HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.2ITEM 3.2
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 4 , 2014
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: TENTATIVE MAP FOR A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION: LANDS OF ENERGY-
EFFICIENT SUSTAINABLE PERSONAL RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC ,
13651 BURKE ROAD. FILE #238-14-TM
FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consultant Planner t~
APPROVED BY: Suzanne Avila, Interim Planning Director 5J\
RECOMMENDATION
That the Planning Commission:
Forward a recommendation to the City Council for approval of the Tentative Map ,
including tree removal, based on the findings in Attachment #2 and subject to the
Conditions of Approval in Attachment # 1.
TENTATIVE MAP REVIEW
In order to approve a subdivision, the Planning Commission must determine that the
project is consistent with the General Plan, Subdivision and Zoning Regulations, and that
none of the findings for denial can be made , as specified in Section 66474 of the State
Subdivision Map Act. Staff has prepared findings for approval of the project as shown in
Attachment #2 . Comments on the Tentative Map have been received from the Town
Geotechnical Consultant, Santa Clara County Environmental Health Department, Santa
Clara County Fire Department, PG&E, California Water Service, the Environmental
Design Committee, and the Pathways Committee ; and are attached for the Planning
Commission 's review (Attachment #3). Neighboring residents and property owners
within 500 feet of the site have been notified of the public hearing.
BACKGROUND
The subject 2 .67 acre property is located at 13651 Burke Road and is bounded on three
sides by Burke Road , Old Altos Road and Fremont Road. The existing parcel is currentl y
developed with one single famil y residence , a swimming pool, detached garage , sheds
and a second unit. Most of the structures were built in the early 1950 's while the main
home was built in 1946. All of these structures have been vacant for some time and are
in disrepair. The property is co vered with a variety of trees , shrubs and ground covers
and according to the Arborist Report , is overgrown.
PROJ E CT DESCRIPTION
Th e applicant is requesting approval of a two-lot subdi v ision of an ex isting 2.67 (gross)
acre parc e l located between Fremont Road , Old Altos Road and Burke Road. The
property is sunounded by resid ential properties developed with a mix of one and two
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4, 2014
Page 2 of 11
story dwellings. The site is gently sloping with an average 7.60% slope that descends
west to east toward Burke Road.
Existing Development
Gross Net Ave. Slope LUF MDA MFA
Acreage Acreage (%) (sq. ft) (sq. ft)
Existing 2.670 2.402 7.60 2.402 36,030 14,412 Site
Proposed Development
Lot Gross Net Ave. Slope LUF MDA MFA
Acreage Acreage (%) (sq . ft) (sq. ft)
A 1.498 1.392 6.13 1.392 20,880 8,352
B 1.172 1.009 9.63 1.009 15,135 6,054
Lot Design and Building Sites
Lot A is 1.392 net acres with an average slope of 6.13%; Lot B is 1.009 net acres with a
slope of 9.63%. The Tentative Map includes 160-foot diameter building circles on each
lot , showing that each contains a viable building site.
Sheet TM-3 of the Tentative Map plan set shows conceptual site design, building
footprints, driveways , and drainage installations . This development is conceptual and is
intended to show that both lots can be developed to meet Town standards .
The applicant submitted a Historical and Architectural Evaluation report prepared by
Bonnie Bamburg of Urban Programmers dated June 30, 2014 (Attachment #4). This
report reviewed the structures on the property to determine the potential historic or
architectural significance of the buildings. It was determined, that the buildings on the
property do not have significant historical associations and are not significant to the
historical or architectural heritage of the Town of Los Altos Hills .
Trees
The applicant is requesting removal of twenty four (24) trees with the subdivision.
Sixteen (16) of those trees are Heritage Oaks and eight (8) are other species with a trunk
diameter of 20 inches or greater. Two Arborist reports have been prepared for the
property , one by Kielty Arborist Services dated February 24 , 2014 (Attachment #5) and
another by Urban Tree Management dated October 27 , 2014 (Attachment #6).
The site is very overgrown with a variety of trees, shrubs and ivy. The applicant would
like to clean the site and remove 24 trees as shown on sheet TRE-1 of the plan set.
According to the two reports , it is necessary to remove some of the overcrowded trees for
the benefit of other trees that have a higher condition rating. Some trees suggested for
removal are in poor condition and some have structural problems. In addition , two of the
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4 , 2014
Page 3 of 11
Bay trees on site have tested positive for Sudden Oak Death and should be removed
immediately. Staff concurs with the applicant's arborist that the removal of the listed
trees would represent good h01iicultural practices.
The following table illustrates the trees proposed for removal.
Tree Species Size Condition
Number (DBH inches)
6 Canary island pine 21 Low Vigor
8 Bay laurel 22.9 Has Sudden Oak Death
9 Canary island pine 28.1 Low vigor
11 Coast live oak 14.1, 13.3 Poor form, decay
12 Coast live oak 15.2 Prone to limb failure, leans south
15 California pepper 36 Poor form, structural faults
20 Coast live oak 16.4 Structural faults
21 Coast live oak 16 Structural faults
22 Coast live oak 31.7 Limb failure
23 Coast live oak 15 .1 Poor vigor
33 Incense cedar 21.8 Very thin, leans southwest
52 Coast live oak 15 Poor form
56 Blue oak 30.9 Fair vigor, tree falling apart
57 Coast live oak 16.3 Leans heavily, remove for density
65 Coast live oak 16.2 Remove for density
66 Coast live oak 24 Remove for density
67 Coast live oak 26.7 Remove for density
69 Deodor cedar 30.1 Structural fault, out of character
72 Douglas fir 30.1 Weak wooded, out of character
91 Coast live oak 12.4 Poor form
95 Coast live oak 28.8 Poor form
98 Coast live oak 13.9, 14.8 Poor form
114 Bay Laurel 5 , 14 Has Sudden Oak Death
116 Coast live oak 24 Poor form , leans east
The heritage oaks to be removed are required to be replaced on a 2: 1 ratio with 36 inch
box size oak trees. The other species are required to be replaced on a 2: 1 ratio with
native 15 gallon trees. All planting shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning
Director and must be planted prior to recordation of the Final Map (see Condition #3).
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4 , 2014
Page 4 of 11
Summary of proposed removal:
Species To be Tree Number
Removed
Heritage Oaks 16 11, 12 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23, 52 , 56, 57, 65 ,
66,67,91,95,98, 116
Other Species 8 6, 8, 9 , 15, 33 , 69, 72, 114
over 20" DBH
Utilities
Replacement
2:1 Ratio
32
36" Box Size
16
15 Gallon Native
Water supply will be provided by California Water Service . PG&E will provide gas and
electric services, Pacific Bell will provide telephone service and Comcast will provide
cable service. All utilities are required to be placed underground.
Both lots will be tied into the Town 's sanitary sewer system. An encroachment permit
must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all work performed within the
public right-of-way (see condition #19).
Access
Driveway access for Lot A will come from Old Altos Road and Lot B from Burke Road .
Both Old Altos and Burke Road are publically maintained roads. A 10 foot wide right-
of-way easement is required to be granted along all road frontages so that a 30 foot half
street can be accomplished.
Geotechnical Review
The Town 's Geotechnical Consultant, Cotton, Shires and Associates has reviewed the
proposed Tentative Map and Geologic Investigation provided by the applicant (Romig
Engineers dated July 2014). Cotton, Shires and Associates reported that the project
geotechnical consultant has adequately characterized site conditions and recommended
appropriate geotechnical design criteria for future residential development on the
proposed lots. Cotton, Shires and Associates recommends approval of the Tentative Map
with requirements related to future residential development of Lots A and B (see
conditions #10 and #11).
Drainage
All proposed parcels naturally drain to the east over the site and will be required to
maintain the existing flow patterns, using surface flow designs whenever possible.
Subdivision improvement plans will be required to be submitted with the final map
application lot submittal.
The applicant 's engineer submitted information pertaining to Adobe Creek from Flood
Insurance Rate Map Panel 3 8. A small portion of the proposed right of way easement is
located within the Adobe Creek flood area. This small area falls within the proposed
road right of way and will not affect the individual parcels .
ESPRD -Tentativ e Map
December 4 , 2014
Page 5 of 11
COMMITTEE REVIEW
Subdivision Committee Conference
The Subdivision Committee comprised of Commissioner Tankha, the Interim Planning
Director, the Consultant Planner, the City Engineer and the Assistant Engineer convened
on October 7 , 2014 to review and discuss the subdivision proposal. Pursuant to Section
9-1.509 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, neighbors within 500 feet of the property
were notified of the hearing. One neighbor attended the conference and spoke in favor of
the project as well as stating a concern about keeping the pathways safe during
construction. Staff also received emails from adjacent neighbors supp01iing the project.
The hearing report is attached (Attachment #7).
Environmental Design and Protection Committee
The Committee commented that according to the Arborist Report, four coast live oaks
(numbers 35, 39, 82 and 93) are in good condition and should be retained. The applicant
intends to preserve these trees. Sixty nine trees are in fair condition and 42 trees are in
poor to bad condition. The Committee requested that as many of the good trees be
retained as possible because the trees are one of the parcel 's main attributes.
Pathway Committee
The Pathway Committee recommended that the subdi vider construct a type IIB path
along the Fremont Road right of way, that the roadside path along Burke Road be
restored to a ty pe IIB path standard, and that all pathways be restored as needed
following construction.
ENVIRONMENT AL REVIEW
In compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), this project is
Categorically Exempt per Section 15315 , Minor Land Divisions , which allows division
of property into four or fewer parcels when the division is in conformance with the
General Plan and Zoning , no variances or exceptions are required , all services and access
to the proposed parcels to local standards are available , the parcel was not involved in a
division of a larger parcel within the previous 2 years, and the parcel does not have an
average slope greater than 20 percent.
CONCLUSIONS
Staff has concluded the proposed subdivision is in compliance with the General Plan and
Subdivision Ordinance , and would allow dev elopment to occur that meets the provisions
of the Zoning and Site Development Ordinances. Staff has prepared positive findings in
Attachment #2.
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4 , 2014
Page 6 of 11
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval
2. Recommended Findings for Subdivision Approval
3. Comment letters:
4 .
a. Cotton, Shires and Associates letter dated 9-19-2014
b. Santa Clara County Environmental Health Depmiment email dated 9-11-2014
c . Santa Clara County Fire Department comments , 9-10-2014
d. PG&E letter , dated 10-6-2014
e. Santa Clara County Environmental Health email dated 9-11-2014
f. California Water Service email dated 9-10-2014
g. Environmental Design and Protection Committee email dated 9-29-2014
h. Pathway Committee memo dated 8-25-2014
Historical and Architectural Evaluation dated 6-30-2014
5 . Arborist report prepared by Kielty Arborist Services dated 2-24-2014 .
6. Arborist report prepared by Urban Tree Management dated 10-27-2014
7 .
8.
9 .
10.
Subdivision Committee hearing report, October 7 , 2014
Emails from adjacent prope1iy owners
Letter from the Applicant dated received 10-7-2014
Tentative Map plan set (Commission only)
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4 , 2014
Page 7 of 11
ATTACHMENT 1
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR THE TWO LOT
TENTATIVE MAP SUBDIVISION OF A 2 .67-ACRE PARCEL
LANDS OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT SUSTAINABLE PERSONAL RESIDENCE
DEVELOPMENT, LLC , 13651 BURKE ROAD
FILE #23 8-14-TM
PLANNING
1. Payment of park and recreation dedication fees and all other applicable fees shall be
required prior to recordation of the Final Map. The park and recreation dedication
fees shall be provided in accordance with sections 9 .1.1403 and 9 .1.1404 of the Los
Altos Hills Municipal Code.
2. The applicant shall defend , indemnify, and hold harmless the Town of Los Altos Hills
and its agents , officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against
the Town of Los Altos Hills or its agents, officers , or employees to attack, set aside,
void, or annul an approval of the project to the extent such actions are brought within
the time period required by Government Code Section 66499.37 or other applicable
law; provided , however, that the Applicant's duty to so defend, indemnify, and hold
harmless shall be subject to the Town 's promptly notifying the Applicant of any said
claim , action, or proceeding and the Town 's full cooperation in the defense of such
actions or proceedings.
3 . The applicant shall remove only trees indicated for removal on sheet TRE-1.
Heritage oak trees (16 trees) removed shall be replaced with 36 " box size oak trees at
a ratio of 2: 1. Other specimens (8 trees) shall be replaced with native 15 gallon trees
at a 2: 1 ratio. A planting plan shall be submitted to the Planning Director for review
and approval, prior to plant installation. All planting shall be complete prior to
recordation of Final Map.
4 . The Tree Protection Plan as described in the Arborist Report prepared by Kielty
Arborist Services dated February 24 , 2014 shall be implemented during construction.
5. Prior to beginning any grading or construction operations , all significant trees shall be
fenced at the dripline; and shall be of material and structure to clearly delineate that
dripline. Town staff must inspect the fencing and trees to be fenced prior to starting
grading or construction. The fence must remain in place throughout the course of
construction . No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the
driplines.
6. All existing septic systems must be abandon in accordanc e with Santa Clara County
Env ironmental Health Department standards.
7. Upon discovering or unearthing any possible burial site as ev idenced by human
skeletal remains or artifacts , the person making such disco very shall immediatel y
ESP RD -Tentative Map
December 4, 2014
Page 8 of 11
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 or individual lot development.
