The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS October 19, 2006 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN FOR A 7,010 SQUARE FOOT NEW RESIDENCE APPROVED AT THE FAST TRACK HEARING OF MARCH 15, 2006. LANDS OF ANDREWS, 26030 NEWBRIDGE DRIVE. (138-06-ZP-SD) FROM: Brian Froelich, Assistant Planner TF- APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro,Planning Directorc5Q RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, subject to the attached conditions of approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND The new residence, detached garage, and swimming pool were approved at the Fast Track Hearing on March 15, 2005 (SDP#236-04-ZP-SD-GD). Conditions of approval required the property owner to dedicate a 30 foot half width right of way over Newbridge Drive and a 30 foot wide Open Space Easement over a seasonal drainage swale on the west side of the property. The new residence is a single story design with a partial basement and a detached two- car garage. The property has a sanitary sewer easement over the northern 10 feet of the property and a public utility/wire clearance easement along the eastern property boundary. DISCUSSION Article 8 of the Site Development Code (Attachment 2) addresses landscaping to maximize compatibility of development with the natural environment and to ensure that structures, as viewed from off-site, blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive. Landscape Screening Plan The site is currently screened with partial perimeter vegetation that includes Acacia trees,Eucalyptus trees, fruit trees, and other evergreen trees. Planning Commission Lands of Andrews 26030 Newbridge Road October 19,2006 Page 2 of 6 The screening proposal includes: 0 4-15 gallon White Oleanders along the northern property line. • 48-15 gallon English Laurel along the northern and southern property boundaries. • 13-15 gallon Toyon along the Newbridge Drive frontage. • 13-15 gallon Pacific Wax Myrtle along the Newbridge Drive frontage. • 5-15 gallon black Acacia trees along the eastern and southern property boundary. • 13-5 gallon SiMassel shrubs along the Newbridge Drive frontage. Committee Review The Environmental Design Committee provided comments that were forwarded to the property owner and landscape team. The committee recommended that a row of shrubs be extended along the southern property boundary. The project applicant has reported that they have worked with the adjacent neighbor with regard to the screening along the southern boundary and the extension is not necessary for screening. Neighbor Issues A neighbor at 26990 Orchard Hill Lane, Alexander Atkins has presented concerns to staff regarding site drainage, proposed screening, existing vegetation in the sanitary sewer easement and the existing Eucalyptus trees on site and in the adjacent right of way. The following is a summary of Mr. Atkins issues (email correspondence Attachment 8): Site Drainage-Mr. Atkins has commented that the seasonal swale along the front of the subject property is obstructed by a fence and screen that can clog with debris and cause flooding in the surrounding area. According to a survey of the property, the subject fence is located entirely on the neighbor's property at 26005 Newbridge Drive. The project applicant has been made aware of this issue and has reported that they intend to work with their neighbor to keep the drainage swale clear of debris. i Planning Commission Lands of Andrews 26030 Newbridge Road October 19,2006 Page 3 of 6 Proposed Screening-Originally the project applicant had proposed a 5 gallon White Oleander and English Laurel hedge along the northern property boundary. Mr. Atkins requested that the applicant increase the size to 30 gallon specimens and extend the hedge to screen the new detached garage from his property. The applicant responded by increasing the size of the White Oleander and English Laurel shrubs to 15 gallon along the northern property boundary but did not extend the hedge. Existing Vegetation in the Sanitary Sewer Easement-Currently there are four 9-inch evergreen trees (African Sumac) that are growing near the sewer main cleanout and manhole in the sanitary sewer easement along the northern property boundary. Mr. Atkins has requested that these trees be removed to prevent sewer maintenance problems in the future. The property owner does not wish to remove these trees at this time because they provide immediate privacy and screening. The Town's Engineering Department is working on a Sanitary Sewer Management Plan (SSMP). The plan will include notification of owners with easements on their properties to remove and/or maintain the vegetation in those easements. However, the Town has not required property owners to remove existing vegetation is sanitary sewer easements in the past. The SSMP is not complete at this time and the existing trees are not required to be removed as part of this request. Eucalyptus Trees-This project is not subject to the Eucalyptus tree ordinance (Section 10-2.802) which requires Eucalyptus trees to be removed with major projects. The Eucalyptus tree ordinance became effective August 27, 2006. The Site Development Permit was approved on March 15, 2005 and the Building Permit for this project was issued July 19, 2005. Prior to the construction of the new residence, the property owner voluntarily removed six (6)Eucalyptus trees adjacent to Mr. Atkins' property. During the review of the current application, Mr. Atkins reported to the Town that a row of Eucalyptus trees on the property adjacent to Newbridge Drive pose a Public Nuisance per Section 12-2.206 and should be removed. The Town has applied this code provision to hazardous trees adjacent to the right of way in the past and has required property owners to trim or remove trees. The Town's Consulting Arborist, Barry Coate and