HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 5, 1995
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP,LANDS OF LINDY PROPERTIES I; 27591 PURISSIMA ROAD
FROM: Sheryl Kolf,Assistant Engine r".
Michael A. Porto;Interim Planru irector
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
1. Recommend approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration with the revised
Mitigation Measures, .recommend approval of- the Draft Mitigation
Monitoring Program, and recommend approval of the Proposed Tentative
Tract Map including the attached findings and conditions of approval, as
recommended by Staff,to the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
The review period for the attached Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed
Deer Creek Subdivision ended May 31, 1995. All letters addressing the Mitigated
Negative Declaration that were received'up to that date have.been included at the
end of this report The Planning Commission's responses and the public's responses
to the Mitigated Negative Declaration have been summarized to include the results
of studies that have been performed since the initial preparation of the Mitigated
Negative Declaration (see attached Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration, Deer
Creek Subdivision). A Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program hasalso been prepared
that addresses the concerns of the Planning Commission and the public (see attached
Deer Creek Subdivision Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program).
DISCUSSION -
At the Planning Commission meeting on May 10, 1995, the Planning Commission
reviewed the'Mitigated Negative Declaration for this proposed subdivision and also
gave initial comments for the Tentative Map. Listed below are the items of concern
that were raised and the applicant's responses:
Proposed "Samuel Lane" revised to Brubaker Lane":
The applicant was asked if there was a hitorical'street name that could be proposed
-for this subdivision rather than his initial proposal of "Samuel Lane". It was
suggested that the owners of the property from the'.late 1890's, the Brubakers, might
be a suitable name for the proposed street. The applicant stated that he would have
no objections to this name.
4
.
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Dee Creek Subdivision t
June 5,1995
Page 2
•
The City of Los Altos Fi e Department was consulted to see if this name was
acceptable to them. Stu Fa well checked the name of,"Brubaker Lane" and found it
to be'acceptable.
The Town Historian, Ros-mary Meyerott, was also consulted about this name
selecthoughion t ht tha andt he agreed t i at it would bean especially all�nid ce tribute e very to r�priate for Brubaker is property. She
gp Y
The appropriate conditio . of_approval have been amended to reflect the name
Brubaker Lane.
Th• .1 c•m-n of h• he • i - f,rLs Le in .I - w. i• - • _ D• -r • le
The applicant was questio ed as to why the house site for the proposed Lot No. 3
was placed on the west si o e of:Deer Creek rather than the east side of the creek
where it would be farther fr.m Purissima Road.
The house site for Lot No. , was initially submitted to the Town shown on the east
side of Deer Creek. The ap•licant had chosen this area so that the house would have
the buffer of Deer Creek be' . een it and Purissima Road. According to Town policy,
this site on the east side o the creek was not appropriate because the proposed
leachfields would have b-en located at an elevation that was. higher thanthe
probable house pad eleva on (although the primary leachfield would have been
able tobe located on the o•posite side of the creek, the secondary leachfield would
have been located on the s-;me side of the creek as the house site at an elevation
higherthan the.probable ho se pad). The proposed house site would also have been
located directly below the •roposed leachfields for Lot No. 1. The applicant was
informed at this initial mee n ng that Lot No. 3 must meet both of the Town's policies
if it was to be considered a •uildable lot.
Lot No. 3 that is shown on he Tentative Map has a proposed secondary leachfield
on the same side of the creel that is located at approximately the same grade as the
probable house pad. In or.er for this site to meet the Town's policy, the house pad
would need to be built u. so that it'would be at a higher elevation.than the
leachfield. T*e leachfields or Lot No..1 are no longer a concern for Lot No. 3. As
designed,Lot No. 3 meets t e Town's criteria for leachfields and house locations.
Is the survey an aerial surv.y or a field survey?
The survey for this Tentati e Map is from a field survey performed by Bay Area .
Consultants. The surveys d at are performed for future site development permits
should.be_similar.to this s vey and, should have nearly identical slope density
calculations.
Concern about flooding.of of No. 3:
Santa Clara Valley Water 1 istrict, the Town's flood control district, reviewed the
proposed Tentative Map for this project in January 1995. Based on their review, they
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 3
stated that for this'entire project site, minor flooding in a 100 year.storm could be
expected that would extend approximately 25 feet from the top of bank of Deer
Creek. The conservation easement that is proposed for Deer Creek extends to these
limits so that any structures developed on Lot No. 3 (and on Lots No. 1 & 2) should
not be affected by a 100 year storm.
Revised Condition No. 29 addresses_the storm drainage design for the subdivision
and requires the applicant to verify that the existing creek has the capacity to handle
a 100 year storm. If it is found'thatthe creek'is not adequate as it exists, the
applicant will be required to improvethe'creek as necessary.
Concerns that the drainage from the properties located above the project site may
become subsurface flows and then may resurface on this project site:
There has been some question as to whether the storm waterfrom the sites above
this site become subsurface flows and then resurface on the project site. There was
also a concern 'that there may be a spring located on this project site. The
geotechnical investigation performed'byi Terrasearch did not produce any evidence
of a spring on this.site.
Drainage in the vicinity of Lot No. 1 was evaluated by the project engineer. The
natural drainage swale enters the property from the northeasterly corner and then
flows to Deer Creek. This swale carries the storm water from sites located above the
project site. There are not any improvements or grading proposed where this swale
enters the project property and so the' swale will remain as a natural drainage
channel.
The project soils engineer has recommended that a subdrain be installed across the
axis of this drainage swale to intersect any subsurface:seepage:water that may be
following the same alignment as the swale. In the future, when Lot No. 2 is
developed, the swale would most likely'be intercepted by the driveway. The swale
could be regraded at that time to to follow the'edge of the driveway in a similar
configuration to its existing course. The swale would then be allowed to transition
intosheetflow, similar to the existing.transition of the natural swale into sheetflow.
The region that would be'affected by the sheetflow over Lot No. 3 is not over the
proposed building site but rather over a proposed leachfield site. Sheetflow over the
leachfield is not a problem as long as the system is installed properly as has been
addressed in revised-Condition No. 26.
Bridge construction arid right of way-improvements Reimbursement Agreement:
The applicant has requested that the Town allow for a Reimbursement Agreement
- for the costs to retrofit.or reconstruct'theaccess bridge and the costs of the
improvements that are made within the public right of way for.;Brubaker Lane.. The
reimbursement to the applicant would come from the property owner at 27575
Purissima Road in the event that the property subdivides. The property at 27575
Purissima Road. is required to access off the bridge and road that is being
constructed with this subdivision in order to limit the accesses off of Purissima
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Dee Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 4
Road. The right of way for Brubaker Lane is required to be 60 feet wide so that the
right of way may accommo•ate a future subdivision of 27575 Purissima Road.
The City Attorney has su;gested a time limit of 10 yearsfor the Reimbursement
Agreement. Condition No. 17 has been added to address this item.
Abandonment of the existing access easement along the southerly property line:
In a document that was s bmitted to the Town, the access easement along the
southerly property line is r-ferred to as a tool forfuturebargaining. The applicant
has requested that he be al •wed to retain this easement so that he will not lose this
bargaining tool. The slope •ensity calculations for Lot No. 2 will be revised slightly
due to this access easement and are shown below.
The following table includ:s an analysis of Lot No. 2,with and without the existing
access easement, and th- corresponding Lot Unit Factor (LUF), Maximum
Development Area (MDA) :nd Maximum Floor Area (MFA) as required by Sections
10-1.502 and 10-1.503 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Zoning Ordinance.
TABLE 1
Lot# Net Ac es Ave. Slope . LUF MDA MFA
2 w/emt 1.22 17.3% 1.023 . 12,545 5,765
2 w/o emt 1.27 17.2%. 1.083 13,320 6,108
Source: Jennings,Mc P ermott,Heiss,Inc.
Since retainin the easeme t does not create a:lot'with a LUF less than 1.00, Staff
recommends allowing the :asement to remain at this time. The easement would be
abandoned at some time i the future if the property to the south of this project
subdivides.
Does the noise study t at was performed for this subdivision include
measurement' from the higher portions of the property?
The noise study for this subdivision was performed by Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc.
The measurements for the study were taken at 7 locations on the property including
locations on each of the proposed lots, the highest porion of the property,the lowest
portions of the property, and at the creek bed. A copy of thenoise study has been •
included with this report.
A study of the neighboring properties was requested so that the overall effect on
the neighborhood could be reviewed;
In the northerly direction, directly adjacent to this property is a developed 12 acre
parcel of land which has two''lots and is currently under review by the Town for a
lot line adjustment: Beyond those parcels is the Rhoda Drive subdivision which
•
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 5
3.3 acre parcel of developed land. Further to the south and to the eastof this
property is the Canario Way subdivision which consists of 13 lots ranging in size
from 1.0 to 1.5 acres. To-thewest of this property-is Interstate 280, the Town's
Corporation Yard and the Town's Little League fields; It.appears that the proposed
3 lots for this subdivision, eachofapproximately 1.2 acres, conform to the existing
neighboring properties.,
Acceptability of the leach field design by the Town Geologist and Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health:
The Town Geologist has had the :opportlunity to, review this subdivision and the
supplemental information that wash requested from the applicant. The final
comments from the Town Geologist, dated May 5, 1995, include two conditions of
approval for the project. These conditions are shown as revised Conditions No. 12
and 13.
The results of the final review by Santa Clara County Department of Environmental
Health as indicated in the letter from Linda Crawford dated May 5, 1995,have been
shown in the revised Conditions No. 30a,30b and 30c. These requirementswill also
be required to be included in the CC&R's for the subdivision as.indicated in revised
Condition No. 16.
Construction of the sanitary sewer leachfields;
Some concerns were raised about the construction of the sanitary sewer leach fields-
so that they would maintain the drainage qualitiesthat currently exist. Specifically,
the surface drainage currently is separated from the subsurface flow through the
gravelly layers by a clay layer. The installation of the leachfields are not anticipated
to create any drainage problems as long as the septic systems are installed properly.
In order to prevent the surface storm flow,from entering these lower gravelly layers
in the location of the leachfields,it will be!necessary to ensure proper construction of
the leachfields. Revised Condition No. 26 has been changed so that it also includes
review and approvalofthe construction 'of the leachfields to the satisfaction of the
Town Geologist and City Engineer.
Pathway easements and construction along the northerly and easterly property
lines:
The applicant voiced some concerns over the pathway easement that was requested
over the easterly property line since it would require construction through the
natural drainage swale in that location. The applicant was also concerned about
people along the pathway being able to look directly into a future house on Lot No.
1. It was suggested that this property only be required to grant an easement along
the northerly property line •and that the other connections to this'property that
would not require crossing the drainage swale will be obtained when possible in the
future. Revised Condition No. 35 has been changed so that the type lib pathway
will be required to be constructed along P;urisima Road and a native pathway will be
cleared along the northerly property line. The condition has also been changed so
a
4
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision r
June 5, 1995
Page 6
that the additional 30' wi•e portion of pathway easement will not be required from
this property alone but w' instead be divided so that this property will grant 15 feet
and the adjacent property to the north will grant 15 feet at some time in the future.
The applicarit will still be required to construct the footbridge over Deer Creek for
the pathway but will not •e required to install the switchbacks. The switchbacks
will not be a le to be cons. ucted until the additional pathway easement is granted
to the Town by the proper, to the north.
Concerns were expressed :bout cultural resources on the project sitez
While there is no knowle•ge of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site on this
property, Condition No. '6.has been added to address this topic in the event that
evidence is uncovered d 'ng the construction of the subdivision improvements.
Will there be any signific.nt impacts to plant life as a result of this project:
The applicant has had a b 0 tanist, Taylor Peterson with Thomas Reid Associates in
Palo Alto, vist the project .ite to review the impacts.Ion the plants. The report found
that the site had already be-nhighly disturbed and so there were not any rare plants
or rare plant habitats at the site. She found only common plants on the site.
There is a riparian habitat ti ough Deer Creek that has been dominated by the Coast
Redwoods that have bee planted there. The creek bed is dominated by Vinca
which isa non-native,inva.ive species. The rest of the site is covered ma non-native
annual grassland that is i terspersed with native and ornamental trees. The only
significant trees that are e pected to be affected by this subdivision are one Coast
Live Oak tha maybe affec ed by the construction of the leachfield for Lot No. 2 and
two Coast Redwoods that ill be removed for the construction of the bridge (These
two trees are, incorrectly hown as Coast Live Oaks on the Tentative Map). The
removal of these trees on t 's site is not considered to be a significant impact to the
property. .
Will there be any significa t impacts to animal life at this site?
As a part of the botani sal study which was pe formed, the creek was also
investigated for evidence of red-legged.frogs. The creek at this site has had the
banks lined N4ith stone wall s and so it can not provide a habitat for the frogs to live
in. There may be frogs tha live upstream or downstream of this site and they may
travel throug the site but tl ereis no evidence that they live at the project site.
Can the loca ion of the h.use site for Lot No. 1 be revised so that it is staggered
from the house site shown for Lot No. 2?
The applican has revised ,he Tentative Map so that the house site location for Lot
No. 1 is not directly in line ith Lot No. 2.
FINDINGS
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 7
The following findings have been madeto support approval of this Tentative Map
and proposed subdivision as required in Section 9-1.515 of the Town of Los Altos
Hills Municipal Code:
1. The subdivision as proposed would create 3 lots ranging in size from 1.15
acres to 1.34 gross acres,with Lot Unit Factors from 1.061 to 1.089. In this and
allother respects, the lots conform! to the Town of.Los Altos Hills Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. The proposed subdivision would create lots which would meet the General
Plan standards of one acre minimum net lot area for land with an average
slope between 0 and 10 percent, and one acre to seven acres for land with an
average slope between 10 percent and 50 percent, and in all other respects
would be consistent with the General Plan.
3. Access to all three lots, in addition to the property to the south, is proposed
off of a new public cul-de-sac off of Purissima Road. Adequate services,
including septic, water, fire and police protection, are available to serve the
subdivision, as described in the attached information and the Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project.
All lots are physically suitable for the proposed development. The Town
Geologist has stated concerns that can be addressed through mitigation
measures and conditions set forth in the Mitigated Negative Declaration and
conditions of approval for the project. It has been determined that each of the
newly proposed lots contains a site suitable for building. Therefore,the site is
suitable for the proposed density of development.
4. Since all significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the
Initial Study for the project have been mitigated as discussed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, the design of the subdivision and the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or
substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat.
5. All significant environmental effects of the project as identified in the Initial
Study for the project have been mitigated as discussed in the Mitigated
Negative Declaration, and therefore the design of the subdivision and the
proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious public health
problems.
6. The City Engineer has reviewed the project and has determined that the
design of the subdivision and the improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of,
property within the proposed subdivision.
Staff is available to answer an questions of the Planning Commission or public.