8. The addresses for the two parcels shall be assigned and approved by the Town as
required by the Santa Clara County Fire Department and in accordance with Town
policies .
9. The new residences on Lots A and B shown on the Tentative Map Conceptual
Development Plan are conceptual only, and no approval of any residence is indicated
by approval of the Tentative Map. Site development applications for the new
residences shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.
10. Demolition permits for the existing residences may be obtained once the Tentative
Map is approved.
11 . All public pathways shall be kept clear during construction unless authorized by the
Engineering Department. All adjacent pathways shall be restored as needed
following construction.
GEOTECHNICAL
12. Parcel A -If future development plans do not include a full basement beneath the
residence, then updated geotechnical design recommendations shall be prepared and
final site development permit documentation submitted to the Town for review by the
Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of permits for site grading or
construction .
13 . Parcel B -The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review the Town Geologist
letter dated September 19, 2014 regarding Parcel B and update geotechnical design
recommendations as warranted to address final site development plans . The final site
development layout plan and supporting geotechnical documentation shall be
submitted to the Town for review by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to
issuance of permits for site grading or construction.
LAND AND EASEMENT DEDICATION
14. The applicant shall relocate or abandon existing public utility easements and grant
new public utility easements where needed to all utility companies for utility
construction and maintenance , including but not limited to : AT&T Telephone
Company , Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Comcast Cable Television, and
California Water Company. The dedications shall all be completed in conjunction
with Final Map approval , to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
15 . The applicant shall dedicate additional right of way easement to create 30 ' wide half
width right of way over Fremont Road , Burke Road , and Old Altos Road . The
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4, 2014
Page 9 of 11
dedications shall be completed in conjunction with the Final Map approval , to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
IMPROVEMENTS
16. A Subdivision Improvement Plan which includes an Erosion and Sedimentation
Control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the City Engineer as part
of the Subdivision Improvement Plans. This plans 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 sediment erosion
control including but not limited to: a) restricting grading during the moratorium from
October 15 to April 15; b) protecting all finished graded slopes from erosion using
such techniques as hillside benching, erosion control matting and/or hydroseeding ; c)
protecting downstream storm drainage inlets from sedimentation; d) appropriate use
of sediment rolls to retain sediment on the project site ; e) any other suitable measures
outlined in the ABAG Manual of Standards.
17. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public water system to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer and California Water Company. Services shall be
installed to the property lines or be bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.
An encroachment permit shall be required to be issued by the Public Works
Department for all work proposed within the public right of way . Any necessary fees
shall be paid prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
18. All existing and proposed utilities located within the subdivision that serve 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 the location of all such utilities are to
be included in the improvement plans for the subdivision. Improvements shall be
installed or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map.
19. All lots within the subdivision shall be connected to the public sanitary sewer system.
An encroachment permit must be obtained from the Public Works Department for all
work proposed within the public right of way. Services shall be installed to the
property lines or bonded for prior to the recordation of the Final Map.
20. A Grading and Construction Operation plan shall be submitted by the subdivider for
review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to issuance of
any permits for subdivision improvements . The Grading/Construction Operation plan
shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise , and vehicular and pedestrian
safety on Burke Road, Fremont Road, and Old Altos Road; storage of construction
materials; placement of sanitary facilities; parking for construction vehicles; and
parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on
site for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the
Green Waste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box , since they have a franchise with the
Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4, 2014
Page 10 of 11
21 . The subdivider shall construct a type 2B pathway along Fremont Road and Burke
Road within the right of way easement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An
encroachment permit is required for all work within the public right of way prior to
start of work .
22. Improvement plans for the subdivision shall be submitted for review and approval by
the Town Engineer prior to commencement of improvement work.
23. All subdivision improvements shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the Town
Engineer or bonded for prior to recordation of the Final Map .
24. All subdivision conditions of approval and subdivision improvements shall be
constructed and approved by the Town Engineer prior to issuance of any site
development or building permits .
25 . Any , and all , wells on the property shall be shown on the Improvement Plans , shall be
properly registered with Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), and shall be
abandoned, capped in accordance with the SCVWD standards.
26 . All existing improvements located within the building setback lines shall be removed
prior to recordation of the Final Map.
FIRE DISTRICT
27. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in all future homes on
Lot A and Lot B .
28. Each newly created parcel shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather
surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6
inches , minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside , and a
slope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and
Specifications sheet D-1.
29. Each newly created parcel shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway
turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations
shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1 .
30. Each newly created parcel shall provide address numbers , in a position that is plainly
legible and visible from the street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall
contrast with their background. Address numbers shall be Arabic numbers or
alphabetical letters . Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches high with a minimum
stroke width of 0 .5 inch .
31. All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the CFC Chapter 33
and our Standard Detail and Specifications SI-7.
ESPRD -Tentative Map
December 4, 2014
Page 11 of 11
ATTACHMENT 2
ATTACHMENT 2
RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR THE TWO LOT
TENTATIVE MAP SUBDIVISION OF A 2.67-ACRE PARCEL
LANDS OF ENERGY-EFFICIENT SUSTAINABLE PERSONAL
RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT, LLC, 13651 BURKE ROAD
FILE #23 8-14-TM
1. The subdivision as proposed would create two lots: Lot A would be 1.392 acres
in size, with a Lot Unit Factor of 1.392; Lot B would be 1.009 acres in size, with a
Lot Unit Factor of 1.009. Each parcel would provide a viable building site. In
this and all other respects, the lots conform to the Los Altos Hills Subdivision
Ordinance.
2. The proposed subdivision would create two lots that would meet the General Plan
guidelines for land with an average slope between 10 and 30 percent, and in all
other respects will be consistent with the General Plan.
3. Access to the proposed lots will be provided from the existing public roads.
Adequate services including water, gas and electric, telephone, fire protection and
police protection are available to serve the subdivision as described in the staff
report. Future development on the two parcels will require connection of each
parcel to the public sanitary sewer system. The parcel is suitable for the proposed
density.
4. All lots as proposed on the Tentative Map are physically suitable for the proposed
future development. The property is relatively flat, has no creeks or streams and is
not located within a special study zone. The Arborist Repo11 prepared for this
property recommends removal of several trees that are in poor or declining health
and proves to be good horticultural practice.
5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are not likely to
cause serious public health problems. It has been determined that each of the
proposed lots contains a suitable building site, and that the proposed density is
consistent with the General Plan .
6. The Town 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 the property within
the proposed subdivision.
~ COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. ~ CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
TO:
SUBJECT:
RE:
Suzanne Avila
Acting Planning Director
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, California 94022
Geotechnical Peer Review
EESPRD LLC, Two Lot Subdivision
#238-14-TM
13651 Burke Road
ATTACHMENT 3
Se ptember 19, 2014
L5204
RECEIVED
SEP 2 2 2014
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the proposed
subdivision and Tentative Map Application using:
• Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared b y Romig Engineers,
Inc., date d July 18, 2014;
· Tentative Map Exhibits (4 sheets, 20-cscale) prepared by Lea & Braze
Engineering, Inc., dated June 30, 2014; and
• Topographic Survey (2 sheets, 20-scale) prepare d by Lea & Braze
Engineering, Inc., dated November 11, 2011.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent documents a nd maps from our office
fil es i"nd cor 01r1 eted a recent site r eco nn ais~ance .
DISC:USSION
The applicant proposes to subdivide an ex isting 2.67 acre parcel into two n ew
parcels. The proposed subdivision would create Parcel A to the west, a 1.4 acre parcel
w ith an average slope of 6.21 % and Parcel B to the east, a 1.002 acre p a rce l with an
average slope of 9.55 %. Parce l A would be accessed v ia a driveway from Old A ltos
A venue Access to the north of the prope rty. Parcel B would b e accessed via a driveway
from Burke Road to the southeast of th e property.
Northern California Office
330 Vi ll age Lane
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852
Central California Office
6417 Dogtown Road
San Andreas, CA 95249 -9640
(209) 736-4252 •Fax (209) 736 -1212
www.cottonshires.com
Southern California Office
550 St. Ch arl es Drive, Suite 108
Th o u sand Oaks, CA 91360-3995
(805) 497 -7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933
Suzarn1e Avila
Page2
SITE CONDITIONS
September 19, 2014
L5204
The existing property is characterized by a subtle north to northwest trending
ridge that bisects the property. The top of the ridge is relatively flat. The slopes of the
eastern and western flanks are both gentle, however, the eastern flank (15-percent) is
slightly steeper than the western flank (11-perecent). The proposed subdivision creates
a property line on the eastern edge of the ridge top leaving the majority of the ridge top
and western flank on Parcel A and the eastern flank on Parcel B. Drainage is generally
characterized by sheetflow to the east and west. Existing improvements at the site
include a residence, guest house, garage and pool.
Based on the Town Geologic Map and data from the referenced geotechnical
report, the majority of Parcel A is underlain at shallow depths by sandstone bedrock of
the Santa Clara Formation. Parcel B is also mapped as being underlain, at depth, by
Santa Clara Formation bedrock, however, the referenced report indicates that at least
8.5 feet of residual clayey soils overlie the bedrock in this location. The San Andreas
Fault is located 4.6 miles to the southwest of the property and a trace of the Monta Vista
Fault is mapped 1 mile to the southwest of the property.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The lots created by the proposed subdivision are constrained by potentially
expansive earth materials and strong seismic ground shaking. Parcel B is further
constrained by an undetermined potential for flooding of Adobe Creek. We w1derstand
that potential flooding issues will be addressed to the satisfaction of the Town Engineer.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant has completed a site investiga tion that is in
general conformance with prevailing standards of geotechnical practice. The Consultant
has concluded that the proposed subdivision is feasible from a geotechnical perspective,
a .d W'~ conn~: ~·:it.1-i this conclusion . Consequently, \ e reccmunend geotechnical
approval of the proposed Tentative Map application.
In addition, the Consultant has provided recommended geotechnical design
criteria for development of the subdivided lots . The Consultant recommends mat
tmmdations for proposed basements and continuous spread footings for at grade
portions of shuctures. Recommendations for a pier foundation are also provided
specifying a minimum of 8 foot of embedment below the bottom of the associated grade
beams. The Consultant's recommendations assume that development of Parcel A will
include a residence with a full basement and that development of Parcel B will include
a residence with a partial basement. We do not anticipate objections to site development
or building pennits on Parcel A, assuming the final development plans include a
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Suzanne Avila
Page3
September 19, 2014
L5204
residence with a full basement. If future development plans for Parcel A do not include
a full basement, then modified development plans should be reviewed from a
geotechnical perspective.
Regarding the future residential development layout on Parcel B, we
understand that the main residence may include a partial basement with an adjacent at-
grade floor level. Completed borings in the vicinity of the house site did not determine
the depth to bedrock, and we are concerned that a mat basement fom1dation combined
with shallow spread footings (for at-grade portions of the residence) may result in
differential bearing conditions and possibly adverse differential settlement across the
house. If shallow footings are used for at-grade portions of the structure, then adjoining
basement walls should be designed for anticipated surcharge loads. We recommend
that updated geotechnical design recommendations be prepared for final proposed
structures on Parcel B and that supporting documentation be reviewed by the Town
Geotechnical Consultant.
In summary, we recommend geotechnical approval of the subject
Tentative Map with the following conditions attached to future residential development
permit applications for each lot:
1. Parcel A-If future development plans do not include a full
basement beneath the residence, then updated geotechnical
design recommendations should be prepared and final site
development permit documentation submitted to the Town for
review by the Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to issuance of
permits for site grading or construction.
2. Parcel B -The Project Gcotechnical Consultant should review the
above noted comments regarding Parcel B and update
geotechnical design recommendations as warranted to address
final site development plans . The final site development lay out
plan and supporting geotechnical documentation should be
submitted to the Town for review by the Town Geotechnical
Consultant prior to issua.."'1.c e of p ermits for sit e grading or
construction.
LIMITATIONS
This geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to
assist the Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited
to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property.
Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Suzanne Avila
Page4
Septe mber 19, 2014
L5204
principles and practices of the geoteclmical profess ion. This warranty is in lie u of all
other warranties, either ex pre ssed or implie d .
TS:TPS :AM:kd
Res p ectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULT ANT
Ted Sayre
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1795
~~
Timothy P . Sneddon
Supervising Geotechnical Engineer
GE 2809
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Cynthia Richardson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
13651 Burke Rd subdivision
Jorgensen, Nicole < Nicole.Jorgensen@deh.sccgov.org >
Thursday, September 11, 2014 2:55 PM
Cynthia Richardson ; Jorgensen , Nicole
13651 Burke Rd subdivision
It is my understanding that the subdivision will require both properties to connect to the public sanitary sewer.
If there are any existing septic tanks on-site they need to be abated .
Contact the Department of Environmental Health for abatement fees and to schedule the inspection.
-Nicole
Nicole Jorgensen, Senior REHS
Consumer Protection Division
Department of Environmental Health
Santa Clara County
1555 Berger Drive, Suite 300
San Jose , CA 95112 -2716
(408) 918 -3492
Nico le .Jo rgensen@deh .sccgov .o rg
1
RECEIVED
FIRE DEPARTMENT Sb 15 2o· @-. ·. m-.
SANT A CLARA COUNTY . .
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HI LL~ ~
14 700 W inchester Blvd ., Los Gatos , CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax)• www.sccfd .org
REVIE~~~ 14 2475
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
BLDG
PERMIT No.