Associates, has evaluated the Eucalyptus trees in question and has provided recommendations for trimming, maintenance, and removal (Attachment 5). Specifically, the report recommends removal of two trees (#7 and#14) and maintenance measures for nine trees (#1, #4, #5, #6, #8, #9, #10, #11, and #13). It must be noted that none of the trees were identified as dead, diseased, infested, or dying per Section 12-2.206 (a) Public Nuisance. Furthermore, the Arborist report also does.not declare that any of the trees pose a clear or immediate P Plarming Commission I - Lands of Andrews 7 -M 26030 Newbridge Road October ctober 19,2006 c Page 4 of 6 hazard. Thus, none of the remaining Eucalyptus trees onsite are required to be removed pursuant to Section 12-2.206 of the Municipal Code. The property owner has stated that they would like to keep the Eucalyptus trees because they provide screening of their residence from Newbridge Drive. They have addressed a letter to the Planning Commission outlining their concerns (Attachment 7). A group of 17 neighbors (six residences) have signed a petition (Attachment 6) requesting that the Planning Commission allow the Eucalyptus trees to remain because they provide valuable screening to the neighborhood. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Article 8 of the Site Development Code(includes Ordinance 503) 3. Article 2 of Chapter 2 of the Parks and Recreation Code 4. Comments from Environmental Design Committee, dated August 23, 2006 5. Barry Coate and Associates report, October 10, 2006 (Draft) 6. Petition from neighbors to keep Eucalyptus trees 7. Letter to the Planning Commission from project applicant 8. Email from Alexander Atkins, 26990 Orchard Hill Lane 9. Landscape screening plans (Commission only) Planning Commission Lands of Andrews 26030 Newbridge Road October 19,2006 Page 5 of 6 ATTACHMENTI. RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS.FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF ANDREWS, 26030 NEWBRIDGE DRIVE File#138-06-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed by the Site Development Authority. 2. All new plantings shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final inspection. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 3. A landscape maintenance deposit of $5,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. The deposit will be released after two years if the plantings remain viable. 4. Outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Any future proposed lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. Lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. 5. It is recommended that the maintenance and removal measures described in the Barry Coate and Associates report dated October 10, 2006 be followed in future maintenance of the Eucalyptus trees on and adjacent to the site. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 6. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage a a plan n sh ]1 be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan. Planning Commission Lands of Andrews 26030 Newbridge Road October 19,2006 Page 6 of 6 7. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 8. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 9. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. ATTACHMENT 10-2.703 LOS ALTOS RLLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.802 necessary to carry out the purposes of this chapter. 6, Ord. 394, eff. October i 9, 1996) Article 8. Landscaping Sec. 10-2.801. Purpose. The purposes of this article are to create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment;to preserve the rural qualities of the Town, to insure that structures, as viewed from off-site, blend . harmoniously with the,natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to maintain soil stability,to abate noises; to protect wildlife habitats;to retain aesthetic quality; and to protect properties against fire and other natural forces. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec.* 10-2.802. Landscaping policies. (a) Erosion. LaMscaping shall be required to control erosion, retard soil creep, and reduce the poWatial for'landslides.. (b) Noise. Landscaping and berms may be' required to shield Town residents from dnn-atural noises;such as those from freeways,arterial streets, and nonresidential ]a'nd uses; (c) Visual effects. ]Landscaping shall be required to mitigate the visual effects of developm' e'nt from'off the site; (d) Preferred Plants. Landscaping should utilize fire retardant species. Native or naturalized plants or other plant species that"blend naturally with the landscape should generally be,favored.. (e) Maintenance. Landscaping shall be maintained in-healthy y condition by property owners and shall intrude into easements, paths, or the lines-of-site required at intersections and along roads. (f) Tree preseriwion. Every feasible attempt should be made to Preserve existing trees. (g)- Views.In order to prevent blockage of scenic views and vistas, the height at maturity of proposed plants and trees shall be considered in determining the appropriateness of landscaping plans. (h) Amount required. The Town shall require only the minimum amount of landscaping necessary to implemen't,the above policies. The amount of landscaping required by the, Town shall be determined by the size of structure, the tylies of materials; and the colors proposed for struc- tures. Structures that blend with the natural landscape will normally require (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) 1058 ORDINANCE NO. 503 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AMENDING SECTION 10-2.802 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WITH REGARD TO LANDSCAPING POLICIES WHEREAS,the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") wishes to preserve the rural qualities of the Town, to insure that structures, as viewed from off-site, blend harmoniously with the natural landscape and are unobtrusive; to maintain soil stability, to abate noises; to protect wildlife habitats; to retain aesthetic quality; and to protect properties against fire and other natural forces. WHEREAS, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills ("Town") has determined that eucalyptus trees are invasive, nonnative tree species which are not suitable within the vicinity of structures and roadways because they are potential safety and fire hazards. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Hills does ORDAIN as follows: 1. AMENDMENT OF. CODE. Section 10-2.802 of Article 8 (Landscaping) of Chapter 2 (Site Development) of Title 10 (Zoning and Site Development) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Sec. 10-2.802.Landscaping policies (f) Tree preservation. Every feasible attempt should be made to preserve existing trees except those trees identified in the Los Altos Hills Landscape Guidelines invasive plant list. (g) Eucalyptus Trees. All existing Blue Gum (E. globulus), Pink Ironbark (E. sideroxylon rosea), River Red Gum (E. camaldulensis), Swamp Gum (E. rudis), Honey Gum (E. melliodora), and Manna Gum (E. viminalis) eucalyptus trees shall be removed at the time of the construction of a principal residence or at the time of the construction of any structure, combination of structures, addition or alteration to structures which individually or cumulatively equal or exceed twelve hundred(1,200) square feet of floor area.Exceptions shall be made for eucalyptus trees greater than 150' from any roadways or structures. 2. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after adoption. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law. 1 of 2 § 10-2.805 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.901 (c) The type of landscaping shall be- appropriate for the composition of the soil in which the .plantings are to be located. Required landscaping should thrive with as little maintenance as possible. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.806. Irrigation systems. Sprinklers and other landscape irrigation systems shall not be allowed in any public right-of-way without an encroachment permit: (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.807. Maintenance of landscaping. Landscaping shall be maintained 'in' a natural, healthy condition. Diseased or dead plants shall be replaced. Combustible brush shall be removed from the site..A minimum of twelve (121 feet vertical clearance shall be maintained over driveways, public pathways and public rights-of-way. Landscaping shall be maintained according to the conditions of any performance bond filed with the Town. (§' 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985] Sec. 10-2.808. Fences and walls. Any wall. or fence may be required to be landscaped. (§ 15-, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. Article 9. Recreation Courts See. 10-2.901. 'Tennis and other recreation courts. (a) Grading. Grading for tennis courts and other recreation courts shall not exceed six (6') feet of fill or twelve (127.feet of cut and fill. A-site development application for a tennis or. other recreation court which proposes grading in excess of the limits in this article may be approved. by the Planning Commission upon finding that the excess cut or fill, (i) Will not result in slopes prone to landslides or soil creep; (ii) Can be landscaped and/or contours rounded to render the cut or fill inconspicuous when viewed from off the site; (iii) Can be properly drained according to methods approved by the City Engineer. (b) Screening. Recreation courts shall be landscaped and screened so.as to be unobtrusive from off-site. The structure will 1059 (Los Altos Hills 3-4-87) § 10-2.802 LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE § 10-2.805 less landscaping for screening purposes than will structures composed of non-natural materials and bright colors. Where slopes are-too steep to support continuous ground cover, niches and ledges may be required for planting. Landscaping may be required for cuts and fills along public roads. (§ 15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.903. Site development]. Landscaping to render structures inconspicuous from off-site and'in conformance with the provisions of this chapter shall be required by the Site Development Authority as a condition of approval of a site devel- opment application. (§ 15, Ord. 299,'eff. December 11, 1985) Sec: 10-2.804. Preferred species list. The Planning Director shall maintain a preferred species list-for distri- bution to applicants. The list shall note any special qualities of particular plant species, such as size at maturity, drought or fire resistance, soil requirements, etc.- 15, tc.15, Ord. 299, eff. December 11, 1985) Sec. 10-2.805: Size and.placcnent. The number and size at maturity of plants used to screen•and break up the outline of structures should be scaled to the size of the structures and the siting angles from prospective viewing points; the types of building materials used, and the color scheme of the stiubtdre. In evaluating the adequacy of proposed landscaping; the following guidelines shall be considered: (a) The shape, outline, color, and form of all structures shall be rendered unobtrusive when viewed from any location off-site at the time landscaping has matured. (b) The type of landscaping used shall be sensitive to the natural topography.For example,on steep slopes,plants that will maximize erosion control should be selected. 1058-1 (Los Altos Hills 10-15-97) Sec. 12-2.201. Control and maintenance. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION ATTACHMENT CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.201. Control and maintenance. (a)The Town shall have control of all street trees, shrubs, and plants or flowers now or hereafter growing in any street, park or public place within the Town limits, but the owner of the property which abuts the street or public place shall be responsible for the care and maintenance of such trees, shrubs and plants. (b) In connection with the approval of a landscaping plan required for the subdivision of land within the Town or as part of any Site Development Permit,the City Council, Planning Commission or Site Development Authority, as the case may be, may include as a part thereof the planting and maintenance of street trees within the portion of any street lying between the property line of the property which is the subject of a Subdivision or Site Development Permit application and the paved or otherwise improved portion of that street. (c) Unless required to plant street trees as a part of a landscaping plan described in subsection (b) above, no other person shall plant, trim, remove, or interfere with street trees, shrubs, plants, or flowers in any street, park, or public place without a permit therefor issued as provided in Sections 12-2.04 and 12-2.05. (d) If the owner of the property which abuts the street or public place upon which are located trees, shrubs or plants and who is responsible for their care and maintenance,fails to care and maintain them, a notice may be sent by ordinary United States mail to the owner or any tenant involved. Such notice shall describe the condition, state the work necessary to remedy the condition, and shall specify the time within which the work must be performed. If, at the end of the time specified, such work has not been performed, the Town may perform such work, and the cost thereof shall constitute a charge against such owner or tenant, and such charge shall be a lien on such property. (§ 1, Ord. 20; § 1, Ord. 316, eff. November 6, 1987; § 1 (part), Ord. No. 332, eff.June 1, 1990) httD://www.bpcnet.com/codes/losaltoshills/ DATA/TITLEI2/CHAPTER_2_TREES_... 10/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.202. Permits: Required. Page 1 of 1 TITLE.1.2: PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.202. Permits: Required. No person, unless authorized by permit, shall: (a) Plant, remove, top, or in any way injure or mutilate any street tree; (b) Fasten any sign, wire, or injurious material to any street tree; or (c) Excavate any ditch or tunnel or place concrete or other pavement within a distance of ten (10') feet from the center of the trunk of any street tree. (§3, Ord. 20; § 1 (part), Ord. 332, eff. June 1, 1990) http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/losaltoshills/_DATA/TITLEI2/CHAPTER_2_TREES_... 10/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.203. Permit: Application. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2.TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.203. Permit: Application. Any person desiring to do any of the work described in Section 12-2.03 may apply for a permit to do so. The application for a permit shall be made on forms provided for the purpose and shall state the work proposed to be done and in the case of removal the number and location of the trees to be removed by types and the reason for removal for each. (§4(a), Ord. 20, §2, Ord. 316, eff. November 6. 1987; § 1 (part), Ord. 332. eff.June 1, 1990) http://www.bpcnet.com/codesA osaltoshills/_DATA/TITLE I2/CHAPTER_2_TREES_... 10/12/2006 ---S�e�c.712--2 .204. Permit; review; conditions. Page I of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.204. Permit; conditions. Each application shall bareviewed to determine: (a)Whether the proposed work: (1) Will create, continue or aggravate any hazardous condition, or public nuisance; (2)Will prevent orinterfere with the growth; location orplanting ofapproved street trees; (3)Will bgconsistent with the planting plan being followed bvthe Town. (b)The condition ofthe tree ortrees with respect todisease, danger offailing, pnzx|mih/to exisbngorproposed s�untuoemand inte� with - (c) |nthe case ofremoval: U\Thenaomoa�vto`' ' i2\The topography ofthe |andandthmeffectofthonannonainfthetremonaroaion, soi| retention and diversion orincreased flow ofsurface vvateno' ' (3)The number of trees existing in the neighborhood on improved property and the effect the removal would have Vnthe established standard of the area and the property values. The City Manager may issue the permit with orwithout reasonable conditions, ormay deny the permit, after making the determinations described above. |fa permiti issued the City Manager may attach aaacondition,the replacement by the applicant ofthe tree with another tree contained in a list of trees determined by the City Council to meet the criteria set forth in Section 11-8.O8. If the application for a permit is denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council which shall hear and determine the appeal at its next regularly scheduled meeting. 4/b\, Ord.2D; §3' Ord.31G' gff. November 0` 1S87| § 1 (pad)' Ord. 332' eff'June |, 199O\ orti>:8wnw`v.bpooct. a1koabi1l 1 .. I0/12Y2006 Sec. 12-2.205. Damages: Liability. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2.TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.205. Damages: Liability. Damages to any street tree caused by any act or omission by any person whenever such act or omission is prohibited by, or not authorized pursuant to, the provisions of this chapter shall be . charged to such person. (§7, Ord. 20; § I (part), Ord. 332, eff. June I, 1990) httn-//www.hncnet_com/codesAosaltoshills/ DATA/TITLEI2/CHAPTER 2 TREES ... 