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Dee Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 8
Attachments: Staff Reco mended Conditions of Approval
Responses o Mitigated Negative Declaration
Draft Mitig tion Monitoring Program
Noise Stud by Illingworth&Rod dni Inc.
Letter from Mr. &Mrs. Anderson, datied May 21, 1995
Letter from Shannon Paboojian, dated May 31, 1995
Report pre•ared by Barrie D. Coate,dated January 12, 1995
Botanist's R-port by Thomas Reid Associates,dated May 30, 1995
cc: Lindy Pro•erties I
Shannon P:boojian
12280 Sara oga-Sunnyvale Road,#101
Saratoga, I alifornia 95070
William H:iss
Jennings, I cDermott,Heiss,Inc.
950 South „ascom Avenue,Suite 2111
San Jose,C;lifornia 95128
3 Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision , . .
June 5,1995
Page 9
STAFF RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
LANDS OF LINDY PROPERTIES I
27591 PURISSIMA ROAD
Geotechnical/Earthwork
1. The project geologic consultant shall review and-approve all geotechnical
aspects of the subdivision plans to assure that the consultant's
recommendations have been properly incorporated as required by the Town
Geologist. The results of the plan review shall be summarized in a letter by
the project geotechnical engineer and submitted to the City Engineer for
review and approval prior to final approval of the subdivision plans.
2. The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all
geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should
include, but not necessarily be limited to: excavations, grading, and trench
excavation and compaction. The results of. these inspections shall be
described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the City
Engineer for review prior to final project approval.
3. Non-engineered fill,shall be removed, or if required to remain in its.current
location,shall be recompacted as engineered fill. The actual extent of removal
shall be determined in thefield by the Geotechnical Engineer during grading
and shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to
issuance of building permits.
4. A subdrain shall be constructed in the axis of the swale on Lot 1, the extent of
which shall be determined by the project Geotechnical Engineer in the field
during grading. The subdrain,.or approved equal, shall be constructed as
shown in the Terrasearch Geotechnical Investigation report dated October 28,
1994 (Figure 2, Appendix A) and shall be-accomplished to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits.
5. Proposed residences shall be founded on a pier and grade beam foundation.
The bridge structure and site retaining walls shall be founded on either a pier
or a spread footing foundation system... Recommendations for both
foundation systems are given in the Terrasearch Geotechnical Investigation
report dated October 28, 1994. Upon construction-of the foundations for each •
lot, the bridgeimprovementsand site retaining walls, conformance with the
recommended foundation systems shall be verified to the satisfaction of the
Town geologist and City Engineer prior to subsequent inspection approvals.
6. The surface of the areas to be cut and filled at the site shall be stripped cleared
and grubbed to remove all existing vegetation and/or other deleterious
materials. The actual depth of stripping is unknown and shall be determined
in the field by the project Geotechnical Engineer. Stripped material from the
Lands of Lindy Properties I,De tr Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 10
site shall not be use as engineered fill but may be stockpiled and used later
for landscaping pu •oses. Plans showing the exact areas to be stripped and
depth Pf stripping s all be submitted for approval to the City Engineer prior
to issuance of gradi g permits.
7. Following site clear ng, the area of non-engineered fill shall be removed to
expos native grou d. Keyways shall then be provided at the base of any
propoed fill slope .nd shall be a minimum 1E1/2 times machine width, cut
into fern native gro P ndandsloped back into the hillside at a gradient of 5%.
The fill area shallth:n be constructed by placing engineered fill as specified in
mitigation measure• 6, 7, 8, and 9. Benching into the native hillside shall be
performed as the Ting progresses. At this time, the construction of a
subsurface drain at he back base of the key is not anticipated; however, the
final determination shall be made in the field by the project Geotechnical
Engineer. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
during grading oper:tions and prior to issuance of building permits.
8. All materials enc•untered on-site, except for debris and organically
contaminated. mate ial, are suitable for use as engineered fill. Any large
cobbles or boulders hat are encountered shall be broken down to less than 6
inches in size for u•e in the fill. If the existing southern driveway is to be
removed, the asphal 'c concrete and aggregate base materials in the existing
driveway pavementmay be used for fill provided the asphalt is pulverized
and the materials a - properly mixed with the on-site fill. The use of these
materials in the upp r.1 foot in landscape areas shall be prohibited. This shall
be accomplished to the satisfaction of the project Geotechnical Engineer and
City Engineer durin: the grading operations and prior to issuance of building
permits.
9. All engineered fill •hall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 8 inches in
uncompacted thick ess and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction at 2% ti 3% above optimum moisture. Relative compaction is
based bn the maxi ' urn dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-78
Laboratory Test Pro�edure. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of
the project Geotech 'cal Engineer and City engineer during the grading
operations andpriorto issuance of building permits.
10.. All unsupported cut .nd fill slopes shall not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Any cut e cavation over 5 feet shall be observed by the project
Geotechnical Engine-r-to-detect the presence, or otherwise, of any adverse
conditions that may affect stability or retaining wall design. This shall be
accomplished to the.•atisfaction of the project Geotechnical Engineer and City
Engineer during the grading operations and prior to issuance of building
permits.
•
11. All fill slopes shall b over-constructed and then cut back to the design slope
grade ensuring that all loose material is removed. (Track-walking of slope
surfaces does not pro ide adequate soil densities and shall not be utilized as a
r
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision ..
June 5,1995
Page 11
method of slope compaction.)This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of
the project Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer during the grading
operations and priorto issuance of building permits.
12. Due to the presence.of soils identified as highly and critically expansive,
detailed lot-specific construction plans shall be reviewed by the Town
Geologist prior to issuance of site development permits and building permits,
respectively.
. . •- . ' - - - . - . _ . . All geotechnical aspects of
detailed construction plans for the proposed bridgeand other subdivision
level improvements- shall be reviewed and approved by the project
geotechnical consultant for conformance with previously recommended
geotechnical design criteria. The results of these evaluations shall be
summarized..by the consultant iin a letter and submitted to the.Town for
review by the : . - - •: • : = : . : : : . . : - - -- • • . - ' ' • :. City
Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for construction,of subdivision level
improvements.
Land and Easement Dedication
14. A 10 foot wide pathway easement shall be granted to .the public along the
northerly property line of the subdivision from Purissima Road to the
northeast corner of the property .I- - - - • - - . - - - =- ' - - -
Way, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement to be granted
shall be'widened to 30 15 feet at the location from the flowline of Deer Creek
extending easterly for a distance of 200 feet to allow for the future installation
of switchbacks. The easement shall be kept clear of obstacles,vegetation and
obstructions. The dedication shall be accomplished as part of the subdivision
Final:Map.;
15. The Final Map shall provide for the requested easements to all utility
companies, including but not limited to: Pacific Bell, Pacific Gas & Electric
Company and cable television.
16. The subdivision C.C.&R.'s shall be reviewed by the City Attorney for
approval ;of the conditions and Irestrictions concerning the restriction of a
house design with a maximum of 4 allowable bedrooms as recommended by
the County Health.Department for proposed Lot No. ,2 & 3,. and the
restrictionof ahouse designs with a maximums-of-six of 6 allowable
bedrooms and a maximum floor)area of 6,000 square feet for proposed Lots
a ''
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Dee Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 12
No. 1 and 2. The .C.&R.'s shall also indicate that fire sprinklers are to be
installed in all ne residences for these proposed properties, that the
drivev'ay designs f r Lots No. 1 and 2 shall be designed for a fire truck
turnaround at eacherminus, and that the foundation design for Lots No. 1
and 2 shall be restricted to type II foundations as defined by the Town's
Municipal Code.
17. The a Iplicant shall •e permitted to prepare a bridge construction and right
of way improveme is reimbursement agreement for reimbursement from
27575 Puri'ssima Road in the event that said property subdivides. The
agree�}l ent shall. be prepared by the applicant and shall be reviewed and
approVed by the Cit Attorney. Said agreement will extend for a period not
greatex than 10 year .
18.17. The applicant shall •edicate to the Town of Fos Altos Hills a 30 foot half-
street applicant
right-o;-way along the subdivision frontage of Purissima Road.
The d4dication sha 1 be accomplished as part of the Final Map to the
satisfaction of the Ci Engineer and shall be accepted at this time.
19. 8. Vehicular access for ots No. 2 and 3 shall berestricted from Purissima Road
and shall be accom. ished as part of the Final Map to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer.
20.19. The applicant shall .edicate to the Town of Los Altos Hills a 60 foot public
right-of-way as sho n on the Tentative Map as Samuel Brubaker Lane. (or a
-- - -- - - - 1 • - - e- --- - - The
i
dedication shall be a i complished as part of the Final Map to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer an,, shall be accepted at this time.
21.20. The applicant shall ake an irrevocable offer of dedication to the Town of Los
Altos Hills for the .dditional 60 foot public right-of-way connection from
Samuel Brubaker L.ne to the property located to the south as indicated on
the Tentative Map. e irrevocable offer of dedication shall be accomplished
as part of the Final ap to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall not
be accepted at this f e. -
22.24, - - . : : ' . - - . . . . . - : : - - - . . . ': - . - - .. . _ :
the southerly prop rty line as indicated on the Tentaive Map. The
. _ _ - - . _ - - ' - - - - - - . The applicant shall be •
permitted to retain the existing 20 foot wide access easement along the
southe ly property 1'ne.
23.22: The applicant shall :rant public utility easements and public utility access
easements to theown of Los Altos Hills where needed within the
subdivision for utility construction and maintenance to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer. This will provide access for installation and maintenance of
'r
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 13
the public water system. The dedications shall be accomplished as part of the
Final Map to the satisfaction of the City Engineer..
24.23 A conservation easement shall be granted to the public over Deer Creek,for a
25 foot width from the tops of bank on both sides of .the creek, and to
encompass the limits that have been calculatedfor the 100 year flood, to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer. The easement to be granted shall also cover
the entire portion of Lot No. 2 located between Purissima Road and Samuel
Brubaker Lane as indicated on the Tentative Map. The dedication shall be
accomplished as part:of the subdivision Final Map. The applicant shall
submit a legal desciptionand plat prepared by a registered civil.engineer or a
• licensed land surveyor for the easement and the City Attorney shall prepare a
grant document that defines the restrictions of the conservation easement as
identified by the Planning Commission. The applicant shall have the grant
document signed and notarized and shall return it to the Town prior to
recordation of the Final Map.
Improvements
25.24: A project grading plan which includes an approved,drainage and erosion
control plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance ofgrading
permits. This plan shall conform to all standards adopted by the Town of Los
Altos Hills andshall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's
NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control including,
but not limited to: a) restricting grading during the grading moratorium from
November 1 to April 1;b) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion
using such techniques as hillslope benching, erosion control matting,
hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream storm- drainage "inlets ' from
sedimentation; d) use of silt fencing to retain sediment on the project site; e)
any other suitable measures: outlined in the Association of Bay Area
Governments (ABAG)Manual of Standards.
- 26.25: Construction of proposed pier foundations, spread footings, slabs-on-grade,
retaining walls, driveways, septic leach fields,and utility trenches shall occur
as recommended in the Terrasea�rch Geotechnical Investigation report dated
October 28, 1994or as indicated by the City Engineer. This shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the Town Geologist and City Engineer
prior to further inspection approvals.
27.26: The applicant shall be required to apply for and receive a Creek Alteration
Permit from the California State Department of Fish, and Game prior to
issuance of grading permits. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of
the City Engineer.
28.27? The applicant shall be required to apply for and receive a.permit from the
Santa Clara Valley Water District!for the bridge improvements or replacement
%
Lands of Lindy Properties I,D•1r Creek Subdivision v
June 5,1995
Page 14
prior to issuance of grading permits. This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the C ty. Engineer.
29.E The site drainage associated with the proposed. development must be
designed as surfac: flow whenever possible to avoid concentration of the
runoff. The applic.nt shall construct drainage improvements within the
subdivision bound.ry to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The proposed
:drainaigeshall be o esigned to maintain .the existing flow patterns. The
applicant shall veri y that the existing creel has adequate capacity, to the
satisfaie tion of the city Engineer. If inadequate, the applicant shall improve
the creek to the sati•faction of the City Engineer and to meet all requirements
of the Santa Clara alley Water.District. All drainage improvements shall be
constructed or bond-d for prior to recordation of the final map.
30a. • - - - : . :• : . _ : :: : - . - - : . -_ . : . "• - . : -
providcd by the Santa Clara County Env ironmental Health Services
appre Lot No. 1 shall not be permitted to develop a residence with
greater than 6 bedrooms, or with greater than 6,000 square feet of floor area
if it is required to be served by.a septic santary sewer system. Lot No. 1
shall be'required to install 560 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, shall
provide space for an additional 560 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, and
shall i 4 stall a 2,000 gallon septic tank. The subdrain for Lot No. 1 shall not
divert or discharge drainage in such a manner as to impact leachfileds on
this lot or adjoining lots. Thisshall be approved by Santa Clara County
Depar#ment of Environmental Health prior to application to the Town for a
Site Development Permit.'
30b. . Lot N �. 2 shall not be permitted.to develop'a residence with greater than 4
bedrooms if it is required to be served by a septic sanitary sewer system.
Lot Na. 2 shall be required to install 400 lineal feet of subsurface drainline,
shall provide space for.an additional 400 lineal feet of subsurface drainline,
and shall install a 2 000 gallon septic tank. This shall be approved by Santa
Clara County Depa ment of Environmental Health prior to application to
the Town for a Site 'evelopment Permit.
30c. Lot No.'3 shall not .e permitted to develop a residence withgreater than 4
bedrooms-if it is re•uired to be served by a septic sanitary sewer system.
Lot Na. 3 shall be r:quired to install 600.lineal feet of subsurface drainline,
shall provide space or an additional 700 lineal feet of subsurface drainline,
and shall install a 2,100 gallon septic tank This shall be approved.by Santa
Clara County Depa ment of Environmental Health prior to application to
the Town for a Site I evelopment Permit.
31.30: Fire protection impr.vements, including the installation of a fire hydrant on
Samuel Brubaker L.ne' : -- - . -- - • : :. : - • = , shall be constructed as
requested by Los • ltos Fire Protection District. Improvements shall be
1
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 15
constructed and ready.for use prior to the recordation of the Final Map or be
bonded for.
32.E The existing bridge over Deer Creek shall be retrofitted or reconstructed to
support a fire truck with a weight of 35,000 pounds as requested by Los Altos
Fire Protection District. Improvements shall be constructed and ready for use
prior to the recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for.
33.32 All,three lots within the subdivision shall be-connected to the public water
systemas part of the subdivision improvements. A water main shall be
installed to serve the subdivision to the satisfaction of the:City.Engineer and
the Purissima Hills Water District prior to the recordation of the Final Map or
be bonded for. Any necessary fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the
Final Map.
34.33: All utilitieslocated within.the subdivision shall be placed underground, in
accordance with Subdivision Ordinance, Sec. 9-1.1105. Cable television, gas,
electric, and telephone services, to the property lines are included.in this
requirement. Plans for location of all such.utilities are to be included in the
improvement plans for the subdivision..: Improvements shall be installed
prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for.