Review of a proposed minor s ubdivision, creating two lots from one existing lot. No construction is
proposed at this time. Plans do appear to show proposed locations of structures on both lots and
pr:Jposed driveways. Included herein are typical conditions for new single-family dwellings in this
cJmmunity, based on the location of this property. THIS IS NOT A CONSTRUCTION PLAN
I~LVIEW.
C8mment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
W'.!.ter supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a
sulistitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to
p ~rforming any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building
DE'JJartment all applicable construction permits. Review of this Developmental proposal is
lir: 1ited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department
opr.,rations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine
cr"npliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make
apj'~ication to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits.
Cjmment #2: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be
ins talled in one-and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one-and two-family dwellings and
in existing one-and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to
more than 3,600 square feet. Exception: A one-time addition to an existing building that does not
total more than 1,000 square feet of building area. NOTE: The owner(s), occupant(s) and any contractor
·:s' or subcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting w ith the water purveyor of record in order to determin e if any
r:10d ification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and
2:_~c spaces may require fire s prinkl er coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor
~hall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to thi s department for review
and approval prior to beginning th eir work. CRC Sec. 313.2 as adopted and amended by LAHMC
Cr:·;nment #3: Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway
v ,1 it}, a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed w idth of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13
fee : 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a
: ity PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE
LA , I 181 D 181 D D SFR V-V Lea & Braze En gineerin g 09/10 /2014 _l _OF _2 _
SEC/F'. ',QR AREA
TY0 TBD
NAM[' JF PROJECT
S f !<.
T Ar:JLAR FIRE FLOW
TBD
LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Lot Line Adjus tm ent
LOCATION
13651 Burke Rd Los A lto s Hills
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
I
Organized as the Santa Clara County Centra l Fire Protect ion Distr ict
Serving Santa Clara County and the co mmunities of Campbell, Cupertino, Lo s Altos,
Los Altos Hill s, Los Gatos , Monte Sereno, and Saratoga
BY
Harding, Doug
~,~~~~ ·~-F-I_R_E_D_E_P_A_R_T_M~E-N-T~~~~~-'ii' .. -'·.·.·, __ _. .-SANT A CLARA COUNTY '\!t}-
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos , CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-40 10 •(408) 378-9342 (fax )• www.sccfd.org
REVIE0~ 14 2475
DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS
BLDG
PERMIT No.
slcp e of 15 %. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications
sh ~.·et D-1. CFC Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by LAHMC
Com ment #4: Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turnaround Required: Provide an approved
fi r e department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet
im:i de. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1.
c ~··c Sec. 503 as adopted and amended by LAHMC
Comment #5: Address identification. New and existing buildings shall have appro ved address numbers,
Luilding numbers or approved building identification placed in a position that is plainl y legible and visible from
~h e street or road fronting the property. These numbers shall contrast with their background . Address
n umbers shall be Arabic numbers or alphabetical letters. Numbers shall be a minimum of 4 inches (101.6 mm) high
v ,~th a minimum stroke w idth of 0.5 inch (12.7 mm). Where access is by means of a pri vate road and the
;Jui!ding cannot be vie w ed from the public way, a monument, pole or other sign or means shall be used to identify
th e structure. CFC Sec. 505.l
Comment #6: Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable provisions of the
CFC Chapter 33 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI-7. Provide appropriate notations on subsequent plan
sub mittals, as appropriate to the project. CFC Chp. 33
N o t Approved for construction. Proposed subdivision approved.
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE
L\H 181 D 181 D D SFR V-V Lea & Bra z e En g in e ering 09/10 /2014 2 OF _2 _
SE .;/FLOOR AREA
Tl3 D TBD
LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Res id e ntial D evelopme nt
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Lot Lin e A dju s tment
NAr.'f: OF PROJECT
TABu l./.'.R FIRE FLOW
TBD
LOCATION
13 651 Burke Rd Lo s A ltos Hill s
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
I
Organized as th e Santa Clara County Centra l Fire Protect ion District
Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino , Los Altos,
Los Altos Hill s, Los Gatos , Monte Sereno, and Saratoga
BY
H a rdin g, Doug
Pacific Gas and
Electric Company "
October 6, 2014
Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills , CA 94022
Attn : Ms . Cynthia Richardson , Consulting Planner
Ted Quach
Land Agent
408.282. 7534 (Office)
ted .qu ach @ pge .c om
RE : EESPRD Tentative Map , 13651 Burke Road , File #238-14-TM
APN: 175 -25-004
Dear Ms. Richardson :
Land Management
111 Almaden Boulevard
Room 814
San Jose , CA 95113
'OCT 10 2014
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Thank you for the opportunity to review the Tentative Map on the above referenced property. PG&E
has no objection to the proposed project.
PG&E owns and operates a variety of gas and electric facilities which may be located within the
proposed project boundaries. Project proponents should coordinate with PG&E early in the development
of their project plans to promote the safe and reliable maintenance and operation of existing utility
facilities. Any proposed development plans should provide for umestricted utility access and prevent
interference with PG&E easements .
Activities which may impact our facilities include, but are not limited to , permanent/temporary changes
in grade over or under our facilities , construction of structures within or adjacent to PG&E 's easements ,
and planting of certain types of vegetation over, under , or adjacent to our facilities.
The installation of new gas and electric facilities and/or the relocation of existing PG&E facilities will
be performed in accordance with common law or Rules and Tariffs as authorized by the California
Public Utilities Commission.
Please contact me at 408-282-7534 or ted.quach @pge.com if you have an y questions regarding our
comments.
Sincerely,
Ted Quach
Land Agent
Cynthia Richardson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Suzanne Av il a
Wednesday, September 10, 2014 3:01 PM
Cy nth ia Richa rds o n
FW: Burke Rd & Old Altos -Subdivider map for comments
From: Wilson, Christopher [mailto :cwilson@calwater.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 10:48 AM
To: John Chau ; Suzanne Avila
Cc: Smith, Michael; Richardson , Ronald
Subject: RE : Burke Rd & Old Altos -Subdivider map for comments
PLEASE FORWARD TO CYNTHIA RICHARDSON -
Based on the p lans received today , specifica ll y sheet TM-3 titl ed Lot Geo metry , the on ly improvem ent CWS sees i s t he
add ition of 1 domestic water serv i ce. This r eq uires minor improvements to the system an d the c ustome r wil l need to
coordinate \Vit h CWS directly to obtain a will serve letter and to provide the data needed for serv ice size and l ocat i on.
Clu·istopher G . Wilson
C ustomer Servi ce Ma nager
C ali fo rni a Wa ter Se rv ic e Co .
COSA !to s Su urban District
From: John Chau [mailto:jchau @losaltoshills.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:44 AM
To: Richardson, Ronald; Wilson, Christopher
Cc: Suzanne Avila; Smith, Michael
Subject: RE: Burke Rd & Old Altos -Subdivider map for comments
Yes . Pl ease provide any comment to Cy nthia Richardson.
John
From: Richardson, Ronald [mailto :rrichardson @calwater .com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:43 AM
To: John Chau; Wilson, Christopher
Cc: Suzanne Avila; Smith, Michael
Subject: RE: Burke Rd & Old Altos -Subdivider map for comments
Ok. So yo u do not need comments prior to that ?
Ron
From: John Chau [m a ilto:j cha u@los a ltoshill s.ca.go v]
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 8:41 AM
To: Richardson, Ronald ; Wilson, Christopher
Cynthia Richardson
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Cynthia Richardson
Monday, September 29, 2014 9:21 AM
Cynthia Richardson
FW: EESPRD Subdivision
From: Pat Ley [mailto :ley.pat@gmail.com]
Sent: Sunday, September 28, 2014 5 :58 PM
To: Cynthia Richardson
Subject: Re: EESPRD Subdivision
Hi Cynthia,
The Environmental Design & Protection Committee, after seeing the arborist's report, has the following
comments:
1. Only four (4) trees, all coast live oaks, numbers 35,39 , 82 and 93, are noted as being in good condition
and these should be retained at all costs.
2. Sixty nine (69) trees are in fair condition a nd forty two ( 42) are in poor to bad condition. Nevertheless, as
many as
possible of all the trees should be retained, because the trees as a whole are one of the main attributes of
the site .
3. The lot division line should be as simple as possible with the aim of minimizing tree felling.
The tree condition rating used is taken from the covering letter of Kielty Arborist Services .
Pat Ley (Chair)
Property decisions
Pathway Committee Regular Meeting, August 25, 2014
I believe you already have the minutes for the Stirling subdivision. I would add one
detail -on Lot 5, where the pathway easement joins the conservation easement, we
agreed the two become the same at the point where the conservation easement
becomes greater than 30 feet.
a. 26644 Purissima Rd. -Repair existing IIB path on Purissima at the end of the
construction period, with special attention to repairing the corner where the
path meets the driveway. At present this corner just drops off over some
decorative rocks.
b . 25520 Deerfield Dr. -(at the corner of Burke Road and Deerfield) If no
easement exists, grant easement for IIB path along Burke, within the road
right of way. Because the lots appear to be substandard, no pathway path is
required on the Deerfield frontage. WC moved that the Town require the
developer of 25520 Deerfield Drive build a IIB path in the road right-of-way
along the Burke frontage and to dedicate a pathway easement if necessary. EG
seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor.
c. 25608 Deerfield -Although an off-road path exits from the end of Deerfield , the
lots on this street appear to be substandard (less than one acre) and the street has
little traffic. The PWC "bubble map " shows the pathway in the Deerfield road
right-of-way. SW moved that the Town require the developers of 25608 Deerfield
Dri v e to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. WC seconded and the vote was unanimously
in favor.
d. 12345 Briones Way -WC moved that the Town require the owners of 12345
Briones Way to pay a pathway in-lieu fee. EG seconded and the vote was
unanimously in favor.
e. 26355 Esperanza Drive -Be sure there are underlying pathway easements
for roadside path along Esperanza and Ascension. Re-construct IIB path
beside Esperanza and construct IIB path on Ascension frontage. WC moved
that the Town require the developer if 26355 Esperanza Drive 1) to build a
IIB pathway in the road right-of-way using a retaining wall and/or additional
easement if necessary; and 2) to build a IIB roadside path along the
Ascension frontage. ND seconded and the vote was unanimously in favor.
f. 13651 Burke Rd. -WC moved that the Town require the subdivider of 13651
Burke Road to 1) construct a IIB path in the Fremont Rd. right-of-way and to
dedicate additional easement along Fremont if necessary ; and 2) to require the
owners to restor e the roadside path along Burke Road to IIB standards after
construction is completed and h av e staff confirm the Town holds a pathway
easement on the Burke frontage . AD se conded ; the v ote was unanimous in fa v or.
ATTACHMENT 4
HISTORICAL and ARCHITECTURAL EVALUATION
CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
13651 BURKE ROAD, LOS ALTOS HILLS
SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Prepared at the request of: Energy Efficient Sustainable Personal Residence
Development, LLC
Prepared by:
Date Completed:
248 Valley Street
Los Altos CA 94022
Bonnie Bamburg
URBAN PROGRAMMERS
10710 Ridgeview Ave.
San Jose CA 95127
bbamburg@usa.net
408-254-7171
June 30, 2014
RECEIVED
AUG 4 2014
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HIL LS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. 1.
1. 2 .
2. 0.
2. 1 .
2.2
3.0
3. 1.
3 . 2.
4. 0.
4 . 1.
4. 2.
4 . 3.
5 . 0.
6 . 0.
6. 1.
6. 2.
Title Page
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Report Preparation
Introduction
Historic Context-Town of Woodside
Background ofthe Subject Property
Description of the Historic Resource
General Setting
Buildings, Landscaping and Features
Evaluation of Significance
Historical Context
Evaluation -California Register of Historic Resources
Consideration-Los Altos Hills General Plan Goal 10
CEQA Review
Sources Consulted
Repositories and Persons Consulted
Published and Unpublished Works
FIGURES, MAPS, AND PHOTOGRAPHS (inserted within the report)
Figure 1-Vicinity Map
Figure 2 -Assessor's Map
Figure 3 --Topographic map
Photographs -Existing Buildings (within the report)
2
(Jrban f rogrammers I
Page
2
5
6
7
9
10
10
10
19
19
21
22
23
23
23
23
Figure #1 Vicinity Map: Burke Road, Los Altos Hills
I~·~· '-rJ.,..:0.'"" ...,_ ...... _
Source Google Earth Pro
(Jrban f rogrammers I
3
.+>..
"'T'1
Oti"
c ..... ro
:i:i:
IV
(/')
OJ
:::i
~
OJ ...... ro
0
n
0 c
:::i ...... -<
)>
"' "' ro
"' Vl
0 ..... _
"' ~
OJ
-0
)>
" z
I-"
--.J
U1
' IV
U1
' 0
0 +:>
I-"
UJ
U1 en
I-"
co c ..... ;::-
(D
:xi
0
OJ a..
r-
0
"' )>
;:::+
0
"' I
"' n
)>
CALIFORNIA COUNTY, SAN TA C L AR A AS S ESSOR OF CO U N TY
p M 710-M-28 (;;\
•
0
AOo•E ~ ~·· @
r:J'l"-0' .. ~ -tt" ~11:, -""-:-1: ,._ ~... ~ q.~; t .. -~>-·... ;~ ?~ ~o -'&v·')~~ °"~ ~'"·" ' "-<t; ., ,\·o:tl?> OF v
' ' '"""' .. ~ ">t"< i! ...... ---{ \ LOT 1 ' LOT 2 ' 'I> ., -l'. ALTn>,A
1\ ;~ t57 AC. ,' LO T 3 • i , ~~ ~JB AC. :~ ~: IJO AC. ~ 59 ~
'
-; 66 : §1 Z' 68 q--1 ~ .. R.O.S. 839/13 .... -1 -'. <D'fSJll ' -'c;H ILLS~"//o'< . "' ' •. ,, .