10/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.206. Pub lic nuisances:Enumerated. Page I of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES,.SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.206. Public nuisances: Enumerated. The following are hereby declared to be public nuisances: kdAny dead, diseased, infested, prdrying tree iDany street or on any private property 6onear bO any street as to constitute a danger to street trees, or streets, or portions thereof; tree orshrub onany private property orinany street of a typemrspecies to destroy, impair, or otherwise interfere with any street improvement, sidewalk, curb, approvedntreo4tnam. gutter' aewwer, orother public improvement, including utility mains or services: or (c)Any tree limb, shrub, orplant reaching height more than three (3')feet above the center a^oa.e..^ ".e.e"" except tree trunkshaving//v limbs lower than nine (9')feet above the street center, within the thirty(3D')foot triangle ofprivate property atthe intersection onany streets improved for vehicular traffic; (d)Vines or climbing plants growing into or over any street tree, public hydrant, pole,or existence of any tree which is infested or infected, or in danger of becoming infested or |nfected, with objectionable insects,scale, fungus. or growth injurious to trees; (f)The existence of any branches or foliage which interfere with the visibility of, or free use of. or access to any portion of any street improved for vehicular or pedestrian travel; Az1Hedges ordense thorny shrubs and plants onany street, orportion thereof; (h) Shrubs and plants more than two (2')feet in height in any street measured above the top of the street center; and /i\Any weed ordangerous orobnoxious plant. 5. [>nj. 20; § 1 /padA' C)nd' 332' eff.Junm 1990) ht»n'/6mnvnvFnonet'cnrn/oodomDooalto8hillu/ I3 1 .. I0/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.207. Public nuisances: Abatement. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.207. Public nuisances: Abatement. When a public nuisance, as set forth in Section 10-2.07 of this chapter, exists, a notice may be sent by ordinary United States mail to the owner or tenant involved. Such notice shall describe the condition, state the work necessary to remedy the condition, and specify the time within which the work shall be performed. If, at the end of the time specified, such work has not been performed, the Town may perform such work, and the costs thereof shall constitute a charge against such owner or tenant, and such charge shall be a lien on such property. (§ 6, Ord. 20; § 1 (part), Ord. 332, eff.June 1, 1990) http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/losaltoshills/_DATAMTLE 12/CHAPTER_2_TREES_... 10/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.208. Interference with administration and enforcement work. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS' Sec. 12-2.208. Interference with administration and enforcement work. No person shall interfere with or delay the authorized representative of the Town from the administration and enforcement of the provisions of this chapter, except as provided by law. (§8. Ord. 20; § 1 (part), Ord. 332, eff.June 1, 1990) http://www.bpcnet.com/codes/losaltoshills/_DATA/TITLEI2/CHAPTER_2_TREES_... 10/12/2006 Sec. 12-2.209. Adoption of regulations. Page 1 of 1 TITLE 12. PARKS AND RECREATION CHAPTER 2. TREES, SHRUBS AND PLANTS* Sec. 12-2.209. Adoption of regulations. The City Council, by Resolution, may adopt regulations prescribing standards of landscaping and planting of streets and public places, therein,together with a list of appropriate street trees.A copy of such regulations and street tree list shall be available for public inspection upon request, and all work performed in streets or public places shall be performed in accordance therewith. The following criteria shall be considered in compiling any list of appropriate street trees. Each tree should: (a) Be disease resistant; (b) Not require extensive pruning or leaf clean-up; (c) Be erect and non-drooping for the sake of pedestrians and motorists; (d) Be appropriate to the space in which they are to be planted for their root growth and breadth of canopy in order to reduce sidewalk and utility line damage. (§ 9, Ord. 20; §4, Ord. 316 eff. November 6, 1987; § 1 (part), Ord. 332, eff. June I, 1990) httn-//www DATA/TITLEI2/CHAPTER 2 TREES ... 10/12/2006 ATTACHMENT Environmental Design and Protection Committee Landscape/ Hardscape Evaluation Applicant Date 0 O 123 d V(' Name 7�� I2Y`IS Address_ 26030 N1✓W IDCaE 17�-1� Reviewed by: Mitigation: .y Creeks, drainage, easements: Planting Plan: ign icant is ue /comments: 7 ATTACHMENT 5 DRAFT-Arborist Report prepared by Barrie Coate and Associates-October 10, 2006 Assignment I have been asked by Mr. Brian Froelich, Planner,Town of Los Altos Hills, to evaluate the eucalyptus trees located near the street at the Andrews property, 26030 Newbridge Drive,Los Altos Hills, California. Observations There are 14 eucalyptus trees located near at 26030 Newbridge Drive, Los Altos Hills. It appears that there are 3 species are among these 14 trees as follows: Trees# 1, 8, 10, 11, 12—Eucalyptus A(Eucalyptus species) Trees#2, 3—Eucalyptus B (Eucalyptus species) Trees#4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 13, 14—Red box or Silver Dollar Gum (Eucalyptus polyathemos) I am not able to positively identify the precise species of Eucalyptus A and B without complete flower clusters. There are over 700 species of eucalyptus, of which many are very similar. Complete flower clusters are essential for positive identification with the exception of a few very common species. The Red box or Silver Dollar Gum is one of the more common species found in this area. However,many Red box specimens do not have perfectly round leaves,but many leaves that are more oval. For field reference, I have affixed metallic labels to each of the 14 trees on the sides facing the north. The particulars of these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, and structure) are included in the attachments that follow this text. Please note on