Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4.3Item 4.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 5, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, SECONDARY DWELLING UNIT, SWIMMING POOL, AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTIONS; LANDS OF JOHNSON; 24182 SUMMERHILL AVENUE; FILE #42-10-ZP-SD-GD APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Directol_\� RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a new residence, secondary dwelling unit, swimming pool, and the Grading Policy exception for cut the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage, subject to the recommended Conditions in Attachment 1 and Findings of Approval in Attachment 2; AND 2. Deny the request for a Grading Policy exception for fill at the front yard, powder room, and study and direct the applicant to submit revised plans that comply with the Town's grading policy. BACKGROUND The subject property is a .99 acre parcel located on the west side of Summerhill Avenue. The rectangular shaped lot was created on August 19, 1930 as part of the Hillhaven Subdivision (Book Y, Pages 20 and 21). A 2,809 square foot single -story house with an attached 3 -car garage was constructed on the property in 1961. Surrounding uses include one and two-story single-family homes on adjacent parcels to the west, east, and south, and to the north across Summerhill Avenue. The applicant is proposing to construct a two-story new residence with a basement and swimming pool on the property. CODE REQUIREMENTS This application is not eligible for the Fast -Track review process under section 10- 2.1305.1(a)(3), as the applicant requests a Grading Policy. exceptions for the driveway, basement garage, house and front yard. 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 Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 2 of 15 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 0.990 acres Net Lot Area: 0.988 acres Average Slope: 27.0% Lot Unit Factor: 0.628 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft.) Maximum Existing Development 8,000* 5,237 Floor 5,000 2,809 Proposed Increase Remaining 7,751 2,514 249 5,000 2,191 0 Basement - - (3,333) - *Includes 500 sq. ft. development area bonus per Section 10-1.502 (b) (6) (Solar Ordinance) Site and Architecture The applicant is requesting approval of a Site Development Permit to construct a new 5,000 sq. ft. two story residence with a 3,333 sq. ft. basement, and a 480 sq. ft. swimming pool. The property has a moderately steep slope (25%-31%) on the southeast 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 main level of the house has 4,245 sq. ft. of living space with a living room, family room, kitchen, dining room, a master suite, study, and guest room. The second floor has 582 sq. ft. of living space with two bedrooms and bathrooms. The lower level includes a basement garage that accommodates 4 cars, a media room, bedroom, laundry room, mechanical room, and secondary dwelling unit. 3,333 square feet of the lower level is exempt from floor area calculations pursuant to Section 10- 1.208 of the Municipal Code (Basement Ordinance). The applicant will be installing solar panels on the roof to qualify for a development area bonus of 500 sq. ft.. In addition, grasscrete will be used on 1,630 sq. ft. of driveway, parking area, and lightwell, which qualifies for a 50% development area credit. 2,845 sq. ft. of patios, and walkways and driveway will be constructed of permeable concrete which qualifies for a 30% development area credit. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 3 of 15 Grading Policy Exception Total grading quantities for this project include 2,700 cubic yards of cut for the residence, basement, driveway, and swimming pool. Grading quantities for fill include 300* cubic yards for patios in the front yard. The Engineering Department has reviewed the proposed plans and concluded that the proposed grading is not in conformance with the Town's grading policy. Driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage The applicant is proposing up to 10'10" of cut along the north property line to accommodate the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage. The affected area is relatively flat and the proposed grading will help lower the profile of the new home. The retaining walls will be below natural grade and will not be highly visible from surrounding properties. In addition, the retaining walls facing the Summerhill Avenue right of way will be terraced with planting areas in between to minimize the visual impact from the street. If the Commission decides to approve the Grading Policy Exception for the driveway and backup area adjacent to the basement garage, Findings of Approval in Attachment 2 should be cited. Front yard, study, and powder room. Per the Town's Grading Policy, the maximum allowable fill for decks, yards, and other areas is 3'. The applicant is requesting up to 5'4" of fill in the front yard to accommodate two walkways, a patio and fountain. In addition, small areas (approx. 55 sq. ft.) of the powder room and study will have finish floor elevation up to 4'3" above natural grade. Staff does not recommend approval of the excessive fill because compliance with the grading policy can be easily achieved by removing or reducing the size of the affected 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 4 of 15 Drainage Water runoff generated from the new development will be collected and carried to a storm water detention system which consists of two 20'L x 24'D storage pipes which releases the water to two storm drain dissipaters and vegetative buffers at the bottom of the property. 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. Trees and Landscaping The existing landscaping on the property includes a mix of trees and shrubs including coast live oaks, Monterey pines, and Deodar cedars. There are several eucalyptus trees along the rear property boundary identified by the project arborist as Silver Dollar gums (Eucalyptus polyanthemos). (Attachment 6) The subject eucalyptus species are not required to be removed per the Town's Eucalyptus Tree ordinance. The applicant is requesting to remove one 32" Monterey pine, one 6" and two 10" oaks for this project. No heritage oaks are proposed to be removed. To ensure that all remaining heritage oaks will be protected throughout the construction period, staff has included condition #4 requiring that protection fencing for the trees. A landscape screening and erosion control plan will be required after framing of the new residence (condition of approval 43). 