1, 't., "~' I .. ·~I : :; . , ' ~, •
0 FF I CE ~[]]
@) \ f\).-----";:;,,J
\ "--FREM ONT·-• " ' . • . · ~~ J~ . "• · ·,"" ,,., .• .frm ''d' ., ''> ' ... ,,..,. . ,,.,"' ~. .. .. . ... '"' ' :·~·-.,"'·'~'-(._°.J ~ .·~,,:-'1J,,
I·' ' ~ X ... ··, t • ''• .. "! • •,, •• • · .•• " \ tit DE RM.01). y 1i RACT AFFE PART' N /<:), " !J'J ·""' . · "'ls.14 .; fs2\ ~)' ~ • ~ ~ @
< COH·~ o• 17 ·, ·< .... , <e!J '""'
'"""" ·~ • -• ··--. ,, '<;. '• '• ·~·/" ' . . I, . ' ' •,' ' 'e'< ; .. " •
Mil A . . . • 58 •' . • ~ ~. '" I \'>
'CJ ~ ,_ '• • . ·~-. -._ "' , ''« '" ., ., , " •• . . 65 ' ·. "·on ...
,. ,,. iOO
R.O.S 5141 IJ
~ ~I
@
TRA!:T NQ 3091
! '<' A,;'~%\\~ oo'!.-">·'l!~ [. (\-"° ', S . '· TO~N of LOS ALTO> ~" -;;-,;\ 1"'
16
,/:/ ; \ v'?. ~ v,; ' ~ ' '\
•• . • • . • ' .. ;Q '·. -'i '"'' .. ~ . " .r· .. : ·~ '" • ' 53 .,. • ,,, •• • • •, is,., \. -t" .,.,.,,. ~·:. ~ :r ~"~ »T
1
N '\ :"' ~"'-' <_/ ~·~ '· C '
1 :~ ~ ~. " ' ji ' I )l:. '\, I
1!i .I· • • i ' ' """ . ' ...... . ,, ,. -". " • "-·" .§. , •• "., . ~.. ·~a~,::. ~ I fi,; . -,~ . 41 ' ~ o ~ .. .,.. .~·· '< ~ ,._: s ·~ -
14 •;&o !J ,;· ;j/· ~ ~ 13
-'· •• , • t " •·l•, ', # -· """ \ J9 '\!!.!V -. ~ ,i;ol "-_.. s' J
, · -,,,, l 1!< ~ ... :--• .-i·i:,, ~ . , , '-°'o
f ' •••" " .;~~'f I "~ • ". ··~· ~ -,,~ .~., ~: .. , , ' ,,.. ., Q
'"'-''-·-· ' 9 l c?f» V'" ,.,..."' ·
ll U2' At 11 ; \': \ OJ'3'~~ .fJ ~ jg '>1' ' ~ -... ~-a ''\oo• ~,_,,~,~"f -~ '11 ••
: <';~ \C / ... ',. • I \~;,~( \ "'~"" ·-. ----·-( LOi i !<~ /' .. ~ ,,. ', 5 I ,o"> f:f.'' ''\~~ ·-~ -~ '"'"'
1
AC •• J5 :0. J1 ·' .ifJr~"-• '-· / " 1'. •.•• "'' -• / "'.'' '•»••22 a 62 1~' } -
-,< ,, ' ·~· • l .. ~ ·~· ~--· ' ' ~~--Co1;,, "~., ill'i,1"":_ -.y,--,.,._ ,.
• • '.l}" ,... .--n.•• •Tl'.": ..
·\: ·q·-,-w:-~-f~ 20 ,' . . . .,. .. . _.., . -I ;.\; 29 "1 ''\" ~ '2J ~ iij~ -;, ~~· 48 : : .~ -:i_~· '•i• 19k I "" -' · o 1DllA• J :~ i. -~G .•. --47 \ : ~---._ l ---·I ' ---;;.s,'° ' ' ··
".\ ' --,. .. ' -• ( ~· L ...... LS . ' ·-' . . ' . . " "" ~ 27 ~~ ;}f2 At ·' !!>k :ra ~ 6:0..oi ,,.,,> RO\lL£O _ !\! LOii 1 S ~ (:;cl 1~01.<"; l • ~---~
tj ~---1.sr___..1.-···
12
\i
~
@
ll'MDG JJ.IP&J
LAl'IA~CE E. STONE -ASSE:SS'OR
C.l"'1imq>ir........tl"P""'O"\:
Co:npir:dundo" R. k T. C~e, Sec 327.
Ef!'ICtM Rd Ytor :ZOll -z>f'2
' v
l)J
::J
\}
0
ill
3
3
I)
' <1'
Urban f rogrammers \
1. 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The property known as 13651 Burke Road, Los Altos Hills has been sold and the owner has a proposed
plan to subdivide the property. This may include an interest to remodel the house and ancillary buildings
or remove them to redevelop the site.
Because the buildings are over 50 years old there is the potential that they are significant historic
resources. This study and evaluation was commissioned to understand the potential for the property to
be considered a valuable historic resource in the Town of Los altos Hills or to be eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historic Resources. This report considers the history and architectural values of the
buildings on the parcel. Los Altos Hills, as Lead Agency, must comply with the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) as it pertains to historic resources. The Town may consider the information contained
in this report to evaluate the proposed project according to CEQA Guidelines and historic preservation
policies used by the Town. The following report describes the research into the historic associations with
the owners, the architecture, construction methods and materials, which were considered and evaluated
as part of the process leading to the conclusion that the main house and ancillary buildings are not
significant to the history and architectural heritage of the Town of Los Altos Hills.
Research was conducted in the repositories of the Los Altos Historical Museum; San Jose City Library;
United States Census Records, City Directories, Santa Clara County Assessor's Records and Official Records
of the County, as well as the Building Permit files maintained by the County . Site visits and photographs
were also used in preparing the report and evaluation.
The property has been the home, residential garden, experimental garden, and orchard of the George D.
Cummings family, and their son George D. Cummings Jr . and his family . The families were involved in many
interesting activities but none are considered significant to the history of Los Altos Hills, the region or the
State.
This report evaluated the historic and architectural significance of the main house, a barn and a
caretaker's cottage on the parcel other ancillary buildings, sheds and landscaping were also considered.
Findings: Based upon the research and site visits, it is concluded that the buildings on the property do not
have significant historical associations and are not significant to the historical or architectural heritage of
the Town of Los Altos Hills . When compared to the criteria of the California Register of Historic Resources,
the property is found not eligible for listing due to a lack of significant historical associations with people
or events and because it is not a representation of a significant architectural or artistic style .
5
(Jrban frogra mmers \
1. 2. REPORT PREPARATION
The report was prepared by Urban Programmers and compiled by Bonnie Bamburg. Ms
Bamburg has over 35 years' experience in preparing historic surveys and evaluation reports for
cities, counties and the federal government. She has prepared numerous National Register
Nominations for individual sites and historic districts. In addition, she has advised owners and
architects on compliance with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings and has prepared Certifications for historic properties and Mills Act contracts
in several states. She is a former instructor in Historic Preservation at SJSU, a lecturer in historic
preservation and former San Jose Historical Landmark Commissioner (1974-1980). Ms.
Bamburg is an advisor to Preservation Action Council San Jose, and is a past board member of
the Western Region of Preservation Technology and History San Jose. Linda Larson-Boston,
holds degrees in English and History from University of Santa Clara and has over 20 years'
experience as a researcher and is a published author of local history. Her clients include
architects, attorneys and land owners. She is a former San Jose Historical Landmarks
Commissioner, a member of the Institute for Historical Study, and has served on the Board of
Directors for Preservation Action Council of San Jose. William Zavlaris, B.A, MUP, received his
education in art and architectural history at UCB and received his Masters Degree in Urban
Planning, City Design, from San Jose State University. Mr. Zavlaris has over 30 years' experience
in evaluating architecture for local historical surveys and National Register Nominations.
Douglas Bright received his MA in Historic Preservation from Savanah College of Art and
Design. MBA Architects, reviews existing conditions. Marvin Bamburg, AIA has over 45 years of
experience in historic preservation architecture for residential and commercial properties.
Douglas A. Bright received his Master of Historic Preservation from Savanah College of Art in
2008.
The preparation of the report followed standard methodology for research and site
investigation. The information contained in the report was derived from a combination of
interviews conducted with people knowledgeable about certain aspects of the property or
associations in history, city directories, historic maps, public records, and special collection
materials at local repositories. When applicable the internet was used as a repository for
research.
Research was conducted in the repositories of; the Los Altos History Museum, San Mateo
County Historical Museum; United States Census; Santa Clara County Assessor's Records and
Official Records, Data Bases for local architects maintained at UCB and Stanford University. Site
visits, photographs and interviews were also used in preparing the report and evaluation.
6
(Jrban f rog;rammers I
2. INTRODUCTION
The following report provides a brief historical background of the Town of Los Alto Hill to set the
context for the background of the parcel at 13651 Burke Road (APN 175-25-004). Standard
methodology for collecting the contextual information was employed in collecting the
information used in this study.
2. 1. HISTORICAL CONTEXT-LOS ALTOS HILLS AREA
The history of Los Altos Hills has been a series of eras, each well defined by how and who was
resident and how the land was used. The following is a brief summary of the distinct eras to
establish the context by which to evaluate the historical and architectural values of the
property at 13561 Burke Road.
The first era -1776
This era is documented to be that of the first inhabitants, the Oholone people. Part ofthe
Coastonan language group they lived in small villages throughout the Santa Clara Valley. The
inhabitation by the Oholne was an existence of gathering acorns, berries, and other wild plants,
hunting and fishing . Their legacy is found the sites of habitation and burial that have been
identified in archeological studies. The Oholne people did not survive the second phase, 1776-
1822.
The Spanish Exploration and Mission era 1770-1822
This span of time was one of exploration by the Spanish seeking to settle the vast new works for
the King of Spain. The first European discovery is attributed to Gaspar de Portola and the
expedition of 1776, who passed through the area in search of the mouth of the Bay of San
Francisco. This was followed by the development of the California Missions, Santa Clara and
San Francisco by Franciscan Fathers under Fr. Juniper Serra whose charge was to convert the
native population to Catholicism. During this era the Presidios of San Francisco and Monterey
were established as was the first civil settlement a Pueblo at San Jose. Land grants were also
given to settle the land. The primary economy of this era was based in cattle. Tragically the
Spanish brought with them diseases unknown to the native Oholne population and together
with trying to impose an unfamiliar life style, the two took a horrific toll. The Oholne were all by
extinct by 1850. The loss of the Oholne villages was the lasting legacy of this era in the Los Altos
Hills.
The Mexican era 1822-1850.
At the conclusion of the Mexican War of Independence the governing rule of California changed
from Spain through Spanish Governors located in Mexico to Mexican rule carried out by
Governors sent from Mexico. Among the many changes this brought a desire to allow trade
beyond what the Spanish controlled, secularization of the Missions, and encouraged settlement
by awarding many more land grants. During this era the two Ranchos-large land grants -that
encompass Los Altos Hills were given. Rancho La Purissima Concepcion, 4,436 acres was
7
Urban f rogrammers I
granted to Native Americans Jose Gorgonio and his son Jose Ramon in 1840 and sold to Juana
Briones de Miranda in 1844 for the sum of $300; and Rancho San Antonio, 4,438 acres granted
to Juan Prado Mesa. Adobe Creek served as the boundary line of the two ranchos . This period
is known for its predominance of lumbering and trading and later for agriculture. The primary
industry of these Ranchos remained cattle raising (meat and hides) although logging and timber
exports were initiated and the value of the "red wood" and oak was realized by the early
European or American settlers who arrived by ship or overland trails.
American Period 1848-1900
The next 52 years brought great population and economic growth to California and to the Santa
Clara Valley. The discovery of gold at Sutter's Fort and the ensuing Gold Rush of 1848-1860
brought many Americans and Europeans to California, some found gold others formed
businesses or began farming. It was also the era when, in 1850 California was granted
statehood. By 1852, stage coach service to San Francisco through the Peninsula to San Jose was
fairly regular allowing both goods and people to travel the distance in less than half a day. In
this era, the verdant hills provided the natural resources for the lumber industry to develop
contributing to population (residential}, and local economic growth.
Five years after statehood, Martin Murphy arrived in Santa Clara County and purchased 3,000
acres of Rancho La Purissima Concepcion from Juana Birones. Soon the Murphy family land
holdings spread throughout Santa Clara County including the founding the City of Sunnyvale.
While there were many changes in the economy of California the single event that brought the
greatest change to the Santa Clara Valley was the 1869 arrival of the continental railroad
connecting Santa Clara Valley to the rest of the Nation. This is also the era when agriculture,
orchards and farms became the leading economic industry of the County. In the area of Los
Altos Hills, agriculture in the form of fruit orchards filled the land that had been logged of the
oak and redwood trees.
Subdivision, Mansions and Mass Transit define the era 1900-1945.