35.34: A Type IIB pathway shall be constructed along the westerly property line of
the subdivision within the Purissima Road' right of way and shall be
constructed cleared as a native pathway within the proposed pathway
easement along the northerly property line. A pedestrian bridge shall be
constructed at the Deer Creek crossing.to meet the requirements listed in the
letter from the Santa Clara Valley Water District to William Heiss dated
March 14, 1995..Pathway marker posts shall be installed at the end of the
pathway, at.Purissima Road indicating that the pathway does not connect to
another pathway.or public. street. . • '
- - - . . . - • . . - . . . - . . . - _ !°.. Improvements
shall be:constructed prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for.
3635. The applicant shall design roadway.:improvements for Samuel Brubaker Lane
-- - - . . . . • - to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The
terminus of the roadway shall be designed as a turnaround that is adequate
for a fire truck, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Altos Fire
Department. Improvements shall be constructed prior to recordation of the
Final Map or be bonded for.
37.36 Street Trees shall be required along Samuel Brubaker Lane{-or-street-name-as
approved-).and shall also be required,to replace the oak trees that are removed
for the construction of the bridge, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Trees shall be planted prior to recordation of the Final Map or be bonded for.
Planning and Zoning
Lands of Lindy Properties I,D••r Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 16
38.3 Any,and all,wells in the property shall be shown on the Improvement Plans,
shall be properly r-:•stered with Santa Clara Valley Water District(SCVWD),
and shall be either aintained or abandoned in accordance with the SCVWD
standards. .
39.38: Pa ment of Park a d'Recreation]fees and all other applicable fees shall be
Paymi , Pp
required prior to re ordation of the Final Map.
40.39: Fees si all be collec ed in accordance with AB 3158,Chapter 1706, Statutes of
1990, effective Jan ary 1, 1991 requiring that the Department of Fish and
'Game impose an collect filing fees as specified to defray the cost of
managing and prot cling fish and wildlife trust resources,if applicable.
41.40; Samuel Brubaker ane : -- - . -- - . I . : : : • : addresses shall be
assigned and appr ved by the Town for all three lots as required by the Los
Altos Fire Departm nt and in accordance with the Town's policies.
42.44, All subdivision co ditions of approval and si..ibdivision improvements shall
be con�tructed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any
site d velopment p rmits.
43.42: The applicant shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any
damage caused b construction of the subdivision improvements to
pathways, private iveways, and public and private roadways prior to final
approval of the sub 'vision.
44.43: A grading and co struction operation plan shall be submitted by the
subdi'Tider for rev'ew and approval by the City Engineer and Planning
Director prior to is uance of grading permit for 'subdivision improvements.
The grading/const uction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues
regar ing, dust,-no se, and vehicular and pedestrian safety on Purissima
Road, lena Road, nd other surrounding rodways; storage of construction
materials; placeme t of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles;
and parking for con.truction personnel. A dbris box (trash dumpster) shall
be placed on site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be
made with the Los Altos Garbage Company for the debris box, since they
have a franchise wi h the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the
Town limits.
45.44; Prior to beginning a y grading or construction operations, all significant trees
shall be fenced at th- dripline. The fencing shall be of material and structure
to clearly delineate ii e dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the
trees to be fenced pt for to commencement of grading or construction. The
tfence must remain • -place throughout the course of construction.No storage
of eq4ment,vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the driplines of these
trees.
Lands of Lindy Properties I,Deer Creek Subdivision
June 5,1995
Page 17
•
46. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by
human skeletal remains or artifacts, the person making such discovery
shall immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further
disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County
Coordinator of Indian Affairs. This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the County Coroner's Office and the Planning Director, as
may be necessary during the construction of the subdivision
improvements.
47. All recommendations of the project botanist and project arborist shall be
required to be followed during the construction of the subdivision
improvements and shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the Town
Planning Director.
FEES
Storm Drainage (To be determined)
Street Improvement (To be determined)
Path Improvement (To be determined)
Parks and Recreation (To be determined)
Dept. of Fish and Game $1275.00
TOTAL
RESPONSES TO MI TIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
DE tR CREEK SUBDIVISION
Studies or reports utilized in .nalyzing this project to provide support for comments
include the follo%Ying that wer not available at the time of preparation of the mitigated
negative declaration:
• Drainage Evaluation;Je 'ngs,McDermott,Heiss,Inc.,May 9, 1995
• Sanitary Sewer Septic S stem Evaluation, County of Santa Clara Department of
Environmental Health, ay 5, 1995
• Botanical tudy,,Thoma• Reid Associates,May 1995
These reports are on file at Town Hall and may be viewed during normal business
hours (8-12 and:115 Monday-Fr day).
III. Water
The absorption rates ar: anticipated to decrease resulting in an increase in the
rate and amount of sur .ce runoff due to the proposed project. The absorption
rates may be mitigated •uring the landscaping rediew anticipated to be required
with the individual site m evelopment permits. Declining absorption rates and an
increase in surface runo;f may be mitigated by requiring additional plantings at
that time.
While the Improvement of the proposed project site is anticipated to result in
discharges into surface aters, the surface water quality is not anticipated to be
altered to any significa ce. The conservation easement that is proposed for the
Deer Creel corridor is i tended to provide the natural landscape buffer between
the proposed developm-nt and the creek that is recommended by SCVWD for
water quallity preservat on. The existing soil conditions at the project site
currently provide a cl.y layer over a layer of sandy, gravelly soil. These
conditions will help to prevent surface water from entering the leach field
drainlines and will als I help to prevent the effluents which are flowing into
the leach fields from res rfacing and flowing to the creek as surface sheetflow.
It will be important d ring the construction of the leach fields to maintain
these soil conditions s• that the leach fields will operate properly. The
construction of the leac fields shall be observed by the project geotechnical
consultant as specified i Mitigation Measure 11.
Santa Clara Valley Wat r District (SCVWD) reviewed the proposed tentative
map for this project in J.nuary 1995,and concluded as follows:
"Based on information •rovided and an estimated 1% [100 year] flow rate of
383 cubic feet per seco d, the site would be subject to minor flooding. The
Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
flooding would generally extend.about 25 feet from the existing top of bank.
The [SantaClara Valley Water] District recommends that this flooding area be
protected and no structures or fill be allowed,within this area."
Based on this study by SCVWD and the standard Town policy regarding
conservation of creeks, a conservation easement has been required to be placed
over Deer Creek,extending 25 feet from each existing top of bank.
While no groundwaters are anticipated to be:affected by development of the
proposed project, either through: alteration of flow or a change in thequantity,
there has been some question as to whether historically, evidence indicates the
possibility of a spring on the site. The geotechnical investigation performed
by Terrasearch did not encounter any evidence of a spring on this site.
Drainage in the vicinity of the proposed Lot No. 1 has also been evaluated by
the project engineer and addresses the drainage swale that enters the property
from the northeasterly direction and flows to Deer.Creek. The evaluation from
Jennings,McDermott,Heiss,Inc., dated May.9,1995,concluded as follows:
"Where the swale enters the property, no 'grading or improvements are
comtemplated. This is the case for the next hundred feet or so. It is required
by, the soil engineer to construct a subdrain across the axis of this drainage
swale to intersect any subsurface seepage water that may be following the
swale alignment [see Proposed Mitigation Measure No. 2]. As the swale
continues Westerly, it will be intercepted by the proposed driveway to
[proposed] Lot 2. The swale will be regraded to follow the edge of the
driveway in a similar configuration as it exists today. By the time the swale
reaches [proposed] Lot 1, it has transitioned into more or less sheet flow and
proceeds to cross [proposed] Lot 1 as sheet flow to Deer Creek. This condition
will remain since no structural improvements are comtemplated within the
sheet flow region of [proposed] Lot 3. There will be drain fields in the area of
[proposed] Lot 3 which would be unaffected .by the sheet flow over the
surface."
IV. Plant Life
A tree survey report prepared by arborist Barrie D. Coate catalogued a total of 72
trees on-site. Of this total, eight tree are proposed by the.arborists for removal
due to death, poor health/structur , or damage/infringement on an adjacent
tree. Seven-additional trees are proposed by the proponent to be removed as
necessary for construction of on-site roadways. This includes two coast live oak
trees. Due to the number of trees remaining on-site,removal of the recommended
trees is not anticipated to result in a significant impact.
It is anticipated that landscaping will be required on the individual lots when
they apply for development through the Town. While landscapingfor the
2
,
Deer Creek Subdivision "
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
individual lots may i troduce new species to this site, the Town encourages
the planting of speci:s that are native to this area and so the change in the
diversity of species, o numbers of any species of plants, is not anticipated to
be signi cant. The la dscaping is also not be anticipated to be a significant
introduction of new pecies nor is itanticipated to create a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing species.
A botanical study w.s performed by Taylor Peterson with Thomas Reid
Associates in respon,e to the Planning Commission and public's concerns
about plant life at this project site. The site was foundto be highly disturbed
already and there are of any rare plant species or habitats at this site. There
were only:common p1.nts found at the site. There is a riparian habitat through
Deer Creek that has been dominated by Coast Redwoods that were planted.
The creel bed is domi ated by Vinca, a non-native invasive plant. The rest of
the site iscovered in non-native annual grassland that is. interspersed with
native and ornamental trees. The only trees that are anticipated to be affected
by this stbdivision is 0 ne Coast Live Oak that will be affected by the proposed
leachfield for Lot 2 an. two Coast Redwoods that will need to be removed for
the construction of the bridge.
V. Animal Life
- Due to the size of the d-velopment proposed, it is not anticipated to significantly
impact existing species. A study was performed at this site to determine if it
was a habitat'for red-1•gged frogs. The stone walls that have been placed in
the creek bank may trap the frogs but would not provide a habitat for them to
live in. The frogs ma live upstream or downstream from this site and may
travel through this sit: but there is no evidence that they live at this site. No
other sigrificant wildli e habitat areas or rare or endangered species are known
to exist on-site. The'co ervation easement proposed for the Deer Creek corridor
will prevent urban us:s and development-related activities from encroaching
upon this area. It is a ticipated that domestic animals may be introduced into
the area upon develop ent,but not in significant numbers.
VI. Noise
A Noise Assessment w.s-prepared by Illingworth&Rodkin,Inc. in May of 1992.
That report concluded .s follows:
"The existing noise lev:ls range from-a 24-hour average day/night level (Ldn)of
52 to 60 dBA. Noise lev-is are not anticipated to increase in the future along this
stretch of I-280. Whil: the Town of Los Altos Hills does not have specific
guidelines related to ou door noise exposure,their standards indicate that an Lam,
of 60 dl3/ or less is co patible with residential development. This is typical of
most municipalities i Northern California. The site's noise exposure is,
3
Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
therefore, acceptable for residential development without additional mitigation.
The Town does;require that.interior noise levels not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA.
Typical California residential construction provides 15 dBA of noise reduction
with open windows when going from outside to inside, and 20-25 dBA of noise
reduction with,the windows closed. Interior noise levels would also be in.
compliance without additional mitigation."
There may be noise impacts to existin g residents as a result of people-generated
noise on the site, but the impacts are not anticipated to be significant. Off-site
traffic noise increases are anticipated be negligible, as well. There would be
short-term increases in the noise environment in the area during construction.
Compliance with the Town policies and limiting construction to weekday,
daytime hours,_would mitigate construction noise impacts to a less than
significant level.
VII. Light and Glare
While the devlopment of this property will generate additional light from this
site, significant levels of light or glare in excess of those provided for in the
Town Zoning Ordinance are not anticipated to-result.
XVI. Utilities and Service Systems
Sanitary sewer service is currently not available to this area which results in
septic tanks and leachfields being the only available sanitary sewerage disposal.
The acceptability of the proposed septic leachfield sites have been conditioned
by the County of Santa Clara Department of Environmental Health in their
letter dated May 5,1995,and are listed in Mitigation Measures No. 16-18.
XX. Cultural Resources
While there is no knowledge of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site on
this property and the project is not anticipated to cause a physical change
which would affect unique cultural values, Mitigation Measure 20 addresses
the discovery of cultural resources on the project site.
•4
s
• Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
REVISE 0 MITIGATION MEASURES
1. Non-engineered fill sh.ll be removed, or if required to remain in its current
location, shall be reco •acted as engineered fill. The actual extent of removal
shall be determined in e field by the Geotechnical Engineer during grading and
shall be accomplished t• the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of
building permits.
2. A subdrain shall be co -tructed in the axis of the swale on Lot 1, the extent of
which shall be determi ed by the project Geotechnical Engineer in the field
during grading. The sub•rain, or approved equal;shall be constructed as shown
in the Terrasearch Geo echnical Investigation report dated October 28, 1994
(Figure 2, Appendix A) nd shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to issuan•e of building permits.
3. Proposed residences sha 1 be founded on a pier and grade beam foundation. The
bridge structure and situ retaining walls shall be founded on either a pier or a
spread footing founda ion system. Recommendations for both foundation
systems are given in th- Terrasearch Geotechnical Investigation report dated
October 28, 1994. Upon onstruction of the foundations for each lot, the bridge
improvements and site retaining walls, conformance with the recommended
foundation systems shall be verified to the satisfaction of the Town geologist and
City Engineer prior to su•sequent inspection approvals:
4. The surface of the areas to be cut and filled at the site shall be stripped cleared
and .grubbed to remo e all existing vegetation and/or other deleterious
materials. he actual de•th of stripping is unknown and shall be determined in
the field b�y the project f eotechnical Engineer. Stripped material from the site
shall not be used as en:,ineered fill but may be stockpiled and used later for
landscaping purposes. P showing the exact areas to be stripped and depth of
stripping sliall be submi ed for approval to the City Engineer prior to issuance of
grading pe1mits..
5. Following site clearing, the area of non-engineered fill shall be removed to
expose native ground. eyways shall then be provided at the base of any
proposed fill slope and s all be a minimum 1-1/2 times machine width, cut into
firm native ground and -loped back into the hillside at a gradient of 5%. The fill
area shall then be const cted by placing engineered fill as specified in mitigation
measures 6J17, 8, and 9. B nching into the native hillside shall be performed as the
filling progresses. At this time, the construction of a subsurface drain at the back
base of the key is not anticipated;however, the final determination shall be made
in the field by the projec Geotechnical Engineer. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the ity Engineer during grading operations and prior to
issuance of building perrn4its.
5
} Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
6. All materials encountered on-site,except for debris and organically contaminated
material, are suitable for use as engineered fill. Any large cobbles or boulders
that are encountered shall be broken down to less than 6 inches in size for use in
the fill. If the existing southern driveiway is to be removed, the asphaltic concrete
and aggregate base materials in the existing driveway pavement may be used for
fill provided the asphalt is pulverized and;the materials are properly mixed with
the on-site fill: The use of.these'materials in the upper 1 foot in landscape areas
shall be prohibited. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the project
Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer during the grading operations and
prior to issuance of building permits.
