Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS January 7, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A 6,313 SQ. FT. NEW RESIDENCE WITH A 3,264 SQ. FT. BASEMENT, A 591 SQ. FT. BUNKER, A 648 SQ. FT. SWIMMING POOL, REMOVAL OF HERITAGE OAK TREES AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTIONS; LANDS OF NASHASHIBI; 28008 LAURA COURT; FILE #141-09-ZP-SD-GD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Directo� RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Deny the requested Site Development Permit and Grading Policy Exceptions based on the Findings of Denial in attachment 1; ALTERNATIVE Offer the applicant the option to continue the project and return with a plan that conforms with the Town's Grading Policy and preserve the heritage oak trees. BACKGROUND The subject property is located on the south side of Laura Court near Quarry Lake. A Site Development Permit for a new 6,436 sq. ft. single story residence with a 3,500 sq. ft. basement and 960 sq. ft. swimming pool was approved at a Fast Track hearing on May 23, 2000 (SDP# 312-99-ZP-SD-GD). A building permit was issued on May 18, 2005 (BP# 11413). The original house was demolished but construction of the new residence never commenced and the Site Development and Building Permits for the approved project have since expired. The lot is currently vacant except for an AC driveway along the eastern property line that leads to former home site. The surrounding uses include single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, east, and south, and to the north across Laura Court. CODE REQUIREMENTS As required by Section 10-2.301 (c) of the Municipal Code, this application for a new residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. The Zoning and Site Development sections of the Municipal Code are used to evaluate proposed projects including: floor and development area limitations, grading, drainage, height, setbacks, visibility, and parking requirements. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 2 of 16 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 2.02 acres Net Lot Area: 2.02 acres Average Slope: 25.1% Lot Unit Factor: 1.366 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft.) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 12,755 7,700 12,452 4,752 303 Floor 7,165 0 6,313 6,313 852 Bunker - - (591) - - Basement - - (3,264) - - Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a new 6,313 sq. ft. two story residence with a 3,264 sq. ft. basement, a 591 sq. ft. bunker, and a 648 sq. ft. swimming pool and spa. The property has a steep to very steep slope (35%-58%) on the southeast to northeast facing hillside. The proposed residence is primarily located on the previous residence's building pad. The new residence meets the setback, height, floor area, and development area requirements established in Title 10, Zoning and Site Development, of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code. The proposed exterior materials consist of a stucco facade, stone balustrades, wood windows, clay tile roof, and balconies with glass handrails. The main level of the house has 3,449 sq. ft. of living space with a foyer, living room, study, guest room with a bathroom, family room, nook, kitchen, dining room, and pantry. The second level has 2,664 sq. ft. of living space which is comprised of two master bedrooms and master bathrooms, laundry room, and two bedrooms with bathrooms. The 3,264 sq. ft. basement and 591 sq. ft. bunker include a two car garage, theater, game room, lobby, storage area, laundry room, and a half bathroom. The bunker portion is located underneath the courtyard area along the west property line. The basement/bunker is daylighted in two locations: 1) access into the basement garage on the south side of the residence and 2) game room and lobby along the east elevation of the residence next to the pool. The basement/bunker is exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to Section 10-1.208 of the Municipal Code. i Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 3 of 16 Height The applicant has proposed increased property line setbacks to take advantage of increased building height allowed per Section 10-1.504 of the Municipal Code. The maximum building height on a vertical plane is 30' and the maximum overall height of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) is 34'6". re n�tandardetbackEnlarged a,, Setbacks £�4etbackfor. ' forx3 .r.,i.?6v...4- 2 tall structure ro osed residence Front 40' 52' 115' Sides 30' 39' 44' (west), 65' (east) Rear 30' 39' 270' Grading Policy Exception Total grading quantities for this project include 2,153 cubic yards of cut for the residence, basement, deck, pool, driveway, and fire truck turnaround. Grading quantities for fill include 248 cubic yards for the deck area and part of the driveway. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plans and concluded that the proposed grading is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. The applicant is requesting a. grading policy exception for the driveway, fire truck turnaround, portions of the parking area, and residence. The Town's Grading Policy allows up to 8' of cut for a house, excluding basements, and 4' of cut for driveway, parking, and yard areas. The purpose of the Town's Grading Policy is to assure that proposed construction retains the existing site contours and landforms, to the greatest extent possible. It is also intended to provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill. 0ry t.� )«,.r,.ddmk,m.�5.,eC. .r.,i.?6v...4- 12' cut (house) House with Basement 8' cut 8' cut (basement) 20' overall House (northeast comer) 3' fill 6' fill Deck, Pool, Driveway, Turnaround 4' cut 9' Cut The purpose of the Town's Grading Policy is to assure that proposed construction retains the existing site contours and landforms, to the greatest extent possible. It is also intended to provide guidance for "stepping" structures down sloped hillsides and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill. Ir Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 4 of 16 The proposed grading does not lower the profile of the house as there will be two full stories over the daylighted basement, creating a three story fagade on the east elevation. In addition, the proposed cut and fill levels exceeds the minimum necessary to construct a new residence as there has been a alternative house design previously approved on this property which did not require a Grading Policy exception. Not being granted the privilege to build a new home with grading policy exceptions would not constitute denial of reasonable use of the property because it is possible.to design a new residence of similar size to meet the Town's grading limits. Staff is unable to make findings of approval for the Grading Policy exception based on the following: • The proposed grading is not in conformance .with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1: "Uses of land shall... minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping" • The proposed grading is not consistent with the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code Section 10-2.702(c): "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. 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" • The proposed grading and retaining walls will encroach within the driplines of heritage oak trees #26 and #28 and severely impact the protected trees. Recommended Findings of Denial is included in attachment 1. If the Commission decides to approve the project as proposed, conditions of approval in attachment 2 should be cited and staff should be directed to prepare findings of approval for the Grading Policy exceptions. Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected and carried to a storm water detention system which consists of a 50'L x 30'D and a 53'L x 30"D perforated storage pipes located approximately 55' away from the north property line. Pursuant to Section 10-2.503, Drainage Facilities Standards, of the Municipal Code, the Engineering Department has reviewed and determined that the proposed drainage design complies with Town requirements. The Engineering Department will review and approve the final drainage plan prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Final "as - built" grading and drainage will be inspected by the Engineering Department, and any deficiencies will be required to be corrected prior to final inspection. Staff Report to the Planning Conunission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 5 of 16 Oak Tree Removal The existing landscaping on the property includes a mix of trees and shrubs including 20 coast live oaks, 11 Monterey pines, 8 redwoods, 6 eucalyptuses, and several fruit trees. According to a report prepared by certified arborist David L. Babby of Arbor Resources dated May 26, 2009 (Attachment 6), there are sixteen (16) heritage oak trees on the property with trunk diameter greater than 12". The applicant is requesting to remove two (2) heritage oak trees for this project: a 14" oak (Tree# 27) located the center of the proposed fire truck turnaround and a 12" oak (Tree # 6) located in the proposed pathway easement. Two additional heritage oaks, one located south of the driveway (Tree #26) and near at the end of the fire truck turnaround (Tree 428) will be severely impacted by the proposed grading. The arborist recommended preservation of these trees with tree #26 be relocated elsewhere on-site or that the proposed plans be revised so that no grading occurs within 15' from the tree trunks. However, according to the proposed grading plan (Sheet C-1), cut of up to 7' is still proposed within 15' of the trunk and trees #26 and #28 would likely be subject to severe impacts, premature decline, and instability. Therefore, if the Commission decides to approve the project as proposed, staff recommends that the applicant be required to replace tree #s 6, 26, 27, and 28 at a 3:1 ratio with 48" box oaks (Condition #4). In addition to the aforementioned oaks, six (6) pine trees, two (2) redwoods, and a plum tree are proposed to be removed for the construction of the new driveway and pathway. Six (6) eucalyptuses on the property are required to be removed per Section 10-2.802.g of the Town's Ordinance. To ensure that all remaining heritage oaks will be protected throughout the construction period, staff has included the arborist's tree protection recommendations (conditions of approval #5 and #6). If any of additional heritage oak trees does not survive the construction process, they shall be replaced at a 3:1 at ratio with 48" box oaks prior to final inspection. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence (condition of approval #3). Furthermore, any landscaping required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection, and a maintenance deposit will be collected prior to final inspection, to ensure viability of the plantings. Driveway & Parking A new driveway is planned primarily in the same location as the existing driveway. 3,375 sq. ft. of driveway and parking area will be constructed of permeable concrete which qualifies for a 30% development area credit. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 6 of 16 Pursuant to Section 10-1.601 of the Municipal Code, a total of four (4) parking spaces are required for the new residence. A two (2) car basement garage is proposed at the rear of the residence, and two (2) exterior uncovered parking spaces are located outside the setbacks abutting the fire truck turnaround. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing 15 exterior lights located on main residence at -the doorways. Staff has included condition #11 for outdoor lighting, requiring that fixtures be down shielded or have frosted glass, be of low wattage, and shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties. The applicant has noted on the floor plans that all proposed fixtures will have frosted glass and comply with the Town's Outdoor Lighting Policy. Fire Department Review The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the proposal and is requiring a 14' wide driveway, fire truck turnaround, and a sprinkler system throughout all portions of the new residence. (Attachment 3) Geotechnical Review The Town's geotechnical consultant Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., has reviewed the soil and foundation reports prepared by Terrasearch, Inc., dated May 10, 2009 and May 27, 2009 and recommends approval of the permit based on the conditions of approval number 17 a, b, & c. (Attachment 4) Green Building Ordinance This project is required to comply with the Town's Green Building Ordinance. The new residence is designed to achieve 72 points in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends dedication of a 10' wide pathway easement along the east and south property lines, construction of a type 2B pathway along the east property line, and a native path along the south property line. (Conditions 424 & 25) The Environmental Design and Protection Committee noted that it is critical to use tree protection measures during construction. (Attachment 5) Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 7of16 Neighbor Concerns The applicant has conducted neighborhood outreach and provided two (2) letters from the neighbors at 25398 La Loma Drive and 28016 Laura Court which state that they have reviewed the proposed plans for the new residence. (Attachment 7) CEOA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) & (e) ATTACHMENTS 1. Findings of Denial for the Grading Policy Exception 2. Recommended Conditions if project is approved 3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated June 17, 2009 4. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc., dated June 23, 2009 5. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated July 20, 2009 6. Arborist Report dated May 26, 2009 7. Letters from Neighbors at 25398 La Loma Drive and 28016 Laura Court 8. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 9. Worksheet #2 10. Development plans: site, grading & drainage, floor, MDA & MFA breakdowns, roof plan, elevation, and building sections Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January. 7, 2010 Page 8of16 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF DENIAL FOR A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION LANDS OF NASHASHIBI, 28008 LAURA COURT File 4114-09-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed grading is not in conformance with the General Plan Land Use Element Policy 1.1 which states that "Uses of land shall be consistent with the semi -rural atmosphere of the community, minimize disturbance to natural terrain, minimize removal of the natural vegetation, and create the maximum compatibility of development with the natural environment through site design and landscaping". In addition, Program 2.2 of the Land Use Element states that "Limit grading on hillsides to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures. Structures should be located so that they are consistent with slope contours and compatible with the terrain." The requested grading exceptions exceed the minimum necessary to accommodate a new residence. The subject property is not unique in size, shape, or topography to prevent the design of a new residence and associated retaining walls which would minimize disturbance to the natural terrain and vegetation. A new residence of similar size and a swimming pool which complied with all Town Ordinances and Policies was approved on May 23, 2000 for this property. 2. The proposed grading exception is not consistent with Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code: "The location of all structures should create as little disturbance as possible to the natural landscape. 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. Additional grading may be allowed for the purpose of lowering the profile of the building provided that at the completion of the project the visual alteration of the natural terrain is minimized. The removal of vegetation and alteration of drainage patterns shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate the proposed structure." One of the reasons for the excessive grading is to site the new residence at an elevation where the majority of the basement will be exempt from floor area calculations. The excessive cut requested will not serve to lower the profile of the house but rather result in portions of the house appearing as a 3 story structure. 3. Per Section 12-2.502 of the .Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, "...The Planning Commission... in reviewing development proposals or subdivisions, shall seek to preserve and protect existing trees, especially Heritage Oaks and heritage trees, from unnecessary removal or damage by placing conditions on development approvals." The proposed grading exceptions will occur within the driplines of heritage oak trees #26 and #28 and impact the health of these protected trees. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 9of16 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT, BUNKER, AND SW WMING POOL LANDS OF NASHASHIBI, 28008 LAURA COURT File # 114-09-ZP-SD-GD G I0AMI7.11-WINTMal 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 of the new residence. Removal of eucalyptus trees shall take place between the beginning 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 new residence 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 of the new residence. 4. The applicant shall replace the four (4) heritage oak trees impacted by the project with twelve (12) 48" box oaks prior to final inspection. 5. The applicant shall follow recommendations in the arborist's report dated May 26, 2009 with tree protection measures for the heritage oak trees located on the property. The applicant shall submit a report Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 10 of 16 from a certified arborist regarding the health of trees # 36 and #37 and certify that the tree protection measures suggested by the arborist were followed during the construction. and the health of the trees after construction. If any of these trees die due to the impacts of the construction, they shall be replaced at a 3 to 1 ratio of 48" box oak trees prior to final inspection. 6. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. 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. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 7. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $5,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 8. 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 and roof eaves are no less than 52' from the front property line and 39' 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 requesting a foundation inspection. 9. 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 30'0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof materials)." 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 Staff Report to the Planning Coirnnission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 11 of 16 elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall subunit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 10. No fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 11. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the floor plans. There shall be one light per door or two for double doors. The source of light shall not be visible from offsite: 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. 12. 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. 13. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 14. 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. 15. 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 12 of 16 16. To qualify for development area credits, the following conditions must be completed: a. Applicant must provide manufacturer's specifications and data for the materials including water absorption rate, installation procedure, and maintenance requirement guidelines with plans submitted for the building permit. b. Applicant must provide hydrologic calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer to demonstrate that post -development peak discharge value for water runoff does not exceed the existing pre - development peak discharge value of the property with plans submitted for the building permit. c. No less than 3,375 square feet of permeable concrete shall be installed on the driveway and parking area and 272 sq. ft. of permeable pavers shall be installed on the patio at the north end of the house, per the approved plans, prior to final inspection. 17. All properties 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 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. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 18. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated June 23, 2009, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Geotechnical Investigation Update -The project geotechnical consultant shall updated site mapping (including distribution of fill materials), review revised development plans, and perform necessary supplemental subsurface exploratory investigation. The approximate areas where existing fill requires remediation should be clearly depicted in plan view. The consultant shall update/supplement recommended geotechnical design criteria should be considered in recommendations for basement floor design. The consultant shall consider performing additional borings in the vicinity of proposed parking areas to determine the extent fill materials. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 13 of 16 Appropriate documentation to address the above items should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. b. Geotechnical Plan Review -The project geotechnical consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e. site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameter for retaining walls and foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants recommendations. The design and location of all surface and subsurface drainage discharge structures should be evaluated from a geotechnical perspective. The results of the geotechnical plan review shall be summarized by the project geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check c. Geotechnical Field Inspection- The geotechnical consultant shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, temporary shoring during basement excavation and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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 prior to acceptance final inspection of the new residence. For further details on the above geotechnical requirements, please refer to the letter from Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., dated June 23, 2009. 18. Peak discharge at 28008 Laura Court, as a result of Site Development Permit 114-09, 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 14 of 16 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. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the detention storage design improvements were installed as shown on the approved plans and in accordance with their recommendations. 19. 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. 20. 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 undergrounding utilities which can take up to 6-8 months. 21. 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. 22.- 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 Laura Court 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. 11 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 15 of 16 23. 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. 24. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement along the east and south property line as shown on the Site Plan, to the Town. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil engineer. or a licensed land surveyor and the Town shall prepare the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the Town prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. 25. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway with water bars along the east property line and a native pathway along the south property line to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. The property owner/contractor shall meet with engineering staff onsite to go over the pathway alignment and construction detail prior to start work on the pathway. 26. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, prior to final inspection. 27. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior. to final inspection. A sewer hook up 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. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 28. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the 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 of the new residence. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Nashashibi 28008 Laura Court January 7, 2010 Page 16 of 16 - 29. The applicant shall provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14', vertical clearance of 13'6", minimum circulating turning radius of 36' outside and 23' inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. 30. The applicant shall provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of.36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. 31. 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. 32. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of the California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. CONDITION NUMBERS 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24 and 27 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK' BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection approval. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until January 7, 2011). 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. - FIIIE� COURTESY 8 SERVICE PAPRTM NT SANTA. CLARA COUNTY RECEIVED Attaclunent 3 14700 Winchester Blvd. Los Gatos CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) © www.sccfd.orgTOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS `�rnaci Ac ALTOS Internationally Accredited Agency DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMEN'T'S CODE/SEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAMC 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 1508 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 114-29-ZP-SD-GD Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Fire Sprinklers Required: Approved automatic sprinklers are required in all new and existing modified buildings when gross floor area exceeds 3,600 square feet or that are 3 or more stories in height. Exception:One-time additions to existing buildings made after 01 / 01 / 2008 that do not exceed 500 gross square feet. An automatic sprinkler shall be provided in all new structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable accessory efrT l r+f, l voo to single family residences that have gross floor area of 500 square feet or less. A (State of California licensed (C-16) Fire Protection Contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. Wildland-Urban Interface: 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. Note that vegetation clearance shall be in compliance with CBC Section 701A.3.2.4 prior to project final approval. Check with the Planning Department for related landscape plan requirements. Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It is the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying the site of such project, and to comply with the requirements of that purveyor. Such requirements shall be incorporated into the design of any water-based fire protection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE AppllcantName DATEFPAGE LAH N ElN❑❑ R-3, U V -B NILSEN ARCHITECTURE 6/17/2009of 2 SEC./FLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION By 2 story + bsmt 6620 sf Residential Development Harding, Doug NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 28008 Laura Ct Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga GIARA FIRE COURTESY 6 SERVICE Fl>jE DEPARTMENT RECEIVES SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 R 2009 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.org Internationally Accredited IfllN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Agency PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 0 9 1508 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODEISEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT �c Sec. K Sec. -C Sec. BLDG PERMIT NUMBER FILENUMBER 114-29-ZP-SD-GD containers that may be physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable water supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not be granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are documented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with a paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 157o. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. See Page C-1 of plans. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. See Page C-1 of plans. 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. Numbers shall contrast with their background. To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be addressed as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any referenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3, U V -B NILSEN ARCHITECTURE 6/17/2009 2 2 --[6620 OF :C./FLOORAREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY ;tory +bsmt sf Residential Development Harding, Doug AME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR 128008 Laura Ct Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga Attachment 4 COTTON, SHRRES & ASSO(CIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS June 23, 2009 10109 TO: Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review l'r: Nashashibi.Fasnily Trust, New Res;'Jence 114-09-ZP-SD-GD 28008 Laura Court At your request, we have completed a preliminary geotechnical peer review of the applications for proposed site improvements using: • Geotechnical Update (letter), prepared by Terrasearch, Inc. dated May 27,2009; ® Geotechnical Investigation (report), prepared by Terrasearch, Inc., dated May 10, 1999; • Architectural Plans and Sections (9 sheets, varying scales), prepared by Nilsen Architecture, undated; and • Site Plan, Grading and Drainage Plans, Profiles and Details (5 sheets, varying scales), prepared by TS Civil Engineering, dated June 4, 2009. In addition, we completed a recent site inspection and reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family residence, driveway, parking area and associated hardscape. The proposed residence is to be a two-story structure constructed over a full day -lighting basement. We understand that the proposed structure will be located approximately in. the vicinity of the former building. Based on our review of the referenced plans, a pool is also proposed at the front Of the planned house, to be constructed at the basement grade. The driveway location will vary slightly from its current alignment near the intersection with Laura Court. According to the referenced report, the Project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that the proposed structure be supported by a pier and grade beam Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 o Fax (408) 354-1852 e-mail: losgatos@cottonshires.com