For the north county area, the development of a train station at Los Altos brought renewed
interest in the hills to the west. Agriculture was the prime industry and events in the Fremont
District, the area that became Los Altos, had an impact on growth in the adjoining hills. The
area was developing a downtown-commercial canter along Main Street encouraged Paul
Shoup and the Los Altos Land Company. At the insistence of Paul Shoup, President of Southern
Pacific Railroad, a train station was developed in Los Altos in 1913. The Los Altos train station
provided access to San Francisco and San Jose, a service that was crucial for commuters and
potential residents of Los Altos and Los Altos Hills. The improved transportation access and
infrastructure provided by the Southern Pacific Railroad predictably encouraged the sale of
property including the lots improved by the Los Altos Land Company. Paul Shoup is credited as
"The Father of Los Altos" for the development of the 100 acre Winchester tract that became
the heart of the City and the commercial center for the adjacent hill community. Residential
architecture of the era followed the popular styles, many influenced by the Columbia exposition
in Chicago 1893. The "City Beautiful" movement brought expressions of Revival styles, even
copies of European estate homes. Homes were designed by leading architects from the Bay
8
(Jrban frogrammers I
Area including Charles McKenzie, John H. Powe r s (Morgan Manor), and Ernest Coxhead as well
as landscape architect Emerson Knight.
Incorporation and Permanent Population Growth 1945-2014
As with most incorporations, the residents of Los Altos Hills sought local control over the
development of property. The overriding goals were to maintain the rural atmosphe r e and
r esidential use of the community. Incorporated in 1958, the Town has maintained the original
atmosphere although it has experienced some of the most luxurious residential development in
the Bay Area. Some of the amenities that have been provided include the Count ry Club, a
private club on the former estate of Dr . Thomas Shumante that prese rves some ofthe
structures, and the Los Altos Golf and Country Club-that started in the early 1920s but had a
resurgence in the 1950s-60. A lso the Los Altos Hills Heritage House Museum was designated
and opened to the public. However, the largest single entity (other than r esidences) is Foothill
College, one of the outstanding community colleges in California. The award winning design-a
turning point in campus architecture -was by Ernest Kump, Jr. and landscape architect Hideo
Sasaki. The campus opened in September 1958. Residential styles dur i ng this period include the
Bay Area Traditions 1 & 2, Mid-century modern and California Ranch, Rust ic, and in recent years
variations on the post-modern -historicist styles. Currently Los Altos Hills is recognized as one of
the wealthiest communities in the nation and is home to many of the leaders of industry from
Silicon Valley and San Francisco.
2.2 Background of the property located at13561 Burke Road, Los Altos Hills
After the turn of the Century (1900), the subject property was owned by George D. Cummings
who was born in 1856, in Canada and immigrated to the United States in 1871 becoming a
naturalized citizen.1 The 1916 Santa Clara County Voter Roll lists George D. Cummings as a cacti
orchardist in Los Altos. Alice Cummings is listed as a housekeeper . About 1925, Cummings
worked to develop a thornless cacti that could be an economical feed for cattle. Unfortunately
the experiment did not work out as the cacti continued to grow spines . 2 The Cumming's
marriage ended in divorce with Alice continuing to live on the Burke Road property with their
three children, and George is just listed as living in the Fremont Dist r ict (Los Altos) until he died
in 1936. He is buried in Alta Mesa Memorial Park . Their son George D. Cummings Jr. born in
1911 lived with his mother on the Burk Road property while growing up and attending 2 years
of college. The Voter Rolls for 1934 list both Alice and George D (student) living at Box 84, Los
Altos. George was actually a student at Notre Dame University during this period. 3 Shortly
thereafter George Jr . married as is shown in the 1940 U.S. Census which lists George D. and
Jane Cummings (Dorothy Jane Riccomi) residing at 125 Castilian Way Los Altos . George is listed
with the occupation of Accountant for a tannery (Legalle Tannery). The family moved to
Hillsborough and during the marriage had four children, Joan, George D. Cummings Ill. Ba no
and Mary. In 1946 the family engaged in building a new house to replace the older one on the
subject property. In addition to the house, a linear building, the property included a swimming
1 U.S. Cens us 19 00
2 Los A lt os Town Crier, Nove mb er 2 , 2 00 4, Do na ld Mc Donad :F irst Rad io St at ion an d cactus far m .
3 No tre Dame M agaz ine , Notre Dame Co ll ege, 201 4
9
Urba n f rogra mm e rs I
pool, barn, greenhouse, caretaker's cabin, stable and landscaped terraces. The barn was turned
into a garage, and the caretaker's cabin was enlarged. George and Jane raised their family on
the property while George maintained his work in accountancy working with trusts and other
financial arrangements . Jane's death preceded George who passed away at age 99 on October
23, 2010. The site reveals that fruit trees were planted in an orchard pattern, as well as some
berries and several specimen trees. For the most part these are not tended and most have been
removed .
Though a sale, approved by a court appointed referee, the family members who inherited the
subject property sold it to Energy Efficient Sustainable Personal Residence Development, LLC on
January 9, 2014.
Figure 3 Topographic map showing the terrain and location of the buildings on the property. The blue
arrow points to the main house , red to the barn/garage and green to the caretaker 1 s cabin .
Source THO Engineers
10
Urban f rogrammers I
3.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE IMPROVEMENTS
3.1 GENERAL SETTING
13651 Burke Road is located on the rolling hills east of Interstate 280 and west of Foothill
Expressway. It is in an area where over the last 15-20 years, many of the irregular shaped
parcels of land have been realigned and redeveloped with new houses and tailored
landscaping, often concealed from the street by perimeter bushes and trees. The area is
wooded with native second growth trees and native bushes in addition to those intentionally
planted and the large landscaped yards. The subject parcel, shielded from the road by mature
trees and bushes is on a slope putting the house above Burke Road.
3.2 BUILDINGS AND LANDSCAPING
The property that is the subject of this study and evaluation is shown as APN175-25-004 and
was recorded with Santa Clara County as Map M page 33 Block 39, Lotl, Subdivision Map 4
Town of Los Altos Hills. It is bounded on three sides by public roads, Burke Road (considered the
front of the property}, Old Los Altos Road and Road. The irregular shaped parcel is 2.6 acres on
a sloping hill side. The primary house was constructed in 1946, however a barn and caretaker's
cabin on the property appear to be 25 or more years older.
The main house is a wood frame, linear, rectangular shaped building that conforms to the
terrain and is accessed by steps in the center of the front fa~ade leading to the recessed front
porch. The entry door is flanked by walls constructed in "used" brick the material that outlines
the base of the building and appears to be the foundation for the addition, and is used for a
planter box on the front fa~ade. A temporary ramp has been installed to access the entry. On
the south side a projecting section has a large square, multi-pane window with a planting box at
the bottom that is centered in the wall. In the recess created by this projection is a ground level
planter that is formed with used brick. The remainder of the fa~ade includes two square
windows with multi -pane glazing matching the one on the other side of the entry. On the far
south, behind the body of the building is an addition c. 1970, which creates a new room on the
house by creating a pitched roof section that is extended with glass panels forming a rounded
wall. This glass panels are set between vertical wood posts with a separate roof structure over
this element . The original walls of the house are horizontal board with a red stain and this is
continued in the additions. The roof is a low pitch that is uniform the length of the building with
eaves that overhang showing exposed rafter tails. The north fa~ade maintains the same theme
as the front and rest of the building using horizontal flush board siding. A second entry is
accessed by steps on this end. The rear fa~ade (west) is notable for the broad pergola that
covers a patio and the entire length of the fa~ade. On this fa~ade the building has banks of
windows that extend the length of the building and doorways, but follows the theme without
additional ornamentation.
11
Urban r rogrammers I
Overall the building is identified as a Mid-century, Second Bay Region Tradition, bringing the
outside into the interior through large expanses of glass often covered with a screen or pergola.
The design is really a transitional and vernacular design. The design is pleasing, giving a nod to a
lodge style, in the linear form, but is not a significant or highly artistic design or use of
materials.
The next building in order of size is the square barn/garage that sits to the north of the house
and is oriented on an angle. This building appears to be c. 1930s although there have been
modifications and even a section that appears to be an addition. A lean-to open shed is on the
south side. Notable about the building are the large doors which are double wide and slide on a
rail, with window panels at the top, unusually artistic for a utilitarian barn or pre 1950 garage. It
appears that an addition was added to the side of the building. This has more mundane double
doors with diagonal boards and diamond cut-out windows in each door. The pitched roof
extends with eaves that have exposed rafter tails. Covering the roof is sheet metal.
A remodeled and enlarged cabin type building set away from the main house is rustic in design
and construction. This is also in poor condition with obvious deterioration from lack of
maintenance and both water and insect intrusions. The building is set above the grade and
accessed by wood stairs. The building has multiple additions and alterations that appear to
more than double the original size. It has a pitched roofs over most of the additions, however a
shed roof covers one section, and there is no ornamentation, design detail or even a attempt of
coordinate the additions. This building has had several additions, note by the change in roof
structures and materials . The building has so many alterations that it has lost integrity.
At the north end of the house a children's play house is constructed to match the main house.
This small wood structure has a pitched roof and single door at the end.
The last building on the property is a wood frame and glass panel greenhouse c. 1950 with a
pitched roof and operable panels. The building is not large enough for a commercial operation
and does not appear to be old enough to have been used by George D. Cummings for his
experiments with cacti.
West of the house is the swimming pool terrace. This appears to have been constructed some
10 years after the main house, c 1955. The rectangular pool and surrounding deck are
constructed of concrete. This area shows a lack of recent maintenance and is gives evidence of
more extensive planting.
Set away from the residential complex is a small stable and a second support building. The
stable appears to be c. 1950 or later, and is a typical design with a pitched roof that extends to
provide a shaded tie up space. The second is of plywood and is more of a shed.
Landscaping on the site includes rock lined walkways that surround the main house and extend
in to the swimming pool, green house and to the barn/garage . The planting appears to be
mature with few annual or other high maintenance plants . Trees include a few orchard verities
12
Urban F rogrammers I
in addition to the mature native redwood and a variety of other species. Away from the
residential complex the property and paddock are lined with split rail fences. It does not
appear, and no evidence was found, that a landscape architect planned the site prior to putting
in the swimming pool.
The complex presents the impression of a Mid-century country home with ancillary features for
swimming, horses and gardening . The number of trees and bushes indicates the work of George D.
Cummings and his enjoyment of plants. Many appear to have been distressed over the past few years.
It does not display significant architecture in any of the buildings and collectively the the only
architectural theme is found on the main house-horizontal board siding and used brick. Otherwise there
is not a cohesive theme to the enclave .
Photograph 1 13561 Burke Road
View: Front fac;:ade (east) showing the center entrance and porch, ramp is temporary and is not original
13
(Jrban f rogrammers I
Photograph 2 13561 Burke Road
View : Front fa~ade (east) showing the center entrance and porch, ramp is not original. On the left is the
garden house.
Photograph 3 13561 Burke Road
View: Garden House/Greenhouse, Side fa~ade facing the driveway .
14
(Jrban f rogrammers I
Photograph 4 13561 Burke Road
View : Rear and south fac;:ade showing the banks of windows along the rear wall and the south end with
the addition on the far right.
Photograph 5 13561 Burke Road
View: Rear fac;:ade showing the banks of windows and the three different door styles, with the pergola
over the length of the wall.
15
Urban f rogramm e rs
Photograph 6 13561 Burke Road
View: Rear fa~ade addition to south side of the main house c.1970s.
Photograph 7 13561 Burke Road
View: from the north the garage is on the right, the play house is next to the north end of the main
house.
16
Urban f rog;rammers \
Photograph 8 13561 Burke Road
View: The barn/garage front fa~ade. Addition on the right and the shed cover on the left
Photograph 9 13561 Burke Road
View : Behind the house is the swimming pool terrace .
17
(Jrban f rogrammers I
Photograph 10 13561 Burke Road
View: from the driveway looking at the caretaker's cabin with several additions.
Photograph 11 13561 Burke Road
View: The rear of the caretaker's cabin, multiple additions show in the roof structure .
18
Photograph 12 13561 Burke Road
View: Across the paddock to the stables
(Jrban f rogrammers I
4. EVALUATION OF HISTORICAL AND ARCHITECTURAL SIGNIFICANCE
For purposes of this report the criteria used to evaluate the property is that of the California Register of
Historic Resources . The Los Altos General within the Conservation Element, Sections 338 and 339 and
340 and Goal 10 sets forth statements, policies and programs for the public good to preserve the
community:S heritage. The following is copied from the Los Altos General Plan 2009 (italics).
338. The preservation of historic sites and structures helps maintain and enhance the unique
character of Los Altos Hills. Some of the sites listed below have already been recognized
for their historic importance and are registered state historic landmarks. However, the
historic importance of all sites listed below should be preserved in a manner most
appropriate to the individual site.
339. The Town should explore the possibility of having existing historic structures designated
as state historical landmarks. Historic sites without structures may have to be purchased
if the Town determines that historic significance warrants preservation in a natural state.
In any case, the historic significance of all sites should be evaluated prior to development.
19
(Jrban f rogrammers I
At minimum, if the site is found to be of some historic significance, provision for historic
commemoration should be required as part of development. In addition, the Town should
establish a program for the evaluation and preservation of historical sites.