7. All engineered fill shall be placed in thin lifts not exceeding 8. inches.,in
uncompacted thickness and compacted to a minimum of 90% relative
compaction at 2% to 3% above optimum moisture. Relative compaction.is based
on the maximum dry density as determined by ASTM D1557-78 Laboratory Test
Procedure. This shall be- accomplished to the satisfaction.. of the project
Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer during,the grading operations and
prior to issuance of building permits.
8. All unsupported cut and fill slopes shall not be steeper than.2:1 (horizontal to
vertical). Any cut excavation over 5 feet shall be observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer to detect the presence, or otherwise, of any adverse
conditions that may affect stability or retaining wall design. This shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the project Geotechnical Engineer and City
Engineer during the grading operations and prior _to issuance of building
permits.
9. All fill slopes shall be over-constructed and then cut back to the design slope
grade ensuring that all loose material is removed. (Track-walking of slope
surfaces does not provide adequate soil densities and shall not be utilized as a
method of slope compaction.) This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the
project Geotechnical Engineer and City Engineer during the grading operations
and prior to issuance of building permits.
• _10. A project grading plan which includes an approved drainage and erosion control
plan to minimize the impacts from erosion and sedimentation shall be submitted
to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. This
plan shall conform to all standards adopted by.the Town of Los Altos Hills and
shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the,Town's NPDES permit
relative to grading and erosion/sediment control including,but not limited to: a)
restricting grading during the grading moratorium from November 1 to April 1;
b) protecting all.finished graded slopesfrom erosion using such techniques as
hillslope benching, erosion control matting, hydroseeding; c) protecting
downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; d).use of silt fencing to
6
� r
Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
retain se ment on the project site;e) any other suitable measures outlined in the
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)Manual of Standards..
11. Construction of proposed pier foundations, spread footings,.slabs-on-grade,
retaining isalls,driveways, septic leach fields,and utility trenches shall occur as
recommended in the Terrasearch Geotechnical Investigation report dated
October 28, 1994 or as indicated by the City Engineer. This shall be accomplished
to the satisfaction of the Town Geologist and City Engineer prior to further
inspection approvals:
12. Due to th- presence of soils identified as highly a d critically expansive, detailed
lot-specifi construction plans shall be reviewed y the Town Geologist prior to
issuance .f site development permits and building permits,respectively.
.
of existing fill materials in this arca shallbe assessed. The consultant shall
comment�on the acceptability of all proposed septic lcachfield sites from a
- -- - - - -- -• • -. All geotechnical aspects of detailed construction
plans for he proposed bridge and other subdivision level improvements shall
be revie'ed and approved by the project geotechnical consultant for
conformance with previously recommended geotechnical design criteria. The
results of hese evaluations shall be summarized by the consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town for review by the _ . - _ _ . . . . • -
- - . ' . =. City Engineer, prior to issuance of permits for construction of
subdivisi en level improvements.
14. The appli ant shall be required to apply for and receive a Creek Alteration
Permit fro the California State Department of Fish and Game prior to issuance
of gradin permits. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
15. The site drainage associated with the proposed development must be designed
as surfac l flow whenever possible to avoid concentration of the runoff. The
proposed drainage shall be designed to maintain the existing flow patterns and
shall be designed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to issuance of
grading permits. Final storm drainage improvements shall be inspected by the
City Engineer and,any and all deficiencies corrected to his satisfaction prior to
acceptance of subdivision improvements.
16. Lot No. 1 shall not be permitted to develop a residence with greater than 6
bedrooms,or with greater than 6,000 squarefeet of floor area if it is required to
be served by a septic sanitary sewer system. clot No. .1 shall be required to
7
Deer Creek Subdivision
Responses to Mitigated Negative Declaration
install 560 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, shall provide space for an
additional 560linealfeet of subsurface drainline, and shall install a 2,000
gallon septic tank. The subdrain for Lot No. 1 shall not divert or discharge
drainage in such a manner as to impact leachfields on this lot or adjoining lots.
This shall be approved by Santa Clara County Department of Environmental:
Health prior to application to the Town for a Site Development Permit.
17. Lot No..2 shall not be permitted to develop a residence with greater than 4
bedrooms if it is required to be served by a septic sanitarysewer:system. Lot
No. 2 shall be required to install 400 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, shall
provide space for an additional 400 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, and
shall install a 2,000 gallon septic tank. This shall be approved by Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prior to application to.the Town
for a Site Development Permit.
18. Lot No.,3.shall not be permitted to develop a residence with greater than 4
bedrooms if it is required to be served by a•septicsanitary sewer system. Lot
No. 3 shall be required to install 600; lineal feet of subsurface drainline, shall
provide space for an additional 700 lineal feet of subsurface drainline, and
shall install a 2,000 gallon septic tank. This shall be approved by Santa Clara
County Department of Environmental Health prior to application to the Town
for a Site Development Permit.
19. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as evidenced by
human skeletal remains or artifacts,i the person making such discovery shall
immediately notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner and no further
disturbance of the site may be made except as authorized by the County
Coordinator of Indian Affairs. This shall be accomplished to the satisfaction
of the County Coroner's Office and the Town Planning Director, as may be
necessary during the construction of the subdivision improvements.
•
8
DRAFT
EER CREEK SUBDIVISION
MITIG TION MONITORING PROGRAM
1.0 AUTHORITY
Pursuant to California Re•ources Code, Section 21081.6 (AB 3180), the Town of
Los Altos Hills has prepar•d a mitigation monitoring program for the proposed
Deer Creek piroject as set forth in the approved permit conditions.
2.0 PURPpSE '
•
The purpose of the mitiga ion monitoring program is to ensure compliance with
and effectiveness of the itigation measures set 'forth in the Initial Study and
Negative Declaration (IS/ •) prepared for the Deer Creek Subdivision project.
CEQA requires monitoriny of mitigation measures for those impacts identified in
the IS/ND as being signifi sant or potentially significant.
3.0 ADM INISTRATIO AND MANAGEMENT
The Town's mitigation onitoring program for the Deer Creek Subdivision
project consists of two major elements:
'A. A list of mit gation conditions and verifications required of the
roject spo sor at each stage of the project approval . and
- development.
A checklist to document and verify mitigation condition
compliance.
The administJation and m. agement of the mitt ation monitoring program shall
be the responsibility of th& Town. The project applicant shall fund the costs for
monitoring in accord with he terms of the Town of Los Altos Hills fee schedule.
The responsibility of the T.wn throughout the monitoring effort includes serving
as a liaison between the v.rious Town Departments, the project applicant, and
the applicants contractors, :nd maintaining prompt and regular communications
with on-site 'environment;1 monitors and specialists, and project applicant's
contractors re ponsible for performance and permit compliance.
4.0 PROJECT SPONSOI 'S RESPONSIBILITY
The project applicant shall perform the measures required of them and comply
with the verilfication and eporting requirements identified in this Plan as a
condition of approval of he project. The project applicant understands and
agrees that activities for a :iven phase shall not commence until the Town has
1
•
approved the applicant's mitigation plan for that phase. The project sponsor's
•
responsibilities include administering and preparing daily logs, status reports,
compliance reports, and the final construction monitoring report;monitoring on-
site, day-to-dayy construction activities, including the direction of environmental
monitors and' environmentalspecialists in the understanding of all permit
conditions, site-specific project requirements, construction schedules and
environmental quality control efforts; ensuring contractor knowledge of and
compliance with all appropriate permit conditions; reviewing all construction
impact mitigations and, if need be, propose improvements to the Town; and
requiring correction of observed activities that violate project environmental
conditions,or that represent unsafe or dangerous conditions.
The project sponsor shall submit a detailed written plan for mitigation
compliance to be reviewed and approved by the Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Director at each phase of project development. The compliance plan
will serve a dual purpose of verifying cpmpliance with the mitigation measures
for the proposed project and of generating information on the effectiveness of the
mitigation measures. This plan shall describe the steps the project sponsor (and
project contractor) will take to assure compliance with project conditions and
shall include a checklist verifying compliance with permit conditions. The plan
shall also include provisions for any mitigation monitoring personnel found
necessary to implement the plan. The monitoring personnel will be retained by
the project sponsor and will have expertise in appropriate disciplines. Town staff
and/or hired consultants under contract to the Town will verify mitigation
compliance by means of the checklist. The project applicant shall agree,to fund
any additional Town costs for monitoring staff or verification by registered
professionals.
5.0 COMMUNICATION AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
Prior to any construction activities, meetings shall be convened involving Town
staff, the project sponsor and general contractors to review the mitigation
monitoring program, to identify responsibilities and authority of participants, to
define what criteria will be used to gauge permit compliance, and to identify
under what conditions the Town will halt activities and require remedial or
corrective measures.
The plan shall formulate an effective reporting system which documents on-site
monitoring activities and compliance with conditions. The plan shall include
submission of annual reports to the Planning Director describing the project
status and a checklist verifying compliance with permit conditions. Annual
reports shall be submitted for each year up until one year after occupancy.
2
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date - +
1. Non-engineered fill shall be removed,or if Determination of extent of removal to
required to remain in its current location, be made in the field during grading, Geotechnical Engineer Name
shall be recompacted as engineered fill. prior to issuance of building permits.
The actual extent of removal shall be
determined in the field by the Date
Geotechnical Engineer during grading and
shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of City Engineer
the City Engineer prior to issuance of Name
building permits.
Date
2. A subdrain shall be constructed in the axis Determination to be made in the field Geotechnical Engineer
of the swale on Lot 1, the extent of which during grading, prior to issuance of Name
shall be_-determined_b_y__ the project building permits.
Geotechnical Engineer in the field during
grading.The subdrain,or approved equal, Date
shall be constructed as shown in the
Terrasearch Geotechnical Investigation
report dated October 28, 1994 (Figure 2, City Engineer
Appendix A)and shall be accomplished to Name
the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior
to issuance of building permits.
Date
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
3. Proposed residences shall be founded on a Upon construction of each lot, the Town Geologist
pier and grade beam foundation. The bridge improvements and site Name
bridge structure and site retaining walls retaining walls, prior to subsequent
shall be founded on either a pier or a inspection approvals.
spread footing foundation system. Date
Recommendations for both foundation
systems are given in the Terrasearch
Geotechnical Investigation report dated
October 28,1994.Upon construction of the City Engineer
foundations for each lot, the bridge Name
improvements and site retaining walls,
conformance with the recommended
foundation systems shall be verified to the Date
satisfaction of the Town geologist and City
Engineer prior to subsequent inspection.
approvals.
4. The surface of the areas to be cut and filled Determination of stripping shall be City Engineer
at the site shall be stripped cleared and made in the field. Plans to be Name
grubbedtoremove-all-existing vegetation submitted—for approval prior to
and/or other deleterious materials. The issuance of grading permits.
actual depth of stripping is unknown and Date
shall be determined in the field by the
project Geotechnical Engineer. Stripped
material from the site shall not be used as
engineered fill but may be stockpiled and
used later for landscaping purposes.Plans
showing the exact areas to be stripped and
depth of stripping shall be submitted for
approval to the City Engineer prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
5. Following site clearing; the area of non- Determination for subsurface drain at Geotechnical Engineer
engineered fill shall be removed to expose the backbase of the key to be made in Name
native ground. Keyways shall then be the field, during grading operations
provided at the base of any proposed fill and prior to issuance of building
slope and shall be a minimum 1-1/2 times permits. Date
machine width, cut into firm native
ground and sloped back into the hillside at
a gradient of 5%.The fill area shall then be City Engineer Name
constructed by placing engineered fill as
specified in mitigation measures 6, 7, 8,
and 9. Benching into the native hillside Date
shall be performed as the filling
progresses. At this time, the construction.
of a subsurface drain at the back base of
the key is not anticipated; however, the
final determination shall be made in the
field by the project Geotechnical Engineer.;
This shall be accomplished to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer during
grading.operations and prior to issuance
of building permits. _
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
6. All materials encountered on-site, except During grading operations and prior Geotechnical Engineer
for debris and organically contaminated to issuance of building permits. Name
material,are suitable for use as engineered
fill..Any-large cobbles or boulders that are
encountered shall be broken down to less Date
than 6 inches in size for use in the fill. If
the existing southern driveway is to be
removed, the asphaltic concrete and CityEngineer
aggregate base materials in the existing Name
driveway v m may be used-for fill
provided the asphalt is pulverized and the Date
materials are properly mixed with the on-
site fill. The use of these materials in the
upper 1 foot in landscape areas shall be
prohibited. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the project Geotechnical
Engineer and City Engineer during the
grading operations and prior to issuance
of building permits.
7. All engineered fill shall be placed in thin During grading operations and prior Geotechnical Engineer
lifts not exceeding 8 inches in to issuance of building permits. Name
uncompacted thickness and compacted to
a minimum of 90% relative compaction at
2% to 3% above optimum moisture. Date
Relative compaction is based on the
maximum dry density as determined by
ASTM D1557-78 Laboratory Test City Engineer Name
Procedure. This shall be accomplished to
the satisfaction of the project Geotechnical
Engineer and City Engineer during the Date
grading operations and prior to issuance
of building permits.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
•
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
8. All unsupported cut and fill slopes shall During grading operations and prior Geotechnical Engineer
not be steeper than 2:1 (horizontal to to issuance of building permits. Name
vertical). Any cut excavation over 5 feet
shall be observed by the project
Geotechnical Engineer to detect the Date
presence, or otherwise, of any adverse
conditions that may affect stability or
retaining wall design. This shall be City Engineer Name
accomplished to the satisfaction of the
project Geotechnical Engineer and City
Engineer during the grading.operations Date
and prior to issuance of building permits.
9.___All_fill_slopes-shall_be_.overconstructed During grading operations and prior Geotechnical Engineer
and then cut back to the design slope to issuance of building permits. Name
grade ensuring that all loose material is
removed.(Track-walking of slope surfaces
does not provide-adequate soil densities Date
and shall not be utilized as a method of
slope compaction.) This shall be
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City Engineer Name
project Geotechnical Engineer and City ..
Engineer during the grading operations
and prior to issuance of building permits. Date
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
10. A project grading plan which includes an Prior to issuance of grading permits. City Engineer
approved drainage and erosion control
plan-tom;nimize_theimpactsJrom_erosion _Name
and sedimentation shall be submitted to
and approved by the City Engineer prior
to issuance of grading permits. This plan Date
shall conform to all standards adopted by
the Town of Los Altos Hills and shall
comply with all appropriate requirements
of the Town's NPDES permit relative to
grading and erosion/sediment•control
including,but not limited to:a)restricting
grading during the grading moratorium
from November 1 to April 1;b)protecting
all finished graded slopes from erosion
using such techniques as hillslope
benching, erosion control matting,
hydroseeding; c) protecting downstream
storm drainage inlets from sedimentation;
d)use of silt fencing to retain sediment on
the project site; e) any other suitable
measures outlined in the Association of
Bay Area Governments(ABAG)Manual of
Standards.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist ..
