified or consulting arborist. This report shall consider all trees that were to remain within the development. The report shall note
the trees' health in relation to the initially reported cond ition of the trees and shall note any changes in the trees' numbers or physical conditions. The
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
23 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
applicant will then be responsible for the loss of any tree not previously approved for removal. For protected trees, which were removed, the
developer shall pa y a penalty in the amount of the appraised value of such tree in addition to replacement requirements contained in section
29.10.0985 of this Code. The applicant shall remain responsible for the health and survival of all trees within the development for a period of five (5) years
following acceptance of the public improvements of the development or certificate of occupanc y.
(e) Prior to issuance of any demolition, grading or building permit, the applicant or contractor shall submit to the Building Department a written
statement and photographs verifying that the required tree protection fence is installed around street trees and protected trees in accordance with the tree
preservation report.
(f) If required by the Director and conditioned as part of a discretionary approval, a security guarantee shall be provided to the Town. Prior to the
issuance of any permit allowing construction to begin, the applicant shall post cash, bond or other security satisfactory to the Director, in the penal
sum of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) for each tree required to be preserved, or twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00), whichever is less. The
cash, bond or other security shall be retained for a period of one (1) year following acceptance of the public improvements for the development and shall
be forfeited in an amount equal to five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) per tree as a civil penalty in the event that a tree or trees required to be preserved
are removed, destroyed or severely damaged.
(g) An applicant with a proposed development which requires underground utilities shall avoid the installation of said utilities within the dripline of
existing trees whenever possible. In the event that this is unavoidable, all trenching shall be done using directional boring, a ir-spade excavation or by hand,
taking extreme caution to avoid damage to the root structure. Work within the dripline of existing trees shall be supervised at all times by a certified or
consulting arborist.
(h) It shall be a violation of this division f or any property owner or agent of the owner to fail to comply with any development approval condition
concerning preservation, protection, and maintenance of any protected tree.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1005. Protection of trees during construction.
(a) Protective tree fencing shall specify the following:
(1) Size and materials. Six (6) foot high chain link fencing, mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, shall be driven into the ground
to a depth of at least two (2) feet a t no more than 10-foot spacing. For paving area that will not be demolished and when stipulated in a tree
preservation plan, posts may be supported by a concrete base.
(2) Area type to be fenced. Type I: Enclosure with chain link fencing of either the entire dripline area or at the tree protection zone (TPZ), when
specified by a certified or consulting arborist. Type II: Enclosure for street trees located in a planter strip: chain link fence around the entire
planter strip to the outer branches. Type III: 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, III fencing. Fencing shall be erected before demolition, grading or construction permits are issued and remain in
place until the work is completed. Contractor shall first obtain the approval of the project arborist on record prior to removing a tree protection
fence.
(4) W arning sign. Each tree fence shall have prominently displayed an 8.5 x 11 -inch sign stating: "W arning—Tree Protection Zone-this fence shall
not be removed and is subject to penalty according to Town Code 29.10.1025".
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
24 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
(b) All persons, shall comply with the following precautions:
(1) Prior to the commencement of construction, install the fence at the dripline, or tree protection zone (TPZ) when specified in an approved arborist
report, around any tree and/or vegetation to be retained which could be affected by the construction and prohibit any storage of construction
materials or other materials, equipment cleaning, or parking of vehicles within the TPZ. The dripline shall not be altered in any way so as to
increase the encroachment of the construction.
(2) Prohibit all construction activities within the TPZ, including but not limited to: excavation, grading, drainage and leveling within the dripline of
the tree unless approved by the Director.
(3) Prohibit disposal or depositing of oil, gasoline, chemicals or other harmful materials within the dripline of or in drainage channels, swales or
areas that may lead to the dripline of a protected tree.
(4) Prohibit the attachment of wires, signs or ropes to any protected tree.
(5) Design utility services and irrigation lines to be located outside of the dripline when feasible.
(6) Retain the services of a certified or consulting arborist who shall serve as the project arborist for periodic monitoring of the project site and the
health of those trees to be preserved. The project arborist shall be present whenever activities occur which may pose a potential threat to the
health of the trees to be preserved and shall document all site visits.
(7) The Director and project arborist shall be notified of any damage that occurs to a protected tree during construction so that proper treatment may
be administered.
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Sec. 29.10.1010. Pruning and maintenance.
All pruning shall be in accordance with the current version of the International Society of Arboriculture Best Management Practices—Tree Pruning
and ANSI A300-Part 1 Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management—Standard Practices, (Pruning) and any special conditions as determined by the
Director. For developments, which require a tree preservation report, a certified or consulting arborist shall be in reasonable charge of all activities involving
protected trees, including pruning, cabling and any other work if specified.
(1) Any public utility installing or maintaining any overhead wires or underground pipes or conduits in the vicinity of a protected tree shall obtain
permission from the Director before performing any work, including pruning, which may cause injury to a protected tree. (e.g. cable TV/fiber optic
trenching, gas, water, sewer trench, etc.).
