Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
5.1
ITEM 5.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 7, 2013 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: -SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW 4,005 SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 488 SQUARE FOOT ATTACHED GARAGE, A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR UP TO SIX (6) FEET OF FILL AND NINE (9) FEET OF CUT FOR THE DRIVEWAY, AND REMOVAL OF ONE 16" HERITAGE OAKE TREE; LANDS OF FERRARI; 25870 ALTAMONT ROAD; FILE #126-12-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director-3,1? RECON 4ENDATION: That the Planning Commission: - Approve the requested Site Development Permit and Grading Policy Exception subject to the recommended conditions of approval and findings in attachments 1_ and.2 BACKGROUND The subject site is located on the south side of Altamont Road across from Corbetta Larie. tf The property was created.. as Lot #6 .of. the Almond Estates subdivision,- .Tract 4994 recorded on April 30, 1974. The lot boundaries and shape were subsequently altered with a lot line adjustment approved on April 26, 2006. The property is 1.13 acres with an eastern facing moderate to steep slope of 23.8%. The resulting lot unit factor is 0.796. The site is currently vacant and has never been developed. Access to the site is gained from a 25 foot wide road easement througlr25860 Altamont Road. There is an existing dirt service road that leads to the property and building site. The service road is in the same general location as the. proposed driveway. CODE REOUIREMENTS This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track process under sectibi '-:1�0- 2.1305.1(a)(3), because the applicant requests a Grading Policy -Exception: Specifically; the proposal includes portions of the driveway that exceed maximum -cut grid -fill -depths, prescribed by the Grading Policy. The Planning . Commission has discretion to.='allow Grading Policy Exceptions on individual projects. Findings of approval. for the Grading Policy Exception are included in Attachment #2. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Ferrari 25870 Altamont Road February 7, 2013 Page 2 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 1.13 acres Net Lot Area: 1.13 acres Average Slope: 23.8% Lot Unit Factor: 0.796 Floor Area and Development Area: Area Maximum Proposed Existing Change Left Development 8,321 * 8,264 0 +8,264 57 Floor 5,000 4,493 0 +4,493 507 *Includes 500 sf Solar Bonus Per Section 10-1.502(b)(6) Site and -Building Design The applicant is proposing a two story new residence that steps down the sloping hillside. The reverse style floor plan has the primary entrance and garage on the upper level. The upper level a garage total 2,695 square feet, which is the building footprint. The lower level totals 1,798 square feet. The residence has a sloping tile roof with sections of 3:12 and 4:12 roof pitches. Stucco plaster is shown for the siding material. Covered parking is provided by the attached two -car garage. Two uncovered parking spaces are shown adjacent to.the fire truck turnaround. 7 _ The proposal complies with height, floor area, and development area standards per Title 10 of the Municipal Code. The proposed maximum building height is 27 feet at its highest measurement from the building pad and has an overall height measurement of 30 feet from the highest roof appurtenance to the lowest grade along the building line. Grading and Drainage The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of approval as specified in Attachment #1. The applicant proposes a Grading Policy Exception for portions of the driveway where fill depths up to six (6) feet are proposed where a maximum of three (3) feet is permitted. The grading Policy Exception also includes cut of up to nine (9) feet for the driveway where four (4) feet is the maximum permitted. The excess cut and fill allows the site to be developed with a conforming driveway meeting the Fire Department and Town's slope standards. Additionally, the site's inherent slope necessitates either fill below the residence or cut for .the vehicular access. The project architect has designed the house to comply with the Grading Policy Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Ferrari 25870 Altamont Road February 7, 2013 Page 3 and other Town standards. The proposed driveway design results in the least overall site impact while accommodating the required emergency access requirements and incorporating additional cut to minimize fill. Proposed grading quantities for the project include 1,200 cubic yards of. cut, 700 cubic yards of fill, leaving 500 cubic yards to be hauled away. Pursuant to Section 10 -2.503 -Drainage Facilities Standards, the Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed drainage design and determined that it complies with Town standards. New development is required to demonstrate that post -development runoff levels will not exceed pre -development levels. The site being undeveloped requires that all proposed hardscape be accounted for in the detention/retention hydrology formula. The proposed drainage for the site directs runoff in two directions. The uphill side of the house and driveway will run to a 36 inch wide 60 foot long detention pipe. The downhill side of the house runs to a rock energy dissipater that is greater than 30 feet from any property line. Hydrology calculations were provided by the project Civil Engineer showing that postdevelopment runoff will not- exceed current conditions. Sanitation System The site will connect to the Los Altos sewer basin via a force main. The site contains a Utility Easement along the western boundary. The sewer main exists within the easement. Green Building Ordinance The applicant has submitted a Green Point- checklist in compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The building is designed- to achieve 180 points in the Green Point Rating program. Trees & Landscaping The site contains 13 oak trees with 10 being heritage oak trees (12" and greater in diameter). The applicant commissioned Monarch Consulting Arborists to prepare a tree assessment- and inventory report (Attachment #9). The report documented the seven (7) trees in proximity to. the project. The report notes that all trees are in fair condition and notes protection recommendations. Tree #1 is a 16" heritage oak tree and the only tree proposed for removal with the project. The tree is proposed for removal to accommodate the Fire Truck Turnaround. Options for siting the Fire Truck Turnaround are limited and the proposed location necessitates the least amount of grading. Staff is recommending installation of three (3) 36 inch box sized oak trees with the landscape screening plan as mitigation plantings. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Ferrari 25870 Altamont Road February 7, 2013 Page 4 Geotechnical Peer Review The applicant's geotechnical consultant, Wayne Ting and Associates has submitted a geotechnical investigation. The report was peer reviewed by the Town's geotechnical consultant, Cotton and Shires Associates (Attachment #4). The Wayne Ting and Associates report notes that any storm detention system should be a solid storage basin rather than a typical perforated storage basin to avoid saturating the hillside. The site contains an ancient landslide and a solid detention chamber reduces risk of reactivating the slide. Cotton and Shires Associates concur with the recommendations and findings in the Wayne Ting and Associates report and have issued standard conditions of approval (Conditions #16 a&b). Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the plans and required an automatic sprinkler system be installed throughout the residence, a fire truck turnaround be -accommodated on site, and -the driveway Fire Department standards.- The site is located in the Wildland Urban Interface Zone. (Conditions #28-31) Committee Review The Pathways Committee reviewed the project on June 25, 2012 and recommended that no in -lieu fee, easement dedication, or pathway installation be required. The property owner, Ms. Ferrari attended the Committee meeting and commented that the family had donated land to the Town at the time of the Almond Estates Subdivision. Staff researched the project file and found that a 0.25 acre parcel (Parcel A) along Moody Road was dedicated to the Town with the subdivision. However, the dedication was for the purpose of satisfying Parks and Open Space requirements pursuanf-to,Ordinance 117. Ordinance" 117 has since been amended but the Town does currently require subdivision projects to dedicate park land or pay an in -lieu fee pursuant to Title 9, Chapter 1, Article 14 of the LAH Municipal Code. Planning staff is therefore recommending that the standard pathway in -lieu fee be a condition of project approval per Section 10-2.6081 (Condition #26). The site has no road frontage nor is it shown to accommodate an off road path on the Town's Off Road 1 10-2.608 Pathway fee. A site development permit for a lot on which no path is needed and on which is to be constructed a main residence, a secondary dwelling, an addition to a structure of at least nine hundred (900) square feet of "habitable" floor area (including cumulative additions of nine hundred (900) or more square feet of habitable floor area), or a barn or stable of at least nine hundred (900) square feet in floor area shall be assessed a pathway fee, the amount of which shall be fixed by Council resolution. Pathway fees collected shall be deposited in the Town's pathway fund. No fee shall be assessed if the lot has been assessed and has paid a fee pursuant to Section 9-1.1112 of the Subdivision Ordinance. (§ 6, Ord. 381, eff. April 19, 1996) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Ferrari 25870 Altamont Road February 7, 2013 Page 5 Pathway Map. Additionally, file research of the Almond Estates Subdivision shows that no in -lieu fee was collected for Lot #6 at the time of subdivision. (Attachment #7 — Almond Estates Approved Checklist and Tract 4994 Map) The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that it was difficult to determine the house location due to the steep slopes and vegetation overgrowth. The Open Space Committee. did not comment on this project. The site is not located in an area designated as Open Space/Conservation Area. ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by -Section 15303 (a). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Recommended fmdings for the Grading Policy Exception 3. Grading Policy 4. Cotton, Shires_ and Associates review letters — July 3, 2012 and August 20, 2012 5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee review letter — July 5, 2012 6. Pathways Committee meeting minutes — June 25, 2012 7. Approved Checklist (Conditions of Approval) and Tract 4994 Map, Almond Estates — April 12, 1971 8. Fire Department review letter — June 14, 2012 9. Arborist Report and letter prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists — July 23, 2012. and October 29, 2012 10. Development plans ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR A NEW RESIDENCE LANDS OF FERRARI, 25870 ALTAMONT ROAD File #126-12-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Please work with Brian Froelich, Associate Planner 650- 947-2505 to complete the following conditions: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), or Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees on the property located within 150' of any structures or roadways shall be removed prior to final inspection. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between It ie beguuuung of August and the end of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory. Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. 3. After completion of rough framing or at least six (6) months prior to scheduling a final inspection, the applicant. shall submit landscape screening and erosion control plans for review by the Site Development Committee. The application for landscape screening and erosion control shall be accompanied by the applicable fee and. deposit. The plans shall be reviewed at a noticed public hearing. Attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to break up the view of the structures from surrounding properties and streets. All landscaping required for screening purposes and for erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior, to final inspection. The landscape screening plan shall comply with Section 10-2.809 (water efficient landscaping) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. 4. A landscape maintenance deposit (in the amount of $5,000) shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape jo ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that following confirmation that required screening plantings have remained viable. 5. Prior , to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence are no less than 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27' maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the building pad or basement ceiling, to the highest part of the roof structure directly above." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a thirty-five (35 ) foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or finished grade topographical elevation of the primary structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection and prior to final inspection. 7. Any new fencing or gates require a separate permit review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 8. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the approved plans. Light fixtures shall have frosted glass or be shielded down lights. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light (tinted or colored glass, or other material). No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 10. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 11. At time of submittal of plans for building plan check, the applicant shall submit one of the following checklists to demonstrate compliance with the Town's Green Building Ordinance: a. A GreenPoint Rated checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of fifty (50) points. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. b. A LEED for Homes checklist with the building permit application to indicate that the project will achieve a minimum of forty-five (45) points or LEED certification. The checklist shall be completed by a qualified green building professional and shall- be attached to the front of the construction plans. The construction plans shall include general notes or individual detail drawings, where feasible, showing: the green building measure to be used to attain the required points. 12. Prior to final inspection and occupancy, a qualified green building professional shall provide documentation verifying that the building was constructed in compliance with GreenPoint Rated or LEED® certification. 13. The applicant shall pay School District fees to either the Los Altos School District or the Palo Alto Unified School -District, as applicable, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The applicant must take a copy of Worksheet #2 to the school district offices (both elementary and high school in the Los Altos School District), pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the receipts. 14. Exterior finish colors of all buildings shall have a light reflectivity value of 50 or less and roof materials shall have a light reflectivity value of 40 or less, per manufacturer specifications. All color samples shall --6e submitted to the Planning DeparffHent for approval, prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. All applicable structures shall be painted in conformance with the approved color(s) prior to final inspection. 15. The 16" heritage oak -tree to be removed shall be replaced with three (3), 36" box oak trees. The location of the replacement trees shall be proposed with the landscape screening plan. All replacement plantings shall be complete, prior to final inspection. 16. Prior to beginning any grading operation, tree fencing for all oak. trees 12" in diameter and greater in the areas of work. The -.tree protection measures must be implemented throughout the course of construction. Town staff must inspect the fencing. and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Tree fencing requirements: • Fencing shall be located at the drip -line of the tree or trees. • All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum height of five feet (5) above grade. • Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing. • Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction periods. • No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees at any time. • No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Please work with John Chau, Assistant Engineer 650-947- 2510 to complete the following conditions: 17. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated August 20, 2012, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Plan Review–The applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, drainage, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. Onsite highly expansive soil would typically not be used for structural fill. The consultant shall clarify where imported non -expansive fill material shall be utilized. The Geotechnical Consultant plan review letter shall be submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval along with the Building Permit application. b. Geotechnical Field Inspection—The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant shall inspect final surface drainage improvements to verify conformance with geotechnical standards. The consultant shall inspect and certify that the storm drain system is installed with solid pipes and limits infiltration of ground water on the hillside satisfying the recommendations described in the letter prepared by Wayne Ting and Associates, July 27, 2012. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be described by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to final inspection and occupancy. 18. Peak discharge at 25870 Altamont Road, as a result of Site Development Permit 246-12, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 19. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage system, construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and submitted to the Town prior to final inspection. 20. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 to April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway access. 21. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. The applicant should contact PG&E immediately after issuance of building permit to start the application process for -i— dergrounding utilities -which can take up to -66=8 months. 22. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 23. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic safety on Altamont Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, 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 GreenWaste Recovery, Inc. for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other hauler is allowed within the Town limits. 24. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 25. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed prior to final inspection. 26. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. A sewer hookup permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. An encroachment permit shall be required for all work proposed within the public right of way prior to start work. 27. The property owner shall pay a pathway fee of $53.00 per linear foot of the average width of the property prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 28. The property owner shall provide a recorded Deed Restriction over the existing 25' wide access road easement on Lot 7, for the benefit of Lot 6 to allow installation and maintenance of all utilities prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check FIRE DEPARTMENT - Please work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department 408-378- 4010 to complete the following conditions: 29. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the proposed building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy. 30. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall.comply with the provisions of California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701 A3.2.4 prior to final approval. 31. The applicant shall install an approved fire department engine driveway and 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, prior to final inspection. 32. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of approval. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after the appeal period has expired provided all conditions of approval are completed and signed off by Town staff. Please call 650-941-7222 to schedule a final inspection with the Planning and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to scheduling the final building inspection approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 13,14,18, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27 AND 28 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until February 7, 2014). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees; -dedications, -reservation or other- exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Staff Report to the Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 2 Lands of Ferrari 25870 Altamont Road February 7, 2013 Page 14 ATTACHMENT 2 GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FINDINGS LANDS OF FERRARI— 25870 ALTAMONT ROAD The proposed plan and grading is in substantial conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.1 which states that "Uses of land should maintain the semi -rural atmosphere, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimise removal of the natural vegetation and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design, architecture and landscaping." The proposed area of .grading is confined to the area of the proposed driveway and serves to lower the profile of the residence. The driveway design also conforms to required emergency vehicle turnaround standards. 2. The proposed area of grading will not result in the substantial visual alteration of -the- -natural- -terrain.--T-he- -property's -existing- -contours and- -basic- -landform -are retained. The proposed driveway is in the same area as an existing dirt service road. The driveway and residence follow the land contours minimizing overall .impact to the site. 3. The proposed grading significantly lowers the profile of the residence and reduces overall visible bulk. The residence will appear as a single story, from uphifl where the driveway is lowered to meet the garage. Design alternatives would likely incorporate fill below the building to raise the garage elevation to the driveway. 4. The :proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation that cannot be effectively mitigated. 5. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff or the alteration of existing drainage patterns. The site drainage plan complies with the Town standards that require no increase in post -development runoff. TOWN OF LOS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov Code Sections: ALTOS HILLS ATTACHMENT 3 MMEB a is CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council 07/21/2011. Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10.-2.703(a) requires: "Type II foundations – step -on -contour, daylight, pole, foundations, or a combination thereof – shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." Infe—nt The purpose of this policy is to outline desired criteria for grading which assure that construction retains the existing contours and basic landform of the site to the greatest extent feasible. It is also intended that the. policy provide guidance for "stepping" structures, down sloped hillsides, encouraging terraced retainini walls where possible, and emphasizes cut to. lower the.profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to..raise. the profile- of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to minimi e import or. export of soil, to or from a site, it is recognized that the Town's policies and the guidelines below may :encourage export as cut is generally preferred over fill. These policies are. intended to be used by staff in evaluation and making recommendations to the Planning. Commission and/or; City. Council regarding site development applications, and as guidance for applicants. Individual •sites may dictate a need to. deviate from the .criteria, to the extent permitted by the Planning Commission and/or City Council. Grading Policy Page 2 Policv: Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'* * 3' Accessory Bldg. 8'** 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure -should generally not..be- sev in excess of four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building.. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. 5. The Planning Director may approve exceptions for required driveways and Fire Truck turnarounds where cut does not exceed seven (7') feet and fill does not exceed five (5') feet at a noticed public hearing. ATTACHMENT 4 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS August 20, 2012 L0127A RECENE13 TO: Brian Froelich " Senior Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AUG 2 2.2012 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Ferrari, New Residence " 126-12-ZP-SD-GD 25860 Altamont "Road (Lot 6) At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical review of the applications for the proposed new residence construction using: • " Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Wayne Ting and. Associates, Inc., dated June 27, 2011; • Architectural Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Tobin Architects PA, dated August 7, 2012; • Grading, Drainage, Topographic and Erosion Control Plans (5 sheets, . various scales) prepared by Giuliani and Kull, Inc., with latest date of July"25, 2012; and • Site Development Plan Review (letter) prepared by Wayne Ting & Associates, dated July 27, 2012. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. Norfhern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 C_" Brian Froelich Page 2 DISCUSSION August 20, 2012 L0127A The applicant proposes to construct a one-story residence with basement. The proposed residence will be located approximately 140 feet east of an existing residence. Other proposed improvements include an attached 2 -car garage. According to the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan, estimated earthwork quantities include 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 700 cubic yards of fill material. All downspouts are proposed to discharge onto splash blocks or pavement and not be connected to the -storm drain system. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that collected surface water not be directed into subsurface percolation structures. In our previous project geotechnical peer review (letter dated July 3, 2012), we evaluated a somewhat similar site development plan and recommended that conditions of Geotechnical Plan Review and Geotechnical Construction Inspections be attached to issuance of permits for site building and grading. We discussed risks that remain at the subject property related to a very large Old Landslide that extends beneath.the site and several adjoining properties. Revised site development plans illustrate that the proposed house site has been shifted to the south and east within the subject lot. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed site development is potentially constrained by the presence of an Old -Landslide, undocumented ..fill.. -with thepotential . for -foundation settlement, { potentially expansive soil and related -downslope creep, and `strong to violent seismic ground shaking. From a geotechnical perspective, revised site development plans do not appear to result in new geotechnical concerns and site development constraints remain unchanged. We do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed site -development layout. We concur with the Project Geotechnical Consultant that it is not desirable to direct surface water into subsurface percolation systems considering local slope stability conditions. Geotechnical design criteria for the proposed project have been based on a site Geologic Investigation to evaluate landslide constraints and a Geotechnical Investigation. While the underlying landslide has been judged as unlikely to reactivate under existing geologic and climatic conditions (Cleary Consultants, 2011), the applicant should still be willing to accept long term risk associated with the underlying landslide. We do not have a geologic objection to characterization of the risk level as "relatively low;' however, the level of risk is not zero. Given the applicant's acceptance C0TTCTN_ ';THTRFS ANTI ACCCIC'TATFC_ TNC'_ Brian Froelich Page 3 August 20, 2012 L0127A of potential landslide risk, we recommend that the following conditions be attached.to permits for site building and grading: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the detailed construction plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters -for foundations, drainage, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. Onsite highly expansive soil would typically not be used for structural fill. The consultant should clarify where imported non - expansive fill material should be utilized. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the Town for review by Town Staff along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should inspect final surface drainage improvements to verify conformance with geotechnical: standards. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as -built) project approval. LIMITATIONS This supplemental 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 COTTON. SHTRFS ANn ASGnrTATFC Yvr Brian Froelich August 20, 2012 Page 4 L0127A accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is- in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. DTS:TS:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 C C)TT(IAT C%ATiRFQ ANTI A4ZQnrTATT7Q TATr C) COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS July 3, 2012 L0127 TO: Brian Froelich Associate Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Ferrari, New Residence 126-12-ZP-SD-GD 25860 Altamont Road At your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical review of the applications for the proposed new residence construction using: • Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Wayne Tingand.: Associates; Ind.; dated June- 27, 2011; • ,Geological Feasibility (report) prepared by Cleary Consultants, Inc., dated January 3, 2011; • Architectural Plans (9 sheets, various scales) prepared by Tobin Architects PA, dated May 30; 2012; and • Grading, Drainage, Topographic and Erosion Control Plans (5 sheets, various scales) prepared by Giuliani and Kull, Inc., dated March 28, 2012 to May 29, 2012. In addition, we completed a recent site inspection, reviewed pertinent technical. documents from our office files, and discussed site investigation with the- Project Geologist. DISCUSSION: The applicant _propose's- to construct a- one-story residence with basement. The proposed residence..will be,located approximately 100'1eet east of an' existing residence. Other proposed improvements include an attached 2 -car garage and various retaining Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 r Brian Froelich Page 2 fir.. July 3, 2012 L0127 walls up to 6 feet in height. According to the referenced Grading and Drainage Plan, estimated earthwork quantities include 1,200 cubic yards of cut and 700 cubic yards of fill material. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is generally characterized by gentle to steep (approximately 5 to 40 percent inclinations) northeast and east -facing hillside topography. Several fill prisms are located near the existing residence and driveway. These fill prisms have steep to very steep (approximately 30 to 55 percent inclination) slopes. Cutslopes and fill prisms are located along the western and eastern portions of the property in the' vicinity where the new residence will be constructed. These fill prisms contain steep (approximately 50 percent inclination) slopes. Drainage is characterized by sheetflow to the northeast and east. An Old Landslide is mapped extending across the property and the apparent toe of the landslide is located within the eastern portion of the property. Signs of expansive soils were noted including desiccation cracking. Signs of active soil creep were also noted including tilted trees and wooden posts yielding downslope witli�in the proposed building area. The Town Geotechnical Map indicates that the property is underlain by bedrock materials of the Monterey Formation. According to the recent Geologic Investigation by Cleary Consultants, the bedrock is overlain by deep landslide debris. The Project Geologist has completed subsurface investigation and concludes that landslide materials are approximately 23 feet in depth in-the'vicinity of the proposed -residence - Given the age and configuration of the landslide mass, the consultant concludes that the landslide is now relatively stable and proposed residential construction is geotechnically feasible if significant grading is avoided. The nearest traces of the potentially active Berrocal and Altamont faults are mapped approximately 350 feet southwest and 900 feet northeast of the subject property, respectively. Additionally, the active San Andreas fault is located approximately 2.7 miles southwest of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed site development is potentially constrained by the presence of an Old Landslide, undocumented fill with the potential for settlement and surficial creep, potentially expansive soil, and strong to violent seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has performed an investigation of the site, and provided Cn-r-rnxT CTITTYUC A ATTI A CCl1!`TA-rVC TATi- Brian Froelich Page 3 July 3, 2012 L0127 geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed residence, that .includes utilization of minimum 24 -inch diameter piers extending to a minimum depth of 40 feet. Site development plans have been based on a site Geologic Investigation to evaluate landslide constraints and a Geotechnical Investigation including a. relatively .. conservative foundation design. While the underlying landslide has been -judged as unlikely to reactivate under existing geologic and climatic conditions (Cleary Consultants, 2011), the applicant must still be willing to accept long term risk associated with the underlying landslide. We do not have a geologic objection to characterization of the risk level as "relatively low;" however, the level of risk is not zero. Given the applicant's acceptance of potential landslide risk, we recommend that the following conditions be attached to permits for site building and grading: 1. Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, drainage, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. We recommend that the following specific items be addressed during plan review: • Consideration should be given to suitable placement of drainage energy dissipaters to - " - ntial for adverse slope stabilt y mirumize the ote- impacts or erosion. - • Onsite highly expansive soil would typically not be used for structural fill. The consultant should clarify where imported non -expansive fill material should be utilized. The Geotechnical Plan Review should be submitted to the Town for review by Town Staff along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation Bran Frbelich July -3,2012 Page 4 . ' L0127 and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The consultant should inspect final surface drainage improvements to verify conformance with geotechnical standards. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions. of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review prior to final (as -built) project approval. LII HTATIONS 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 principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT DTS:TS:JN :kd Ted Sayre - Principal Engineering Geologist - - CEG 1795 K" T , David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 C'/lTT/iAT CT-TTT)ti'C AAT -r-% S CCrI!'T ATCC TXT(' (r 1 ATTACHMiR1 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE Application for: NUJ ...............•----------.... - Applicant" name -- Applicant Address - COMMENTS Site Impact: ----- — - - - ----- -- - - - - -- - - - ►�-�z �� 6Z.` Lig hting -- - - fv -- — tel2rr °-s - - - - - -- — - '� �`' Noise - ; - - -- ..----- - -------------------------------- - -- Creeks_ - Draina e ------ - ---- Easements -- ------ G-c.�,� Q. -- - --- ---------------------------------------...........--- - !-- Existing Vegetation Mitigation _ - - - - - - --_ _ � 20i2 ----------------------------------------------------------------------- JUS -0 - - - --___—_--------=----- ------------------------------------------------ - TOS HILLS Reviewed by: �t,�-, , Date: ATTACHMENT 6 Los Altos Hills Pathway Committee DRAFrl Minutes of Meeting of Monday, June 25, 2012 1. ADMINISTRATIVE Chairman Eileen Gibbons called the meeting to order at 7:05 PM Members present Courtenay Corrigan, Nick Dunckel, Ann Duwe, Eileen Gibbons, David Jessen, Joseph Kleitman, Bob Stutz, Tim Warner, Sue Welch, Denise Williams Members absent Breene Kerr Members of the public present Mary Jane Ferrari, 27820 Saddle Court --------- ----_Dtu_Anderson,.Saddle-Mo_untain-Road_----_---- Rick McCauley, 27501 Elena Road The agenda was approved as amended. The minutes from the June 4, 2012 meeting were approved with minor amendments. 2. COIVIMUNICATIONS FROM THE FLOOR None 3. PROPERTY REVIEWS. The following properties was reviewed for pathway, recommendations: A. 25860 Altamont Road (Lands of Ferrari). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence. The owner, Mary Jane Ferrari, was present The property is a flag lot on the south side } of Altamont Road adjacent to the Seton property. The only frontage on Altamont is the driveway j entrance and no off-road paths through this parcel are shown on the Master Path Plan At the time their parcel was subdivided, the owners donated to the Town 3/4 acre of land between Moody Road and Old Snakey Road. Joe IQeitman moved that the Town acknowledge and thank the owners of 25860 Altamont Road for their gift to the Town at the time of subdivision. No pathway easement or in -lieu fee is required at this time. David Jessen seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. B. 26420 Eshner Court (Lands of DTNH LLC). The reason for pathway review is construction of a new residence, a pool, and a second unit The owner was not present The property is on the southwest side of Altamont Road with frontage on both Altamont and Eshner Court, which is a cul-de-sac serving three residences. Although a UB roadside path exists along the full length of the Altamont border of the property, no pathway easement is shown on the site development plans. A roadside path exists on Eshner Court on the side opposite this property and an off-road path runs from the bulb end of Eshner court to the end of Silent Hills Lane (between 26410 Eshner Court and 26300 Silent Hills Lane). Ann Duwe moved that if no pathway easement. exists under the roadside path along Altamont Road on 26420 Eshner Court, the Town must request this easement, In addition, the owners must restore this roadside path to IIB standards after construction is completed. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was unanimously in favor. The motion was amended to read: If the pathway easement along Altamont Road on 26420 Eshner Court already exists, then the Town should request a pathway in -lieu fee from the owners. Nick Dunckel seconded. The vote was 9 in favor, one opposed. C NEW BUSINESS J) A. Complaint from Residents about New Pathway Along Saddle Mountain Road. Residents of Saddle Mountain Road reported to Town staff and the PWC that a new roadside pathway DraftPWC 1VIinl2-0625 (2) 7/17/12 ATTACHMENT -7 rt1FYROP: Ci�.cC,C LIST C7--%-MCU%M TO: CITY n. CLERIC •• .