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 An asphalt driveway along the northwestern property line provides access to the residence from Summerhill Avenue. The existing driveway has an average slope inclination of approximately 3:1. The owner proposes to relocate and realign the 14' wide driveway to maintain a slope of less than 15%. Five (5) parking spaces will be provided, four (4) within the basement garage and one at the northeast corner of the house outside the garage. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 5 of 15 Outdoor Lighting The applicant is proposing 15 exterior lights located on main residence at the doorways. Staff has included condition #9 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 submitted lighting specifications showing 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 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 Romig Engineers Inc. dated May 11, 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 128 points in Build it Green's GreenPoint Rated program. Committee Review The Pathways Committee recommends the dedication of a 10' wide pathway easement along the east (front) property line and construction of a Type 2B pathway along Summerhill Avenue (Conditions 427 & 28) CEQA STATUS The project is categorically exempt under CEQA per Sections 15303 (a) & (e) ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Findings of Approval for Grading Policy Exception 3. Recommendations from Santa Clara County Fire Department dated March 25, 2010 4. Recommendations from Cotton, Shires, and Associates, Inc., dated March 30, 2010 5. Comments from Environmental Design and Protection Committee dated April 29, 2010 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 6 of 15 6. Arborist report from Barrie D. Coate and Associates dated March 4, 2010 7. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 8. Worksheet #2 9. Development plans: site, grading & drainage, floor, roof plan, elevation, and building sections Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 7 of 15 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH A BASEMENT AND SWIMMING POOL LANDS OF JOHNSON, 24182 SUMMERHILL AVENUE File # 42-10-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 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. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 8 of 15 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. 5. 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. 6. 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 40' from the front property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the elevation of the new residence matches the elevation and location shown on the Site Development plan." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a foundation inspection. 7. Prior to requesting the final . framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence complies with the 27' maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at any point from the 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 elevation of the structure along the building line and the highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final framing inspection. 8. No fencing or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 9. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the site plan. 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 9 of 15 10. 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. 11. A minimum of 500 square feet of photovoltaic (PV) facility shall be installed on the roof of the new residence. The roof mounted PV facility shall be fully installed and grid connected prior to final inspection of the new residence. 12. Fire retardant roofing (Class A) is required for all new construction. 13. 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. 14. 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. 15. 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 10 of 15 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 1,630 square feet of grasscrete shalle be installed on the driveway, parking area, and lightwell; No less than 2,845 square feet of permeable concrete shall be installed on the patio, walkways, and driveway, as shown on Sheet A-5 of the approved plans, prior to final inspection. 16. 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: 17. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates, Inc., in their report dated March 30, 2010, the applicant shall comply with the following: a. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations - The project geotechnical consultant shall evaluate current development plans and augment/update geotechnical design recommendations for the project, including but not limited to the following: • Landslide mitigation west of the proposed residence. • Foundation design for the basement. • Geotechnical design parameters for the basement. • Map illustrating distribution of site grading to be reworked. 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 11 of 15 driveway) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants recommendations. 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, 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 March 30, 2010. 