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
11. Construction of proposed pier Prior to further inspection approvals. Geotechnical Engineer
foundations, spread footings, slabs-on- Name
grade, retaining walls, driveways, septic
leach fields, and utility trenches shall
occur as recommended in the Terrasearch Date
Geotechnical Investigation report dated
October 28, 1994 or as indicated by the _ _
City Engineer. This shall be accomplished City Engineer Name
to the satisfaction of the Town Geologist
and City Engineer prior to further
inspection approvals. Date
12. Due to the presence of soils identified as Prior to issuance of site development Town Geologist
- highly and critically-expansive,--detailed --permits-and-building-permits.- - -Name -lot-specific.construction plans shall be
reviewed by the Town Geologist prior to
issuance of site development permits and Date
building permits,respectively.
13. All geotechnical aspects of detailed Prior to issuance of permits for City Engineer
construction plans for the proposed bridge construction of subdivision level Name
and other subdivision level improvments improvements
shall be reviewed and approved by the
project geotechnical consultant for Date
conformance with previously
recommended geotechnical design criteria.
The results of these evaluations shall be
summarized by the consultant in a letter
and submitted to the Town for review by
the City Engineer, prior to issuance of
permits for construction of subdivision
level improvements.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
14. The applicant shall be required to apply Prior to issuance of grading permits City Engineer
for and receive a Creek Alteration Permit Name
from the California State Department of
Fish and Game prior to issuance of
grading permits. This shall be Date
accomplished to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer.
15. The site drainage associated with the Drainage plans to be submitted prior City Engineer
proposed development must be designed to issuance of grading permits. Name
as surface flow whenever possible to avoid
concentration of the runoff.The proposed Final storm drainage
drainage shall be designed to maintain the improvements/deficiencies corrected Date
existing flow patterns and shall be prior to acceptance of subdivision
designed to the satisfaction of the City improvements.
Engineer prior to issuance of grading
permits. Final storm drainage City Engineer
improvements shall be inspected by the Name
City Engineer and any and all deficiencies
corrected--to--his–satisfaction–prior-—to —
acceptance of subdivision improvements. . Date
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
16. Lot No.1 shall not be permitted to develop Prior to application for Site Santa Clara County
a residence with greater than 6 bedrooms, Development Permit. Department o f Name
or with greater than 6,000 square feet of Environmental Health
floor area if it is required to,be served by a
septic sanitary sewer system. Lot No. 1 Date
shall be required to install 560 lineal feet of
subsurface drainline, shall provide space
for an additional 560 lineal feet of
subsurface drainline, and shall install a
_ 2,000 gallon septic tank. The subdrain for
Lot No. 1,shall not divert or. discharge
drainage in such a manner as,to impact
leachfields on this lot or adjoining lots.
This shall be approved by SantaClara
_County Department of Environmental
Health prior to application to the Town for - -- -
a Site Development Permit.
17. Lot No.2 shall not be permitted to develop Prior to application for Site Santa Clara County
a residence with greater than 4 bedrooms, Development Permit. Department o f Name
if it is required to be served by a septic Environmental Health
sanitary sewer system. Lot No. 2 shall be
required to install 400 lineal feet. of Date
subsurface drainline, shall provide space
for an additional 400 lineal feet of
subsurface drainline, and shall install a
2,000 gallon septic tank. This shall be
approved by Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health
prior to application to the Town for a Site
Development Permit.
Mitigation Monitoring Checklist
Deer Creek Subdivision
Mitigation Measure Implementing Action Approval By Sign-Off/Date
18. Lot No.3 shall not be permitted to develop Prior to application for Site Santa Clara County
a residence with greater than 4 bedrooms Development Permit. Department o f Name
if it is required to be served by a septic Environmental Health
sanitary sewer system. Lot No. 3 shall be
required to install 600 lineal feet of Date
subsurface drainline, shall provide space
for an additional 700 lineal feet of
subsurface drainline, and shall install a
2,000.gallon septic tank.. This shall be
approved by Santa Clara County
Department of Environmental Health
prior to application to the Town for a Site
Development Permit.
19. Upon discovering or unearthing any As may be necessary during County Coroner's Office
possible burial site as evidenced by human construction of the subdivision Name
skeletal remains or artifacts, the person improvements.
making such discovery shall immediately
notify the County of Santa Clara Coroner Date
and-no-further disturbance-of-the-site-may-
be
isturbance-of-the-site-maybe made except as authorized by the
County Coordinator of Indian Affairs.This
shall be accomplished to the satisfaction of Planning Director Name
the County Coroner's Office and the Town
Planning Director as may be necessary
during the construction of the subdivision Date
improvements.
ILIIlYG11VORTH&RODK1N,INC.
ACOUST l CAL ENGI NEERSIIIII
May 28, 1992
la
Richard Childress
Debcor Corporation
21625 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Cupertino, CA 95014
SUBJECT: Lindy Properties Los Altos Hills Four-Acre
Subdivision -- Noise Assessment Summary
Dear Dick:
We have completed our noise monitoring survey at the site. The
existing noise levels range from a 24-hour average day/night
level (Ldn) of 52 to 60 dBA. Noise levels are not anticipated
to increase in the future along this stretch of I-280. While
the Town of Los Altos Hills does not have specific guidelines
related to outdoor noise exposure, their standards indicate
that an Ldn of 60 dBA or less is compatible with residential
development. This is typical of most municipalities in
Northern California. The site's noise exposure is, therefore,
acceptable for residential development without additional
mitigation. The Town does require that interior noise levels
not exceed an Ldn of 45 dBA. Typical California residential
construction provides 15 dBA of noise reduction with open
windows when going from outside to inside, and 20 to 25 dBA of
noise reduction with the windows closed. Interior noise levels
would also be in compliance without additional mitigation.
There will be no significant noise impacts to existing
residents as a result of people-generated noise on the site.
Offsite traffic noise increases would be negligible, as well.
There would be short-term increases in the noise environment in
the area during construction. Compliance with the Town
policies and limiting construction to weekday, daytime hours,
would mitigate construction noiselimpacts to a less than
significant level.
We should complete our report today and will be sending it to
you by overnight mail. If you have any questions after receipt
of the report, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely yours,
Richard B. Rodkin, PE
RBR:gfl
85 Bolinas Road, #11 • Fairfax, California 9493110 • (415) 459-5507 • FAX (415) 459-6448
ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE SSESSMENT
LINDY PROPERTIES PROP SED FOUR-ACRE SUBDIVISION,
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFdRNIA
May 29, 1992
Prepared for:
Lindy Properties
c/o Debcor Corporation
21625 Stevens Creek Boulevar'
Cupertino, CA 95014
Prepared by:
Richard B. Rodkin,' PE
Illingworth & Rodkin, Inc._
85 Bolinas Road, Suite 11
Fairfax, CA 94930
• (415) 459-5507
,,. Job No.:
INTRODUCTION/SUMMARY
This report assesses the acoustical issues related to the proposed residential development of
a four-acre parcel on Purissima Road just south of Elena Road in Los Altos Hills, California.
The project location is shown on Figure 1. Technical terms used in the report are defined
in Table'1.
Interstate 280 is the only significant noise source affecting the site. The most significant issue
is the compatibility of the noise environment at the site with the proposed residential
development. The potential noise impacts to eisting residents in the area from the proposed
development of the site are also analyzed.
In summary, the noise environment at the site s currently and in the future will continue to
be compatible with residential development. The site is partially acoustically shielded from
Interstate 280 noise by intervening topography. The residential,use is consistent with existing
development in the area and will not change either the character of the noise environment or
the noise levels at existing residences. Project-generated,traffic would not noticeably or
measurably,affect the noise environment. In summary, the proposed project would result in
no significant noise impacts.
. I
NOISE CRITERIA
The following policies from the Town of Los Altos Hills' Noise Element of the General Plan
are relevant to this project:
Residential Land Use
• All land development adjacent to Interstate 280 or Foothill Expressway should be
i
designed so asto minimize the social psychological, physiological, and economic
impact of noise generated by traffic movement and land developers should make sure
to provide for noise attenuation. -
•
• Interior community noise equivalent levels (CNEL or Lam) attributable to exterior
sources shall not exceed 45 dBA in any habitable room.
(1)
1
TABLE 1
DEFINITIONS OF ACOUSTICAL TERMS
1
TERM DEFINITIONS
Decibel, dB A unit describing the amplitude of sound, equal to 20 times the
logarithm to the base 10 of the ratio of the pressure of the
sound pressure, which is 20 miciopascals (20 micronewtons
per square meter). I
Frequency, Hz The number of complete pressurie fluctuations per second
above and below atmospheric pressure.
A-Weighted Sound Level, a sound pressure level in decibels as measured on a sound
dB le el meter using the A-weighting filter network. The A-
w ighting filter de-emphasizes the very low and very high
fr quency components of the sound in a manner similar to the
fr uency response of the human ear and correlates well with
subjective reactions to noise. All sound levels in this report
are A-weighted.
L10, L50, L90 e A-weighted noise levels that are exceeded 10%, 50%, and
9 % of the time during the measurement period.
Equivalent Noise Level, Lei The average A-weighted noise level during the measurement
period. j
Community Noise The average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,
Equivalent Level, CNEL obtained after addition of 5 decibels in the evening from 7:00
pm to 10:00 pm and after addition of 10 decibels to sound
levels in the night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.1Day/Night Noise Level, Ldn a average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,
o tained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the
ni ht between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Day/Night Noise Level, Ld, a average A-weighted noise level during a 24-hour day,
of tained after addition of 10 decibels to levels measured in the
night between 10:00 pm and 7:00 am.
Ambient Noise Level I e composite of noise from all!sources near and far. The
n rmal or existing level of environmental noise at a given
to ation.
Intrusive at noise which intrudes over and above the existing ambient •
n ise at a given location. The relative intrusiveness of a sound
- depends upon its amplitude, duration, frequency, and time of.
o currence and tonal or informational content as well as the
prlevailing ambient noise level.
( 2 )
• .
• ••
.:-.- .-•.-'..• ' . ''.... • .'1. ;'1.F.1- - • (WC .... '. • : . . . ''. •
. ijALO) 1 ,.. ••, -, ., .... ,. • . • , , -, ...,-) i .,
c• .,
: 4-.. ...,/.../ . ,,..., • :. .• , ..., , - • ., '4 —,•-• ..$ -1
• . '. 4. — .' ••";.' • • - ' . •.i- ' .1 i • r
— . :. . '
. : • . • • .
• -;1.- L. :- - •4.:,„ , ,,,,. .
.0 -s
/-
, ., . .. . ..... •
, ..p......,:.':,•••._,..... •'=:, • 0'' '• s's•••' ,• --- - • '1.44.
.,....
--.._.,..
. .•.
.• 1 :.',..‘:.•"""7'," !-'I • ' !. ":1 ;. -
' - --- I • '. r • i..' ' ..,' .'. ; ..- *; • • -..: ' , • ' / .,
.s..,., -,..•
vo***7 - •*.•••.: - ‘1. --. •
--e - - . ..;- .•,.,. ,...... , -. • • ..:- ..
-. . .
I •4 ri,__-_, ;, „,.......'7 ,.....---"-r--1-• ' ''' • • • ' ' '
,. ...1. is '.•,"--'-'''.• - ... : - , •
'- Viz, - -• .. • :.. , - . •
.1,1" ----•• ; -.'1-• •••!.......ti.,i. .r :, • • •_j...,-.-:.7, ..% -,-2.2.-..4., ..-..-. I,-•0 •••• '-:.-a— •• '•• -
''' s••,.` 1. - :.---..,• :1 ._ . '
-• -, -- - - -"•''-..--,... ..-•••_ •'`'•1 . .---:•-'4-±.... ,,•;_,,.....„,,::•.,_i-2.;: -! '..-..,: ,..._....., •'. ' .. , .• . . -
- 1\-I- 1 " '"' ''--------f'71---''7---1 1-r- -1-T1- -•;'--.1.- • L;' . r--1-.--.---2-7 • r-----
rk.• 1..
;;.-.. •,. -
SITE ,,!: :
..--- \''. ', -• .•,:c-' , ,,,--:,:•,• -: . c•-, - ' • .-, •• '! 7-'1. '"; .1, :......::2'..t—, -;'•C.::4 ' :. .f
.-..: 1 . :1•••: -• ',. - I ..r- - :-,7-.:•• •,....r-.-,
-,.. .. -•._,.. IP
..... A f_...,.....'.,4'.,,,..1.... ::::.._ :,.... ,; .. ," V.. __., w ,t.,u,T11 ‘4, ''AV i ):i .:...t,;__ .L.,:_,,:,•,!_2/.7_,.. •;
., , ..._ .,. -_- ..- ...._ , .....----
. _..,...,.,-,1 J.i.-,- - . .. .
- -\ir. :. , •-. , .. . , i.....L..-_,.. ..
!
,, ' ;'.'''• . ..-.`.i-.,' •>=::-. -•.. .0. —.......,.,„..,
...:•.:
. • ... l ... .„-„...-'•'..- ••• •. .:-.-.71.: •- - -r----j•--. - .: ..,C,,,•,....,.
• ,._..,..• , \-,. ...-......_._„j„' .7 r".„.• -• -,.,:•,..-,,,....• , .., .1. . .,.% 14 ..1.444,.. .. ;.•"...; . •L,...,.,...,
, • , . D
•••. ., $ , ‘. . ,1 .,• ..: ,.. .,. . ._ , ,•-• •f. '
i •Ai r..,P;: A: •;r....--
4 :.' •,. ,... ' •
.. , ., _ .... _ 'id •-4— .„__.'...i_._','1......:.,_."!,;".. .t......,; ..",4-...-*. ..- .-. .. .1'• .; ',......... ......j;•,';4. hL:-•-.1. -. . .4.t..t.,.....'.. -'4., ;-L.,;;',,,,,
•7 :'. z .:1:',.._.,, 'II:-"'4 . •-•:••-,-.4,. .',.. ;; 4. • . ' .---.777- ;-4 •'.''' .4 ''-'•-•'-.--
I - ''':-• .'", .•\4.
• r ;sr' s" .- .• r %. ,• t-1--; -•-•.'• .c.‘', ..4 •,
•:••'? 4 .:!;('. • ••• ;.4,; .; : ..: , I.L. 1,\'''F''..0 ,•?':4.:.•:-,1.9 ;;;t .P..-4,..,&F '
.
-. - 'ft' •
I ,, .,...3.,' • \ "5, ;•.,+';', .2;,•••••••"'''''''.i.•4: ' ..,•?...'3 I 1 - ..---' - '.../.6 . -I i .2-...,'• '''':;-1_7-.1. .`i ' ..,:-."• '4-"..--*-2-'''''?,t-°.-',,t'L--...411 -
-..- ... . ,..ne .7. , •'
. .