(2) Pruning for clearance of utility lines and energized conductors shall be performed in compliance with the current version of the American
National Standards Institute (ANSI) A300 (Part 1)- Pruning, Section 5.9 Utility Pruning. Using spikes or gaffs when pruning, except where no
other alternative is available, is prohibited.
(3) No person shall prune, trim, cut off, or perform any work, on a single occasion or cumulatively, over a three-year period, affecting twenty-five
percent or more of the crown of any protected tree without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division except for pollarding of fruitless
mulberry trees (Morus alba) or other species approved by the Town Arborist. Applications for a pruning permit shall include photographs indicating
where pruning is proposed.
(4) No person shall remove any Heritage tree or large protected tree branch or root through pruning or other method greater than four (4) inches in
diameter (12.5” in circumference) without first obtaining a permit pursuant to this division.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
25 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
(Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
6.0 Tree Replacement Standards – Los Gatos Town Code
(Excerpted from Town Code 29.10.0985 and 29.10.0987)
(1) Two (2) or more replacement trees, of a species and size designated by the Director, shall be planted on the subject private property. Table 3-1
The Tree Canopy—Replacement Standard shall be used as a basis for this requirement. The person requesting the permit shall pay the cost
of purchasing and planting the replacement trees.
(2) If a tree or trees cannot be reasonably planted on the subject property, an in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by the Town Council by
resolution shall be paid to the Town Tree Replacement Fund to:
a. Add or replace trees on public property in the vicinity of the subject property; or
b. Add or replace trees or landscaping on other Town property; or
c. Support the Town’s urban forestry management program. (Ord. No. 2114, §§ I, II, 8-4-03)
Table 3-1 - Tree Canopy - Replacement Standard
Canopy Size of Removed Tree 1
(Staff is using 24” box size as
the Replacement Standard for
SFR Projects as of 2016) 2,4
Single Family
Residential
Replacement3,4
10 feet or less Two 24 inch box trees Two 15 gallon trees
More than 10 feet to 25 feet Three 24 inch box trees Three 15 gallon trees
More than 25 feet to 40 feet
Four 24 inch box
trees; or Two 36
inch box trees
Four 15 gallon trees
More than 40 feet to 55 feet
Six 24 inch box
trees; or Three
36 inch box
trees
Not Available
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
26 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Greater than 55 feet
Ten 24 inch box
trees; or Five 36
inch box trees
Not Available
Notes 1To measure an asymmetrical canopy of a tree, the widest measurement shall be used to determine canopy size.
2Often, it is not possible to replace a single large, older tree with an equivalent tree(s). In this case, the tree may be replaced with a combination of
both the Tree Canopy Replacement Standard and in-lieu payment in an amount set forth by Town Council resolution paid to the Town Tree
Replacement Fund.
3Single Family Residential Replacement Option is available for developed single family residential lots under 10,000 square feet that are not
subject to the Town’s Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines. All 15-gallon trees must be planted on-site. An y in-lieu fees for single
family residential shall be based on 24” box tree rates as adopted by Town Council.
4Replacement Trees shall be approved by the Town Arborist and shall be of a species suited to the available planting location, proximity to structures,
overhead clearances, soil type, compatibility with surrounding canopy and other relevant factors. Replacement with native species shall be strongly
encouraged. Replacement requirements in the Hillsides shall comply with the Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines Appendix A and
Section 29.10.0987 Special Provisions--Hillsides.
Sec. 29.10.0987. Special Provisions—Hillsides
The Town of Los Gatos recognizes its hillsides as an important natural resource and sensitive habitat which is also a key component of the
Town’s identity, character and charm. In order to maintain and encourage restoration of the hillside environment to its natural state, the Town
has established the following special provisions for tree removal and replacement in the hillsides:
(1) All protected trees located 30 or more feet from the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced with native trees listed in Appendix A
Recommended Native Trees for Hillside Areas of the Town of Los Gatos Hillside Development Standards and Guidelines (HDS&G).
(2) All protected trees located within 30 feet of the primary residence that are removed shall be replaced as follows:
(a) If the removed tree is a native tree listed in Appendix A of the HDS&G, it shall only be replaced with a native tree listed in Appendix A of
the HDS&G.
(b) If the removed tree is not listed in Appendix A, it may be replaced with a tree listed in Appendix A, or replaced with another species of
tree as approved by the Director.
(c) Replacement trees listed in Appendix A may be planted anywhere on the property.
(d) Replacement trees not listed in Appendix A may only be planted within 30 feet of the primary residence.
(3) Replacement requirements shall comply with the requirements in Table 3-1 Tree Canopy Replacement Standard of this Code.
(4) Property owners should be encouraged to retain dead or declining trees where they do not pose a safety or fire hazard, in order to foster wildlife
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
27 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
habitat and the natural renewal of the hillside environment.
7.0 Author’s Qualifications
• Continued education through The American Society of Consulting Arborists, The International Society of Arboriculture (Western Chapter), and
various governmental and non-governmental entities.