340. While it is the intent to preserve identified resources for the benefit of the Town, it is
recognized that there will be circumstances where it will not always be possible to
achieve preservation . Such determinations cannot always be made in advance and
therefore prudent decisions must be made when individual resources are before the Town
for action.
These policies are carried forth in the following goal.
Goal 10 Encourage both public and private efforts to preserve
and enhance historic resources.
Policy 10.1 Preserve, protect and enhance the historic resources of the planning
area because they are unique and valuable assets for the community and region.
Policy 10.2 Promote community awareness of local history and historic resources for the education,
pleasure and welfare of the people of the Town.
Program 10.1 Continue to develop a comprehensive inventory and map of historically
significant sites and structures. Review Appendix A at least every five years and update the inventory as
appropriate. Consider adding the following sites and structures: Heritage House, Finn House, Westwind
Community Barn, Packard House, Hidden Villa, Ginzton House, Lois Crozier Hogle House, Hills Country
Club Water Tower, Jensen House and Barn, Eshner House, and Stegner House on South Fork.
However, the document does not include criteria for evaluating historic resources. Therefore the criteria
of the California Register of Historic Resources, as the threshold for identifying significant historic
resources under CEQA is used for this evaluation .
4.1 Relevant Historical Context:
The area of Santa Clara County that became Los Altos Hills was developed in the mid 1800's through the
turn of the century in response to the natural resources that were harvested, lumber, fur, water and
agriculture. This activity brought awareness of the attractiveness of the area and the lure of a resort stay
or of a country home to those primarily from the San Francisco metropolitan area who spent the
summer months surrounded by fog. The acquisition by Martin Murphy began the transition to
American ownership and the agricultural economy that followed.
Within the first quarter of the new century (1900), tracts of land were subdivided for "second" homes
with sales and construction marking a new era in the area . The years from 1900 -1941 is the period
when the division of land for second homes or agricultural estates defines this historical context in the
Fremont District that includes Los Altos Hills. Beginning after WWII the subdivisions began to attract
more permanent residents to the area and development pressures for even smaller parcels caused the
community to consider incorporation. Wishing to retain the "lifestyle" of a rural residential village, the
citizens of Los Altos Hills began the process of incorporation which took until January 27, 1956, to
complete.
20
(jrban f rogrammers I
The parcel at 13651 Burke Road was part of subdivided land at the turn of the century and was occupied
with buildings that are no longer extant. The buildings that are considered in this study and evaluation
begin with the This occurs at the beginning of the historical period identified as the Incorporation and
Permanent Population Growth 1945-2014, with the house evaluated under the theme of residential
architecture.
The association with the subdivision was part of a broad pattern of early century land divisions that
marked an increase in development within the Fremont District in the latter part of the nineteenth
century. However, this lot and the subsequent buildings were only part of the pattern of subdivisions,
and are not defining or individually significant to that broad pattern .
George D. Cummings appears to have been an inventor and general entrepreneur dabbling in several
areas of potential industries. It does not appear that his work resulted in a significant advance in any of
the areas. George D. Cummings Jr. {II), is the developer of the main house on the property . Like his
father he seems to have had wide ranging interests although his business followed the accounting path
that began his career. Research did not identify events or activities that were significant in the
development or history of Los Altos Hills.
4.2 Evaluation-California Register of Historic Resources
The criteria for listing historical resources in the California Register of Cultural Resources are similar to
those of the National Register of Historic Places, but have been modified {broadened) for state use in
order to include a range of historical resources which better reflect the history of California. An historical
resource must be retain architectural integrity to communicate the reason for its significance at the
local, state or national level under one or more of the following four criteria:
Criterion 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of
local or regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States.
The property was divided as one of the early subdivisions in the Fremont District, however the current
parcel is not the same acreage as the original subdivision for Lot# 1 and the property is not significantly
associated with broad patterns that have made a significant contribution to local, regional or state
history or cultural heritage. The property does not meet the definition of criterion 1.
Criterion 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history
The history of the property described that it was home to a succession of men George E. Cummings, his
son, and grandson who appear to have broad interests, but the property does not show a direct and
significant association with persons important to the history of Los Altos Hills, Santa Clara County, the
State of California, or nation. The property does not meet criterion 2.
Criteria 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction,
or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values~
The property includes a house and barn/garage that are the primary buildings on the property. The
house is designed in a vernacular style, a transition of Mid-century and Second Bay Region Tradition.
21
(Jrban f rogrammers [
However, the result is not distinctive for the period, or region nor does it exhibit a unique method of
construction. The house and barn are not eligible for listing under criterion 3.
Criteria 4 . It has yielded, or is likely to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local
area, California, or the nations.
During the agricultural use, excavation and development of the property, the native soils have been
disturbed. It is unlikely that significant information important to prehistory or history would be found on
this site. The site does not appear eligible for listing under Criterion 4 . Should Native American remains or
artifacts be found during any construction, State law will be followed.
5.0 CEQA REVIEW
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is the principal statute mandating environmental
assessment of projects in California, and as such. it is part of the Public Resources Code, sections 2100
et.seq. The purpose of CEQA is to evaluate whether a proposed project may have an adverse impact on
the environment and, if so, if that effect can be reduced or eliminated by pursuing an alternative course
of action or through mitigations. CEQA requires the Lead Agency to determine if a project will have a
significant impact on the state's historic resources. Historic Resources are defined as any resource
eligible or listed in the California Register of Historic Resources or are locally significant and have been
designated by a local preservation ordinance or that have been identified in a local historical resources
inventory may be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and are presumed
eligible for purposes of CEQA unless a preponderance of evidence indicates otherwise, (PRC s. 5024.1.14
CCR S.4850)
However, a resource does not need to have been identified previously to be considered significant
under CEQA. Lead Agencies have the responsibility to evaluate potential resources against the California
Register Criteria prior to making a finding as to a proposed project's impact to historical resources . (PRC
s 21084 .1, 14CCR s 15064 .5(3))
Further, section 15064.S(b)(l) and (2) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) forbids the
"demolition or the destruction, relocation, or alteration activities that would impair the significance of a
historic resource that results in a substantial adverse change. Substantial adverse change includes
demolition, destruction, relocation, or alteration such that the significance of an historical resource
would be impaired (PRC s . 5020.l(q).
When the Lead Agency determines that the proposed project does not include a historic resource, then,
demolition, relocation, alteration or destruction of a building (that is not eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources) does not constitute a significant adverse change under the
CEQA Guidelines.
Finding/Recommendation : The property listed at 13651 Burke Road in Los Altos Hills does not meet the
criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources and is not a significant historic
resources under CEQA .
22
Urban f rogrammers I
A project has been proposed to subdivide the property. If or when subdivision of the property is
approved if is likely that the existing buildings would not be retained and that new residential buildings
would be developed on the subdivided lots. The alteration or removal of buildings that are not eligible
for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources does not require mitigation for the elements of
historic preservation found in the CEQA Guidelines.
6.0 SOURCES CONSULTED:
6.1 Repositories used and persons consulted include:
Santa Clara County Building and Planning Dept. Records
Santa Clara County Official Records
Los Altos History Museum
University of California, Environmental Design Library Archives
University of California -Map Collection and data base.
6.2 Published and Unpublished works
Los Altos Hills General Plan 2009
McAlester, Virginia and Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred Knoff, NY 2000
Polk, R.M . San Francisco, Santa Cla r a County Directories, published in San Francisco, 1900-1957
Richards, Gilbert, Crossroads People and Events of the Redwoods of San Mateo County, Gilbert Richards
Publications, Woodside 1973
Rifkind, C. A, Field Guide to American Architecture, Times Mirror, New York 1980
State of California, Office of Historic Preservation, "Instructions for Nominating Historical Resources to
the California Register of Historical Resources", 1997
State of California, California Register of Historical Resources (data listing)
Stanger, Frank M . Sawmills In The Redwoods, San Mateo County Historical Society, Peninsula Lithograph
Co. Menlo Park, 1967
Thomson & West, 1876 Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County. California,
23
(Jrban f rogrammers I
United States Bureau of the Census for years, 1869, 1870, 1880, 1900, 1910, 1920, 1930,1940
United States Department of the Interior, National Register Bulletin -"How to Apply the
National Register Criteria for Evaluation", 1997
• Periodicals and official documents are listed in the footnotes.
24
February 24 , 2014
EESPRD ,LLC
Attn: Mr. Greg Badros
248 Valley St.
Los Altos , CA 94022
Kielty Arborist Services
P.O. Box 6187
San Mateo, CA 94403
650-515-9783
Site: 13651 Burke, Los Altos Hills, CA
Dear Mr. Badros,
ATTACHMENT 5
RECEIVED
AUG 4 2014
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
At your request on Friday, February 19 , 2014 , I visited the above site for the purpose of
inspecting and commenting on the trees. New construction is planned for this site and your
concerns as to the future health and safety of the trees has prompted this visit.
Method:
The trees on site were located on a map provided by you. Each tree was given an identification
number. This number was printed on a round metal tag and nailed to the trees near ground level.
The trees were then measured for diameter at 54 inches above ground level (DBH or diameter at
breast height). Each tree was given a condition rating for form and vitality. The trees' condition
rating is based on 50 percent vitality and 50 percent form , using the following scale.
1 -29 Very Poor
30 -49 Poor
50 -69 Fair
70 -89 Good
90 -100 Excellent
The height of each tree was estimated and the spread was paced off. Comments and
recommendations are included.
Summary:
The trees on site are a mix of native oaks and bays and several species of imported trees. The lot
is heavily wooded with many of the trees growing with poor form as they compete for available
light. The suppressed growth is common for trees growing in crowded landscapes.
Removal of the imported trees and the bay trees will help to re-establish the proper tree spacing.
The bay laurels are the alternate host of sudden oak death and their removal is the most effective
method to reduce the spread of the disease. The deodar #69 and the olives on site contribute to
13651 Burke/2/24/14 (2)
the property and their retention should be considered. Removal of the oaks with a condition
rating under 50 should also be considered.
Several native oaks will be removed from the site to facilitate the construction. Some of the
removed oaks will be removed to allow other over-crowded trees to thrive. Trees #22 and #24
are an example of this. If one of the two trees were removed the remaining tree would thrive
with the reduced competition. The percentage of oaks on this site to be removed will be low and
will not have a negative effect on the surrounding environment.
The Los Altos Hills Fire District has removed the dead trees and the eucalyptus trees on site.
The removal of these trees are directly related to fire danger. The following tree protection plan
will help preserve the trees to be retained.
Tree Protection Plan:
Tree protection zones should be installed and maintained throughout the entire length of the
project. Fencing for tree protection should be 6' tall, orange plastic fencing supported by metal
stakes pounded into the ground. The location for the protective fencing should be as close to the
dripline of desired trees as possible, still allowing room for construction to safely continue . No
equipment or materials shall be stored or cleaned inside the protection zones . Areas outside
protection fence, but still beneath the tree 's driplines , where foot traffic is expected to be heavy ,
should be mulched with 4-6" of chipper chips covered with plywood. The spreading of chips
will help to reduce compaction and improve soil structure . Four foot tall orange plastic fencing
supported by metal stakes will suffice for tree protection in the areas away from the buildings .
Demolition and Staging
Prior to the start of the demolition process, all tree protection measures must be in place. An
inspection prior to the start of the demolition is required. A pre-demolition meeting with the site
arborist will be required . All vehicles must remain on paved surfaces if possible. Existing
pavement should remain and should be used for staging. If vehicles are to stray from paved
surfaces , 4 to 6 inches of chips shall be spread and plywood laid over the mulch layer. This type
of landscape buffer will help reduce compaction of desired trees. Parking will not be allowed off
the paved surfaces. The removal of foundation materials , when inside the driplines of protected
trees , should be carried out with care. Hand excavation may be required in areas of heavy
rooting. Exposed or damaged roots should be repaired and covered with native soil. Tree
protection fencing may need to be moved after the demolition. The site arborist should be
notified and the relocated fence should be inspected.
Root Cutting
Any roots to be cut shall be monitored and documented . Large roots (over 2" diameter) or large
masses of roots to be cut must be inspected by the site arborist. The site arborist , at this time ,
may recommend irrigation or fertilization of the root zone. All root s needing to be cut should be
cut clean with a s aw or lopper. Roots to be left exposed for a period of time should be covered
with layers of burlap and kept moist. The over dig for the foundation should be reduced a much
as possible when roots are encountered. The site arborist will be on site for all excavation when
within the dripline of the trees listed above.
13651 Burke/2/24/14 (3)
Trenching
Trenching for in-igation, drainage, electrical or any other reason shall be done by hand when
inside the dripline of a protected tree. Hand digging and the careful placement of pipes below or
besides protected roots will significantly reduce root loss , thus reducing trauma to the tree. All
trenches shall be backfilled with native materials and compacted to near its original level , as
soon as possible. Trenches to be left open for a period of time (24 hours), will require the
covering of all exposed roots with burlap and be kept moist. The trenches will also need to be
covered with plywood to help protect the exposed roots .
The information included in this report is believed to be true and based on sound arboricultural
principles and practices.