www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 o Fax (209) 736-1212 e-mail: cottonshires@starband.net Nicole Horvitz June 23, 2009 Page 2 L0109 foundation, with piers embedded a minimum of 10 feet below grade or 5 feet into bedrock, whichever is deeper. Based on review of the referenced plans, grading quantities are anticipated to include 2,153 cubic yards of cut and 248 cubic yards of fill materials. SITE CONDITIONS The slopes on the subject property include steep to very steep (approximately 35 to 58 percent inclinations) southeast- to northeast- facing hillside topography. Grading activities, associated .with the demolition of the former residence, have resulted in stepped, relatively level terraces in the upslope portions of the property. During our site visit, we noted distress to the existing driveway, likely associated with settling of -iderlt �inb fill;naterials. We also noted. evidence of previous grading activities located around the property, resulting in graded pads of varying size, and areas of sidecast fill. Drainage is characterized by uncontrolled sheetflow to the northeast that is ultimately intercepted by an unpaved section of Laura Court bounding the lower portion of the property. The Town Geologic Map indicates that the property is underlain, at depth, by greenstone bedrock of the Franciscan Complex (highly consolidated, red -brown to green, massive, fractured, altered basaltic volcanic rock). According to the referenced 1999 report, it appears that the Project Geotechnical Consultant has determined that the site is underlain by up to 13 feet of silty clay overlying claystone. During our site inspection, we noted greenstone bedrock exposed in cuts located just above the former building pad. The nearest traces of the potentially active Berrocal and Monta Vista are mapped approximately 1,000 feet to the northwest and 3,400 feet to the southwest, respectively. An active trace of the San Andreas fault is mapped approximately 2 miles to the southwest. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION Proposed site development appears to be primarily constrained by the proximity to ven, steep slopes, areas of tuidoctunented and _potentially non -engineered fill, potential instability of temporary basement cuts and the susceptibility to strong to violent seismic ground shaking. Our review of the site geotechnical report (dated May 1999) and referenced Geotechnical Update letter indicate that the Project Geotechnical Consultant had performed an investigation of site conditions and provided adequate geotechnical design criteria for the earlier proposed site development. However, the project scope has changed to include a basement and a pool to be located downslope of the proposed structure. Additional cuts are proposed into the lower slopes to accommodate a new driveway alignment. The site plans also indicate that a parking area is now proposed over an area of existing fill materials. The referenced Geotechnical Update letter indicates that additional subsurface exploration will be necessary in areas of the proposed improvements to evaluate COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz June 23, 2009 Page 3 L0109 existing conditions (interim demolition and grading have modified previous conditions). We do not have geotechnical objections to the basic proposed layout of site improvements. However, we recommend that the Project Geotechnical Consultant complete the following Items 1 and 2 prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 1. Geotechnical Investigation Update - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should update site mapping (including distribution of fill materials), review revised development plans, and perform necessary supplemental subsurface exploratory investigation. -Me appro),Lr?ate -areas +;here existing fall regp:dres rerun ediabon should be clearly depicted in plan view. The consultant should update/supplement recommended geotechnical design criteria relating to the basement and pool. An axial subdrain system should be considered in recommendations for basement floor design. The Consultant should consider performing additional borings in the vicinity of proposed parking areas to determine the extent of existing fill materials. Appropriate documentation to address the above items should be submitted to the Town for review by the Town Engineer and Town Geotechnical Consultant prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Plan Review - The Project Geotechnical Consultant shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements, and design parameters for retaining walls and foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The design and ivcation of all surface .arid s rbS'�fa.ce drainage discharge structures should be evaluated from a geotechnical perspective. The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 3. Geotechnical Field Inspection - 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, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz Page 4 June 23, 2009 L0109 temporary shoring during basement excavation and excavations for foundations, and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. 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 geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Towyi with its discretionary permit decisions. Dur ser,; ices have been lim.1 ted 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. TS:DTS:MM:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer. GE 2334 COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Ewiria oameIInta. -jesign and Protection COMMittee Attachment 5 New Residence/Remodel Evaluation RECEIVED Reviewed by a�-. � � (�J i � '� � 2009 C . Applicant artVliN OF LOS ALTOS FElLL�ate , Address Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: '� C'tP�e hey nc C�S�c Existing Vegetation: U r ��� 4 Significant issues/comments: 401)- , �1CC f71 p -c oC1"t Attaclnnent 6 ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arbori5t5 and tree care r 109 O�IZ�OFLOS ALTOS H/L ta A TREE INVENTORY AND REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT AT 28008 LAURA COURT LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust 99 Magellan Avenue San Francisco, CA 94116 Prepared by: David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001 B May 26, 2009 p.o. box 25295, san Mateo, california 94402 email: arborresources@comcast.net phone: 650.654.3351 0 fax: 650.240.0777 licensed contractor #796763 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION TITLE PAGE 1.0 INTRODUCTION........................................................... 1 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION 2 .................................. 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION ....................... 3 4.0 POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS 5.0 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES 6 ................................... 5.1 Design and Construction Planning Guidelines ............................ 6 5.2 Protection Measures before and during Construction ................... 7 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ...................11 EXHIBITS EXHIBIT TITLE A TREE INVENTORY TABLE B SITE MAP C PHOTOGRAPHS (includes photo index) i David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Nashashibi Family Trust is planning to construct a new single-family residence and driveway on a vacant parcel at 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, California. I have been retained by the Nashashibi Family Trust to prepare this report as part of the submittal process for the proposed project, and specific tasks performed are as follows: ■ Identify all trees that are located on the subject site, are exposed to potential impacts during site development, and have trunk diameters greater than 6.37 inches at 48 inches above grade. I Measure their trunk diameters at approximately 54 inches above grade or as appropriate to obtain the most representative sample of trunk size; all diameters are rounded to the nearest one-half of an inch. Trees with more than one trunk diameter listed have multiple trunks. ■ Estimate canopy spreads. ■ Ascertain each tree's physiological health and structural integrity, and assign an overall condition rating (e.g. good, fair, poor or dead). ■ Rate each tree's suitability for preservation (e.g. high, moderate or low). ■ Assign numbers to each inventoried tree, and plot these numbers on the map presented in Exhibit B; the map is copy of Sheet C-1 (Site Plan), dated 5/15/09, by TS Civil Engineering, Inc. ■ Affix metal tags with corresponding numbers to each trunk (the tags are round aluminum with engraved numbers — not to be confused with the rectangular tags found on many trees). ■ Obtain photographs of each tree; these can be viewed in Exhibit C. ■ Review the current set of civil drawings. ■ Identify which trees are defined as "heritage oaks" pursuant to Section 12-2.112 of the Town's Municipal Code. ■ Prepare a written report that presents the above information, and provide recommendations to help avoid or mitigate anticipated impacts to trees that will be retained (i.e. a "tree protection plan"); this report was emailed in a PDF format. 1 Pursuant to Section 9-1.607 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, trees with trunk diameters greater than 6.37 inches at 48 inches above grade are regulated. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 1 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 2.0 TREE COUNT AND COMPOSITION Forty-eight (48) trees of six various types were inventoried for this report. They are sequentially numbered as 1 thru 48, and the following table identifies their names, numbers and percentages: Total 48 100% Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. The trees' approximate locations can be viewed on the map in Exhibit B. As indicated in the above table, the site is populated primarily by coast live oaks and Monterey pines. The following 16 oaks are defined as "heritage oaks" due to having trunk diameters of 12 inches or greater at four feet above grade: #2, 6, 18, 26-28, 30, 33, 36-41, 43 and 44. The following 14 trees are missing from the project plans: #6-15, 20, 34, 35 and 42. Note that their locations, as shown on the map in Exhibit B (trunk is indicated by a blue dot), are only approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed or necessarily accurate. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 2 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust 'h' WOFI t F T1�EE.'NUIVIB.ER S`,CUNT TaT►L , California Black Walnut 21 1 2% Coast Live Oak 2, 6, 18, 20, 26-28, 20 42% 30, 33-41, 43-45 Coast Redwood 1, 3-5, 42, 46-48 8 17% Eucalyptus 8, 10, 12, 15, 17, 32 6 13% 7, 9, 13, 14, 19, 22- Monterey Pine 11 23% 25, 29, 31 Plum 11,16 2 4% Total 48 100% Specific information regarding each tree is presented within the Tree Inventory Table in Exhibit A. The trees' approximate locations can be viewed on the map in Exhibit B. As indicated in the above table, the site is populated primarily by coast live oaks and Monterey pines. The following 16 oaks are defined as "heritage oaks" due to having trunk diameters of 12 inches or greater at four feet above grade: #2, 6, 18, 26-28, 30, 33, 36-41, 43 and 44. The following 14 trees are missing from the project plans: #6-15, 20, 34, 35 and 42. Note that their locations, as shown on the map in Exhibit B (trunk is indicated by a blue dot), are only approximate and should not be construed as being surveyed or necessarily accurate. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 2 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 3.0 SUITABILITY FOR TREE PRESERVATION Each tree has been assigned a "high," "moderate" or "low" suitability for preservation rating as a method for cumulatively measuring and considering their physiological health, structural integrity, location, size and species. A description of these ratings with the assigned tree numbers are presented below; note that the "high" category comprises 10 trees (or 21 %), the "moderate" category 14 trees (or 29%), and the "low" category also 24 trees (or 50%). High: These trees have a high potential of providing long-term contribution to the site, appear in good health, and contain seemingly stable structures. ■ Applies to #21, 26,28,33,34,38-41 and 44. Moderate: These trees contribute to the site but not at seemingly significant levels. Their longevity and contribution is less than those of high suitability, and more frequent care is needed during their remaining life span. ■ Applies to 92, 3, 5,18-20, 27, 30, 31,35-37, 45 and 47. Low: These trees are predisposed to irreparable health problems and/or structural defects that are expected to worsen regardless of measures employed (i.e. beyond recovery). In several cases, they are already dead or dying. ■ Applies to #1, 4, 6-17,22-25, 29, 32, 42, 43, 46 and 48. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 3 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist • May 26, 2009 4.0 POTENTIAL TREE IMPACTS The following eight trees would require removal due to being in direct conflict with construction of the proposed driveway, home and stormwater detention area: #1, 2, 24, 25, 27, 42, 45 and 48. Due to their declining, dead or structurally impaired/defective condition, they are assigned only low or moderate suitability for preservation. Tree #2 is a sizeable and healthy coast live oak that has been reduced in height over the year to achieve clearance from the overhead high-voltage electrical lines. If this tree is to remain and maintain a reasonable assurance of survival and stability, the section of driveway should be established at least five feet from its trunk. Additionally, the section within 12 feet from the tree's trunk should be constructed on existing soil grade with no more than a four -inch vertical soil cut (including for base materials, curb/gutter, edging and forms), and require no compaction of the existing soil grade or subgrade (foot -tamping is acceptable).Z Fill can be used to bevel the top of the driveway to existing grade, but should not exceed 24 inches beyond the driveway's edge along tree #2's trunk. Although planned for retention, implementation of the current grading design would subject the following nine trees to severe impacts, premature decline and instability: #3, 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 26 and 28. Of these, all but #26 and 28 are declining or structurally impaired, and are assigned only low or moderate suitability for preservation. Trees #26 and 28 are healthy and stable coast live oaks assigned a high suitability for preservation. For tree #26, either the tree should be relocated elsewhere on-site, or grading revised so no soil cuts (including overcut), fill or compaction occur beyond 24 inches from the driveway proposed north of its trunk, or within 15 feet from its trunk in all other directions. For tree #28, I recommend the section of the westernmost retaining wall (second from the proposed driveway) within 15 feet from the tree's trunk is omitted from 2 Tensar® Biaxial Geogrid (www.tensarcorp.com) should be considered to help achieve the no -dig and restricted subgrade compaction requirements. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 4 of I I Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 the design, and that no soil cuts (including overcut), fill or compaction occur beyond 24 inches from the adjacent retaining wall proposed along the driveway. I observed that the following 11 additional trees should be removed regardless of the project: #8-12, 17, 22, 23, 29, 43 and 46. Each has such significant structural defects or decline that they appear beyond recovery, are unsafe, and should be removed regardless of the proposed project. Trees #30, 35, 36, 37 and 44 would be subjected to a potentially high degree of impacts during grading and construction. To minimize these impacts, I recommend the following guidelines are followed: grading does not occur within 25 feet from tree #30's trunk, and the section of proposed retaining walls beneath the canopies of trees #35-37 and 44 do not require soil cuts (including overcut), fill or compaction beyond 24 inches from the walls' outermost edges. For trees being retained, recommendations presented in the next section must also be carefully followed and incorporated into the project plans to adequately ensure a reasonable degree of their survival. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 5 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 5.0 TREE PROTECTION GUIDELINES Recommendations presented within this section are intended to serve as guidelines for achieving the viable mitigation and protection of retained trees. Note that they are subject to revision upon reviewing any additional or revised set of plans, and I should be consulted if any cannot be feasibly implemented. 5.1 Design and Construction Planning Guidelines 1. For this project, the minimum Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for a retained tree should be regarded as the section of unpaved area that is a radial distance from the trunk of 10 times its diameter (e.g. a tree with a 12 -inch trunk diameter would have a TPZ of 10 feet in all directions from its trunk); for trees with multiple trunks, the largest diameter should be used for determining the TPZ (all distances should be interpreted from a trunk's closest edge). The TPZ is the area where all grading (soil cuts, overcut, fill and finish -grading), trenching and soil scraping shall be avoided. In areas where this is not feasible, the impacts should be reviewed by the project arborist4 for determining whether an alternative TPZ can potentially support a tree's longevity and stability. 2. The recommendations presented in the previous section should be incorporated into the design. 3. Underground utilities and services should be established beyond a TPZ. Where this is not feasible, the section of line(s) within the TPZ should be tunneled or directionally -bored by at least four feet below existing grade, the ground above any tunnel must remain undisturbed, and access pits and any above -ground infrastructure (e.g. splice boxes, meters and vaults) must be established beyond the TPZs. 4. All existing, unused lines or pipes beneath the canopies of retained trees shall be abandoned and cut off at existing soil grade (rather than being dug up and causing subsequent root damage); this should be identified on the applicable plan. 3 This also considers the ground and any surfaced roots directly beneath the existing asphalt driveway (i.e. once the existing driveway is removed, the ground immediately beneath becomes part of a TPZ). 4 The "project arborist" refers to me or another individual that is both certified by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) and is a member of the American Society of Consulting Arborists (ASCA). 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 6 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 5. The landscape design should incorporate the following guidelines: a. Turf should be avoided beneath the oak trees. As an alternative, I suggest a four -inch layer of coarse wood chips or other high-quality mulch is spread. b. Plant material installed beneath the oak canopies should be drought -tolerant, limited in amount, and planted at least five to ten feet from their trunks. A source for identifying suitable drought -tolerant plant material is as follows: www.califomiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/CompatiblePlantsUnder&AroundOaks pdf c. Irrigation can, overtime, adversely impact the oak trees and should be avoided. Irrigation for any new plant material beneath an oak's canopy should be low- volume, applied irregularly (such as only once or twice per week) and temporary (such as no more than three years). d. In the event trenches for irrigation and/or lighting are required beneath a canopy, they shall be installed in a radial direction to the trees' trunks. If irrigation trenches cannot be routed as such, the work may need to be performed using a pneumatic air device (such as an Air -Spade®) to avoid unnecessary root damage. e. Stones, mulch and new fencing should not be placed against the trees' trunks (I suggest a minimum 12- to 24 -inch setback). f. Tilling beneath canopies should be avoided, including for weed control. g. Bender board or other edging material proposed beneath the canopies should be established on top of existing soil grade (such as by using vertical stakes). 