• Contract Town Arborist, Town of Los Gatos, California
Community Development Department / Planning Division
2015-present
• Tree Risk Assessment Qualified (ISA TRAQ Course Graduate, Palo Alto, California)
• Millbrae Community Preservation Commission (Tree Board)
2001-2006
• ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401
• ASCA Arboriculture Consulting Academy graduate, class of 2000
• Associate Consulting Arborist
Barrie D. Coate and Associates
4/99-8/99
• Contract City Arborist, City of Belmont, California
Planning and Community Development Department
5/99-present
• ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A
• Peace Corps Soil and Water Conservation Extension Agent
Chiangmai Province, Thailand 1991-1993
• B.A. Environmental Studies/Soil and Water Resources
UC Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, California 1990
UCSC Chancellor’s Award, 1990
(My full curriculum vitae is available upon request)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
28 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
8.0 Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Any legal description provided to the consultant/appraiser is assumed to be correct. Any titles and ownership to any property are assumed to be good and marketable. No responsibility is assumed
for matters legal in character. Any and all property is appraised and evaluated as through free and clean, under responsible ownership and competent management.
It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinance, statutes, or other government regulations.
Care has been taken to obtain all information from reliable sources. All data has been verified insofar as possible; however, the consultant/appraiser can neither guarantee nor be responsible for
the accuracy of information provided by others.
The consultant/appraiser shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for such services as described in the fee schedule and contract of engagement.
Unless required by law otherwise, the possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any other purpose by any other than the person to whom it is
addressed, without the prior expressed written or verbal consent of the consultant/appraiser.
Unless required by law otherwise, neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof, shall be conveyed by anyone, including the client, to the public through advertising, public
relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior expressed conclusions, identity of the consultant/appraiser, or any reference to any professional society or institute or to any initiated
designation conferred upon the consultant/appraiser as stated in his qualifications.
This report and any values expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant/appraiser, and the consultant’s/appraiser’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value, a
stipulated result, the occurrence of a subsequent event, nor upon any finding to be reported.
Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report, being intended for visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys
unless expressed otherwise. The reproduction of any information generated by engineers, architects, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is for the express purpose of
coordination and ease of reference only. Inclusion of said information on any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation by Walter Levison to the sufficiency or accuracy of
said information.
Unless expressed otherwise:
a. information contained in this report covers only those items that were examined and reflects the conditions of those items at the time of inspection; and
b. the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that
problems or deficiencies of the plants or property in question may not arise in the future.
Loss or alteration of any part of this report invalidates the entire report.
Arborist Disclosure Statement:
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce the risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Tree are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often hidden
within trees and below ground. Arborist cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like any
medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Treatment, pruning, and removal of trees may involve considerations beyond the scope of the arborist’s services such as property boundaries, property ownership, site lines, disputes between
neighbors, and other issues. Arborists cannot take such considerations into account unless complete and accurate information is disclosed to the arborist. An arborist should then be expected to
reasonably rely upon the completeness and accuracy of the information provided.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate the trees.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
29 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
9.0 Certification
I hereby certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief, and are made in good faith.
Signature of Consultant
10.0 Digital Images
Below: Digital Images by the CTA archived 1/10/2020.
Tag # Image Tag # Image
41
42
The oak canopy actually extends 18 feet west of trunk, hanging down to
roughly 4 feet above grade, which means that the driveway as currently
proposed is not viable unless the canopy were to be severely pruned.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
30 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
42
42
43
44
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
31 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
44
Closeup of decay at fork.
45
46
Tree has failed structurally. Suggest remove from landscape.
47
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
32 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
48
Southwest corner of the site should probably be left alone to preserve
the oak roots of tree #48 which likely extend at least 40 of 50 feet into
the 16666 Topping Way property.
48
Upper elevations of neighbor owned oak #48. The tree’s root system
likely extends at least 40 to 50 feet radius into the 16666 Topping Way
property, which means we need to eliminate all activity in the southwest
corner of the site and fence it off using chain link panels set at 20 feet out
from the corner.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
33 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Left: Neighbor tree (hackberry?) #49. Right: Neighbor tree (hackberry?) #50.
The fence is set at the property line. The tree’s root system is likely blocked from extending eastward due to the presence of an existing very large diameter concrete
storm drain pipe (Town-owned) below the area along the fence (just in front of the fence line). The CTA assumes that nobody can touch the existing pipe.
It appears that the 16666 Topping owners already pruned back these two neighbor trees to clear the property line. It is not known whether this action was performed
with the expressed permission of the tree owners, or not. The images show that the two trees are now lopsided westward as a result of the pruning work.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
34 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
11.0 Tree Data Table
NOTE 1: Fruit and nut trees measuring less than 18” diameter (total of all mainstems), including fruiting olive trees, both on the site and on
adjacent neighbor properties are excluded from the CTA’s tree studies as “exemption trees” per the Town tree ordinance.