•. .,
• •-' j. ..sr. -. t i ,' ._•-_-...f. ..1,_,••'• ,______
"
..:• -----; : .. ., ,',/r __ " .• . , . ' ..\'4...,..,,A„, . , i C. DI', ii•-4 y,..,,,,v.,,..:•:.. 7,.. ,I-i,'-%.'• •• -"7
• 1 • , • . . -2 ,i.^.!-.:..-7,-,,"--.
- -. ..'-••••..;;;'' -1(:)S'z:1:: ' 1 TO c't \flit.1:5••" ',..,=,---- - • ....: --,;--;,.:i.„,.‘_-.-... -....----.t.i. :,t...4/..---1-- .... ,-;1'...... f.A.
>••:-'• -.•.:".'' 1:'''' '-''''..t•-'1"'''-'",,. '.- \ : ,...% \v. :,••.,•::.7-1:,. __,..._ - .1-.!........f /.. . ......::z,', ...:2_".-•_*•_,-__•"- .s; ;
„ ..p '-- k•
-rs..., . . . .
' ! -:. . • .1\ --, -•:-..-.J -L--,---0.---..‘-- ,•-• -:'•••---• - -----`-- - • • ""'--;-- ..*7-7=
.. ••• .
v •",, - ''• ''. ,, „„, ' :. - . ..(,..., •i ..*: --',>,,,, -'• ..z;.i.__ !'"i
•: - . • • .. • -_ .
1 •:;,..-...-,-- •.-: I.:- ,. . =.....; `-.• .• „ FPK'r • •s'i7 :••• .-''' .'' • A.' -- .. ,.
-..... ... 4. --''' ; r:;.." .:., .\• .' •„ • 1
•
' .7.-• ' \• I .. •,'.
. . •• .
\ . ; ' ;':'.46*•/%4r.4::- •.'" , . t. . ' ." ."--' ‹,
..."-'4:".1.:.1-14-.....:f-••••:.r....-4:--': .•'•„2., ; _, .._ ,I, lo ,„) , ,,.- i , , . • - , -
. ,.
• --•,,7- ..0,..,,,,,I.. _, - ,,, _. , - . • ,/ •
.v.
•t
. -
• ..
1. , : • , , ,.• .
- -:,.',„ ; .. • - • .-%
. -- • ,,...
. ' ''''''' :-..'......-• ''' :,,i'•>'
— '. .. -•. ,
...
. -
.-, ''.• ,' f '' '. '..":.,2:' :'' I T)..... .. -.."-':.•f• ' .7
-.../..,-.. •. '0' -.'-' 1.1:1.1:- ----•.- •4•J'. I
mmo.................._ •• • ,.:0. ..•.
,_ •.._ .••7,, ..,. . . 7'1, '1",. i __..
' •
.. t.-___'..;•,._ . 1/4..
•• • • - . N
....._... .
i -
. .
. -
FIGURE
Project Vicinity Map
1
•
Ituiroclotron-rm 8 RcoKot,Iva •
jai •,c.•,i, •c •, I•.. .11•:all
( 3 )
. ry •
• Residenti 1 constructio in high noise level areas should include provisions for
structural insulation as ecessary to ensure maximum possible damping.
• Individual use of noise-generating apparatuses should not interfere with the normal use
of enjoy ent of outdoo or indoor areas on surrounding properties.
The Noise Elem nt also contai s standards which would regulate the noise which could be
generated from re land uses t at affects another. Property line noise levels are limited,to
60 dBA during t e daytime an.! 50 dBA during the nighttime. An L� of 60 dBA is the goal
that many communities have e.tablished for the maximum allowable noise environment in
residential outdoor areas and ill be used in this report.
Construction Ac ivity
• Noise generated from c•nstruction equipment should be attenuated to the maximum
extent possible.
• Hours of construction .ctivities should be regulate d as much as reasonably possible
to ensure minimum im.act of noise on surroundin i residential properties.
EXISTING NOISE ENVIRO I ENT
A noise monitoring survey was conducted in order to quantify existing noise levels at the site.
- Noise levels were monitored o er a continuous 24-hour period at one location (Location A)
and for short periods at seven dditional locations on the kite. The measured locations are
shown on Figure 2. The 24-h.ur measurement provided the hour-by-hour variation in noise
levels. Variatio s in the noise environment throughout th parcel were determined through
the short-term measurements. he hourly distribution of Oise levels monitored at Location
A are shown i Table 2. T e measured Ldn at Location A was 60 dBA. The noise
environment is completely do i inated by Interstate 280 traffic. The roadway is elevated
slightly with re ect to the sig- and is shielded from the site by hills adjoining the road,
substantially red cing the site'' noise exposure.
(4)
. : .
.- 2''''77:0.• --) 1'
c '1
' . \-- ----1
, \
, I ,
.. . • ,
•.4,:;,•-,),:.• s,.. •
‘ •
- ___ i , .•
. .
, 1 ,
. .
• .
1 ' .
I ,
. • . .
l• 1 ,' ,
, I .
• ‘ /
...I ' .
.,-
,
' I
I • ' / ..--
I , . , )•• •
t.
. `..•
.. \
/ —1 • ,•' /
. ,,"
. • /
. .
• .
, 1 ..., k. ,' .
.
\ (......) :.,'\ .
. .. i
1 c •
• . „
1 •
.
, .
®,
1
.f.:...\ I
,f
‘i
L.I.)• 1 -
, I
__,....._'--.-- • •-7--- ---_.__,,
. i
. ..1,
•
, .....,,_
/ I
. . __. .. •
/ ._
•
-1.& •
i
r. .•-• •.; ,...: , , I ,...:\
--- . • /. i'' . / / • -..I.,
-N's\\ C )
• •
l'
. .--- • ,
% / ‘ \\ . ),, // / , -7 ' , - •- •
‘. 2//', .7'11 :
.
11 ' \ •• :...Y 1 11 re .' , • 1
) _,••
1 Ul ' I ''• .. i . !cc( 'I ' .
! (.1. • \ Fo .-1 i .,
I t.n ... ‘ •• \ .. ', •
C---1 .IV ' 1
• , t 1....• , ! ' ; . , 1 . .
! \ a ., 1, \•. 1 • ,N\ : ....!, . .
. p • . ,‘,... .,
. . ,
.....
. , \ 1, • i. : , i : 30
.__
.0 •-• .„. t •k.\-, \ .,
c.s., :, ; -----, . . .; '; \ • .•
,Ti
, 1
...,, _ _
, ,., i - I '_.) )' 4 D
/ ..... 1, \, 4 1 I ......
-.. ----.' -r--"1--- - .
,? 17—,----_ ..
! ^71. I 2\' •
L ./t,:r4L. ____
. .
( [
t. -' ---\-e.•- .1 -.- ---•-•=ji-:1—___.---•'L-1
I2--.:„...- ____....---
i 1 i . Z,';-;•----__.--------- _ -j,
••• .----- ---- ,
1 i : \ 1 •_-----• _------- • ••- • •
4_, '1 .1 : / „••'" .....------- ....-- ---- I
! .
... •••••••••••••••----- „,IN, (/ i...._ 1
1
i
.. .____,,...• -•—••• • ••• -
. ) F I G U if7
2
, Ifs I INGwoPTA.^ 5' 17PrOKIPf INC,
_, ..
'
TABLE 2
Continuous Hourly Noise Measurements
Location)A
100 Ft. From Purissima Rd ; 12 Ft. High in Tree
(see Figure 1)
Date Hour Beginning Leq'
May 21, 1992 2:00 pm 57
3:00 pm I 59
4:00 pm 58
5:00 pm 59
6:00 pm 58
7:00 pm 56
8:00 pm 56
9:00 pm 55
10:00 pm 54
11:00 pm 52
May 22, 1992 Midnight 51
1:00 am 48
2:00 am I 46
3:00 am 46
4:00 am 48
5:00 am 54
6:00 am 59
7:00 am 60
8:00 am 59
9:00 am 57
10:00 am 57
11:00 am I 57
12:00 pm 57
• 1:00 pm ; . 56
L42 = 60 dB
Lin— The-average A-weighted noise level during the measurement period.
I
2 La, (Day/Night Sound Level. — A descriptor established by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) for the 24-hour average A-weighted noise level. Sound
levels during the hours from 10:00 pm to 7:00 am are penalized 10 dB to account
for the increased sensitivity of people during the nighttime hours.
( 6 );
s
The results of m Isurements at cations 1 through 7 are summarized in Table 3. The short-
term measurements were correla ed to the 24-hour measurements made at Location A. The
24-hour average Ld„ were then estimated for each location. The entire site's noise exposure
ranges from an L of 52 to 60 dBA.
III E IMPA T A MENJF
Potential nise impacts associat-• with this project fall in the following categories:
• The comp tibility of the ioroposed residential use with the noise environment at the
site.
• The poten "al long-term noise impacts of onsite (noise generation from typical
residential development d offsite traffic noise impacts.
• Short-term construction oise impacts.
The existing noise environment t the site ranges from an La, of 52 to 60 dBA. Existing
outdoor noise levels are, theref re, compatible with the proposed residential development
without additional mitigation. xisting and future traffic volumes for the Interstate 280
corridor were studied in the 990 MTC Regional Transportation Plan EIR (Brady &
Associates, 1991). The noise assessment prepared for the EIR found that noise levels are not
going to increase Ion this'portion of the I-280 corridor. The noise environment at the site is
compatible with the proposed re idential development.
Typical California construction ith the windows open for ventilation provides about 15 dBA
of noise reduction when going from outside to inside. Twenty to 25 dBA of noise reduction
is typically achieved with windo s closed. The existing and future Lan at the site is 60 dBA
or less. Interior noise levels woui d be 45 dBA or less with windows open or closed. Interior
noise levels would, therefore, onform with the town's 45 L1 goal without additional
mitigation.
The proposed residential develoiment of the site is consistent with the,existing residential
development in the area. While the noise of lawn mowers and voices may occasionally be
audible at existin residences, the overall noise environment would not noticeably or
measurably change significantly. Allowable noise levels are regulated by the Town's noise
standards. No significant adver•e noise impacts upon exist ing residents would result from
•
the new neighbors) .
(7)
a
--
TABLE
TABLE 3
Short Term Noise Measurements
May 21, 1992
(see Figure 1)
Time Est.
Location Starting Duration Le, Lax Lmm Loi L10 L50 L90 Li Comments
1 1:15 pm 15 min. 56 64 50 61 58 56 53 60 90 ft. from Purissima Road;
mostly I-280 traffic noise; one jet
at 59 dBA
2 1:45 pm 15 min. 55 65 50 50 57 54 52 59 75 ft. from Purissima Road;
mostly 1-280 traffic noise
3 2:15 pm 15 min. 55 63 48 59 57 54 51 58 Eastern end of site; top of hill
— — — — — overlooking I-280; I=280 noise --
4
4 2:45 pm 15 min. 49 57 44 55 51 48 46 52 End of Canario.Way; east side of
ridge; I-280 noise; one jet at 57
dBA
5 3:12 pm 10 min. 55 62 48 60 57 54 52 56 Near southern property line;
1-280 traffic noise; one jet at 54
dBA %
6 3:25 pm 10 min. 58 64 54 62 60 58 56 59 Overlooking 1-280; exclusively
I-280 noise
7 3:40 pm 15 min. 58 70 51 63 60 57 54 59 Mostly I-280 noise; one general
aviation plane at 70 dBA
Y
Traffic noise levels in the area .re dominated by Interstate 280. The addition of trips on
Purissima Road would not notic-:bly or measurably affect the noise environment in the area.
No significant noise impacts wo Id, therefore, result from this project.
Construction activities would to porarily°elevate noise levels at the project site and at the
nearby residences. Adherence to the Town's Noise Element policies regarding construction
noise would mitigate this potentia impact to a less than significant level. Noise-generating
construction activities on the sit- should be limited to Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to
5:00 pm. All conktruction equi.ment should be properly muffled and maintained.
•
(9)
a
May 21, 1995
Mr. &Mrs. Jerry Anderson
12829 Canario Way RECEIVED
Los Altos Hills, Ca 94022
MAY 2 3 1995
Town of Los Altos Hills
Planning Commission TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Dear Commissioners: •
We attended the meeting on May 10, 1995,with regard to the Lindy property•
on Purissima Road. Our backyard joins this property on the north side. When
we purchased our lot in 1972,this property hada an old little house on it. The
Brubacker's had just sold this property to the Shecter's,who kept it in it's
original condition.
We have a problem with this developer building Three large homes on this
land,two of which are to be two story structures, 6,000 sq. ft. in size and looking
into my backyard and my horse barn. My home and the Pilling's home would
loose our view of the beautiful hills above 280.
We moved here to get out of the city,to enjoy the rural nature of our Town,
where all of our neighbors have enjoyed for years. I know this is supposed to
be progress,but where is the herd of deer going to go that has been feeding
on this property since we have lived here.
I wish you would consider allowing only one single story dwelling which
would stay in keeping with our neighborhood.
Sincerely,
•
•
•
'
O"he Lindy group -
Dennis D. Paboojian
President
May 31, 1995
Sheryl Kolf
Assistant Engineer
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: Deer Creek - Barrie Coates' "Assessment of Expected Effect"
Dear Sheryl:
As we discussed here is the report prepared by Barrie Coates entitled "An assessment of
the expected effects of proposed grading on trees at the Deer Creek Project, 27591
Purissima Road, Los Altos Hills" dated January 12, 1995. There is one correction that
needs to be made as the report was prepared prior to the finalization of the Leach Field
layout. The correction occurs on Page 1 and relates to the primary leach fields;
Specifically, I
"Primary leach field installation poses danger of root damage to trees #57, 58, 59 (on
lot 2) and 27 (on lot 3)."
This sentence should read,
"Primary leach field installation poses danger of root damage to tree #59 (on lot 2)."
As always, tha you for your time and consideration towards my project. If you have
any further cone ms or questions, please contact me at 408-255-4300.
Sin ' •ly-'"Th J
% lin Nn D. Paboojian
0 era Manager
12280 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road •Suite 101 •Saratoga, CA 95070 • Phone: (408) 255-4300 • Fax: (408) 255-0646
' BARRIE D. COATS
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408-353-1052
23535 Summit Road,.Los Gatos,CA 95030
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
OF PROPOSED GRADING ON.TREES
AT THE DEER CREEK PROJECT. 27591
PURISSIMA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the Request of:
Shannon Paboojian
The Lindy Group
12280 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road, Suite 101
Saratoga,. CA 95070
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
January 12, 1995
Job #2=94-041B
BAIZRIE D. COA
and ASSOCIAT S
I
Horticultural Consultan
408353-1052
23535 Summit Road,Loi Gatos,CA 5030
AN ASSESS NT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
OF OPOSED GRADING ON TREES
AT DEER CREEK PROJECT, 27591
PURLS IMA ROAD, LOS ALTOS BILLS .