-��:SO : r_y r * i 12, 1971 R0; 1: PI_ANIiT_t;G CCIXI(IS3IC'f 'S SU30 T?_Sit�ii l:?' . Li4Ci:� M.ZTAT�S (Garald & Ma_- r `� Jane . ,,,rZari) :vised Tentative :•ao c.27AAAA u !..ots La1ci :>ILE NO. 367-70 No landscaping req�red, except on c:t and fill alone to prevent erosion:, 3. FORDS: (a) Dedicate 301 from c2nterli:ne on Altamont Road and the er.•tire 60, Width on Moody Road. (b) 'No construction Or in -luau fes9 art required for Altamant Road; carstraction of one-haIf width for the entire frontage of t're subdivision on Noddy Road o; in -lieu fee required. (c) Old SrakeY Road is to be a.rivate, road and _ccnstzuctQd__-to..TA" . Sart ac rds� .with an apo roved turnaround for emergencj vehicles at the corner_ of Lots #3 and #4. Old Srakey Road is to--b;e-carveyed one-fifth interest '.in iee+ t� ' each of lots one through -five (1--5), •including aaintenazca agreement by each lot= cwner. (d) . A connection to the emergency fire road for Mt. Helen is to be aade.at this point. (e) Access to Lots ► 6 and . 7 will be served by the existing driveway to the residence on Lot 7. rte..., In -tract ..:rd off -tract drainageas., requiredby the Tctvst: Engineer.. FAI"r1.S' (a) Construction of an equestrian tra" along south side of Altamont Road to cor.:iect to the trail being built by tdt. Helen. (b) . A tea foot (10' } path easement across the end of Old Snake y Road and the portion of Lot #1 that abuts " IvSoody Road. S. TPA.771C SIWIS: Road stage sign and stop sign to be erected on Old Shakey Road at a%icody road. 6. UTILITI S : Al? utilities shall be under?round, except. the existing ovsrhead pcwer may remain fxom the pole located approximately 45' south of Lot n6 to the existing residence on Lot r'"7. Lot #6 may be served t•1nderground from the above mentioned pole. 7. UMICATMNS: A P8r'�?S si and C are t0 b-- e2['4 rnt�ri t., •��.,-,...,- _-- ^--- 3. T VaXia.-IC2s clue -seed .Lrir the ^rmii cou'ct anu S:12C: U;'1 be gra.'itted. CEJ. i0.1TIONAL EX=- PTIONS : 1. Permit a.nam in exczss of 18" x 26". 2. Since Parcels A and C are- being 'dedicated as Open Space, and the urus�:ai physical features of the subdivision, and the location of Moody Road, a Condi tianal Exception is granted whereby these Parcels are being used as credit in the slope density calculations in order to justify eight lots. (Reference Subdivision Ordinance No. 69, Section 6:40, A.) PRISCILILa R. WE.ISBART, -Chairman Planning Commission Town of Los Altos Hills 4/12/73.-mam cc: Gerald Ferrari J. W. Riley Town Engineer Town Agencies, Staff -2- 13 y TRAIT 140.5437 LANDO 0/ ,ii,, LANDO 0► � LAN.,O LAMae OP H• I .3 Me RIYNOLOA ';yal EoNNaR PNY ••"Tvas so" &E•NNs1, tfA-14.►4ewrnt /'.. •N _ PARCEL MAP Rai 'r --- -- 1i s el!11� LANOf e► TOWN o► (SE.502e114oss,pl.N1 O L� ,,,}}} oeoALI a�, a u Z �i' IS 1 O: Loo ALTaO HILLS CQ P AR C! L A y 4 *•� 6i l�r ,f{A I.000Aa.f R'n'•I Ratr L[otdaf 4.b41AclGr.�ar-- id d � 1.1SOiw b' i . I.I1�lAcA I i I r • + - P �slr 7i iii 1 mel ' LaylAal + ',•3' l •RA.I.a 4fr .d ' eNry�an1 Y11 • i LANs• eF a T .911'A".1'[ O. Wes .004v 1 72 Gr true. ei1.019Aa H.1 , TR ACT 3627 r.2 ILHVflf4 C "Ii�:.Y • i nr 4 t j LAMBa OP THE VAu 6 TRRa OP CHARITV 01 ST. VINCENT 0■ PAVC.+"JC•%' } "����M�• 'f ti P RC L M P'�' b i LCA i 1h -Mr �y Iby k "am heowners darbe" o4va001,111horinlmel,inand .Alboml ppTreqrbj lneludLdrllhin On aobd•Irieim ohm upon Iblomapp end that weaniMmly p.rsen TAwe* crosrnl i►,nneea brown Char Ilk 1f oeN praparlymd.RhmbyemetnlhIMmeIII1q Jwidmappa„dooWielelenasl slNw. sdlhin IN bine order Rnu and bnbv dodiul. Mp bus voe 6ledda W andop-A nelAllammlRBed,asebasmoneeddlldmeppwilhlnorMwidWlsen. Nke14 Mlebydedlonto IF blitaoe Ib. Fubikullilly, Fonsed,PA IA.Any S. FR.u.kIne.UwlESw,lnanfenn•dR.bAne"Mmer.511n,.iF.bd;,ili,geeilebje ellmdh6... 1 epenand lruhem Mudinfs end ohveluneolany kind. We all k.,.4HLdkaletopab. farPwhoodOpm[1co,Fa"IruslumanNYeno wukia saw sH ioa. OWNER . - Gerald E.F.rr� ara�l� �a�ndIdowill. U IITZ FIRnT AMaRIt ANTiTLt INSUPAR92 COMPANY F4.611 SAN MATee COUNTY TITLE CO. Aui.4enj 5.6miry AGRNQyjh):06MtNT STAT[ er GLveauu 1}.+ COON".. ANTA CLARA/" 011lhielLgdeyel�alr�;M4,blm,e,HsAeone eNeleryl tandem ecern,perronell99 eppoorod Gere S.Ferrari end hlevdle N.ryklNRrnxt, krown leryR bb fMpween Nheeo namoe an eubacribtd le the within ie•; sirumenl and they acknowledged Inn* that they OMW the same, as Ownera IN Wrt,Ies NNCA.er,lhe=1Rreunlqqtaimy kapdend all&tdmy.thebl sealR,edoyendyearInIhiecerli iCelalko abovewrillen. My (emmissien 4pim, pp Jarr eft,-"& mlm t $inti �Hri; i oIPI. IARA .PAL UReA[A MURPHY Panrrn,e.,IA,wnK,Ie. . /0 AGNNOWLt00MLNY .(Ak.Pfl•Mep,ij.7) Pq Ic'Aw��nl as aye TAI[ orJ� 1 .011.RNU ' ,�- `a' r P M lel "q%% t ►\ CouNTY a�,r�AN Mainea t 01 T H a , 0nlhio!?f ells t+kNT4,blPnlu„lUPtee �•++(l?a _,eNelary marl emopa'roe Naff74wasapprawdhylh•eliy ti uri • •wetomine final map •i Treat Its 49941 that PoblieMend�orlaidC.un and stala,(�.ldin4R,irein,d� 114ianad�,d Cannot of ON • La•AIWKIbolilere art at 1ulodmoelin Ihew rvieunessMwnlhononieevb•hmlilllyiMwool orilam” ewom,peeene11epp1md�_tuIEKE�t'knamlhmN be the,/�•ii`• held..lha dayys G�P19T4.5aid nelldid,eleaidmn�iy onthehniolive/1140011/ e1lLrelien•f{Iroleflfn- �a •' d fmf Am.rieoemh lnrmne. M1 e a'h a -X; app,,.,d the a ial' a all roads end did Olse nee I alleePmwnls bel �ppny.d [eunlgTt h ee,lhe company Ihelaemlad Ih}N'IhMinelnmNnl•ndknnm of err" to 61ie dedia ten ae bhewn en said mnRNilhin Ih• vl0lme e( the Su s{gn MapAel a end 1 any fecal erdinandasapphwlde hnnliblM swho•saeuladltmMli.l1eleuekaemperlyendlh.y Musberbr lnseotwldWbdivisien. P slibefnan, approyale the mlafinmep evebeonean isdwlihald eeknewbd Iame1Mlwldcampanys[saulediiwe.m•e,,asTrveb!! Ill•Ilemsaliefiedllrlseidmepiptuhniedlyeemel, INWITN[[eWNacer,Ihmberevnfetat "my hnderdefluedmysltta Mled, lot real llodoyandyoarinIbis carlificol.Fs+IsbewTMl6n " Cl Cnla,r�kk ieCler e1�fic MCtgGancll �1� Cil E�RQRueelarLOLeILGE.Ge�Nllled5 My Commission15%orae, l (,'. (.QA.0 •Ifh•�oame�ttAlteeNil�e,�rl. -ft�i�6---- IYbrlkbrnin eweTy.TSmWL S1do dre,il:eta. ra,.ur rs,A.—�n•3.vra n..,..grFua Wla. 9AH .=> " 7 e .r, ed..,� H. It•, E Fie e. e[ Aeuph or=�ardendnacrd[din5e.k.? IMepsalPof.�./O,fg the eilies.1IIa Ceunl' Recorder eI1MCaue(y-of In colors. Sla(i al Cgl1-nia,IhieJlD- mot-i/fCi1.,11T^4,bfj0minutapeel-& del G[a[[[ �e�wx,5/tea/Ciel ecerder 0y {� ��it- 0 REPOIRLT cells raper be' been qwp..d by the firm of WAler•nd A.•eeialn datd Morah,Iflt and sfyand by Jack O.WIiIF1,R.0 S. Ne.1St4, Stals of Coliforms. �A01� OP ttARINCIA•-N07t6••LtOtN11 The o.orind,Nf� lFto F;ef the C.nfertfn: of .P, wy Reed,eaeherm m a N fl A.Sm ' oreea-T6e r ifyl loco a Re�ielend Civil Englnur at m parent Mop far INfoenCal6elieOrphan Asylum ofSon Froneisee,• IIN5leloelCeli�emIa. the Ihfemepan sleOwl correctly filed inlfeek"IofMops.fPoy7,5enfeb ClareCountyRecords,wal,ropresennsvrveymadeundormyevpeMelendurlrlgfhamanlhel token ss the beels.f beri11ye =his this map, Sopfombor 111511he1 the curveqIs troeadd complab as ohm",lhol )he monuments ars of the c Indiedled and ers,er will boy". w Alldi+tamasoMdemotenemehaminleelenddeeimalolhlreeE m1heppuN0 e llfen�hown,enorfr.f=Seplemb•r1974 ndthatsefdion- Tilabkebrderindim{eeAwbandwycfiblvedoubdividedbflhismap, neontetreeaflfeianlloanaMaylhasurvs lobe to •indicator Iran Pips Mon. Feundereenelid: part rlp Dow. gAd1,19T1- • Angle point Inba,"ry. �Aa�,. H• ay Q -------- i"Mllfi•R6MIT ,R LJ67W6 A 9/4' Irea.PJps Monument was eat at all 9 a `i1i lef,eernors. ¢ AL 6416 °rV TRACT N0.4994 ALMOND ESTATES OfIOL�IETTPAC[L5(10►A"-LTTAAPARINfNAND R21MpS.{f TOWN OF LOS ALTOS- HILLS SANTA CLARA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA -0 ' NAL4 r•IW OCL /fla F-DWIN H. SMITH CIVIL IINa11IEER RaOwOOV CITY CALIFORNIA 13179 EMPA &VLM /0 c JUN 18 2012 C -1 FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY (/—) ATTACHMENT 8 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA, 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 - (408) 378-9342 (fax) - www.sccfd.org TOWN0FnrML6PMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PLAN REVIEW No. BLDG PERMIT No. 12 1877 ;Proposed new 4,102 square -foot split-level single-family residence with attached garage. ;Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and :water supply as they�ertain to fire department operations, and shall not be -construed -as a ;substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to 'performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building iDepartment all applicable construction permits. ent #2: Wildland-Urban Interface: This -project is located within the designated Wildland- Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of California tg Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC L 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related ipe plan requirements. ,Comment #3: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic residential fire sprinkler system shall be installed in one- and two-family dwellings as follows: In all new one- and two-family dwellings .and in existing one- and two-family dwellings when additions are made that increase the building area to more than 3,600 square feet. 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) dorsubcontractor(s) are responsible for consulting with the water purveyor of record in order to determine if any :modification or upgrade of the existing water service is required. NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, land attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. A State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection ,, -;Contractor shall submit plans; calculations, a.completed,.ppermit.application and. appropriate fees to this ;department for review—and—approval prior to beginning their work. Section R313.2 as adopted and amended by :Comment #4: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. lNumbers shall contrast with their background. CFC Sec. 505 i CITY PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS L.AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ OCCUPANCY SFR CONST. TYPE V -B tApplicantNam; obin Architects Pa DATE 06/14/201 PAGE 1aF 2 SEC/FLOOR split- JAREALOAD 4102 sf I PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE ORSYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 25860 Altamont Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 1750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Las Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill. and Saratoaa CORA O ) 1 t' ��� FIDE DEPARTMENT &0 FIRE YVA SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 cat (408) 378-4010 •(408) 378-9342 (fax) -• www.scdd.org PLAN REVIEW No. BLDG DEVELOPMENTAL REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No. 12 1877 :Comment #5: Construction Site Fire Safety: All construction sites must comply with applicable ,provisions of the CFC Chapter 14 and our Standard Detail and Specification SI -7. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review 'Conditibns sl alI be addressed as "notes" 6ii all pending and future plan submittals and any (referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. RECEIVED JUN 18 2012 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Ctty PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATE PAGE LAH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ SFR V -B Tobin Architects Pa 06/14/201 2 of 2 SECIFLOOR AREA LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM split- 4102 sf Residential Development Design Review NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 25860 Altamont Rd Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 1750 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRMKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding,. Doug 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Seruing Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino; Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ATTACHMENT 9 Arborist's Report and Tree Protection 2860 Altamont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Prepared for: Tobin Architects and the Town of Los. Altos Hills July 23, 2012 Prepared By: Richard Gessner Registered Consulting -Arborist ® #496 Board Certified Master Arborist WE -4341B Certified Tree Risk Assessor #904 ml P-0. iBox 101'o iFeGton, ,CA 95oP8 SM. 331. ;8'9'82 Arbodsts LLC � RECENED i i AUG 10 2WI- TOWN OF LOS ALTOS DILLS 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Table of Contents Summary.....................................................:.....................................1 Introduction......................................................................................1 Background...................................................................................................1 Assignment....................................................................................................1 Limitsof the assignment..............................................................................1 Purposeand use of the report.....................................................................1 Observations....................................................................................2 Analysis............................................................................................2 Discussion........................................................................................3 TreeInventory................................................................................................3 Suitability for Preservation...........................................................................4 ConditionRating............................................................................................4 TreeProtection..............................................................................................5 CriticalRoot Zone.........................................................................................6 J Species Profiles CoastLive Oak..............................................................................................7 - Valley Oak Quercus lobata...........................................................................7 Conclusion........................................................................................8 Recommendations...................................:.......................................8 Bibliography.....................................................................................9 Glossaryof Terms..........................................................................10 Appendix A: Tree Table ..................................................................11 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Protection Map ........................12 Appendix C: Photographs.......................:.....................................13 Cl: Tree number one..................................................................................13 C2: Tree number two.......................................................................a.......---.14 C3: Tree number three................................................................................15 C4: Tree number four..................................................................................16 C5: Tree number five...................................................................................17 C6: Crown spread of tree number three...................................................18 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines......::..............................19- Pre-Construction 9- Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist................................19 Tree Protection Zones and Fencing.........................................................19 Monitoring....................................................................................................19 t Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone..........................................19 1 jRoot Pruning...............................................................................................19 Boringor Tunneling....................................................................................20 Timing...............................................:............................:..::.:....:::.:.::....::.:.:.20 Tree Pruning and Removal Operations.....................................................20 Tree Protection Signs.................................................................................20 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs...............:..............................21 E1: English...................................................................................................21 E2: Spanish..................................................................................................22 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions..............23 Certification of Performance.........................................................24 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Summary There are seven trees protected by the Town of Los Altos Hills within the project area. All the trees are in fair condition with some minor structural and health problems except one young tree that was rated good. Construction impact will be high on one tree, which will have to be removed, and moderate on the remaining six. Two trees are poorly suited for preservation because of their codominant stem architecture, including one that will need to be removed. Adequate tree protection can be established at distances outside the recommended tree protection zones and the critical root zones of the six trees to be retained. Introduction Background I was contacted by Tobin Dougherty and asked if I could assess the construction impact on the trees near the proposed development project. The Town of Los Altos Hills has expressed l concerns that the project will encroach into the drip line of some trees. i Assignment • Provide an arborist's report that includes a survey of the trees within the project area. The i survey is to include the species, trunk diameter, condition (health and structure), and suitability for preservation. • Provide tree protection specifications and impact ratings for the trees that will be influenced by -) the project. • Provide tree protection zone distances and fencing locations on a map. 1 Limits of the assignment i • The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on July 14, 2011 • No aerial inspections, trenching, or resistance drilling was performed, only a visual inspection from the ground. • No tree risk assessments were performed. Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the construction area that could be affected by the project and document their current condition. The report is to be used as a reference for protecting the trees to be retained and help determine what should be removed. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 F k i .Y '$a ` 3..y r,.�*' t �' —s _ `A • .. t y � t _ ry ss} 1 r. a4'f �,,. a �,,y� "Fµ # � R. �- '� 'r � 'i-• �i ,3 ,Yf'r , 4 i� 2 }s , � —`;, _W � _P RS��P,•ryus4f. , �,Y• 1 -t ' ene gj�q f r"` 90 ft �i�,��' � � � r ��a� .g`d j, ,�e_a " � r'r�3s d� Y '�i�'z yt " � i. *; �'� '".i�, •.kg d :� r ;;. - t 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Discussion Tree Inventory The tree inventory consists of trees that could be influenced by the proposed construction. The Town of Los Altos Hills protects all trees with a trunk diameter greater than twelve inches at four feet above the root crown. The inventory contains seven trees that are within or adjacent to the proposed construction area. The table below lists the trees inventoried and their characteristics. Trunk diameters for all trees were taken off the site development plan C-3 produced by Giuliani and Kull, Inc. dated May 29, 2012. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 3 p. f t valley •. valley•. valley•. valleyo. coast- •. - Quercus .• ag coast- •. - Quercus ag -g Trunk diameters for all trees were taken off the site development plan C-3 produced by Giuliani and Kull, Inc. dated May 29, 2012. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 3 - 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Suitability for Preservation A tree's suitability for preservation is determined on the basis of its health, structure, age, species characteristics, and longevity, using a scale of good, fair, or poor. The following list defines the rating scale: • Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity. • Fair = Trees with moderate health or structural defects that can be mitigated through treatment. • Poor = Trees in poor health with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated and will continue to decline. Most of the trees are fairly suited for preservation with moderate structural problems or health issues. Trees one and four have codominant stems which make them poorly suited for preservation. Tree number two is young with good structure and is the only tree rated good. Condition Rating Tree condition is based on a scale of good, fair, and poor and is calculated using the analysis of condition factors provided in the Guide for Plant Appraisal,, 9th.Edition, 2000. A tree's condition percentage is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects: Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. Each aspect is rated using the - following point scale: • 4= No apparent problems • 3= Minor problems • 2= Major problems • 1= Extreme problems Tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches are rated on both health and structure where as twigs and - foliage are based solely on health (ISA, 2000). The points are totaled for each tree and converted to a percentage. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 4 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, .CA 95018 Good 2 Fair 3, 5., 6, 7 Poor 1,4 Most of the trees are fairly suited for preservation with moderate structural problems or health issues. Trees one and four have codominant stems which make them poorly suited for preservation. Tree number two is young with good structure and is the only tree rated good. Condition Rating Tree condition is based on a scale of good, fair, and poor and is calculated using the analysis of condition factors provided in the Guide for Plant Appraisal,, 9th.Edition, 2000. A tree's condition percentage is a determination of its overall health and structure based on five aspects: Roots, trunk, scaffold branches, twigs, and foliage. Each aspect is rated using the - following point scale: • 4= No apparent problems • 3= Minor problems • 2= Major problems • 1= Extreme problems Tree roots, trunk, and scaffold branches are rated on both health and structure where as twigs and - foliage are based solely on health (ISA, 2000). The points are totaled for each tree and converted to a percentage. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 4 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, .CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection The following scale defines the condition rating.from the "condition" percentages: • Good= 90%-100% • Fair= 75%-89% • Poor = > 74% July 23, 2012 All the trees rated to be in fail overall condition with some minor, problems. Trees one and four have codominant stems which is considered a significant structural defect that is prone to failure. Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on protecting trees from damage to the roots, stem, or scaffold branches from heavy equipment. Two zones of protection need to be determined to protect the trees health and structure, which are the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) and the Critical Root Zone (CRZ). The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited in order to minimise potential injury to the tree. The TPZ can be determined by a formula based on species tolerance, tree age, and diameter at breast height (DBH) (Matheny and Clark, 1998). The species tolerance will be defined as good, moderate, or poor, and the age will be identified as young, mature, or over -mature. Once these perimeters are determined, the radial distances from the trunk that should be protected is calculated using the established table. The coast live oaks have good tolerances while the valley oaks are considered moderately tolerant. Trees one and two are young while the remaining trees are considered mature. (fable: Matheny and Clark, 1998) Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 5 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 s i e Q - a ce stn fee G F a 0.5 feet Good Young (<20% life expectancy) Mature (20-80% life 0.75 feet = expectancy) Overmature (>80% life 1 foot expectancy) Moderate Young 0.75 feet Mature 1 foot Overmature 1.25 feet Poor Young 1 foot Mature 1.25 feet Overmature 1.5 feet (fable: Matheny and Clark, 1998) Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 5 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 The Town of Los Altos hills stipulates that the TPZ be established at the drip line of the trees. New protection distances were calculated using the formula above. Diagram courtesy of ISA Best Management Practices Managing Trees During Construction. Critical Root Zone The. critical root zone (CRZ) is the area of soil around the trunk of a tree where roots are located - that provide stability and uptake of water and nutrients required for the tree's survival. The CRZ l is the minimum distance from the trunk that trenching or root cutting can occur and will be defined by the trunk diameter as a distance of three times the DBH in feet, and preferably, five times (Smiley, Fraedrich and Hendrickson, 2007) (Appendix A). For example if the tree is two _ I feet in diameter, the minimum CRZ distance would be six feet from the stem on one side of the tree. The recommended maximum encroachment distance into the root zone of oaks -on one side is five times the trunk diameter (Coate, B.)(Costello, Hagan, Jones, 2011). Diagram courtesy of Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 6 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection Species Profiles Coast Live Oak July 23, 2012 Coast live oaks grow naturally from Sonoma County to Baja Mexico from sea level to around 4,500 feet in elevation along the California coast (Peattie, 1991). The oaks grow well on dry, well drained slopes where they can avoid root rot conditions. Coast live oak is a large and spreading broadleaf evergreen that has become desirable in parks and residential settings throughout California. However, coast live oaks are susceptible to several insect pests and diseases including ambrosia bark beetles Monothrum scutellare and "Sudden Oak Death" Phytophthora ramorum, both of which can be detrimental. Scaffold limbs on coast live oaks are known to fail due to excessive end weight, internal rot conditions, and unknown reasons for sudden limb drop. Root failure is common on irrigated -� sites or when trees are infected with Armillaria or Poria root rot (Clark and Matheny, 1994). Coast live oaks have good tolerances to construction influence. The trees are sensitive to fill } soils around the root collar area, and cannot tolerate excessive soil moisture or heavy irrigation during the summer months. Heavy pruning may expose the stem or branches to sun scald damage (Matheny and Clark, 1998). Valley Oak Quercus lobata Valley oaks grow primarily in the valleys of central California and in the western valleys at the ^) foot of the Sierra Nevada. Valley oaks grow in deep loam soils that are common in the central valley regions of California along with relatively high water tables. The trees typically stand alone even when present in groves (Peattie, 1991). Branch failure on valley oaks is often associated with poor'taper and excessive end weight or �) decay. Root failure from decay can occur, especially on heavily irrigated sites (Clark and Matheny, 1994). I . The valley oaks relative tolerance to construction impact is moderate and it is, intolerant to summer irrigation and fill soil (Matheny and Clark, 1998). Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 7 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection Conclusion July 23, 2012 All the trees are in fair overall condition with some minor structural and health problems and one is good. Two trees are poorly suited for preservation because of their codominant stem architecture. Construction impact will be high on tree number one and it needs to be removed. The remaining six trees can be preserved and with root zone exclusion at the distances provided in "Appendix A", with minimum distances at five times the trunk diameters in feet. Recommendations See "Appendix D" for tree protection guidelines. Remove valley oak tree number one. Protect tree number two by placing tree protection fencing at a radial distance of five -feet from the main stem. Protect trees three, four and five as group by placing fencing at a minimum distance of sixteen feet from the main stems of all three trees. Protect trees six and seven as a group by placing fencing at a minimum distance of fifteen feet from the main stems of both trees. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 8 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Bibliography Clark, James R., and Nelda P. Matheny. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban Areas. Bedminster, PA: International Society Of Arboriculture, 1994. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones. Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas Smiley. Managing trees during construction. Champaign, IL: i International Society of Arboriculture, 2008. Print. i ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society Of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Glossary ofArboricultural Terms. Champaign: International Society of Arboriculture, 2006. Print. Matheny, Nelda P. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture; 1998. Print. Peattie, Donald Culross. A Natural History of Western Trees. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. Print. i j Smiley, E. Thomas, Fraedrich, Bruce R., and Hendrickson, Neil. Tree Risk Management. 