Sincerely,
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist WE#0476A
Tree Survey
13651 Burke, Los Altos Hills, CA -Burke Old Altos Subdivision
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist
650-515-9783
Prepared by Kevin Kielty of Kielty Arborist Services -February 24 , 2014 (Updated July 2014 for LAH FD removals, and October 2014 for proposed removals)
Project Contacts: Greg and Ginny Badros--badros@gmail.com 415-738-8336 (EESPRD , LLC ), Lea & Braze Engineering (Pete Carlino)
·-
Tree# Species Botanical Name DBH (inches) Condition Ht./ Spread Comments
1 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.8 55 35/25 Good vigor, Fair form , Leans over street
2 Bay laurel Umbe/ularria californica 9 .1 50 35/20 Good vigor. Fair form , suppressed
3 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16, 23, 16 50 45/40 Good vigor. Poor form , Decay@ base
4 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10.1 45 35/15 Poor-fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed
5 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16.8 50 40/30 Fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed
6 x Canary island pine Pinus canariensis 21 45 50/30 Poor-fair vigor. Fair form , In decline, Topped
7 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 18.3 55 45/30 Fair vigor. Fair form , Ivy on trunk
8 x Bay laurel Umbelularria ca/ifornica 22.9 55 45/35 Good vigor. Poor form , Topped in past
9 x Canary island pine Pinus canariensis 28.1 55 60/40 Fair vigor. Fair form , Abundance of deadwood
10 Spanish fir Abies pinsapo 12.2 40 35/25 Fair vigor. Fair form , Trunk bends west
11 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14.1, 13.3 35 40/35 Fair vigor. Poor form , Decay@ base
12 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.2 50 35/25 Good vigor. Fair form , Le ans scuth
13 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.8 60 35/25 Good vigor. Fair form , Codominant@ 6'
14 Tree of heaven Ailanthus alfissima 10.7 , 11.5 55 30/30 Good vigor. Poor form , Codominant@ base
15 x California pepper Schinus mole 36 55 35/30 Fair vigor, Poor form , Codominant@ 5'
16 . California pepper Schinus mole 14.2 0 30/20 Dead
17 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.8 60 35/25 Fair vigor, Fair form , Leans Northeast
18 California pepper Schinus mole 19.8 0 35/20 Dead
19 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 40est 65 45175 Good vigor. Poor to fai r form , Multi leader
20 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16.4 50 35/25 Fa ir vigor. Fair form , Foliage thin
21 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16 45 30/20 Fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed by tree #22
22 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 31 .7 55 40/50 Fa ir vigor. Fa ir form , Heavily trimmed
23 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.1 25 2015 Poor vigor. Poor form , Topped to 20'
24 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 29.2 60 45/35 Fair vigor. Fair form , Ivy to 30'
25 Pittosporum Pittosporum eugenoides 4x8" 45 25/25 Good vigor. Poor form , Decay on leaders
26 Pittosporum Pittosporum eugenoides 13.2, 8 .9 40 25120 Fair vigor, Poor form
27 Pittosporum Pittosporum eugenoides 14 est. 40 25/30 Poor vigor, Poor form
28 Mexican fan palm Washingtonia robusta 16.1 50 35/10 Poor to fair vigor, Fair form , Leans south
29 Pittosporum Pittosporum eugenoides 8.7 35 25/15 Poor vigor. Poor form
30 Bay laurel Umbe/ularria californica 9.4, 11.5 45 50/35 Poor vigor. Poor form , Multi leader
31 Incense cedar Calocedrus deccurans 8 .7 45 50120 Poor to fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed
32 Tree of heaven Ailanthus a/tissima 10x7" 45 50/30 Fair vigor, Poor form , Poor species
33 x Incense cedar Ca/ocedrus deccurans 21 .8 55 50/30 Fair vigor, Fair form , Leans southwest
34 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 37 .8 65 50120 Fair vigor. Fair form , Located in grove of Bay laurel trees
35 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 19.3 70 45/40 Good vigor. Fair form , Multi leader@ 10'
36 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 18.1 60 40/35 Fair vigor. Fair form , Leans southwest
37 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 16 est. 55 35/25 Fair vigor. Poor to fair form , Suppressed
38 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 22.6 45 40/35 Fair vigor, Poor form , Leans south, Scar on trunk
39 Valley oak Quercus tobata 38 est. 75 50/45 Good vigor. Fair form , On Fremont
40 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13.1 45 35/30 Good vigor. Poor form , Leans north
41 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12 40 35/30 Good vigor. Poor form , Leans north
42 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 20 est. 50 35/30 Fair vigor. Fair form , Codominant@ 4'
43 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14.6, 15.2 45 35/30 Fair vigor. Poor form , Codominant@ 3'
44 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 27 .8 65 40/40 Good vigor. Fair form , Codominant@ 8'
45 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14.9 55 40/30 Poor vigor. Fair form , Suppressed
46 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 21 .1 55 40/35 Good vigor. Poor form , Suppressed
47 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12.5 60 40/25 Good vigor. Fair form
48 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 21 .3 60 50/35 Fair vigor. Fair form , Suppressed
49 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13.5 55 35/25 Fair vigor. Fair form , Suppressed
50 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 10 40 15/20 Fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed
51 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13.2 55 40/20 Fair vigor, Fair form
52 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15est. 30 15/20 Good vigor, Poor form , Topped
53 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 17 .1 60 30/25 Fair vigor. Fair form , On Fremont
54 . River red gum Eucalyptus camaldulensis 13.2 50 40/30 Good vigor. Fair form , Codominant@ 15'
55 Coast live oak Quercus agrifotia 15 55 30/20 Good vigor. Fair form
56 0 Blue oak Ourecus dougtasii 30.9 55 50/45 Fair vigor. Fair form , Abundnce of deadwood
57 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16.3 50 35/40 Good vigor. Fair form , Leans north
58 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 17.1 55 45/35 Good vigor. Poor form , Codominant@ 3'
59 Almond Prunus dulcis 14.9 0 20/10 Dead
60 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16.1, 13.9 45 35/25 Fair vigor. Poor form , Codominant@ 3'
61 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.6 50 35/30 Fair vigor. Fair form , Suppressed
62 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 20.9 55 40/35 Good vigor. Fair form
63 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14.3 45 40/35 Fair vigor. Poor form , Suppressed , Leans north
64 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 17 .2 60 40/35 Fair vigor, Fair form
65 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 16.2 55 40/35 Fair vigor. Poor form , Leans north
66 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 24 55 40/45 Fair vigor. Fair form , Supressed by tree# 67
67 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 26.7 45 40/45 Fair vigor. Poor form, Leans north
68 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.9 40 35/35 Fair vigor. Poor form, Leans north
69 x Deader cedar Cedrus deodara 30.1 65 55/45 Good vigor. Fair form , Codominant@ 35'
70 Monterey pine Pinus radiata 18.1 45 55/35 Poor to fair vigor, Fair form
71 . Coast Redwood Quercus agrifo/ia 13.9 10 35/15 Nearly dead
72 x Douglas fir Pseudotsuga menziesii 30.1 55 55/35 Good vigor, Fa ir form
73 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 15.4 55 35/30 Fair vigor, Fair form
74 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 13.4 50 35/30 Leans north over road
75 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 12.8 40 35 /30 Fair vigor. Fair form , Leans north
76 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 14.5 45 30/30 Fair vigor, Fair form
77 English walnut Jug/ans regia 35.1 60 35/50 Good vigor. Fair form
78 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 14.1 50 40/35 Fair vi go r. Poor form , Leans northeast
Tree Survey
·-·-Tree# Species Botanical Name DBH (Inches) Condition
79 Olive Olea europa 16.6, 9.9 55
80 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 26 est. 60
81 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 11.4 50
82 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 35.9 75
83 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 18.7 45
84 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 13.9 ,12 .9 ,11 .9 55
85 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 20.1 60
86 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 16.6 50
87 Olive Olea europa 21 .8 50
88 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 11 .5 55
89 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 21.4 65
90 Douglas fir Olea europa 23.9 60
91 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 12.4 30
92 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 22.3 60
93 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 28.1 70
94 Allepo pine Pinus halepensis 16.8 35
95 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 28.8 50
96 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 20.9 , 22 .3 50
97 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 23.8 60
98 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 13.9, 14.8 40
99 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 53.4 40
100 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 14, 16, 17 45
101 . Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 36 est. 0
102 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 19.5 60
103 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 15.1 50
104 Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia 23.8 55
105 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 18.8, 24.2 50
106 English walnut Jug/ans regia 12.3 50
107 English walnut Jug/ans regia 12.1 45
108 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 20.9 60
109 Coast live oak Quercus agrifo/ia 11 .7 , 9 .2 55
110 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 26 60
111 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 19.4 55
112 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 20 55
113 Blue gum Eucalyptus gfobulus 62.2 55
114 Bay laurel Umbelfufaria ca/ifornica 5x14" 40
115 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 20.4 , 19.3 45
116 0 Coast live oak Quercus agrifofia 24 45
,_
Ht./ Spread
40130
40135
35130
60155
25130
40150
40135
40135
25130
25120
40140
60130
15120
45135
55145
75120
45140
40150
55145
40140
55150
45150
30110
50135
35125
70135
50155
20125
15115
45135
30125
40140
40135
45135
90155
65155
40145
35145
·-Comments
Fair vigor, Fair form , Suppressed
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Leans east
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , suppressed
Good vigor, Good fonTI
Good vigor, Poor form , Suppressed
Kevin R. Kielty
Certified Arborist
650-515-9783
Good vigor, Poor to fa ir form , Multi leader @ base
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Heavy to southwest
Fair vigor, Poor to fair fonTI , Leans south
Fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Suppressed
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Leans west
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Heavy to east
Fair vigor, Fair form , Near drive
Good vigor, Poor form , Topped
Fair vigor, Fa ir form , Low limb headed
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Codominant@ 20'
Fair vigor, Poor fonTI, Leans west
Poor to fair vigor, Fair fonTI , 4' from building
Good vigor, Poor form , Codominant@ base
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Codominant@ 6'
Good vigor, Poor form , Leans west
Fa ir vigor, Poor form , Multi leader @ 4', Decay @ base
Poor to fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Multi leader, Ivy to 40'
Dead, Ivy
Fa ir vigor, Fair form , Leans south
Fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Suppressed
Fair vigor, Fair form , Multi leader@ 20'
Fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Multi leader@ 2', Decay@ base
Fair vigor, Fair form , Largest of 8 orchard trees
Poor vigor, Poor fonTI , Shares root zone with tree #108
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Leans north
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Codominant@ base
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Multi leader @ 8'
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , suppressed
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , Codominant@ 20'
Good vigor, Fair fonTI , will be removed by county fire
Fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Multi leader, Ivy on trunk
Poor to fair vigor, Poor fonTI , Codominant@ base
Fair vigor, poor fonTI , leans east, ivy to top.
GRAY * denotes trees were removed by Mcclenahan as part of the LAH Fire department
RED 0 denotes Oak tree >= 12" DBH we are requesting removal of as part of this subd ivision application
BLUE X denotes non-Oak tree > 20" DBH that we are requesting removal of as part of this subd ivision appli cation
Summary of Proposed Removals
1 dead Oak (#23)
7 non-oaks >= 20" DBH
16 oaks >= 12" DBH (none in good condition , 8 in fair condition , 8 in poor condition)
We want many new healthy oaks in ou r landscaping plan , so are open to the staffs and commission's requested repla ceme nt plan .
As a strawman , we suggest 2 for 1 rep laceme nts of the 8 Oaks in fair condition.
We are saving all four Oaks in good condition (#35 , #39 , #82 , and #93)
urban treemanagement inc.
10/27/14
Ginny & Greg Badros
13651 Burke Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
RE: Proposed Tree Removals
To Whom It May Concern:
Assignment
ATTACHMENT 6
RECEIVED
OCT 2 8 ZO A
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
Kevin Kielty wrote a tree survey on 1/24/14. At that time he rated the Condition of the trees.
As a benchmark, all trees rated 44 and below were in unquestionably Poor Condition and their
immediate removal is obvious. It was therefore my assignment to review all Protected Trees
(Oaks with 12"+ trunk diameters and all non-Oaks with 20"+ diameters with a Condition rating
of 45+) and make further comments as to their status.
Summary
This is a 2. 7 acre lot that has been abandoned for a long time. The trees and structures are in
Poor Condition with some exceptions in some of the Oaks on site. The new owners have a lot
line adjustment and development plan that is site sensitive to retaining the majority of the
Good Oaks on site. Many more trees will be planted as part of their overall development plans.
At this time there are many small and some Protected trees that should be removed to get this
property ready for development and up to a standard befitting the new plans. The new owners
are land stewards with sensitivity to the site and the environment that I rarely see. Removal of
the designated trees will make way for sensible development and the planting of the next
generation of trees. There are 18 trees that fall into the scope of my report. In several
instances images of the trees are used to further illustrate the point.
The Trees
Sudden Oak Death (SOD-Phytophthora ramorum) is a threat to Coast Live Oaks (Quercus
agrifolia) across the Bay Area. Bay Trees (Umbellularia californica) are a host to SOD. The
disease is hosted on the Bay trees and falls onto the Oaks, and kills them. Our company has
tested several Bay trees on client's properties and found positive results for SOD. We highly
recommend that all Bay trees be removed in order to protect the Oaks from contracting SOD.
This includes tree #8 (CRSS). Oak #114 has Sudden Oak Death on site.
Tree #6 Canary Island Pine (Condition Rating [CR] of 45) and #9 Canary Island Pine (CR 55) are
both thin canopied trees with Low Vigor. These trees are so thin and that if they were to have
ll Pa g e
t650+321 +0202 I f408+399+8063 I po box 971 los gatos ca 95031 I urban tree monogement.co m
controctors license # 7 55989 • certified orborist WC ISA # 623 I certified tree risk osse uor # 1399
their dead wood removal removed', they would be unacceptable all together. Their removal
would be a benefit to the property.