Purpose of this Report
This report will offer comments o the expected effects of the proposed grading and
construction on the existing trees and offer preservation measures related to the trees on-
the property at 27591 Purissima oad, Los Altos Hills.
Findings
There are 72 trees of significance on the property.
This includes 24 Coast Live Oak, uercus agrifolia, 1 Valley Oak, Quercus lobata, 1 Cork Oak,
Quercus suber, 32 Coast Redwood, Sequoia sempervirens, 1. Giant Sequoia, Sequoiadendron
gigantea, 11 Canary Date Palms, P oenix canariensis, 9 Deodara.Cedar, Cedrus deodara, 1
Arizona Cypress, Cupressus glabra, 1 Bay Tree, Umbellularia californica, and 1 Coast
Beefwood, Casuarina cunnin!hamiana. '.
Driveways shown would remove tr-es #35, 36, 37, 38, 11 and 12. Trees #11 and 12 are
Coast Redwoods of p for health and #35 through 38 are Date Palms of which there are 7
more lining Purissimd Road.
Primary leach field installation po es danger of root damage to trees #57, 58, 59 (on lot 2),
and 27 (on lot 3). This damage c. be mitigated, in my opinion, by avoiding digging
trenches closer than 7 times the i nk diameter from the trunk (7 feet or further from a 12
inch diameter tree).
Ten trees should, in my opinion, •e removed due to poorhealth and or structure or due to
canopy competitionIlith more im•ortant trees. .
They are Coast Live Oaks #3, 7, 8, 44 and 28. . Coast Redwoods #15, 22, 65, and Deodara
Cedar #71, Giant Sequoia #51.
1 =r
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
OF PROPOSED GRADING ON TREES
AT THE DEER CREEK PROJECT, 27591
PURISSIMA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
Other trees in marginal condition for which removal should be considered include Coast
Redwoods #16 and 41
In summary, 13 trees should or could be removed for technical reasons.
Tree Condition
The largest. most prominent Coast Live Oak trees on the property (#1, 2, 3) have been
severely overthinned in the past and are vulnei able to dropping large limbs. Unfortunately
most of the limbs have too few major branches remaining to make crown restoration
successful. Cabling and fertilizing are the only option.
Many of the Redwoods have very thin canopies (as #11, 12, 13, 41). One has apparently been
drought stressed (#22) or for other reasons, iti root activity is poor and has become infected
with Botryospheria fungus and should be removed.
Preservation Recommendations
Leach field areas
1. No trench should be cut closer than 7 times the diameter of the trunk of a preserved
tree to the trunk. (A trench 7 feet from a 12 inch diameter tree is acceptable).
2. Trenches may not be cut within 10 times the trunk diameter on more than one side of
a given tree.
I
3. Proposed leach line locations must be staked out, and protective fences.installed 2-
1/2 feet from the leach line, between the leach line and the tree trunk and•to.the drip line -
of the balance of the canopy for each potentially impacted tree to prevent all tractor activity
beneath the canopy.
4. Wherever connecting trenches can be located 10 feet or moreaway from the dripline
of a tree rather than beneath or close to a tree canopy, that should be done.
2'
AN ASSES MENT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
OF ;ROPOSED GRADING ON TREES
AT T o' DEER CREEK PROJECT, 27691 _ - -.
'SSIMA ROAD. LOS ALTOS HILLS :,
Roadway Areas
1. Roadway locations should be arranged beyond tree canopy margins (driplines) `
wherever possible. In the case o trees #1 and 40 this will not be possible.
2. Trees which will have roa•s constructed beneath their canopies must have protective
fences installed before rough gr.ding begins, 2-1/2 feet from the margin of actual road edge
and shall not involv cuts more an 6 inches deep beneath any tree canopies.
3. If more than 15% of the - i ea beneath the canopy of a preserved tree is to be covered
with roadway; pervious paving, s b-grade aeration devices or other methods of assuring
access by air and water to cover:d roots must be provided (note enclosure).
Trees #11 and 41
Bridge reconstruction will require activity virtually touching tree #11, a 20 inch diameter
Coast Redwood in marginal condition and tree #44, a Coast Redwood in marginal health.
If road alignment further from #- 1, which results in the removal of trees #11 and 12 is
practical, that should be done to reduce impact on tree #41.
Protective wrapping as 3 layers •f snow-fencing or chainlink fence from ground to 8 feet
above ground shoul be installed around the trunks of any trees like #1, 27, 26, which are
close enough'to construction acti 'ty for trunks to be damaged by equipment.
In the case of trees 1, 2, 4 and •, a fence must be installed at the tree trunk on the north
side to extend to the dripline of ees #1 and 2 on the east and south. The same approach
must be used around tree #40. •
Storm Drain Trenches
All storm drain trencl hes should •e located on the plans and be designed to avoid traveling
beneath or within 10 feet of can pies.
3
. .
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
• OF PROPOSED GRADING ON TREES
AT THE DEER CREEK PROJECT, 27591
PURISSIMA ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
non-Construction Areas
Fences must be constructed before equipment arrives on site at least 5 feet beyond drip
lines to encircle individual trees or groups or trees which are not near actual construction,
as #14 and 16, 17 to 19, 40, 52 to 54, 59, 70, 64, 66 to 69 to prevent compression of soil
beneath canopies of trees by pickup trucks, tractors or automobiles.
The submitted plan has placed roadways andlhomesites in locations which cause the least
damage to retained trees while complying with the various requirements imposed on the
site.
Respectfully submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
BDC:la
Enclosures: Charts
. _
4
O CI C. L. - 1
(CII > 0 0 "6
.....&.
CO Co CD
03 V a) al -o- (a •ra
m m 44 _i I
cn 0 co 0 0 0 WO-
0 0 M 0 0 0 0 0 C 0
A) Du XI ID A) SD W 0.) 0:1 W
cn ' co m cn W C CD CD Cc) o
COD Re 00
2.7 7 w 71
0 7z 7
z 7
< 7 7 c
"0 if
0 4 cp < 0 a CD (D CD CD CD 1
(D ST) -'7: .E. Ell
CI CD , 0
33 cp *
a) > 0 0 0 9 o, 0 0 0 0 9, 0 F, 0
FT; so a)
A- ,c, o,
7k- 0. m
A)
A-
X •CD
w' 71C) 64 0 El 0
z „Lk' — . C:1
CD go L.,,) 0 •
z iT)
• 3
0 CD rrk CD CP MI 0
%V VI
W
I> w t•11
? .
ct"
DBH(inches) A
MULTI-STEM 4
0
i. DBH(inches) co
• v)
,
51
DBH(inches) co
0 co .41 4=.. cn cn - 4.1 HEIGHT co
=
0 0 0 0 0 o C) co . .-,.
I
.. n) 4:. G.) 03 •--,1 ; SPREAD
co ra 04 al , o 01 01 •0 I V
N.) ...c. — N3 N.) •N3 —.. 1\3 . HEALTH(1-5) (-J
z
• 9:
^)I 03 STRUCTURE (1-5) g.
co co co 03 C.3 .4. '
•
CROWN CLEANING
• I CROWN THINNING
'V
.
CROWN REDUCTION
CROWN
RESTORATION
po
cr
CROWN RAINING
S.
REMOVE
• . .p. ca ENDWEIGHT Z
co
co
• ca.
CABLES NEEDED 41 El)
—a —n
• PRUNING
....1. PRIORITIES (1-5)
' INSECTS (1-5)
TREE CROWN
.-.
DISEASES (1-5)
17)
...
DEAD WOOD (1-5) -13
D')
TRUNK DECAY co
ca 1-1:1
ROOT COLLAR
COVERED 11-51 co
S
I
ROOT COLLAR
DISEASE (1-5
DIAMETER
A IV ry 4),
0 in iyi • A m • --1 4,.. •P. AT 2 FT.
. . .
NEEDS FERTILIZER
•
NEEDS WATER
4_ 4_ 4_ RECOMMEND
REMOVAL
' . REMO'III ,
i ,..
/1
D C.- C. __
" _ _. _ _ I (7731
CP ll > 0 0
N COm —I 03 CO . _. . , _, co
CO ry " 0 CD
cn.71 o o o o o • o o 44>0
0 0 . . 0 o
cri 63 cb M a)
(0 a)
)
(0
(0 a
(0 a) a)(0
(0 (0 D) a)
CD =
o Ro co
;).
CD31
DJ
33
XI 33
D CD 33
D3
co Zr7 1:1 r-,••
ID CD CD CD C ›. 0
0 — a) 0. a a a a a 0. CD ST.). '41s, .5_ cc2 z
33 * * * * * * *
cn > 0 0 0 0 0 . i0 0 0 •o P.
-4 CD 0
0_ o
a o
a o 1 o
a I a o o
a a a)
--", ""ai .._,;$ 0
2
. ,..,, . ....,
CD . ) Lt.) n >
- ,,,B-
0 ,-,,s,
c0
3> ES 1-3
• o • E7,
Cl) I
cr) I
1‘, IV IV CO 1•—1 N) •—, —6 -
0 ..4. co DBH(inches)
MULTI-STEM 4
CD
co DBH(inzhes) E
Ca) ,
.
DBH(itches)
(7,
- co CD -. 1 CD co .CTI 4). HEIGHT co
o o o 0
0 .0_,..........v....a......,____,o, 0 , a
\
4), CO CO CO CO CO I SPREAD CD
iv 4). ry cn o o V
0
ry -... 1 CO CO IVN.) HEALTH(1-5)
01
STRUCTURE (1-5) g.
-& ry ry _. C° ry C.)
CROWN CLEANING
CROWN THINNING
. P-O
CROWN REDUCTION g
.6..
CROWN
RESTORATION n
Ph)
Cr
CROWN RAISING
tam)yr.
ENDVEIGHT ZcD
CD
- a.
CABLES NEEDED it c.)
PRUNING
I PRIORITIES (1-5)
INSECTS (1-5) A
11:1
TREE CROWN co
c0
DISEASES (1-5) "
, 0
.
DEAD WOOD (1-5)
• TRUNK DECAY co
o
ROOT COLLAR or
COVERED (1-51 ler
(q)
ROOT COLLAR
DISEASE (1-5 V
iv
N ... DIAMETER
4). ry r‘) .
c.,
.0 co •N.1 0 0ry C.11 CD AT 2 FT.
NEEDS FERTILIZER
• NEEDS WATER
..r.._ RECOMMEND
REMOVAL
. .
REMOVAL
' 7•1
,
. I
Measurements ®Condition ® Pruning/Cabling Needs ® Pest Disease Problems
U w O w
�� BARRIE D. COATE H q �
"`���"'
&ASSOCIATES 'l 0
0 Zo w ' ` AA �? % t1 w
N w A , , x@ F-
N w •----. `? p� a w E-, � � � � p � p w a � a � PG
Horticultural Consultants A E, A .A a U Md Tree# El a AIN HA A H oo aAE• � � o�a � f
A , 0 xw _ N al <4
1 7 Coast Redwood 1p n o 34 2 2 20
18Coast Redwood 2 9 100 4 2 2 2 30
•
19 Coast Redwood 2 7 pp ?p 1 22 8
•
2 0 Coast Redwood . 2 9 no o 3 0 2 2 1 co-dominant leader 31
21 Coast Redwood • 24..... .. 90 25 2 2 • snag top ?7-
•
•
—2 2 Coast Redwood- 1 8 60 20 5 _ dead — - — ——— —
19 q
23 Coast Redwood 24 110 30 1 2 27
2 4 Coast Redwood 27 110 30 1 2 30
JOB TITLE Deer Creek/Los Altos Hills •
JOB #02-94-041A '
DATE 11-8-94 • .
S
1=BEST, 5=WORST
pg. 3
c,
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs01„. Pest Disease Problems 0.
2 _ a
BARRIE D.COATE U U q '? 4 `e
"`����
&ASSOCIATES OE'ti o el
'? A L9:, t� a " .'
r w A 2 Ca ? O V .aa P' H
H A A `. U H a g x � k aw R a DA ow w 4141 4 �
Horticultural Consultants x H a .y ,_., an � H V w U � �.., � � �
(408)353-1052 m Q E+ U o > w r g U c4 F' 2 O
�' x x 2 a � a o 0 0 ow o a ° w a � o ow N w w C>' � � t
Plant Name 2 2 2 w WWFs s a aw til
„ P1 3 as g 1-1A q a o0 22 H wMIX
Tree# A A A m PG an U U U U OG U Z w U a s H p� V Qi A q A4 MIX
•
25 Coast Redwood 32 1 27 110 20 2 1 36/29
26'Coast Live Oak 9 15 18 1 19
27 Valley Oak 9.4 10 10 20 35 1 2 28"
Quercus lobata .
28 Coast Live Oak 10 15 20 1 3 remove for benfit of #27 27.
— --: ----: - -- -- -- --- and
neighbor's tree --
29 Canary Island Date Palm 23 30 15 2 1 ...
Phoenix canariensis
30 Canary Island Date Palm 23 30 15 2 1
- S1 Canary Island Date Palm 23 30 15 2 1
32 Canary Island Date Palm 23 30 15 2 1
JOB TITLE Deer Creek/Los Altos Hills
JOB #02-94-041A -
DATE 11-8-94
1=BEST, 5=WORST
Pg.4
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs ol. .44 Pest Disease Problems lio.
IMO II
5q
L9 o 40
0 2 BARRIE D. COATE
• 0 2 N
&ASSOCIATES
v
Horticultural Consultants . A vi, A A -.. 0 H 'p'4' . 1(DM .---' 2 Pis3 6 P4 IP1 A'-' '61 F+1-1 m El P lit ,
(408)353-.1052 a °,2 A a M Q NU ra >' 'Ri Pi OM ELI ul 0 rc,44 t-) E. E-; 02 CO 000
'-' (-1 (9 PI4 0 0 0 Ora I-1 0 PI t'l P4 4 E-' EOIN a a UM
Tree# Plant Name 0 P4 M L44 CI P4 N.
A A a2 m 0 U 0 0 rx o x pi U Pi 1:14 - - E-4 p4 () P4 A A 44 P4 ;4 04 P
A
•
• 33 Canary Island Date Palm 23 30 15 2 . .
•
34;Cana... Island Date Palm 23 .015 2
• .
. . • .
, • . . :
.•• • .•• ,
• . .•• , : , • • , • , :
. .
• . .. . ,
35 Canary Island Date Palm ' 23 30 15 2
•
. •
. .
36 Canary Island Date Palm . 23 38 15 1
. .
. •
•
37.Canary Island Date Palm 23 .. . 8 •1
• .
. .
38 Canary Island Date Palm 23 -- 28 15 1
39 Canary Island Date Palm 23 35 1.5 1 1
40 Coast Live Oak 23 35 30 21 • 26 •
. . ,
. .
•
• • _ . • . . •
. .
, . .