2nd ed. Charlotte, NC: Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 2007 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 9 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Glossary of Terms Aerial inspections: Assessment of the crown of a tree by climbing within the crown or by the use of an elevating work platform, often to examine a particular defect, e.g. cavity or hollow. Codominant stem: Forked branches nearly the same size in diameter, arising from a common junction and lacking a normal branch union. Critical root zone (CRZ): Area of soil around a tree where the majority of roots are located and. that provide stability as well as uptake water and minerals. CRZ determination is sometimes based on the drip line or multiple of DBH, but because root growth is often asymmetric due to site conditions, on-site investigation is preferred. Defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries;, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree's structural strength. Diameter at breast height (DBM: Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, I 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European J Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture. Drip Line: Imaginary line defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. - Resistance drilling: Drilling into the tree with either a conventional cordless drill or a Resistograph® to help determine the thickness of sound wood. Scaffold: Permanent or structural branches that forthe scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is, and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. - This Glossary of terms was adapted from the Glossary ofArboricultural Terms (ISA, 2011). Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 10 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Appendix A: Tree Table -� hV * 1 .`j' TKe y ree d„Trunk C �`..:+ Height Canopy *'!•'�',.�'ike!'yr :q /�l ond�ttoSuiiabiiity nag -43'; n 5''v3�Cl^zf? '4"'r ' w r,�,Y� F.4'•'k arM`Y� , 3 mpac%CRZ: x T>PZ n£k -''2'Y!„}yK .ice �.};ryLllyA* _ Specres' Number Qrameter Y„ : T . T” �.a. wa Mk @ f^] aya!f >#'.r hFC'.3-•&.;r n(Feetjt radius s., yai •'x ,�r �.wi ! Hi2 _'°i` 4-C "i+l.' �-y!d" r.* ,4wo-F 7.kos 3 ,�SxD n UX3%4 'tit ' ., ' 8 �r, Y. td, ,ta ++��,,,,��r T' nt K' `+.'x es {, i Cn hes) ! s�nti�e.xn5x # '4 r> �' ' � �* Y� (Feet I�710-f?s tt*f�ani �n STS a%Fc h `.n'yi..��'�'`. �F, . Y" 55.4 eaS2l ; +L^ y =y-tt 41 ! 4 t < �k L .ee z ak �a jsY y t Lx i !�'",.: t�y"£'n'? - a' y,•rk-,� �$ l•^nR:.a•S"j! SJ.'b"Y+i r! 'j�,� C�Yo.1R iiajT �. pp,C,Y`Ot i {iic�Y•Xa"ti.. +H Ll� v7.1 4.RI�v�1p.Sr i4'A.�'k '.M`•''+ 45�+'YZ f> S r � } •T=-.�,::�'�'..'rrc I .r::�.��,:�rs-� � 'rn - �'�^ � „��;_-.moi. High :.valley oak 1 _ j 16 25 15 jFair Poor I 6.71 8 Quercus I lobata I (valley oak 2 1 10 25 15 Fair Good Moderate 1 4.2 I 5 l Quercus !lobata ;valley oak .� 3 38 35 25 Fair Fair 16; 38 I i iModerate ;Quercus 1 , I i lobata .._._._._....._ -- __.......... _........ ................. _.. _ valley oak ! • 4 32 ........... 35 25 _ I Fair ! 1 I Poor I Moderate' 13 i 32 j Quercus ;lobata I I valley oak j 5 36 I ~30 25 � Fair j Fair —j Moderate' — 151 36 ] Quercus lobata coast live i 6 1 20 35 1 15 Fair i Fair Moderate 8.3 15 oak Quercus ' i I 1 agrifolia 1 1 11 _..._._..._._......,_..._.... - coast live j 7 18 .._._._._.._.._._;..._..__................ I_ 35 I 15 I ... _...... - --- -- Fair ....... _..__.......... ...... ---------- 1-_.._.._...._.._._.-.}..._.....- - ..._..... Fair ; Moderate'- 8 13.5 oak' Quercus agrifolia Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 11 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Appendix B: Tree Inventory and Protection Map The printed version of this report contains the map in the back pouch. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 12 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection Appendix C: Photographs Cl: Tree number one July 23, 2012 The photo above is tree number one with codominant stems and poor architecture. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com 13 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection C3: Tree number three July 23, 2012 The photo above is of the main stem of tree number three in the lower yard below the proposed construction. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 15 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection C4: Tree number four July 23, 2012 The photo above is of tree number four with codominant stems and poor architecture. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 16 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection CS: Tree number five The photo above is of tree number five. July 23, 2012 Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com 17 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Co: Crwn spread of tree number three The photo above is the crown spread of tree number five on the lower slope. THe fencing may encroach into the drip line to a minimum distance of sixteen feet from the main stem. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 18 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Appendix D.: Tree Protection Guidelines Tree protection locations should be marked before any fencing contractor arrives. Pre -Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist, Prior to beginning work, all contractors involved with the project should attend a pre construction meeting with the project arborist to review the tree protection guidelines. Access routes, storage areas, and work procedures will be discussed. Tree Protection Zones and Fencing Tree protection fencing should be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Fencing should be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight -foot tall, 1 7/8 -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart.. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be i documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone No storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil will be allowed within the Tree Protection Zone. Spoils from the trenching'shall.not be placed within the tree protection zone either temporarily or permanently. Construction personnel and equipment shall be routed outside the tree protection zones. Root Pruning When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick®monarcharborist.com 19 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both. sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Timing If the construction is to occur during the summer months supplemental watering and bark beetle treatments should be applied to help ensure survival during and after construction. -,� Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C -61/D-49 or C-27 California Contractors License. Tree pruning should be according to ANSI A -300A ' pruning standards and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre -construction walk through. Tree Protection Signs All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited. Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix E).. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rickgmonarcharborist.com 20 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 "V�; 0 -0M 03 C3 a oCD 1 0 CO CD O D� C� C:) ° D 6 O CO 0) r n w 1 CO N n 3 O zT Cr0 C O 3 N 1 WARNING Tree Protection Zone This Fence Shall not be moved without approval. Onlyauthorized personnel may enter this area! Project Arborist M N CO O D (D Q 0 x O o. M Cr1 (D N M CD C -t SU 0 OL r (DCD n � O OCD a M O C ��� :v m On CO w O x CL 1 11) OCD oCO CD �0 _o D� CTI� CD �D C: a En r r n 00 G) W w OD N CUIDADO Zona D.e Arbol Pretejido Esta-cerca no sera removida sin aprobacion. Solo personal autorizado entrara en esta area! Project Arborist N Cn CO O a 3 O O w a Cr 0 CD C O w a —I co m 0 CD a 0 3 ON 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant's fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or ' surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a _ representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 23 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 25860 Altamont Road - Arborist's Report and Tree Protection July 23, 2012 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other parry, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; -� I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist® and a Certified Tree Risk Assessor. I, have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. { Richard I Gessner fejt -� ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 _ ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE -4341 B i ISA - PNW Certified Tree Risk Assessor #904 ^� Copyright © Copyright 2012, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Richard Gessner - Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - (831) 331-8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 24 P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 October 29, 2012 Tobin Dougherty Tobin Architects AIA Dear Tobin, MQ P.O. Box 1010 Felton, CA 95018 831. 331. 8982 RECEEK-0 IvO 'V 2 e 20 i2 TOWN OF LO5 AITOS HILLS s»ftanq Arbarasts LLC I reviewed the latest plans C-1, C-2, C-3, C-4, and C-5 dated October 16, 2012 regarding the property located at 25860 Altamont Road, Los Altos -Hills, CA 94022. The plans conform to the tree protection distances and guidelines I .provided in my report dated July 23;.2012. All grading activity shall be outside established tree protection zones or critical root zones. No grading, cutting, or filling will occur within the critical, root zones of the trees and is outside the established tree protection zones indicated in the arborist's report dated July 23, 2012. All tree protection fencing will need to be established prior to any grading and the restrictions within the tree protection zone shall be enforced by the contractor. The current grading, drainage, and utility plans have been designed in accordance with the tree protection guidelines outlined in the July 23, 2012 arborist's report. Please.Contact me with any questions. Sincerely, , Richard J. Gessner Rick Gessner, Monarch ConsultingArborists UC, 831.331.898-,, rick@monarcharborist.com ISA Board Certz$'i iasterArborist® WE-434iB/ASCARegistered Consulting Arborist@@ #496 '' www..monimharborist.com 3,�;-