18. Peak discharge at 24182 Summerhill Avenue, as a result of Site Development Permit 42-10, shall not exceed the existing pre -development peak discharge value of the property. Detention storage must be incorporated into the project to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. Provide the data and peak discharge hydrologic model(s) utilized, as well as, the calculations of the peak discharge value prior and post development. Determine the design peak runoff rate for a 10 -year return period storm and provide detention storage design plans to reduce the predicted peak discharge to the pre -development value. All documentation, calculations, and detention storage design (2 plan copies) shall be submitted for review and approval to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Prior to final inspection, a letter shall be submitted from the project engineer stating that the site grading and storm drainage improvements were constructed 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 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 12 of 15 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 Summerhill Avenue 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. 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 additional right-of-way to create a 30' wide half -width public right-of-way to the Town over Summerhill Avenue. The property owner shall provide legal description and plat Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 13 of 15 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 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. The property owner shall obtain an encroachment permit from the Town's Public Works Department for all work in the public right-of-way prior to start work. 26. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final inspection. An encroachment permit shall be required by the County of Santa Clara and Town of Los Altos Hills for all work proposed within the public right-of-way prior to start work. 27. The property owner shall dedicate a ten foot wide pathway easement adjacent to the existing right-of-way line. 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. 28. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along Summerhill Avenue within the 10' pathway easement to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. C. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 29. 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. 30. 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Sunmlerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 14 of 15 31. 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 16, 17b, 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 August 5, 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. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue August 5, 2010 Page 15 of 15 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FOR DRIVEWAY AND BACKUP AREA ADJACENT TO BASEMENT GARAGE LANDS OF JOHNSON,. 24182 SUMMERHILL AVENUE File #42-10-ZP-SD-GD The proposed grading is consistent with Section 10-2.702.c of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, the proposed grading will help lower the profile of a portion of the structure and render it less visible from off-site. 2. The proposed area of grading will not result in the substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 3. The proposed grading will not result in the placement of retaining walls that are highly visible from off-site. 4. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation or alteration of existing drainage patterns. 5. The Grading Policy emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. The proposed underground garage requires no fill. pLARA °qtr FIkE DEPARTMENT . f jib T$ COUNTY RECEIVED � Yn � FIRE_► �' 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 Al' . COURTESY 6 SERVICE (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) o www.sccfd.org TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS PLAN REVIEW No. PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BLDG PERMIT DG Attachment 3 u� V Internationally Accredited Agency 10 0704 'roposed new 7,956 square foot two-story single family residence with basement, attic, and attached garage. Iomment #1: 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. A State of California icensed (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.NOTE: Covered porches, )atios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by .-AHMC -omment #2: Potable water supplies shall be protected from contamination caused by fire protection water supplies. It .s the responsibility of the applicant and any contractors and subcontractors to contact the water purveyor supplying :he 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 zontainers 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). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and Health and Safety Code 13114.7 Comment #3: 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. CFC Sec. 505 To prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review Conditions shall be restated 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 LAH ® El® ❑ [1R-3, OCCUPANCY U CONST. TYPE V-13Csw/stuber-stroeh ApplicantName -- DATE 3/25/2010 PAGE 1 OF--!— F 1SEC/FLOOR SEC/FLOOR 2 story + AREA 7956 sf LOAD PROJECT DESCRIPTION Residential Development PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM Design Review NAME OF PROJECT SFR LOCATION 24182 Summerhill Av, Los Altos Hills TABULAR FIRE FLOW 2250 REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI 1500 BY Harding, Doug 50% Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, = Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga >� COTTON, SHIRES ANIS ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS RECEIVED TOWN OF LAS ALTOS HILLS TO: Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Johnson, New Residence 42-10-ZP-SD-GD 24182 Summerhill Avenue Attachment 4 March 30, 2010 L5090 At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the applications for proposed site improvements using: • Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Romig Engineers Inc., dated May 11, 2009;. • Architectural Plans (4 sheets) prepared by Urban Design and Planning, dated March 16, 2010; and • Plot Plans Profiles and Sections (2 sheets) prepared by CSW/ST2, dated March 16, 2010. In addition, we completed a recent site inspection and reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files. DISCUSSION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence and construct a new residence and driveway. The proposed residence will be a two-story structure with a partial basement. Various proposed exterior retaining walls are indicated on the proposed development plans. According to the referenced plans, estimated earthwork quantities include 2,420 cubic yards of cut (with basement) and 790 cubic yards of fill placement. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is generally characterized by moderately steep (31 percent inclination) southeast -facing hillside topography. The existing house is located on a Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 www.cottonshires.com Central California Office 6417 Dogtown Road San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 (209) 736-4252 9 Fax (209) 736-1212 Nicole Horvitz March 30, 2010 Page 2 L5090 relatively level, combination cut and fill pad. A large fill prism extends to the east of the building pad. A very steep to precipitous (up to approximately 100 percent inclination) cut slope is located immediately west of the building pad. Drainage is characterized by sheetflow to the southeast. Indications of expansive soil related distress were observed in the vicinity of the residence. Signs of creep and settlement of artificial fill material were also noted in concrete walkways including cracking and separations up to 4"wide. In addition, signs of past shallow slope instability were noted in the cut slope behind the residence. The Town Geotechnical Map indicates that the property is underlain, at depth, by bedrock of the Santa Clara Formation. The bedrock is overlain by sandy clay with a moderate expansion potential. The nearest trace of the potentially active Monta Vista and A1tainont fautt is mapped approximateiv 7DO rE'.i'.t soui1I cit "Cl -,e suujecL p.;operty. Additionally, the active San Andreas fault is located approximately 4.3 miles southwest of the site. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed site development is constrained by potentially expansive surficial soils, existing artificial fill materials not meeting current engineering standards, and anticipated future strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that existing site fill materials be excavated and then be replaced in a manner consistent with current engineering standards. However, the referenced report was prepared prior to incorporation of the currently depicted basement, consequently additional design parameters are needed. We do not have geotechnical objections to the basic proposed layout of site improvements. Because the exis!ing cutslope west of the house shows signs of previous shallow landsliding, we recommend that Romig Engineers consider the benefits of a "slough wall" near the base of this slope (or other appropriate mitigation design measures) to address potential future slope failures. We recommend that the following Items 1 arid 2 be satisfactorily addressed prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check: 1. Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should evaluate current site development plans and augment/update geotechnical design recommendations for the project. These evaluations should. include, but not necessarily be limited to the following: a) A slough wall and/or other appropriate geotechnical design measure(s) should be considered to address future landsliding associated with the very steep to precipitous cut slope located generally west of the proposed residence. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz March 30, 2010 Page 3 L5090 Stabilization of existing landslide scars/cavities on the face of the cut slope should be considered. b) Foundation design recommendations should be updated considering the proposed basement. C) Specific geotechnical design parameters should be prepared for the proposed basement. An axial subdrain system beneath basement floors should be considered. The benefits of gravity drainage for basement subdrain systems (versus sump pumps) should be addressed. d) A map should be prepared il:ustrating the approximate distribution of existing site fill materials to be reworked. Appropriate documentation to address the above 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 applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, retaining walls and driveway) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review along with other documents for building permit plan -check. 3. Geotechnical Construction Inspections - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections should include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete. The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a. COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Nicole Horvitz March 30, 2010 Page 4 L5090 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 Town with its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. TS:DTS:JN:kd Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre Principal Engineering Geologist CEG 1795 /36t.(j r IL�_� David T. Schrier Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 2334 - COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental sign and Protection committ� New Residence/Remodel Evaluation Reviewed by: ri�t�-G �Q � �� L&2 9 2010 J� Applicant TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Name—A,6 Address Y►il /4'6& Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: Existing Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: GZ4 Attachment 5 Date ffkx -" RARRI E D. COATE s < and ASSOCIATES �fl$ Horticutural Consultants :. 