5.2 Protection Measures before and during Construction 6. Prior to the arrival of heavy equipment, site clearing and construction, an on-site, pre - construction meeting shall be held between the project arborist and contractor (an additional meeting may be necessary prior to construction). The intent is to review work procedures, protection fencing locations, trees being removed, placement of wood chips, procedures for digging beneath or near TPZs, limits of grading, staging area(s), route(s) of access, equipment washout pits, pruning, supplemental watering, and any other required protection measures. This meeting should be conducted a least two full weeks prior to construction, and the equipment area and limits of grading should be staked prior to the meeting. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 7 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 7. Tree protective fencing shall be installed prior to any construction activity for the purpose of restricting access, dumping, storing and cleaning into the TPZs. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on eight -foot tall, two-inch diameter steel posts that are driven 24 inches into the ground and established no farther than 10 feet apart. Where the fencing must be established on existing pavement, panels (reserved for the pavement sections) can be erected using metal stands or concrete blocks. All fencing should be maintained throughout construction, and at no time shall it be opened or relocated without direct authorization from the arborist. 8. The section of existing driveway where no approved grading occurs should remain intact throughout construction; in doing so, a greater area of the site can be utilized for a route of access and staging area without disturbing the trees' roots. If the driveway was removed at the onset or prior to completing construction, much of it would require being fenced -off for protection of the trees. 9. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted beyond the designated -fenced areas (even after fencing is removed) of trees inventoried and not inventoried for this report, to include, but not limited to, the following: grading, demolition of the existing driveway, stripping of topsoil, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping of materials, and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. Also, tree trunks shall not be used as winch supports or for moving or lifting heavy loads. 10. Any approved digging and driveway removal within a TPZ shall be manually performed using hand tools and under direction of the project arborist. 11. Removal of the existing driveway within a TPZ should also be performed under the direction of the project arborist, and in a careful manner than avoids excavating soil and roots directly beneath the surface. Heavy equipment used for the work should remain on hardscape at all times and not travel or operate on newly exposed areas (to avoid compaction). Where within a TPZ, any base rock found directly beneath the surface should remain intact and not disturbed, particularly base rock exploited by 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 8 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 roots; this can be reviewed and be more fully determined by the project arborist once the base material becomes exposed. 12. During trenching, any roots encountered with diameters between one to two inches could be removed, but must be cleanly severed at right angles to the direction of root growth. In doing so, sharp cutting tools (e.g. loppers or handsaw) should be used, and the cuts must occur against the tree side of the trench. The severed root end should be covered with backfill soil the same day. 13. Also during trenching, any roots encountered with diameters of two inches and greater must be retained and not damaged. Also, they should either be covered with soil or wrapped in moistened burlap within one-hour of becoming exposed. If burlap is used, it should remain continually moist until the trench is backfilled. 14. Prior to construction, a four- to five -inch layer of coarse wood chips (%4- to 3/4 -inches in size) from a, local tree service company must be manually spread on unpaved soil beneath the canopies of trees in close proximity to any proposed feature; the specific location can be identified during the pre -construction meeting. 15. Recommendations that are presented within Section 5.1 of this report and pertain to actual construction should also be followed. 16. Prior to excavating soil for the driveway; retaining walls, porches or home, a one -foot wide trench shall be manually dug within a TPZ along the sides that are closest to the nearest tree's trunk (the purpose of this trench is to expose roots and allow for a clean cut to minimize root loss). The trench should be dug to a minimum three-foot deep or the required grading depth (whichever is less), and any roots encountered during the process shall be cleanly severed by hand (such as with lopper or a saw) against the side of the trench closest to the tree. All soil beyond the trench (i.e. away from the tree) can be excavated using heavy equipment. Note that overcut for any proposed. retaining wall, foundation or driveway within a TPZ shall not exceed 24 inches in the direction of a tree's trunk. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 9 of 11 Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 17. Throughout construction during the months of May thru October (or as deemed necessary), supplemental water shall be supplied to the retained trees in close proximity to the proposed features. The methodology, frequency and amounts shall be prescribed by the project arborist. 18. The pruning and removal of trees shall be performed by a California state -licensed tree service company (D-49 classification) that has an ISA certified arborist in a supervisory role, carries General Liability and Worker's Compensation insurance, and abides. by ANSI Z133.1-2006 (Safety Operations). Pruning shall also be performed under the direction of the project arborist and in accordance with ANSI A300-2001 standards. Any pruning of trees should be limited to removing -deadwood one -inch and greater, clearing encroachments, and reducing heavy limb weight. 19. The relocation of trees shall be performed according to standards set forth in ANSI A300 (Part 6)-2005 Transplanting, and by a company described in the previous recommendation. All recommendations provided by the company for pre-, during and post -transplant care shall be followed. Note the trees should be established at least 30 feet beyond structures, walls and canopies of surrounding trees. 20. Any stump being removed within a TPZ shall occur using a stump grinder rather than being pulled up with an excavator or backhoe. 21. Great care must be taken by equipment operators to position their equipment to avoid the trunks and branches of trees. Where a conflict exists, the project arborist should be advised to provide a feasible solution. 22. The disposal of harmful products (such as cement, paint, chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath or near canopies. Herbicides should not be used beneath the trees' canopies; where used on site, they should be labeled for safe use near trees. 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 10 of II Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 6.0 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDITIONS ■ All information presented herein covers only those items that were examined and reflects the condition of those items at the time of my observations on May 22, 2009. El My observations were performed visually without probing, coring, dissecting or excavating. I cannot, in any way, assume responsibility for any defects that could only have been discovered by performing the mentioned services in the specific area(s) where a defect was located. ■ The assignment pertains solely to trees listed in Exhibit A. I hold no opinion towards other trees on or surrounding the project area. ■ 1 cannot provide a guarantee or warranty, expressed or implied, that deficiencies or problems of any trees or property in question may not arise in the future. ■ No assurance can be offered that if all my recommendations and precautionary measures . (verbal or in writing) are accepted and followed, that the desired results may be achieved. ■ All information presented on the plans reviewed is assumed to be correct. I cannot guarantee or be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. ■ I assume no responsibility for the means and methods used by any person or company implementing the recommendations provided in this report. ■ The information provided herein represents my opinion. Accordingly, my fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified finding, conclusion, or value. ■ This report is proprietary to me and may not be copied or reproduced in whole or part without prior written consent. It has been prepared for the sole and exclusive use of the parties to who submitted for the purpose of contracting services provided by David L. Babby. ■ The map presented in this report (Exhibit B) is solely intended to show approximate tree locations and numbers and shall not be interpreted as an engineered or architectural drawing. ■ If any part of this report or copy thereof be lost or altered; the entire evaluation shall be invalid. Prepared By: t ' till Date: May 26, 2009 David L. Babby Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Board -Certified Master Arborist #WE -4001 B � t 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Page 11 of II Nashashibi Family Trust David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 EXHIBIT A: TREE INVENTORY TABLE 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Nashashibi Family Trust ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arbori5t5 and tree care- TREE are TREE NVENT®RY TABLE Comments: One-sided canopy. Sparse and declining. Coast Redwood 0. ,5 1 1 1 1 o 1'= ' (Se uoia sem eryirens) 10 25 O O 1 Poor Low I X I X •moo �� b oo o a� - a a o .. `� o .1 O a cco A $ j Cq c�a Cq U ea � o 0 o TREE `ti ? 1 >, o to \0 w to 0tw w cCQ Cn NO. TREE NAME H v U x 7 p C7 x x - z Comments: One-sided canopy. Sparse and declining. Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 1 1'= ' (Se uoia sem eryirens) 10 25 1 25% 50% 1 Poor Low I X I X Comments: One-sided canopy. Sparse and declining. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 1 W1000-1(Quercus agrifolia) 19 35 75% 1 25% 1 Fair I Moderate I X I X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Sparse canopy. ~ Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 1 3 (Sequoiasempervirens) 15 25 1 50% 75% 1 Fair I Moderate I X I X Comments: Sparse canopy. ~ Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 1 4"" (Sequoiasempervirens) 14.5 30 25% 75% Poor Low I X I X Comments: Very sparse canopy. Comments: Sparse canopy. -I Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 1 F (Sequoiasempervirens) 14.5 30 50% 1 75% 1 Fair I Moderate I X I X Comments: Sparse canopy. -I Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 F (Quercus agrifolia) 12 30 1 75% 1 25% 1 Fair Low I X I X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 7 (Pinus radiata) 11 15 75% 25% Fair Low X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 1 8` (Eucalyptus sp.) 21.5 35 25% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 1 of 6 May 26, 2009 Monterey Pine 1 1 1 9 (Pinus radiata) 6.5 20 50% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 1 of 6 May 26, 2009 ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arboriste and tree care TREE INVENTORY TABLE ,. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 0 •ca ;10 (Eucalyptus sp.) 1 B ^ 50 ti4 O 3 O 3 Poor i 3 X X ^ Ib w Ib 0 C Q y \ ctl CS 0 E a = c. o o U � GQ U m to 3 TREE o w 0 o a g 0 o v: NO. TREE NAME E~ C7 U x �n O S rn x x z ,. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 I I ;10 (Eucalyptus sp.) 10 50 50% 25% Poor Low X X 4L Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. f Flowering Plum 1 1 1 I I 11 (Prunus cerasifera) 7 25 75% 25% Fair Low X X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. f Eucalyptus 1 1 1 I I 13 (Eucalyptus sp.) 13 20 50% 25% Poor Low X X Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 I I 13 (Pinus radiata) 17 35 50% 25% Poor Low X X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 I I 14 (Pinus radiata) 13 35 50% 25% Poor Low X X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 I I 16 (Eucalyptus sp.) 15.5 15 25% 25% Poor Low X X Comments: Extremely poor condition. Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Tree is declining. Plum 1 1 1 I I 16 (Prunus sp. ) 20.5 40 50% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Tree is declining. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Very poor condition. Eucalyptus 1 1 1 I I 't17 (Eucalyptus sp.) 13.5 10 25% 25% Poor Low X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Very poor condition. Comments: Partially buried root collar. Partially beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Mashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 2 of 6 May 26, 2009 Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I (Quercus agrifolia) 15 45 75% 25% Fair Moderate X Comments: Partially buried root collar. Partially beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Mashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 2 of 6 May 26, 2009 ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arboriste and tree care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 1 o 19 (Pinus radiata) i a 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate I X X Q c°C>OD 3 Q R ^ ° n 5 i o w o O o ° TREECd Zs o NO. TREE NAME F CD C7 x x 2 rj 6 Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 1 I 19 (Pinus radiata) 12 30 75% 50% Fair Moderate I X X Comments: Adjacent to high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Buried root collar. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 1 20 (Quercus agrifolia) 7.5 20 75% 1 50% 1 Fair I Moderate I X X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Buried root collar. Comments: California Black Walnut 1 1 1 1 1 21 (Juglans hindsii) 25 65 100% 50% 1 Good I High I X Comments: Comments: Tree is dead. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 22 1 (Pinus radiata) 11 25 0% 0% Dead Low I X Comments: Tree is dead. Comments: Advanced state of decline. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 23 (Pinus radiata) 12 25 25% 50% Poor Low I X Comments: Advanced state of decline. Comments: Declining. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 24 (Pinus radiata) 13 25 50% 50% Fair Low I X Comments: Declining. Comments: Declining. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 25 (Pinus radiata ) 17.5 35 50% 75% Fair Low I X Comments: Declining. Comments: The downhill side of the trunk is very flat, indicative of a possible girdling root. Coast Live Oak a 2 (Quercus agrifolia } 15.5 25 100% 75% Good I High I X Comments: The downhill side of the trunk is very flat, indicative of a possible girdling root. Comments: Comprised of two codominant trunks that form a weak attachment. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for. Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 3 of 6 May 26, 2009 Coast Live Oak [,us(Querc '=`° 27 agrifolia) 14 25 75% 25% Fair Moderate X Comments: Comprised of two codominant trunks that form a weak attachment. Site: 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for. Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 3 of 6 May 26, 2009 ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arbori5t5 and tree care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Comments: Buried root collar. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 I I 29 (Quercus agrifolia) 16 40 y O y O 1 Good I High I X X O oo i bd o t :+ o- n P c U - a o o a ``" o c cc O o o U W is U y o TREE NO. TREE NAME H Ur U x v� o O �? x ° rn - z Comments: Buried root collar. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 I I 29 (Quercus agrifolia) 16 40 1 75% 1 100% 1 Good I High I X X Comments: Buried root collar. Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 1 I I 29 (Pinus radiata) 8 20 50% 25% Poor Low I X X Comments: Situated beneath high-voltage electrical lines. Comments: Largest oak on-site. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I 3 (Quercus agrifolia) 48.5 1 70 1 75% 1 50% 1 Fair I Moderate I X X Comments: Largest oak on-site. Comments: Declining. Monterey Pine 1 1 1 I I 31 (Pinus radiata ) 13.5 25 50% 75% Fair Moderate I X X Comments: Declining. Comments: Eucalyptus 1 1 1 I I 49 (Eucalyptus s .) 9, 6, 4.5 30 1 75% 1 25% 1 Fair Low I X X Comments: Comments: Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I 34 (Quercus agrifolia) 15.5 1 30 1 100% 1 75% Good 1. High I X X Comments: Comments: Trunk is adjacent to existing water meter. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I 34 (Quercus agrifolia) 11 20 100% 75% 1 Good I High X X Comments: Trunk is adjacent to existing water meter. Comments: Asymmetrical canopy due to growth beneath 437's canopy. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I 35 (Quercus a ri olia) 7 20 100% 1 50% 1 Good I Moderate X X Comments: Asymmetrical canopy due to growth beneath 437's canopy. Comments: Asymmetrical and suppressed canopy due to growth beneath tree 437. Site: 28008 Laura Court Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 4 of 6 May 26, 2009 Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I (Quercus agrifolia) 12.5 30 100% 50% Good Moderate X Comments: Asymmetrical and suppressed canopy due to growth beneath tree 437. Site: 28008 Laura Court Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 4 of 6 May 26, 2009 AML ARBOR REsOURCES professional consulting arbon5ts and tree care TREE NVENT®RY TABLE Comments: Large limb growing on top of tree #36's trunk. Coast Live Oak 22, 21.5, 1 1 1 1 I I .x38 (Quercus agrifolia ) 18 70 1 100% 1 25% 1 Fair I Moderate I X X �a 0 � � 3 A 3 0 . �4, � � to •�' Ie q � ,.a m oC>Q) °o CI, n.a s isM" o U ca O ' a) I TREE is o co o v o :° o o NO. TREE NAME F: U x o p C7 W t x x ro 2 Comments: Large limb growing on top of tree #36's trunk. Coast Live Oak 22, 21.5, 1 1 1 1 I I .x38 (Quercus agrifolia ) 18 70 1 100% 1 25% 1 Fair I Moderate I X X Comments: Large limb growing on top of tree #36's trunk. Comments: Buried root collar. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 I I .x38 (Quercus agrifolia) 23.5 1 40 1 100% 1 50%Good Good I High I X X Comments: Buried root collar. Comments: Buried root collar. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 1 I I ;3 (Quercus agrifolia) 20 40 100% 50% Good High X X Comments: Buried root collar. Comments: Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I D' (Quercus agrifolia) 18.5 1 45 100% 1 50% 1 Good High X X Comments: Comments: Buried root collar. - Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I I 1 (Quercus agrifolia) 15.5 35 100% 75% Good High I X X Comments: Buried root collar. - Coast Redwood 1 1 1 I " 424 (Sequoia sem ervirens) 9 15 0% 0% Dead Low1: X X Comments: Tree is dead. Comments: Comprised of two codominant trunks that have split apart. Coast Live Oak 1 1 1 I 4 (Quercus agrifolia 17 40 100% 0% Poor Low X Comments: Comprised of two codominant trunks that have split apart. Comments: Coast Live Oak 1 45 (Quercus agrifolia) 14 35 75% 1 75% 1 Good High I X Comments: Comments: Has an asymmetrical canopy. Site: 28008 Laura Courf, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 5 of 6 May 26, 2009 Coast Live Oak 1 45 (Quercus agrifolia) 11.5 1 30 100% 50% 1 Good I Moderate Comments: Has an asymmetrical canopy. Site: 28008 Laura Courf, Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 5 of 6 May 26, 2009 ARBOR RESOURCES professional consulting arborists and tree care TREE INVENTORY TABLE Comments: Tree's top is dead. Continued decline can be expected. Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 46 x (Sequoia sem ervirens) 1 30 O O R 3 w a� - -14 a ° E c° w `= o A T V W ib W �b U w r�^T o TREE b o c 7 c NO. TREE NAME F�- tj U 0 0C7 y x x ° - z Comments: Tree's top is dead. Continued decline can be expected. Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 46 x (Sequoia sem ervirens) 24 30 25% 50% Poor Low Comments: Tree's top is dead. Continued decline can be expected. Comments: Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 47 (Sequoia sem ervirens) 15.5 1 25 1 50% 1 75% 1 Fair I Moderate Comments: Comments: Trunks are stump sprouts and weakly attached. Site: 28008 Laura Court Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 6 of 6 May 26, 2009 Coast Redwood 1 1 1 1 48 (Sequoia sem e"irens) 7.5, 6, 4.5 20 25% 25% Poor Low Comments: Trunks are stump sprouts and weakly attached. Site: 28008 Laura Court Los Altos Hills, CA Prepared for: Nashashibi Family Trust Prepared by: David L. Babby 6 of 6 May 26, 2009 David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 EXHIBIT B: SITE MAP 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Nashashibi Family Trust qf,.PHVD EMCIATA LSM'f 3507 O.N. 221 28008 LAU RA CO U RT, LOS ALTOS H I LLS en - 1.011, MIX, SM CL 494.01 -00 ct. 500.06 cn "OIL VVL ;0 "0.