NOTE 2: Tree conservation suitability ratings (CSR) are now based on the 2016 version of Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During
Construction, 2nd Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture. These ratings are linked to tree health, desirability, distance
between tree trunk edges and construction impacts such as root cuts and graded fill soil as shown on the applicant’s current-proposed set of
plan sheets, species’ tolerance to construction impacts, etc. See the worksheet at the end of this data table for the full breakdown of TCS rating
determinations and definitions.
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree Tree Conservation Suitability Ratings (TCS) Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Girdling Roots Root Flares Buried in Fill Soil Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES 41 Celtis sp.
Hackberry
species
(not verified)
13.6 - - 13.6 30/30 70/70 70%
Good ? ? Poor
Good
trunk
taper and
good twig
density.
PG&E has
not yet
topped
this tree
TBD TB, RPZ, P
if retain
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
35 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree Tree Conservation Suitability Ratings (TCS) Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Girdling Roots Root Flares Buried in Fill Soil Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES 42 Quercus ilex Holly oak 11.2 - - 11.2 27/25 85/80 80%
Good X Poor to
Mod W W
Tree
canopy
and tree
root zone
are both
in conflict
with
proposed
utilities
and
proposed
driveway
TBD
TB and RPZ.
Realign or
eliminate
trenching for
utilities.
Push
proposed
driveway
farther west,
and use
geogrid to
build
baserock up
over-grade
as a floating
no dig type
system.
Canopy
clearance
may be a
significant
problem.
Prune to
clear?
43 Genus
species
Unknown
tree species 9 7 7 Total
35 32/25 55/25 35%
Poor X n/a
Tree
exhibits
multiple
forks
between 0
and 2 feet
elev with
bark
inclusions
(bad).
n/a
(Tree to be
removed per
applicant’s
plan)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
36 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree Tree Conservation Suitability Ratings (TCS) Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Girdling Roots Root Flares Buried in Fill Soil Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES 44 Rhus lancea African
sumac 7.1 - - 7.1 18/20 70/20 30%
Poor X Poor to
Mod
Mainstem
decay 3
feet to 5
feet elev
at fork
(see
photo)
5+ feet
offset
RPZ fence if
tree is
retained.
45 Rhus lancea African
sumac 6.0 - - 6.0 17/16 80/60 70%
Good X Mod 5+ feet
offset RPZ fence.
46 Rhus lancea African
sumac 6.8 - - 6.8 16/13 10/0 5%
“Dead” X Poor Ye
s
Tree’s
failed
structure
is literally
on ground
due to
presence
of girdling
roots.
n/a
CTA
suggests
removal of
this failed
tree.
47 Rhus lancea African
sumac 7.5 4.0 - Total
11.5 18/12 75/60 66%
Good X Mod N
10 to 15
feet
offset
radius
RPZ 10 to
15 feet
offset from
trunk (may
require
redesign of
proposed
grass lawn)
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
37 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree Tree Conservation Suitability Ratings (TCS) Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Girdling Roots Root Flares Buried in Fill Soil Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES 48
Quercus
agrifolia
NEIGHBOR
TREE
Coast live
oak
Est.
24 - - Est. 24 40/40 80/70 74%
Good X Good
Bark
inclusion
fork at 15
feet (bad).
Canopy
radius 18
feet,
extending
+/- 12 to
15 feet
into the
16666
Topping
airspace.
Erect
fence at
15 to 20
feet out
from the
south-
west
property
corner
RPZ, and
adjust the
landscape
plan to
avoid
planting
and avoid
cutting
irrigation
piping
within
roughly 15
to 20 feet of
the
property
corner.
49
Celtis sp.
(not verified)
NEIGHBOR
TREE
Hackberry
species
(not verified)
9.8 - - 9.8 30/20 80/60 70%
Good X Mod X
Canopy
lopsided
due to
pruning of
the east
side by
16666
Topping.
Root
system
impeded
by
presence
of Town’s
very large
diameter
drainage
pipe that
runs
along the
10 foot
easement.
Ideally:
10 to 15
feet
offset
radius.
Note
that the
(e) fence
is set
over the
property
line,
which is
too
close to
the
trunk.
RPZ
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
38 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Tag Number Genus & Species Common Name Trunk1 Diameter Trunk2 Diameter Trunk3 Diameter Sum of All Trunk Diameters Height & Canopy Spread (Ft.) Health & Structural Rating (100% Each) Overall
Condition
Rating
(0 to
100%) (R)emove Tree (S)ave Tree Tree Conservation Suitability Ratings (TCS) Lopsided Canopy (note direction) Trunk Lean (note direction) Girdling Roots Root Flares Buried in Fill Soil Pests and Disease Presence, and Other Notes SUGGESTED ROOT PROTECTION FENCE RADIUS (Ft.) MAINTENANCE AND PROTECTION CODES 50
Celtis sp.