Oak #12 (CR 50) leans South and has a co~dominant stem. Co-dominant stems are trees with
poorly attached limbs with narrow angles of attachment. Co-dominant stems are highly prone
to limb failures .
Pepper Tree #15 (CR 55) is also a co-dominant stemmed tree (see image
to right). This is the only Pepper on site and it should be expected to fail
at some time in the next 5 -10 years due to its species and the
structural fault of the co-dominant limbs.
Oaks #20 (CR SO) & #21 (CR 45) both have
major structural issues. Tree #20 has thin
foliage (indicating overall tree stress) and a
large dead limb. Tree #21 has a dead limb in
the center of the tree, co-dominant stems and
a Poor overall form.
Oak #22 (CR 55 -image to right) has two co-dominant stems, suffered a
limb failure. The removal of Oak #22 will remove the hazards of the co-
dominant limbs in this tree.
Incense Cedar #33 (CR 55) is very thin and need
to be removed.
Blue Oak #56 (CR 55 -image to right) has lost
some major limbs since Mr. Kielty wrote his
report. This tree is in the process of falling
apart and needs to be removed.
21 Page
Oak #57 (CR SO) leans heavily as with several
Oaks in this area. The density of the trees in
this area has the trees reaching for light in a
manner that is not sustainable for long-term
stability. Removal of some select t rees will
allow for the proper growth of the remaining
Oaks. Oaks #65 (CR SS), #66 (CRSS) & # 67
(CR 45) also fall into this category.
Deodar Cedar #69 (CR 65) has three co-dominant leaders at 35'. I
would give this tree a condition rating much lower than Mr. Kielty due
to the severity of the structural fault in this tree. This tree is also
somewhat out of character for the property and detracts from the
Native Oak Woodland. I recommend removal of this tree.
Douglas Fir #72 (CR SS) is a tree that should be up i n the steep hills o n
the Coastal Range and not on the flats of Los Altos Hills. This tree
species is weak wooded and should be removed to enhance the Oak Woodland .
Oak #95 (CR 50) has a thin canopy and no chance of recovery. This t r ee is very close to the
building, which probably caused the initial stress in the tree. This tree needs removal and
replacement at this time.
Oak #116 (CR 45) leans so severely that t here is no way this tree will
be able to hold itself up or develop a normal/safe structure. I
recommend this tree be removed and replaced.
Please contact me should you have any further quest ions.
Respectfully,
;'! / I I . -1 .. ·• .
r_.-·// I . ,. I ! I • . ·' t / r . __,,,~,. ; I : l~ .,_,.
I • v
Michael P. Young
..-"1(7 I • I /.I f l' .. .-
//.... 7 u----
1 I
I I
/
I
3I Page
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ATTACHMENT r
MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 7, 2014
TO: Planning Commission
FROM : Suzanne Avila, Acting Planning Director
FILE NO: 238-14-TM
SITE
ADDRESS: 13651 Burke Road
RE: EESPRD Tentative Map , Report of the Subdivision Committee
Conference per Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 9-1.509.
During the Tentative Map process the Subdivision Committee prepares recommendations
to the Plam1ing Commission. The recommendations include input from neighbors ,
standing committees, utility companies, Town Geologist, City Engineer and the Fire
Department. (LAHMC 9-1.509 Subdivision Committee conference)
On August 4, 2014 , the Town received a Tentative Parcel Map application for the
property at 13651 Burke Road. A Subdivision Committee Conference was held on
September 24, 2014 . The owner's Engineer was present along with , one neighbors, one
Planning Commissioner and a representative from the Environmental Design and
Protection Committee.
The one neighbor who attended the meeting lives on Fremont Road and has concerns
about the pathways being safe during construction. She indicated that she and her
children use the pathway system on a daily basis and would like it to be safe . She also
indicated her support for the project.
Staff requested additional information from the applicant concerning lot configuration
and additional information for clarification of the Tentative Parcel Map.
The Town Geologist recommends:
1. That the project Geotechnical Consultant provide additional information at the
time of site development of each parcel.
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee recommends:
1. Four (4) coast live oaks, numbers 35 , 39 , 82 and 93 , are noted as being in good
condition and these should be retained at all costs.
E ESPRD Tentative Parcel Map
Subdivision Committee Conference Memo
October 7, 2014
Page 2
2. Sixty nin e (69) trees are in fair condition and forty two ( 42) are in poor to bad
condition. Nevertheless , as many as possible of all the trees should be retained ,
because the trees as a whole are one of the main attributes of the site.
3. The lot division line should be as simple as possible with the aim of minimizing
tree remo val.
The Pathway Committee recommends:
1. Recommend construction of a type II2B path along Fremont Road and to restore
the roadside path along Burke Road to a type II2B standard after construction is
completed .
2. The Committee also wanted to confirm the Town holds a pathway easement on
the Burke road frontage .
Complete information can be reviewed in the subdivision file at Town Hall.
x33JM6HjgPRP5vA39vL5mHmFNwKFvZl6b97ZmosxmRh6aV1EUXJ4f0VwLUHPWr. .. Page 1 of 2
912 '2014 Gmail -Bello and Thanks
HeHo and Thanks
Jeff Twombly <jeff. twom bly@sbcg loba I. net>
Reply-To: Jeff Tw om bl y <jeff.twomb ly@sbcg lobal.net>
To: "badros@gmail.com" <badros@gmaiLcom>
Virtua l Real ity: Let me know y o u have it w orki n g .... woul d love to see I expE
Town Hall M t g: Unfortunate ly, I can not make it. Swamped at wo r k. Li f e a1
s upport. Goo d lu c k.
Cheers, J eff
O n F rid ay, J une 20, 20 14 5 :07 P , Greg Badros <b ad ros@gmail.co m> wrote :
Y ea defi n itely ... great t o f in ally meet you ond we're looking f o
neighbors soon ! Ho,ll er if there's ever anything we can do, anc
good opportunity to meet the broader fam1il!y later this summer.
Best ,
G r eg
On Fri , J u n 20 2014 at 1 0:5 7 A M , Jeff Twombly <jeff.twomb l y ~
Hi Greg I G inny ,
It was very nice g ettin g to m eet you Wednesday even in g ..... and a specia l bonus having Jax
Thanks for di nner a nd for shari ngi y our futu re hom e plans . Lo o ki ng forwar d t o having you o
Warm regards,
Jeff & ary
https://www.dropboxstatic.com/static/javascript/external/pdf-js-669a4d 1/viewer-vflmu2k... 11120/2014
7EZxNYjFA3yMl WltCcQ3abUYrhsSnBuJmF!muLw8jRP8tQwspwF62btOXFhZuOmG Page 1of2
9 /23 01 4 Gmail -See<
Second David B support
Barbara Q Bowers <bqbowe rs @ ix .ne t com.co m >
To : "badros@gmaitc om '' <b adros@grnail.c o m>
hi G reg ,
For w ha t it is w o rtn , i as j o in t ho m eo w ner sec o nd OH David 1s suppo rt of your p
of to w n o n he neari ng da te b ut u ma y use th is as ev idence of s upport shou ld u
b es t regards, Barb
Sent f rom m y iPad
http s ://www.dropboxstatic.com/static/javascript/external/pdf-js-669a4dl /viewer-vflmu2k... 11/20/2014
tzhwrx lXAk2vRmB4zU977 AAbXWm7JTAQUn6WvZLVWE8359LiPbtz3mhZGYZNZ... Page 1 of 2
9 /23 014
Town Hall
David R. Bowers <bow e rs 2 @ ix .ne tc om.com>
T o : badros@gmail.com
Gm ai
G reg , Barbara and I w o u ld b e th ere for y o ur up com i1ng rev iew c om m ittee hearii
mot her may b e t h e re t o c h ee r y ou on a nd in d ic a te that we a p prove of t h e p la n
Ho pe an t urns ou t we ll o n you r irst review _ I spoke w ith J itz e C ou pe mic as w h1
ho u se idea w as g reat. H e a lso is ve ry m uc h in fa vo r o f t h e n ew energy c ons e 1
Da vid R Bowers
https://www.dropboxstatic.com /static/javascript/external/pdf-js-669a4dl /viewer-vflmu2k... 11120/2014
9/23 /20 .4
-----·-·-----
Next Door
-·--------------------
Cathi <cathilerch@aol.com>
To : badros@gmail.com
Cc : jlerch1149@aol.com
Greg,
G mail -Nex t Door
ATTACHMENT 8
Greg Badros <badros@gmail.com >
Tue , Sep 23 , 2014 at 9:45 PM
Thank you for sharing your plans with us and allowing us to have input. Your diligence and out reach to us is
commendable. We are both particularly thrilled that you are going to be placing your house at pretty much the
same spot as the Cummings. We also love your ideas for screening & fencing around the tennis court. Nice job!
After reviewing the maps you showed us for your lot subdivision, our first preference would be option B. Either of
the options A or B are okay as they would ensure that we would always have only one neighbor along our lot line.
We have been spoiled having all that open land next door. We always new this day would come and we are
supportive of you subdividing the property into two lots. We would just rather have one neighbor as opposed to
two. You have done a really good job of placing the structures on the site so as to keep the rural feeling of the lot
intact.
Sorry, but we aren't able to attend tomorrow's meeting . Let us know how it goes. If you need us to write a letter
or attend the next meeting, let us know.
Thanks for keeping us apprised of your progress.
Best,
Cathi & John
OCT 0 7 2014
row;·~ OF I.OS ALTOS HILLS
hllps ://ma il .goo gle .com/mai l/u/O/?ui=2&i k=9839af90b2& view=pt&search=inbox&ms g= I 48a5f acda I d92ce&siml= I 48a5facda I d92ce I/I
Los Altos Hills Town Hall
248 Valley St.
Los Altos, CA 94022
October 4, 2014
Re: 13651 Burke Rd, the Burke Old Altos Subdivision
ATTACHMENT 9
Dear Planning Staff, Planning Commissioners, and City Council Members,
Regrettably, we were not able to attend the 9/4
planning commission meeting when you accepted
our subdivision proposal (we were traveling for our
wedding anniversary!) Please let us introduce
ourselves and our project: Ginny, Greg, Jax (2
years old) and Alexis (9 months old).
We moved to Los Altos in 2009 {just the two of us
back then), and soon realized that this was where
we wanted to build our dream and raise a family.
After four years searching for a lot, in November
2013 we finally found the perfect place that was
walking distance to Town and large and flat enough for a tennis court. (Greg is an avid player
since age 7, and Ginny has quickly gotten good in recent years ... we hope the kids will find the
same love for tennis!) The tree-laden lot reminds us of our childhood homes in rural Wicomico
County, Maryland and outside of Atlanta. For the closing of the property, we created
Energy-Efficient Sustainable Personal Residence Development company (EESPRD--an
unfortunately austere sounding abbreviation) to ensure everyone we work with understands
our goals for our new home: a modern, passive, solar-powered residence that we can grow old
together in, and that we, our neighbors, and the Town can be proud of.
From the start, we worked with our architect Matthew Mosey and arborist Kevin Kielty to work
with the land to find the best possible location for the tennis court, the home, and other
structures on the lot. Kevin's detailed report of the over one hundred mature trees on the
densely-forested property was instrumental in guiding our selection of the south setback as the
location of the tennis court: although not the optimal north-south orientation for playability
that we hoped for, that location preserves the most trees including all trees in good health and
the vast majority of all Oaks, minimizes grading, and nestles the court deep on the lot to avoid
disrupting the rural character of the Town. We worked with the immediate neighbors , John and
Cathi Lerch, to coordinate a screening plan and are grateful for their support of the tennis court
and our plans overall. We've met and have the support of other neighbors too --it's truly been a
pleasure to be so warmly greeted by everyone!
RECEIVED
OCT 0 7 2014
lOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
We then considered a subdivision of the lot because we have no need for the 16,200sf MFA and
over 40,000sf MDA that the 2.7 acre property allows. Working with the Town's planning
department staff, we propose a fully-conforming property line that uses the natural subtle ridge
as a separator to create two beautiful lots: a 1.5 acre western lot on the modest plateau and a
1.2 acre eastern lot. For easements on all three surrounding roads for expanded right-of-ways,
we'll dedicate about 12,000sf of gross lot (over~ acre) and end up with net lot sizes that are
roughly 1.4 acres and just over 1 acre.
When permitted, we will be deconstructing and donating the existing older structures on the lot
and are developing plans for parcel A as our primary residence. We show the anticipated
development areas for that (including the main residence, a tennis court, swimming pool, pool
house, and partially detached garage) on the tentative map. We've engaged Peter Rumsey as
our energy and sustainability consultant --we were impressed with his thoughtful attention to
the environment with his work on the Packard Foundation Building in Los Altos . The plans for
Parcel Bare less far along, but we show a rough footprint for a residence and a guest house on
that lot and are hoping to coax friends or family to move in next door (we intend to maintain
ownership of that lot indefinitely as well).
We 're excited to be a new part of the Los Altos Hills community and cannot wait to get started
improving these two lots to make them wonderful additions to the Town! We've put a great
deal of thought into our subdivision proposal and our intended improvements already and are
happy to answer any questions.
Yours,
hrr/0JU /
Ginny and Greg Badros
badros@gmail.com, 415.738-8336