-1 pe j, :, CAMtOT 6C NUHTUNEO. 32*X X31- CLA: 4�50 21 4.50* -29 z3:, i5e.00 co. V, WALL -Ctr 5 9;25 0 3 f r p sit.0\r In P Y, 30 28 CP., ,A 34 800K 8908 U.T? 6— .10'P:11.C.W.D. EASMENT David L. Babby, Registered Consulting Arborist May 26, 2009 EXHIBIT C: PHOTOGRAPHS Photo Index Page C-1: Tree #1 thru 15 Page C-2: Trees # 16 thru 25 Page C-3: Trees #26 thru 30 Page C-4: Trees #31 thru 37 Page C-5: Trees #38 thru 43 Page C-6: Trees #44 thru 48 28008 Laura Court, Los Altos Hills, CA Nashashibi Family Trust ' �'S �?L t, L?.sot• r �{` ,+t' f tT" .y� - � f � t r��y�r,ti��µ� .. "'� �d�li�l y,' �i.,,ra {Y �,,•,at�, t r}w 'r y 1Y• ly� � 1 1 • �� j l7 L Y. it , .� i.. J.,. a `�'r' •� ! 4TH-. r•� 4 Vq — - - t,,i'���;C `��I'�1� r - — Eeibr � ♦i .SL;. t—•--.�ys�n.,.,.s.,. r"Y Ytn. r2fflmoa�lffii' v!UF ( .L-rerL ty !y�''»'r ,rptti,�!z��i .�,� T4 ` i �tPF.f � x,i �/'.1� �, f,{r 'R rr-,. yvD� � L•I�s r tYV!i��� • e l � F e . Pr a. �, 'tF7,7� t:y '3 1�'�•' j 1,,•, gi 6 " �y. z s' F Y..G. t s Y �"� au fi >' iY .,�i a � , �'i, s+f1��'i��n o a, q$ jj pp 4 '; • 41'� �� � �I ` 1 i If' L r hCi7� r F L6itm�'. { x a I �r�lS1 • I rl 4�� I ,,r�� �rl��t?Ill+t�l�f fkir�r V � fF�t��'^_� t K' ��±�Ir �%� ��r.>�y. R .. `' r fi r ,•:. rte' m A. • 4 tis,•. C: y it M r2fflmoa�lffii' v!UF ( .L-rerL ty !y�''»'r ,rptti,�!z��i .�,� T4 ` i �tPF.f � x,i �/'.1� �, f,{r 'R rr-,. yvD� � L•I�s r tYV!i��� • e l � F e . Pr a. �, 'tF7,7� t:y '3 1�'�•' j 1,,•, gi 6 " �y. z s' F Y..G. t s Y �"� au fi >' iY .,�i a � , �'i, s+f1��'i��n o a, q$ jj pp 4 '; • 41'� �� � �I ` 1 i If' L r hCi7� r F L6itm�'. { x a I �r�lS1 • I rl 4�� I ,,r�� �rl��t?Ill+t�l�f fkir�r V � fF�t��'^_� t K' ��±�Ir �%� ��r.>�y. R .. `' r fi r ,•:. rte' m y4 19 IV ` ) & r It IV ` ) & j 1 Y n1� � 7. i v[�i 1 j1 �y/ � t , ,�`^ 'rf'/j' -t'• �, 1 y yl.o') li t"�''' J'G 1- t. 2Y'`lf3r s, f r „P t, I.� �n1�K! l,� > f .n {t. .r ldt_ �i i �+ �7j }'t )• t\ !+ ?' ,,,` , ` � J �, rte, 4//�7 � ,. •� � d.� t r t { M4 r [ n tx;+'f r � '� � 6 � � )t' Pj�'{jty t� 4 f , L / ' � .�"% it 5• w , a��� FJ -..y'•, rr pd�{(�d.`i' L !• , 'v,-. IF t! - `� F� ,. x -r. �' , 1{•. • ++, '+r 1. +a >„ 1�,jt.ca f 1 `��,"�(, :.f a- t�,.1 art,. ria el ,r [. 1•yl I # � ...p.S >S., e.�t:,, r"p�lJt,,� '1� � t]�—`,� P'.', �,, .�-.f rtr i ���if � f 1 ]'" `• 'k d �y!°•, �' ' � IC� 1 `��+�``�t''' 7 , +r w �l ,1 74, `.. r • � r , ti � r y l,`�' � }� tit# 4S , � ` �• d:y,�' { '9 r 1 g11LJ�' L tit"�ro':., 1•! - " 1, 'i 1 ..,- J • t P 1 Y �• ' r y y t7(p14� ,� ' , J Ipr� rr f '•:i ' yun�,t�(jyj 3 3J � , F' i. {1 j t�}j�{ `•: SI '!'"''7; i.�.fnSe`7 ""'Y'L Ml r{'d l`�StPt., 1.' 'j, kd °�i 4+ y".]Y 9 +� <Y;, ,.i [ ..t•h , , } r ]I' S cf A �, u P�•�i t Y •k r pt^d��+fi•�9c r, ,�' .5, Y "R ',[ ,I11�Yh� ; e� `, '`'vat. ,� JE d, Y) �5t1 �I _ V,�� ± � ��'' �h r �#`~ ` �h�ot��'�"•;. ti:. � Ise.• �Z+�.� '��'"�, �, I, ` d. �=y `;� itzlx' s �' li,,` z. "'=i �t h. � 'S r''� �}�, -E+n i #,�,x ai�K �� 4 � I a.•'.I a ���rs� �j ] Lk ly �k ,g3i �1 T.; i f�4;. j'•z 1 ;.r��'=\,�{.a {.O > �Y "'����4f n '[}ri�.�,'. S ,� � � '''� I. <' '`^�:V�-�'lJ.� tl�r� ' �ti t # �,^.'�i, l'"�tyriv�?;ed s a kfWY a 1 .s. u �' `"` ' ' J • 1 J i` .x.f �'*.; t7S�� d r<. ; 'wl,f �T4t/.:'g,�u r:, # J d iyl i,C°'3 iv'h -fit- ! in` �`.. 4'ri (` S•k+'•q�.�P I.Y' 0.'';r �f, Y d� v _` .`+1 �y �'t ��`[ '[ �]1 "�{�'�yL�'S �i�t�, ��• I.• I ° +!S`t'iff L ! � + . •{�T7it�a9` aih,' ,1' , 9,', � • 3 U�. 14-1 .ICI {��}. C t `fit h 9 ik.`n '�� �"jt,] �I 5i� 4 d \ C Qt' • ' • ' 1. 1��7p4 n 1i1. ' 1 s�--`.w.::a � IRd#' ��{431 Y �:t 5� '" 1 [ n •`r.^ I.t, �.•m y."i �.th' °duFkt �� S �1 x �n7. -T �� j�`�., ,fir r' , r `�`� > • " . �, `,� ,rX. "y ��ti , � i 4 } ,,YY. '*'J�� y�' I `' '+I h '�y',,,.a Ys c,� f ; b � � , � 1 ^x� �` r I� � �xeL •���I' f#1a..._ 4�1k1 I , ,t• 1 c t .. '• ^+Y'�(}a .^, d 'a. >rr"^"•� � r1dl�txk�� ,'�'�,z;:� �_�-''YS'"'�. ] vt• : 1 t it a d. f t y ,,,, .V 1 , 3. s4},F� r .f. k�`. _e...,�'�. ,ti•—. E� .m.c.�..•- °c....rw,�'--•:� -r d ,,.s, rc1.y�r.T�• .52 AL "Ry `z _10 R, 4 X11 . . . . . . . . . . , 1,1t 3 Vat 37 . . I I I I I I I I I I ITP 1 36" . %F I, , %1�50 M4. 'wr ad OM "ll %4;.!{.T�l 38 ­; Zi -A 4 s, V_C; I, , %1�50 Dec 15 09 02:38p Sarner Nashashibi 4157945613 Attachment 7 City ®f Y'Os '41tas Bills RECEIVED NeWlhn-a- INOtlfiml,gcmn Form Project Address: ` MOB ll•�ga®r'a Onumirt 0S Mtor..Wiles. CA TOWN OF LOS ALTOS NILS Dear Ncighbor, The Nashashibi Family is proposing a Single family residence at the above stated address and would like to provide you with an opportunity to review the proposed house. This will be the Nashashibi family residence once completed. The Nashashibi- s have been longtime residences of San Francisco and are looking forward to enjoying the Los Altos Hills and surrounding neighborhood. All of the adjacent neighbors and the neighbors across the street from the Nashashibi property are being provided this notice as a courtesy in advance of the standard notice which will be sent as required by the Town of Los Altos Hills. The Nashashibi's have been working diligently with the Token of Los Altos Hills over the past several months to meet the Towns planning adjectives, intent and requirements for the new residence. We ask that you familiarize yourself with the plans for the new residence and contact us to discuss any questions, comments or concerns you may have regarding the future home of the Nashashibi's. The City of Los Altos Hills asks that this form and reduced set of the plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that you have had the opportunity to review the new residence. You may contact the city of Los Altos Hills planning department at any time if you have further interest regarding the project or to review any changes that may occur. My signature below certifies that T am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans. NeighborName: A/ r ir./� Date: Z —/0 — 0 i Signature: Neighbor Address:' qz Neighbor Phone: (v If l have any initial concerns I may list them below. My concerns are the following (Attach additional sheet if necessary) : Name: Contact Number: 12-02-2005 Date: Planning Department Dec 15 09 02:04p Samar I�Jashashibi 4167945613 p.1 RECEIVES City of Los Altos Ri .s TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Project Address: 28001;La-urn #'ourtL01V ARON 11 ills, CA Dear Neighbor; The Nashashibi Family is proposing a Single family residence at the. above stated address and would like to provide you with an opporLunily to review the proposed house. This Will. be the Nashashibi family residence once completed. The Nashashibc s have been long time residences of San Francisco and are looking fonvardto enjoying the Los Altos Hills and surrounding neighborhood. All ofthe adjacent neighbors and the ne:ighbors-across the street from theNasbashibi property are being provided this notice as a. courtesy in advance of the standard notice which will be sent as required by the Totivn of Los Altos Hills. The Nashashibi's have been working diligently v�ith the Towia of Los Altos Rills over the past several months to meet the Towns planning adjectives; intent and requiremenis for th.e new residence. We ask that you familiarize yourself with the plans for the new residence and contact us to discuss any gitestlons, comments or Concerns you may have regarding the future home of the Nasbashibi's. The City of Los Altos Hills asks that this forth and reduced set of the plans be signed by each neighbor to indicate that you have had the opportunity to review the new residimee. You may contact the city of Los Altos Dills planning department az any Vine if you have further interest renardingthe projector to review any changes that inay occur. lvly signature below certifies that I am aware of the proposed project and have reviewed the preliminary project plans- "� ��" 17ate: Neighbor Tdame: `� I Signature: J �` NeigllborAddress:r->�Y<011 C-OOZ Neighbor Phone: If I have any initial concerns I may list them. below. My concerns are tho followar<g 3 S s (Attach additional she pi,ifnecessn) � Contact Number; bS3 -R[9-036 �` 12-02-2009 1 Planning Department Attachment 8 `SOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSAMSMLLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650)'941-7222 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council — 4/2/97 Code Sections: Section 10-2.702© 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%)." Intent• 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, 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 minimize 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 Polic 1. 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. 4' 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 set in excess of three (3) feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. 3. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of eight feet (8') 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. 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. r TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILT RE Attachment 9 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road - Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 • FAX (650) 941-3169.:.'.: WORKSHEET #2 €l tfli OF LOS ALTOS j" Ls EX -Ip G A P ED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR AREA , TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPER NASHASHIBI FAMILY TRUST PROPERTVOPWS 28008 LAURA COURT, LOS ALTOS HILLS CALCULATED BY GERALD NILSEN I DATE 11-16-09 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A.) -- 6,313 6,313 B. Decking -- -- -- C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline)j� 2,360 2,360 D. Patios and Walkways -- 1,095 1,095 E. Tennis Court -- -- -- F. Pool and Decking -- 2,093 2,093 G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) -- -- -- H. Any other coverage (SHED) -- 591 591 TOTALS �3, c 12,452 12,452 Maximum Development Area Allowed — MDA (from Worksheet #1) 12,755 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 0 12,755 12,755 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUARE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total (Additions/Deletions) A.. House and Garage a. 1St Floor -- 3,449 3,449 b. 2nd Floor -- 2,664 2,664 c. Attic and Basement -- 200 200 d. Garage -- (3264) (3264) B. Accessory Buildings a. 1St Floor -- -- -- b. 2"d Floor -- -- -- c. Attic and Basement -- -- -- TOTALS -- 6,313 6,313 Maximum Floor Area Allowed — MFA (from Worksheet #1) 7,165 Rev. 3/20/02 Page I of I m I to