(not verified)
NEIGHBOR
TREE
Hackberry
species
(not verified)
10 9 7
Total
of six
(6)
stems:
45
30/35 80/70 75%
Good X Mod X
(Same as
tree #49
above)
(Same
as #49
above)
RPZ
Overall Tree Condition Ratings / Breakdown of Numeric Ranges
(New, Per Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition):
00 - 05% = Dead
06 - 20% = Very Poor
21 – 40% = Poor
41 – 60% = Fair
61 – 80% = Good
81 – 100% = Exceptional
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
39 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Conservation Suitability (TCS) Ratings 1
A tree’s suitability for conservation is determined based on its health, structure, age, species and disturbance tolerances, proximity to cutting and filling,
proximity to construction or demolition, and potential longevity using a scale of good, fair, or poor (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). The following list defines
the rating scale:
TPS Ratings Range of values
Good 80-100 Trees with good health, good structural stability and good expected longevity after construction.
Moderate 60-79
Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees
require more intense management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have
shorter life expectancy after development.
Poor <59
Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or
individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or
unsuited for the intended use of the site.
TCS Ratings Worksheet Factors (Total Possible: 100 Points)
Health (1-15)
Root Cut/Fill Distance from Trunk (1-15)
Structure Defects (1-15)
Construction Tolerance of the tree species (1-15)
Age relative to typical species lifespan (1-10)
Location of construction activity (1-10)
Soil quality/characteristics (1-10)
Species desirability (1-10)
1 Derived from Fite and Smiley, 2016. Best Management Practices: Managing Trees During Construction, 2nd Edition. International Society of Arboriculture.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
40 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
Tree Maintenance and Protection Codes Used in Data Table:
RPZ: Root protection zone fence, chain link, with 2" diameter iron posts driven 24" into the ground, 6 to 8 feet on center max. spacing. Alternative material:
chain link fence panels set over concrete block-type footings, with the fence panels wired to steel pins pounded 24 inches into the ground at both ends of each
panel.
RB: Root buffer consisting of wood chip mulch lain over existing soil as a 12 inch thick layer, overlain with 1 inch or greater plywood strapped together with
metal plates. This root buffer or soil buffer should be placed over the entire width of the construction corridor between tree trunks and construction.
RP: Root pruning. Prune woody roots measuring greater than or equal to 1 inch diameter by carefully back-digging into the soil around each root using small
hand tools until an area is reached where the root is undamaged. Cleanly cut through the root at right angle to the root growth direction, using professional
grade pruning equipment and/or a Sawzall with wood pruning blade. Backfill around the cut root immediately (same day), and thoroughly irrigate the area to
saturate the uppermost 24 inches of the soil profile.
BDRP: Back-dig root pruning: Hand-dig around the broken root, digging horizontally into the open soil root zone until a clean, unbroken, unshattered section of
the root is visible. Proceed as per ‘root pruning’.
RCX: Root crown excavation. Retain an experienced ISA-Certified arborist to perform careful hand-digging using small trowels or other dull digging tools to
uncover currently-buried buttress root flares. Digging shall occur between trunk edge and at least two (2) feet horizontal from trunk edge. The final soil
elevation will be at a level such that the tree’s buttress roots visibly flare out from the vertical trunk.
TB: Trunk buffer consists of 20-40 wraps of orange plastic snow fencing to create a 2 inch thick buffer over the lowest 8 feet of tree trunk (usually takes at least
an entire roll of orange fencing per each tree). Lay 2X4 wood boards vertically, side by side, around the entire circumference of the trunk. Secure buffer using
duct tape (not wires).
F: Fertilization with slow-release Greenbelt 22-14-14 tree formula, as a soil injection application using a fertilizer injection gun. This brand and formulation is
commonly used by reputable tree care companies in the Bay Area. Apply at label rate and injection hole spacing.
M: 4-inch thick layer of chipper truck type natural wood chips (example source: Lyngso Garden Supply, self pick-up). Do not use bark chips or shredded
redwood bark.
W: Irrigate using various methods to be determined through discussion with General Contractor. Irrigation frequency and duration to be determined through
discussion and/or per directions in this report. Native oak species typically require 1x/month irrigation, while other tree species tend to prefer 2x/month or
4x/month moderate to heavy irrigation during construction.
P: Pruning per specifications noted elsewhere. All pruning must be performed only under direct site supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist, or performed
directly by an ISA Certified Arborist, and shall conform to all current ANSI A300 standards.
MON: A Project Arborist must be present to monitor specific work as noted for each tree.
ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist #401 / ISA Tree Risk Assessment Qualified / ISA Certified Arborist #WE-3172A Cell: (415) 203-0990 / Email: walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com
41 of 41
Site Address: 16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA Version: 1/17/2020
Registered Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists and Member of the International Society of Arboriculture
Walter Levison 2020 All Rights Reserved
12.0 Appraisal Worksheet by the CTA
This appraisal worksheet was prepared using the 10th edition of the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 2nd Printing (2019). The dollar values of each survey tree
derived from these calculations are useful in helping determine the monetary fines for construction team violations of the Town of Los Gatos tree ordinance,
and for other Town Staff purposes. For instance, if a tree is found by an ISA Certified Arborist (e.g. the Project Arborist, or the Contract Town Arborist) to be
“50% damaged” in terms of below and/or above-ground losses to structure and/or health (vigor), the fine assessed on the construction team might be
calculated as 50% of the tree’s appraised dollar value.