these data sheets that the health and structure of each specimen are rated on a scale of 1-5 (Excellent-Extremely poor), which provides the basis for the overall condition rating of each tree, stated above. The condition ratings are ranked using the following range: (1)Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5)Extremely Poor. Excellent Good Fair Poor Extremely Poor Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens Specimens 2, 3 1,4, 5, 6, 7 8, 9, 13, 14 10, 11, 12 Methods The trunk measurements of the existing trees are taken using a standard measuring tape at 41h feet above soil grade, except those specimens whose form does not allow a representative measurement at this height. This is referred to as DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). The height and canopy spread of each tree is estimated using visual references only. Tree#I Tree# 1 is located approirnately 25 feet from the curb of Newbridge Drive. This tree is moderately sparse and has a small quantity of branch tip die back in the top portions of the canopy. Adjacent to this tree, there is a footing, which has been constructed apparently for an entry gate. I observed 3—2 inch diameter roots that have been severed in the face of the soil cut for the footing. In my opinion,this root damage would not likely seriously threaten the stability of this tree. The present canopy die back may not be related to the severed roots,because die back is typically a delayed response by several months. The relationship between the two depends on when the root damage was done. This tree has two limbs that are long and horizontally inclined. The foliage of these two lower limbs is dense. The risk of breakage of these two limbs is higher than other parts of the tree due to dense foliage and the heavy end-weight of each. This risk of breakage could be reduced by end-weight reduction pruning.The density of the canopy should improve by occasional irrigation during the dry months of the year. However, occasional irrigation usually produces greater density, heavier endweights, and greater risks of breakage. In this event, frequent pruning possibly annually would be required. Typically pruning most eucalyptus species every 3 to 4 years would minimize the risk of limb breakage if the pruning were done properly. The lerp psyllid insects in small numbers (2-4 lerps) are found on a few leaves,but this is not an infestation. However, this insect could explain the upper canopy die back, which at this point is minimal. Tree#2 This tree leans at approximately 5 degrees from vertical near the base of the tree and leans approximately 10 degrees from vertical of the upper half of the canopy. Lean is not typically a major concern unless the root system has been compromised, which does not appear to be the case at this time. The overall canopy appears to be slightly sparse,but this is not a major concern. Tree#3 Tree#3 appears to be in relatively good condition.Its branching structure is better than most eucalyptus specimens that I observe. The branch connections are well formed, and these appears to be little risk of breakage. A new water meter and a new PVB (Pressure Vacuum Breaker)have been installed approximately 4-6 feet from the trunk at the street. The location of the main lines appears to cross the root zone of Tree#3, but the location of these lines (the main line for house service and the main line for landscape irrigation) is not obvious at this time. If large roots were severed for this installation, this tree may have been rendered unstable. The locations of these lines should be verified by the contractor and evaluated by a qualified arborist. Tree#4 Tree#4 has a co-dominant leader attached at an acute angle at about 12 inches above grade. This structure often results in the failure of the limb that is more horizontally inclined (the north side leader). I recommend that this leader be removed. There is another attachment with the same problem at about 10 feet above grade on the north side. This could also be addressed by pruning. However, trees that have this structural weakness tend to produce additional poor attachments of this type as they develope. This risk of failure could be greatly reduced or minimized by proper pruning every 3-4 years. Tree#5 Tree#5 has previously suffered a co-dominant leader failure. There is an open wound from this event at the base of the trunk on the north side. There does not appear to be a risk of failure at this time by the surviving leader, which maintains the entire existing canopy. This tree has two additional co-dominant poor branch connections at approximately 30 and 40 feet above grade. One of each of these branch connections should be removed to reduce the risk of breakage. Although this pruning may greatly reduce the risk of branch breakage, there is no guarantee that a break could not occurr. However,this type of risk is not exclusive to eucalyptus species. Tree#6 This tree had previously been topped at about 12 inches above grade. The resulting watersprout growth from the stump now forms the canopy. This is an extremely weak structure,because watersprouts are naturally poorly attached. This is because they were formed from the buds existed in the outter layer of wood at the time main leader was topped. These watersprouts will always be attached to only the outter layers of wood. For this reason, they frequently split out from the original leader. The risk becomes greater as the tree matures and the watersprouts become heavier. It appears that the leader facing the northwest would be the most vulnerable to failure, because of its semi-horizontal angle. If this leader splits out, the other two watersprouts would become at greater risk of failure, due to the reduced connective tissue at the base of the trunk. It appears that cabling the 3 leaders using a triangular method