•
• , . ,.
• : . . , .
. . . . .,
. .
JOB TITLE Deer Creek/Los Altos Hills • • .' • •
. •
JOB #02-94-041A '
.
DATE 11-8-94 . ' ..
. _
, . •
•
• . .
. . ,
1=BEST, 5=WORST . . . .
. •. •
•
Pg.5 . • . . v
•
Measurements-440 Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs i Pest Disease Problems op
0BARRIE D.COATE U U O A a
&ASSOCIATES 11.1 uz 4 Tx a a ? A "' v. a
I
H w
•----- `. 0 Qa a ' ' aE.,
Horticultural Consultants NE., A A ? W P.-1k, H pA = 2 M H ; o wn oA ,4OaN
illit.
a 41P1 m 1:443 9 ca 0 xEo0 0 06 e # 02U UUUxR0 RI a o U H a NA A �
•
' 41 Coast Redwood 42 110 30 4 1 46
42 Coast Redwood 1 6 9 0 20 2 2 18
43;Coast Redwood 22 90 20 2 2 25
44 Coast Live Oak 24 30 20 3 4 damaging adjacent tree 4 26 4
45 Coast Live Oak 3 2 60 60 2 3 badly overthinned 3 36
46 California Bay124... 10 60 30 1 3 24..
Umbellularia californica
47 Coast Live Oak 33 . 35 60 1 35 1 1+ 4 36
..... .......
48 Coast Live Oak . 20 -4 18 22 40 80 1 3 3 3 2 4 36
JOB TITLE Deer Creek/Los Altos Hills .
JOB #02-94-041A
DATE 11-8-94
1=BEST, 5=WORST
P9.6 .
co II
m \\�•
vm mCDW ori cn A w rev 01
-� o = O n n O - n n cn , n. n .
� Nr m o m m o o (D Eu-
ro o o
crt eocom w a c c Ro Oa
v2i °7 a)• cna) 7 �. y
O � 41' ELIa, f�D �D m N CCa.D CD C • CDZ a w
XI
D 0 El00O a w O O a 22. O . o w G O
-j m w w w w —
cD x p� 3 I vo w n Y •
C
Ka. 2 - y f�
cn 7 I � N c ca cn
cn 3
2
Fi
cn o .p co :w N :co p I DBH(in.clLes) A
L L MULTI-STEM 4
co co DBH(inches)
. 0
!
DBH(inclLes) cp
C) a) cp
co 1 p 1 1 .. -P HEIGHT co
' cn cn O N co .- O O
N N N -+ N ." W 1 I SPREAD
cn O cn O O .no O En7
i
N) N W1 :1 1 :W 1 N HEALTH(1.5) a
CO —• N :w N �, ! STRUCTURE(1-5) o:
o
CROWN CLEANING
CROWN THINNING
a
3 CROW REDUCTION
to CROW
oo ! RESTORATION
a CROWN RAKING
co
e.
HEM°VE
ENDWEIGHT 1:'-c:
o
o
CABLES NEEDED # R'
PRUNING
PRIORITIES (1-5)
INSECTS (1-5) A.
TREE CROWN CD
v' . DISEASES (1-5)
DEAD WOOD (1-5)
ty
TRUNK DECAY b
.
- ROOT COLLAR °cam.
--. COVERED (1-5
' ROOT COLLAR P)
• DISEASE (1-5 V
1 N 1 co N 1 N DIAMETER
CD 0 CD in N w. 1 c".... : AT 2 FT.
NEEDS FERTILIZER
NEEDS WATER
•
RECOMMEND
REMOVAL
If REMOVAL
pipernRiTp 4.1 %II
--
13 .4. C- c-
CO ll > 0 0 as
....A.
co. ,C0 -I CD Ca 0) 0) cm .co 0) (r, cri cri CD
03 I\.) " ' 0 GO • 03 - 4*
000 0 0 0 •0 CI 0 W
:4 al 8 p
. . . 0 0 . 0 0 0
IP 40 'If: m a) 0 R.
. w
21 a tv o
a) a a)
u) a)
a co
co =
g R
COD ._ . 0
r el) 7 ri ei) 7 M ›.
0 '.!: a) <
a) ca X
a) 0
ca0
c) co
• co R
m ST) ZE giz
M c o. a = E 0 i.L•
0 cr 0 0 0 0 0 0
--I c7 CD CD
7C " A)
A' --% A)
X a) . -I CA
7 ....... ...„ — . p
co ..) n o>
3 .5 g tl 2
. a) ;._,; ,: ci)
(I) ,
1-3
4' FE
a
c7-7 tmi
o •
cro
, cri
_n
_.. •-` DBH(inches)
no o" o-' .c.0 co co co cri
4._ -e....
MULTI-STEM
DBH(incites)
a) . co
,-%
DBH(inches) CD
I
n) -&
n) n) _.. ca r‘) 1 HEIGHT CD
o
o 01 0 0 cri 01 01 o cf)
— . n o
SPREAD
N
-.. HEALTH(1-5) 0
a
fa:
• ,n)
N) cSTRUCTURE (1-5) g.o -, • _.. :0) a) a, ,
, a
• • ,
• CROWN CLEANING
CROWN THINNING
cr
I CROWN REDUCTION o.
alw
o CROWN
<
• a) RESTORATION e5
co
=
_ CROWN RAISING
'
m . ..
= ., it Emu V t,
a
cp
ENDWEIGHT Z
N) co
co
0..
CABLES NEEDED # c4
.....
, •
PRUNING
PRIORITIES (1-5)
. INSECTS (1-5) A
! 'V
TREE CROWN co
(.3
,
B
' DISEASES (1-5)
• , ,—
DEAD VOOD (1-5) (6'
TRUNKDECAY co
ROOT COLLAR 0
a'
COVERED (1-51 Frr
ROOT COLLAR
---- ---
DISEASE (1-5
-• _ Ir
-4,—
DIAMETER
_. _. .. " i
4). CO .../ 0 -.1. CO CO V AT 2 FT.
NEEDS FERTILIZER
NEEDS VATER --1
RECOMMEND
. I REMOVAL
[
REMOVAL
Measurements Condition Pruning/Cabling Needs 0.. .4 Pest Disease Problems ii...
ON- -illi
A
* ' a
0 BARRIE D.COATE 2
q
Fil 2--
&ASSOCIATES 0 4Z 1;7 — - 1:
_L-7 Ed
ivLi r4 A 2 g a
rticultural Consultants r±i
(9 rzi r4 r-1-1 n 0E1 841 P4 . w A > to. P-
(408)353-1052
0 N ric,!,2 9,2 oocq
_ H ''' 0 0 0 ov2 il 2 r4 pla 0, 0 P4 ,1 Ill 41 U X{ ail i.
- P14
Tree# HoPlant Name PI 0 '' ik- Fil fo-21 (cj kcj G4 ij 'cl4' 242 o ,4. fll R fl n Ec5. ° ° C) 4 H G144141V
—65-Coast-Redwood 1-5 20-12 —2-4 f7 li
66 Arizona Cypress 12 q 10 10 28 25 3 1 18/12
Cupressus glabra
67 beodar Cedar 10 28 18 2 1 12
68 Deodar Cedar 10 11 6 25 15 3 1 . . 12/6
69'Deodar Cedar 12 30 15 1 2 13
•
—7-0-Coast-Beefwood ' 2-4 25t8 —1-4- has-been topped-- 2T
Causarina cunninghamiana
71 Deodar Cedar 17 40 30 3 3 girlded at 8' 19 li
72 Deodar Cedar 19 40 35 2 1 21
. .
JOB TITLE Deer Creek/Los Altos Hills '
JOB #02-94-041A
DATE 11-8-94
1=BEST, 5=WORST , ot
pg.9
. A
BARRIE D. COA fE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticultural Consultants
408-3534052
23535 Summit Road..Los Gatos.CA 95030
ASSUMPTIONS AND, LIMITING CONDITIONS
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
Any titles and ownerships to any property are assumed to be good and marketable.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the
quality of any title.
2. It is assumed that any property is not in violation of any applicable codes, ordinances, statutes,or
other governmental regulations.
•
3. Care has been taken to obtain allinformation from reliable sources. All data has been verified
insofar as possible;however,the appraiser/consultant'can neither guarantee nor be responsible
for accuracy of information provided by others.
1
4. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of
this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services. ' -
5. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisalevaluation.
6. Possession of this report or a copy thereofdoes not imply right of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s)to whom it is addressed without written consent of this
appraiser/consultant.
•
7. Neither all nor any part of the contents of this report, nor copy thereof,shall be used for any
purpose by anyone but the client to whom it;is addressed;without the prior written consent of the
appraiser/consultant; nor shall it be conveyed by anyone,.including the client,to the public
through advertising, public relations, news,sales or other media,without the written consent and
approval of the author, particularly as to value considerations, identity of the appraiser/consultant
or any professioinai society or institute or to any initialed designation conferred upon the
appraiser/consultant as stated in his/her qualifications. •
8. This report and the values expressed herein representthe opinion of the appraiser/consultant,
and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified
value nor upon any finding to be reported.
9. Sketches,diagrams, graphs, photos,etc. in this report,being intended as visual aids, are not
necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys.
•
10. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisalevaluation/diagnostic reporting
techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture.
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EXPECTED EFFECTS
OF PROPOSED GRADING ON TREES
AT :1 DEER CREEK PROJECT
27591 P ' SIMA ROAD,LOS ALTOS HILLS -
•
ERRATA SHEET
On page three of subject do ent; incorrect reference is made to tree#44, a Coast
Redwood as follows:
"Trees#L 1 and 41
Bridge reconstruction ' ' require activity virtually touching tree#11, a 20
inch diaiieter Coast R-•wood in marginal condition and tree#44, a Coast
Redwood in marginal h-alth.
The above paragraph is hereby orrected to read as follows:
Trees#.1L and 41 ..
Bridge reconstruction require activity virtually touching tree#11, a 20
inch diameter Coast R-•wood in marginal condition and tree#41, a Coast
Redwood in marginal h=alth.
This Errata Sheet, once execute by Barrie D. Coate, becomes a part of the above entitled
report and officially corrects th reference to tree#44.in the original document.
Signed:
BARRIE D. COATE AND AS OCIATES
By: Barrie D. CI ate..
Date
• 501 ANlt,ALr.�buuit LS ttLl'(rKtI
27591 PURISSIMA ROAD,LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA
SETTING
The project site is a four-acre parcel! on the east side of Purissima Road, between
Elena Road and Viscaino Drive in Los Altos Hills, California. A three-lot subdivision is
proposed. This botanical resources report provides supporting information for an Initial
Study that is required under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
The site is flat from Purissima Road to just east of Deer Creek, which flows
across the site generally from south to north. Deer Creek is defined as an intermittent
stream on the USGS Palo Alto quadrangle; it has been observed to flow in the summer
(S. Paboojian, personal communication). From the creek to the eastern edge of the
property the topography slopes up to a knoll between two swales. The site was
previously developed with a single family residence which has been removed.
Surrounding land uses are residential.
METHODS
A site visit was made in late May 1995 to determine vegetation communities and
whether the habitat of sensitive plant species is present on site. The California Native
Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants was consulted for a
listing of rare plant species known to occur in the area. Personnel from the California
Department of Fish and Game were also consulted regarding agency concerns.
Information regarding trees is based on a tree report for the site prepared by Barrie
Coate and Associates (February 17, 1994).
RESULTS
There are two vegetation communities at the site: a riparian zone along the creek,
and non-native annual grassland with native and ornamental tree plantings over the rest
of the site. The site has been significantly affected by previous use and does not contain
rare plant species or the habitat which could support rare plant species.
The riparian zone is a narrow band of water-dependent vegetation along Deer
Creek. The dominant tree is Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), which was planted
there; other trees in the riparian zone include Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), English
walnut (Juglans sp.), European olive (Olea europaea), California bay (Umbellularia
californica), and Willow (Salix sp.). The dominant understory species is Periwinkle
(Vinca major); other.understory plants include California blackberry (Rubus ursinus),
California rose (Rosa californica), Mugwori (Artemisia douglasii), and Elderberry
(Sambucus sp.).
Outside of the riparian zone the site contains non-native annual grassland
dominated by oats (Avena barbata) and rye grass (Lolium multiflorum). Other species
observed which represent the disturbed nature of the grassland include Ripgut brome
(Bromus diandrus), Vetch (Vida sp.), Foxtail barley (Hordeum jubatum ), Dock (Rumex
crispus), Bur clover (Medicago sp.), Mallow (Malva parviflora), Bristly ox-tongue (Picris
echioides), Radish (Raphanus saliva), and Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus).
May 30, 1995 Thomas Reid Associates
.,v,u„u,al Resu,.,yes rcepu,, _i)91 r.. wall rage 2;* <_
r
Trees outside of the ri arian zone include Coast live oak (16 trees), Valley oak
(Quercus lobata 1 tree), Cana y island date palm (Phoenix canariensis; 11 trees), Giant
sequoia (Sequoiadendron giga teum; 1 tree), Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara; 9 trees),
Cork oak (Quercus suber; 1 tree), Arizona cypress (Cupressus glabra; 1 tree), Coast
beefwood (Casuarina cunning/l}amiana ; 1 tree), and several different fruit trees, which
were found to beI in poor condition by Barrie Coate and Associates.
IMPACTS
The driveway for the pfoject requires the removal of seven trees, including two
Coast redwoods, four Canary Island date palms, one Giapt sequoia, and one Deodar
cedar. One Coast live oak would be affected by the leachfield for lot 2. The tree report
documents 72 trees at the site most of which are healthy, and would be retained.
The project would not affect any rare or endangered plant species.
The project would not result in significant impacts to botanical resources.
MITIGATION �
Although the removal of seven trees by the project is not a significant impact, the
California Department of Fish and Game recommends the replacement of oak trees
removed by development in o oder to replace wildlife habitat. The replacement ratio is
three trees planted for each tr•e removed. One Coast live oak tree would be adversely
impacted by the leachfield for lot 2. It is recommended that a grouping of three Coast
live oak trees be planted at th• project site, as mitigation for the loss of this tree.
REFERENCES
Literature
Barrie D. Coate and • .sociates. February 17, 1994. "A Survey of the Health and
Structure of therees at the eer Creek Project 27591 Purissima Road Los Altos Hills".
Barrie D. Coate and Associate Horticultural Consultants, 23535 Summit Road, Los
Gatos, CA, Job #02-94-041.
California Native Plant Society. May 30, 1995. "inventory of Rare and
Endangered Vascular Plants o California - Full Data Report for Rare Plants on the
Palo Alto Quadrangle". California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California.
1
Hickman, James C., Editor. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of
California . University of California Press, Berkeley and Los Angeles, California
Persons Contacted
California Department of Fish and Game
Combs, Gary. Warden.
DeWald, ,Jeannine. Wildlife Biologist. '
May 30, 1995 Thomas Reid Associates