13.0 Attached: Tree Location & Protection Fence Map Mark-up by the CTA
The CTA marked up the applicant’s grading and drainage plan sheet C2 dated 12/5/2019 by SMP Civil of Los Altos, California. This markup is attached to the
end of this report as a PDF markup using Adobe Pro, and the markups by the CTA may not be visible unless the viewer opens the document using Adobe Pro
or Adobe CS.
The CTA added the following items to this sheet for reference purposes:
a. Tree tag numbers are noted in black numeric oversized type.
b. Tree plot dots are enlarged for clarity. The locations of most of the plot dots are considered not-accurate (rough approximate only). However, tree plot dots
for trees #41 and #42 are the project engineer’s plot dots, which are therefore accurate.
c. Canopy driplines are noted to approximate scale, using black clouding.
d. Red dashed lines indicate chain link fencing tree root protection zones (RPZ) suggested by the CTA. The fencing is currently shown as staying offset from
most of the applicant’s proposed site work. However, the actual ideal fence locations may in some cases be farther than shown on the tree map. This is
the case with oak #42, where the proposed driveway footprint encroaches to within the Critical Root Zone (CRZ) of the tree. Oak #42 is also problematic in
that the various applicant-proposed utility trenches are shown as encroaching to within the RPZ fence enclosure.
e. Magenta highlighting indicates the applicant’s proposed utility trenches.
f. Yellow and green highlighting indicates some (but not all of) the applicant’s proposed hardscape, buildings, playground, and grass lawn.
g. Aquamarine highlighting shows the existing Town drainage pipe that exists below grade along the west edge of the 10 foot wide drainage easement. This
pipe is assumed to be retained as-is, with its associated existing concrete hardscape overlay.
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 1 of 3
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values41 Csp.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 72%13.6 70%90%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 145.19 9,552$ 4,303$ $4,300
42 Qi 31 0.85 0.8 0.8 81%11.2 60%90%2 2.24 $250.00 $111.61 98.47 10,990$ 4,792$ $4,790
43 Unkn -----0.55 0.25 0.6 35%
Adjusted
trunk area
per multistem
cross-
sectional
areas
summed
60%90%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 195.00 12,829$ 2,407$ $2,410
44 Rl 32 0.7 0.2 0.7 35%7.1 60%90%2 2.24 $250.00 $111.61 39.57 4,417$ 835$ $830
45 Rl 32 0.8 0.6 0.7 65%6 60%90%2 2.24 $250.00 $111.61 28.26 3,154$ 1,099$ $1,100
46 Rl 32 0.1 0 0 2%6.8 60%90%2 2.24 $250.00 $111.61 36.30 4,051$ 33$ $30
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (2018)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
1/17/2020
16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 2 of 3
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (2018)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
1/17/2020
16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
47 Rl 32 0.75 0.6 0.7 64%
Adjusted
trunk area
per multistem
cross-
sectional
areas
summed
60%90%2 2.24 $250.00 $111.61 50.00 5,580$ 1,921$ $1,920
48 Qa 30 0.8 0.7 0.8 73%24 65%90%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 452.16 29,747$ 12,704$ $12,700
49 Csp.8 0.8 0.6 0.8 66%9.8 80%70%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 75.39 4,960$ 1,833$ $1,830
50 Csp.8 0.8 0.7 0.8 73%
Adjusted
trunk area
per multistem
cross-
sectional
areas
summed.
The CTA
reduced the
actual sum by
50% for
reasonable-
ness
80%70%3 3.8 $250.00 $65.79 140.00 9,211$ 3,765$ $3,770
Walter Levison, Consulting Arborist <walterslevisonjr@yahoo.com> Cell: (415) 203-0990 3 of 3
Line 9 Line 10 Line 11 Tree Tag #Name (Initials)WCISA Speces Group Classification Booklet PageHealth (Weighted 0.15)Structure (Weighted 0.70)Form (Weighted 0.15)Overall Condition Rating (OCR) "Weighted Method" Diameter Inches at 4.5 ft. Above GradeFunctional LimitationsExternal LimitationsWCISA Species Group NumberTrunk Square Inches for Replacement-Size Specimen of This SpeciesAverage SF Bay Area Cost of 24 Inch Box Tree (2019)(UTC) Unit Tree Cost per Sq Inch (M Divided by L)Trunk Area (TA) ((dia. x dia.) x 0.785)Basic Functional Replacement Cost (BFRC) = (OxN)Depreciated Functional Replacement Cost (DFRC) = PxGxIxJRounded-off Appraised Values
Valuation Appraisal Worksheet Based on Guide for Plant Appraisal, 10th Edition (2018)
"Functional Replacement Method / Trunk Formula Technique"
1/17/2020
16666 Topping Way, Los Gatos, CA
Depreciation Factors
Total Appraised
Value of All
Study Trees
$33,680
Notes:
(NEWLY REVISED) Overall condition rating range per the new 10th edition of Guide for Plant Appraisal (2018):
Excellent: 81-100%
Good: 61-80%
Fair: 41-60%
Poor: 21-40%
Very Poor: 6-20%
Dead: 0-5%
SMP ENGINEERS
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
From:
Sent: Monday, December 30, 2019 4:56 PM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Concerns with projected home re-build on 16666 Topping Way
Dear Town Planner,
I am writing with my concerns with the proposed new construction at 16666 Topping Way. We were
notified by Mr. Lin (contractor) of what he has submitted to the town for this spec home and was given
a set of the plans by him for this site. I was told by Sean (planner at the town) that these plans have
been submitted for review around December 20th to the Town of Los Gatos. I have notified Mr. Lin with
my concerns.