may reduce the risk of breakage. In this event, the cables would require inspection every 2-3 years. Tree#7 Tree#7 has suffered 3 previous failures at approximately 15, 20 and 30 feet above grade on the southeast side. There is currently an open wound at each of these locations. It is likely that these open wounds will develop into cavities in the future even after they become sealed over by floem tissue and bark. This becomes an internal weakness that is not always readily observable from the outside. There is no effective way to reduce this risk, which will likely become greater over time. I recommend that this tree be removed. Tree#8 This tree has suffered 2 previous failures at approximately 6 and 15 feet above grade. The existing structure has codominant leaders with included bark. This structure is highly prone to breakage. One option would be to severely prune one of the leaders. This procedure is called pruning for dominance. The hope is that the surviving leader would eventually become dominant.However,pruning every year would be required initially to remove the new watersprouts. The other option would be to remove this tree. Tree#9 Tree#9 may be assumed to be a shrub. It is currently only about 8 feet in height, because it had been previously topped at about 6 inches above grade. Numerous watersprouts have emerged from the stump. If this tree would be preserved,I recommend that it be preserved as a large shrub. In this event, it would require annual pruning. Tree#10 It appears that the two leaders have been topped either mechanically or naturally. Frequent pruning(every 3-4 years)would be required to manage this specimen. Tree# 11 This tree has suffered several recent bark injuries. Mr. Andrews reports that this was done by P.G. and E. workers. This tree may not be able to seal the largest of these wounds without the development of a cavity or internal cracks. If this tree would be preserved,I recommend that it be-inspected every 2 years. Tree# 12 One of the primary leaders has been removed leaving a single leader that crosses Tree# 11. This is awkward but does not appear to pose a risk at this time. Tree# 13 This tree has co-dominant leaders with included bark at 5 feet above grade. These two leaders currently pose a high risk of splitting apart. A previous co-dominant failure has occurred at about 4 feet above grade. If this tree would be preserved, I recommend that it be pruned for dominance (severe reduction of one of the two leaders). This would require annual pruning for several years. The alternative would be to remove it. Tree# 14 Tree# 14 had bee previously topped at approximately 6 inches above grade. There are 3 surviving leaders. The leader on the west side had previously split apart from the other 3 stems. These surviving leaders are watersprouts, which are inherently weak and prone to failure. The dense canopy increases this risk. The 3 surviving leaders appear to be too close together to make cabling effective. Trenches have been cut inside the dripline to install drain lines on both the north and the south sides of the trunk. There a 4 inch diameter root has been severed and left on the adjacent pile of soil. Additional pieces of roots are observed in the adjacent file of soil. The result of the root damage, it is likely that the canopy will decline, as well as a general weakening of the entire structure. I recommend that this tree be removed. ATTACHMENT (� The undersigned, residents of Newbridge Drive, Los Altos Hills, strongly favor keeping the nine Eucalyptus trees that are in the front of the Andrews property located at 26030 Newbridge Drive. These trees provide valuable screening from the street in addition to a beautiful view as you enter Newbridge Drive. In signing below, I urge the Planning Commission to keep the Eucalyptus trees. Name 4gnature Address v T(�rf1 N►Z rY /Vd2�e v��o yo ✓ R b � C4 e Signature Address Name Signature Address L �� 2 Go f2.r�� Name ignature Address rn�e,liinola borrner NC)WOr-"aoc TAr_ Name ignature Address L—A a,ry T &trnev- -V,®bd ecob l ►j e. Name Signature Address 0 (Ohe1k �� c �6o60 Lj Name Signature Address ZOD 54 f Name a e Address N A .291)56 &z� Name Sha �6�Address ?Uq/74 nml 6,r7 Ake Name Signature Address Name Signature Address I�e9�r 1 ��.�. � �� /1i Q u��7 d.'•e D f Name Signature Address eeY� ZCS r�e �� r Name Signature Address ?- -t "" M OV� �, &/3 Name ignature Address Name v Sign Aac5ess ,V,. IAAv,W I�#e SiJifatureY Address j�- 1 (�AQ Name Signature Address October 10, 2006 To: Los Altos Hills Planning Commission ATTACHMENT Re: Background for Andrews' Landscape Screening permit At the start of our project,we invited all of our neighbors to review our plans for our new house, and solicited their feedback. One of those neighbors,Alex Atkins, did not attend. Nevertheless,I called him and offered to show him the plans;we met and reviewed the plans. All of our neighbors have supported our plans,including the fact that we were replacing a two-story house with a single story home. We feel strongly that our landscape plans provide for the necessary screening of our new, single story home from our neighbors. ' During my initial meeting with Mr. Atkins,he mentioned that he would prefer if we removed the Eucalyptus trees.near our garage that bordered his property. I told Mr. Atkins that although I felt the trees provided the necessary screening between our properties, we would consider his request. Prior to clearing our lot, I walked the property with our landscape architect, Tom Klope, and a tree service company, McClenahan Inc. We identified all the healthy trees on the lot we wanted to save. Unhealthy trees were removed. Mr.Atkins saw that we cleared the lot—without removing all of the trees he wanted removed. Thereafter,I received an irate telephone call claiming that I promised to remove all of the trees