I have lived on Topping Way for 29 years and have seen tremendous changes in the neighborhood with
what is being allowed to be built as a spec home. There are some lots over 3/4 acres that can justify
placing a 6,600 sq ft home on. But the lots on Topping way and Hilow are not these lots. If approved,
this is setting a precedent for other contractors to sweep in and make monstrous homes that are
blocking the view of the hillsides and creating shade that changes the ecosystem of surrounding yards. I
sure hope the home that is approved for this lot are the original plans that went through in 2017 - 18 for
a one story 3200 + sq ft home. The beauty of this town is the foothills, and to block out these mountains
by walls of tall two story homes is a shame.
If I could please be informed of any public hearings that are going on for this plan I would appreciate it. I
will be attending.
Thank you
EXHIBIT 8
From: Debbie Mar
Sent: Wednesday, January 22, 2020 11:24 AM
To: Planning <Planning@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: 16666 Topping Way Architecture & Site Application S-19-044
Attn: Sean Mullin, Project Planner
Dear Sean,
I am writing to express my concern over the proposed plan for the property at 16666 Topping Way. I am
a neighbor at .
My biggest concern is that this plan is for a house that is so huge that it is way beyond fitting into the
neighborhood. Most of the houses on our street are between 1200 and 3600 square feet. In fact, I only
found two that are larger, the larger of which is about 4100 square feet. The proposed house for 16666
Topping Way is over 6000 square feet, another 50% larger than our current largest house, and well over
double the size of most of the houses on our street, if not triple the size of some of us.
I am also concerned about having a basement built so close to the drainage channel that abuts the
property. I have walked by houses on Hilow during the digging out of basements, and watched gallons
and gallons of water pour out down the street, wasting valuable water and probably draining out part of
our water table. With the drainage channel on the edge of this property (with a 10' easement even!), I
think that this basement could be risky. Given the size of the house, I also don't feel that a basement is
necessary. Removing the basement would bring the square footage of this house to just under 4,000, a
much more reasonable size.
Also, in keeping with the neighborhood, the two houses on either side of 16666 Topping Way are both
one-story houses, without basements. One is about about 2,200 square feet, but the other is over 3,200
square feet, with 5 bedrooms and 4 baths, proving that a larger house can be built in just one story,
without getting too outrageous in size. Why can't the developer come up with a plan that fits in better with
its neighbors?
Thank you.
Deborah Mar
This Page
Intentionally
Left Blank
AS-NOTED
SY
NH
&
&
1618 WILLOWHURST AVE.TEL (408) 694-1618
SAN JOSE, CA 95125STEVE YANG & ASSOCIATES FAX (408) 694-8888
SHEET 1
SHEET 2
SHEET 3
SHEET 4
SHEET 5
SHEET 6
SHEET 7
SHEET 8
SHEET 9
SHEET 10
SHEET 11
SHEET 12
SHEET 13
AT-1
AS-1
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
AR-1
AR-2
AR-3
AR-4
ARCHITECTURAL
TITLE SHEET
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
1ST FLOOR PLAN
2NDF FLOOR PLAN
BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
UPPER ROOF PLAN
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, NORTH & WEST
BUILDING ELEVATIONS, SOUTH & EAST
BUILDING SECTIONS
STREETSCAPE I
STREETSCAPE II
BUILDING SECTIONS NEIGHBORS VS SUBJECT
SHADOW STUDIES
N.T.S.
TODD KALBFELD 2345 TULIP RD
SAN JOSE, CA
TEL (408) 605-9973
SET FOR
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLANNING COMMISSION
TOWN COUNCIL
PLANNING:
BUILDING AND FIRE:
¥
19.05
SMP ENGINEERS 1534 CAROB LANE
LOS ALTOS, CA 94024
TEL (650) 941-8055
SHEET 14
SHEET 15
SHEET 16
SHEET 17
SHEET 18
SHEET 19
C 1
C 2
C 3
C 4
C 5
C 6
CIVIL
COVER SHEET / NOTES
GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN
DETAILS
NOTES
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENTS & EROSION CONTROL
BMP's
SHEET 20
SHEET 21
SHEET 22
L 1
L 2
L 3
LANDSCAPE
MATERIALS PLAN
PLANTING PLAN
CONSTRUCTION DETAILS
2/12/19
1. A DEMO PERMIT IS TO BE REQUIRED FOR THE EXISTING SFR AND IT'S ATTACHED GARAGE
2. A BUILDING PERMIT IS TO BE REQUIRED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW SFR AND IT'S
ATTACHED GARAGE
3. APPLICABLE CODES:
THE CURRENT CODES AS AMENDED AND ADOPTED BY THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AS OF JANUARY
1ST, 2020, ARE THE 2019 CALIFORNIA BUILDING STANDARDS CODE, CALIFORNIA CODE OF
REGULATIONS TITLE 24, PARTS 1-12 INCLUDING LOCALLY ADOPTED ENERGY REACH CODES.
4.INSTALL AUTO FIRE SPRINKLERS SYSTEM AS REQUIRED.
5. SITE FIRE SAFETY TO MEET CFC CHAP. 33 & SDS S1.7
6. WATER SUPPLY REQUIREMENTS TO MEET 2016 CFC SEC. 903.3.5 &
HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE 13114.7
7. ADDRESS ID NUMBERS TO BE INSTALLED PER CFC SEC. 505.1
02/17/2020 JAG1
1. APN 532-09-018
2. LOT AREA 6) $&
3. ZONING R-1:8
4. AVERAGE SLOPE 2% SLOPE
5. MAX. ALLOWABLE FAR LIVING - 3977 SF
GARAGE - 1065 SF
6. BLDG AREA
TOTAL --------------------------------------------------------------- 7,030 SF
A. BASEMENT ------------------------------------------------------- 2,305 SF
B. 1ST FLOOR-------------------------------------------- 2,448 SF
C. 2ND FLOOR-------------------------------------------- 1,528 SF
D. GARAGE --------------------------------------------------749 SF
E. ACCOUNTABLE ---------------------------------------- 4,725 SF
LOT COVERAGE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE (40%) 5,811 SF
PROPOSED LIVING FAR (2,448+749+223+76)/14,528
=3,496/14,528 =24.1%
ALLOWABLE BLDG HEIGHT 30' (WHICHEVER LOWER NATURAL GRADE OR FIN. GRADE)
PROPSED BUILDING HEIGHT 28'-8".
06/08/2020 DP2
09/08/2020 DP3
4 11/18/2020 DP
EXHIBIT 9
R E A R Y A R D S O F T W O H O U S E S
FITNESS/GAME
21R'S
UP
LOUNGE
BA 7
16'X22'BR 6
HOME THEATER
MECH CL
LAU
SUNKUN PATIO
GAR (SLAB ON GR)
BA 6
WINE CELLAR
BAR
STOELEV.
15'X20'
12'X16'
UP
STO
16'X16'
CL
FP-4 ELECTRIC
LITE WELL
PLANTER
HALL C
41'-4"20'-8"12'-11"17'-6"13'-8"44'-1"10'-5"
72'-4"10'-3"
26'-2"68'-5"
94'-7"36'-11"8'-11"RETAINING WALL TYP. AROUND
6" STEP
ARCH WY
NOTES:
1. NO COOKING EQUIPTMENT TO BE
INSTALLED IN THE BAR AREA.
AS-NOTED
SY
NH
&
&
19.05
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLANING COMMISSION
TOWN COUNCIL
√
12/12/19
A-3
BASEMENT PLAN
1/4"=1'-0"AREA 2305 SF
02/17/2020 JAG1
ASPHALT SHINGLE
RF
PITCH 5:12, TYPICAL
LEGENDS:
ROOF PITCH
CLASS 'A' FIRE RESISTANCE
RFPITCH 5:12RFPITCH 5:12RFPITCH 5:12RFPITCH 5:12RFPITCH 5:12RFPITCH 5:12RF
PITCH 5:12
RF
PITCH 5:12
RF
PITCH 5:12
RF
PITCH 5:12
RFPITCH 5:12RF
PITCH 5:12
AS-NOTED
SY
NH
&
&
19.05
TECHNICAL
DEVELOPMENT
PLANING COMMISSION
TOWN COUNCIL
√
12/12/19
A-4
UPPER ROOF PLAN
1/4"=1'-0"
02/17/2020 JAG1
SMP
ENGINEERS
’
’’
’
“” ’
’
’
SMP
ENGINEERS
SMP
ENGINEERS
SECTION Z-Z
Z
SECTION W-W
W
PLAN
W
Z
ELEVATION VIEW
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·����
·
·
SMP
ENGINEERS
·
·
mo
ailure
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
·
SMP
ENGINEERS
PLAN VIEW
SECTION A - A
STORM INLET SEDIMENT TRAP-FIBER ROLLS
CONCRETE WASHOUT AREA
SITE PLAN
1"=10'
EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES AND MEASURES
EXISTING DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION
PLAN
STABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
FIBER ROLL NOTES
FIBER ROLL
(TO BE MAINTAINED)
Maintenance
PLAN
PROFILE
SECTION B-B
TEMPORARY COVER ON STOCK PILE
PERSPECTIVE
SMP
ENGINEERS