he wanted,which, of course,was not the case. I informed Mr.Atkins that he was mistaken. Our landscape architect and contractor felt that we should keep these certain trees that border Mr. Atkins' property for screening value and framing the outdoor spaces. I decided to wait until the house was framed to make a final decision on these trees. Nonetheless, I had the trees pruned to help appease Mr. Atkins' concerns. After mounting pressure from Mr. Atkins we finally agreed to remove the Eucalyptus trees between our garage area and Mr. Atkins' property,believing that this might finally appease Alex. Mr. Atkins had assured me that if we removed those trees by our garage that he would not bother me about any other trees on our property. He specifically said he had no intention or desire to'go after the Eucalyptus trees on the front of my property, as they are not near his property and were none of his business. I received the landscape screening information from Planning Director Debbie Pedro in May 2006, and we filed our landscape plan on August 3, complying with all the Town's guidelines. After reviewing the landscape plan,the Planning Department accepted our plans without changes. As our initial landscape screening meeting came up,we were surprised to learn of Mr. Atkins's raising a number of concerns, including a request that the trees along the front of our property be removed. We understand the Town recently adopted a new ordinance that bans certain Eucalyptus trees near roadways. We have been told by the Town that this ban does not apply to our project, as we had already received our building permit over a year ago October 10, 2006 We believe our landscape screening plan is very reasonable and in accordance with the Town's rules and guidelines. We also believe that we have been very accommodating to our neighbors and the Town, including removal of trees that we were not required to remove. We think it is disingenuous for one of our neighbors who does not live on Newbridge Drive to attempt to derail our project that meets all Town requirements. Our neighbors on Newbridge Drive strongly favor keeping the beautiful trees in the front of our property because they provide valuable screening of our house and provide a beautiful view as one enters our quiet cul-de-sac,Newbridge Drive (see attached petition). We were attracted to the rural character of Los Altos Hills when we decided to purchase our property and one of the primary attractions to our lot was the number of mature trees. We have strived to keep as many as practicable and have designed our house and landscape around these trees. We do not wish to remove any more trees. We have submitted a plan that screens our house from each of our neighbor's houses and is in accordance with all the laws of the Town. The town planning staff reviewed our landscape screening plan and has requested no changes. Therefore, we request that our site development pen-nit (landscape screening) be granted. Sincerely, Eric Andrews &Angela Rumi 2 ATTACHMENT 8 Brian Froelich From: Alexander Atkins [aadinc@pacbell.net] Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 8:33 AM To: Brian Froelich Cc: AAD Subject: Additional Notes Attachments: satellite image.jpg 0 satellite image.jpg (140 KB) Brian: As part of our research for Tue, I came across this satellite image of the Andrews property showing the 100+ trees that were on that property and were essentially all removed (with the exception of the dangerous eucalyptus trees and a handful of other trees on the side opposite our property lines. ) See attached (not the clearest image, but you get the idea) Having reflected further on the sparse landscaping plans that are on file, it is worth noting the astonishing paucity of new trees being proposed for such a large structure (approx 10,000 sq ft of development) and the fact that that property once had over 100 mature, beautiful trees that completely hid the former structures. We will be asking the landscape architect to place more trees beyond the oleander hedge currently on the plans and elsewhere on the property where they add aesthetic value and mitigate neighbor views (particularly the highest points of the house and the garage) . It also makes sense to request a weed barrier to be placed between the row of oleanders (or whatever will be planted there) and our property line. Henry also noted need to grade to create a slight berm to prevent water runoff onto our property. That required a variance which he granted. We also forgot to address the lighting on the plans. We want to make sure that there are no lights located near the high point of the house, or any other points, that can shine light onto our property; I believe the current codes address this specific issue. To confirm our previous notes: 1. Increasing the height (about 7-8 feet) and size of plantings (25 -30+ gal) along the sewer easement. 2. Removal of the euc. tree that is currently about 15 ft. from our property line. 3 . Removal of the two trees straddling the sewer junction/manhole cover 4. Removal of all the eucs adjacent to the roadway, posing a danger to pedestrians and vehicles on a public roadway 5. Working with the Berry property to remove the "dam" created by fencing material and metal rods at the end of the creek that consistently flooded that area. New items: 6. The planting of more native trees on the property commensurate to size and siting of house. 7. Installing weed barrier and creating a slight berm to prevent water runoff along property line. 8. Making sure that all lighting conforms with Town ordinances -- that there are no lights shining onto our property. Please review and contact me with any questions. Also please notify of us any progress or lack thereof on any of these points by end of day Thursday, so that we can plan accordingly for Tuesday meeting. Thank you 1