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 RECEIVED TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS EVALUATION OF TREES JOHNSON PROPERTY 24182 SUMMERHILL AVENUE LOS ALTOS HILLS Prepared at the request of: Mark Johnson 24182 Summerhill Avenue Los Altos Hills, CA 94024 Prepared by: Michael Le Bench Consulting Arborist March 4, 2010 Job # 03-10-023 Attachment 6 EVALUATION OF TREES, JOHNSON PROPERTY, 24182 SUMMERHILL AVENUE, LOS ALTOS HILLS 1 Assignment I, was asked by Mr. Mark Johnson to identify the eucalyptus trees on the property at 24182 Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills, California. Mr. Johnson also asked that I prepare an evaluation of the large cluster of trees near Summerhill Avenue. Eucalyptus species There are several eucalyptus trees primarily near the south side property boundary. I did -not count these because I was focused on species rather than quantity, but I estimate that there are approximately 10 eucalyptus trees or fewer on the entire site. All of these eucalyptus species are Red Box, also called Silver Dollar gum, (Eucalyptus polyanthemos). The largest of these is located south of the residence at the top of a slope. This largest specimen has a trunk diameter of approximately 18 inches DBH (Diameter at Breast Height). Large Cluster of Trees near Summerhill Avenue There are 5 large trees in a cluster on the front of the property (the north side) near Summerhill Avenue. These 5 trees are classified as follows: Tree-# 1 — Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Trees # 2 and 5 — Monterey pine (Pinus radiata) Trees # 3 and 4 — Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) A sketch of the relationships between these trees is included in the attachments of this report. The Deodar cedar Tree # 1 is in fair condition. The lower half of the canopy is very dense and lush, but the top half of the canopy is very sparse. I suspect that this tree had been irrigated as part of the landscape and was very dense at that time, but that the irrigation had been discontinued several years past. The entire landscape appears to have been neglected for several years. The cedrus deodara species is well adapted to this climate and typically need little irrigation once established in this area. However, some individual specimens, which become adapted to regular irrigation, suffer significantly when the irrigation is discontinued. If the irrigation were to be reactivated now, in my experience, the top of this tree would not make a good recovery. Another alternative explanation could be that Tree # 1 may have suffered significant root loss during trenching for an underground utility or service. Tree # 2, a large Monterey pine (P. radiata) has developed patches of healthy dense canopy with gaps between the patches. The canopy is surprisingly dense despite the apparentlack of irrigation. Tree # 2 had been topped at about 20 feet above grade several years ago. The entire branching structure appears to consist of watersprout growth produced after the topping cut. Watersprouts have poor attachments and are highly prone to failure, especially as they mature. Trees # 3 and 4 are healthy coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) specimens but they are leaning significantly, because they are searching for sunlight. Much of their canopies are in the shade of the much taller Trees # 1 and # 2. Although these trees are under the power lines, they have not been pruned for line clearing. Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 4, 2010 EVALUATION OF TREES, JOHNSON PROPERTY, 24182 SUM MERHILL AVENUE, LOS ALTOS HILLS 2 Tree # 5 is a large Monterey pine (Pinus radiata). This tree has been topped numerous times for line clearing. It is in good health, but its structure is poor. Conclusions It is likely that the coast live oak Trees # 3 and 4 will continue to develop leaning awkward structures from being shaded by the much taller Trees # 1 and 2. It is possible that portions of Trees # 3 and 4 may become shaded out to the extent that those portions may die from the lack of light exposure. In the event that Trees # 1 and # 2 are removed, Trees # 3 and 4 would not develop vertical structure to become erect specimens. However, they would likely produce some growth opposite the angle of lean and would develop more evenly balanced canopies over time. This would take many years. If the owner were interested in restoring this site to an oak woodland habitat, to the extent that one can accomplish that in an urban environment, Trees # 1, 2 and 5 would not be a great loss and would benefit Trees # 3 and # 4. In this event, a few coast live oak specimens would have to be planted as replacements. In my opinion, a mix of coast live'oak (Q. agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California blue oak (Quercus douglasii) would be preferred over a single oak species. Respectfully sub_Litted, �-� Michael L Bench, Associate �4 Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB/sh Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions Tree Chart Defi-nition of Tree Chart Sketch Prepared by: Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist March 4, 2010 BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES Hortiatural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353.1052 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITING CONDI'T'IONS I. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others. 3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this appraiser/consultant. 6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8 — This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques, and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. When applying any pesticide, ftmgicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions. 10. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar and major buttress roots, was pot performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. CONSULTING ARBORIST DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations of the arborist, or to seek additional advice. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do no fully understand. Conditions are often hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy. or safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments, like medicine, cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Barrie D. Coate ISA Certified Arborist. Horticultural Consultant Tree Evaluation During Property Development Job Name: Johnson Property Job #: 03-10-023 • CD W/IB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK Date: March 4, 2010 ' RECOMMEND: P = PRESERVE, T = TRANSPLANT, R = REMOVE 1=13est, 5=Worst Page 1 of 1 Measurements C(sndition Disposition Notes 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Z; w, <, BARRIE D. COATE F_ i i i w ; i i i i 3 w i i> i _3: a) ° I— Z w L► i i i i i w 'o I i w i U) i W ' Z and ASSOCIATES N i i i 4 i i i i = �_ U w w; w; H i j i a i � i (L O (408) 353.1052 1 i i i i i i i i i i w i � i 0 Q U Lw� � i ww i O i O; 0 U 23535Summit Road l/VJ 1 I 1 �+ 1 1 w/ 1 1 o o 1--• ; F-; 1— ; F_ ; z Los Cabs, CA 95030 i i i Q' ; i 0 i m i (� Z Z O - Q 1-- i w i w i w i w Z { ~_ ¢ U L o ww w H cwn O � w Q m m � U) �W F=- w ¢ w wl Q1 ml m; Q w1 a w1 F-; 01 m m _ O w wI �� �� w 1 zz Tree # Tree Name o ; o ; .o ; — _ ; cn = ; cn ; Si ; z 1 ; 1 --------- Deodar Cedar --------------------------------- 20 I I I 5543 ----}----E----}---t---i--- 2 '-2 1 I' ---i---4---A---- -------- ---- --- ---- --- ---- I I I 1 ----}---f----F---1--- 1 1 1 1 sparse top________-- ----------- Cedrus deodara 1 1 1 1 I ' 2 Montere Pine 1 1 1 1 35 1 1 1 :6011591 1 1 1 2 1 4 1 1 x --- ---- --- ---- 1 1 1 1 ------�--- ~---•�--- Ori final leader ----------- ------------------- --------- ---------�- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ----•----~----�'---a---J-----•/----/•---J---- 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 -------- ---- 1 1 1 1 1 topped at 20; Pinus radiata 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 3 --------- Coast Live Oak --------------------------------- 12 ; 8 ; '15130 ----r----r---ter---T---4--- 1 1 3 ; x ; ---i----r---�---- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- ---- --- �r--- i----r---�--- CD in upper Part _____- --------------- - Quercus a rifolia 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I 1 ofcanopy 4 --------- Coast Live Oak --------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 14 1 1 1 115130 ----;----;---'�---;---;--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 1 ---;----;---;---- 1 1 1 --- ---- ---- --- --- - __ __-- 1 1 1 1 ---+-_-;_-- f---=--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------ --- ---- --- ------ ----- ------ --- ---- --- ------ ----- 5 Monterey Pine_________________ 1 1 1 1 1 22 ; I ; ; 25; 30 1 1 1 1 4 ; x ---- --- ---- --- ---- 1 ----r I ----r---1--- For line clead2 �_______ ------------------------ ---- -r----r----r T---•1--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ---7----r---�---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 61 ---------- ------------------------------ -- 1 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 I _-__1____L___1___L___J___ 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ___J____L___J____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 _-_ __-_ ____ ___ ___- ___ -_-_ 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 __-J..__-J____L___J_-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----------------- -------------- 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----T----r---T---T---7-__ I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 __-7----r__-7--__ ------- -_-- ------- ___ ---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 --- T_--T-_--r---lam-- ________________________________ --------- --------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 t t I 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 81 ----------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 ____ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -__ _-__ __- __-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 ___i__-1L___J_-- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 I 1 _-____---_--_____--_____-_______ 1 1 1 1 9 --------------------------------- 1 1 1 1 1 J---1 1 1 I 1 • 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 I 1 1 ---' 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 -------- ---- --- ---- --- -'-- 1 1 1 1 ---T---'1----r---7--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 I -------------------------------- 101 --------- --------------------------------- 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 ----1--_-L___1_-_L---J--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 ---•1-__-1'---J---- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ------------------ ___- --_ ---- I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 __-J••---J----L---J--- - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 -------------------------------- Job Name: Johnson Property Job #: 03-10-023 • CD W/IB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK Date: March 4, 2010 ' RECOMMEND: P = PRESERVE, T = TRANSPLANT, R = REMOVE 1=13est, 5=Worst Page 1 of 1 BARRIE Do COAT and ASSOMTES (408) 353-1052 23535 Summitfoad Los Gatos, C'. 95030 DEFINITION OF TERMS ON TREE EVALUATION CHARTS DBH 1 Diameter in inches at breast height, or 4 '/z feet. M_ LTI-STEM TREE Check mark if the tree has more than one stem. DBH 2 and DBH 3 Diameter at breast height for the multi -stem trunks, if any. HEIGHT As explained, listed by feet, approximately. CANOPY DIAMETER Canopy diameter listed by feet, approximately. HEALTH A judgment of relative health for the species in the subject area and soil. Number 1 signifies excellent health A rating of number 5 represents specimens which are dead or actively dying. STRUCTURE Judgement of relative structure: 1= perfect structure; 2= good to average structure; 3= potentially hazardous and repairable; 4= actively hazardous, but repairable; 5= actively hazardous and not repairable. HAZARD RATING A proportionate degree of hazard, based on 3 factors, failure potential, size of part which would fail, and a target rating potential 4-12. CONDITION RATING A composite of Health and Structure ratings. CROWN CLEANING Crown cleaning is the removal of dead, dying, diseased, crowded, weakly attached, and low -vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. CROWN THINNING Includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in tum improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind -sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees, more than one-third of the live foliage should never be removed. CROWN REDUCTION Used to reduce the height and/or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining the structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one-half the diameter of the cut being made. CROWN RESTORATION Can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts may need to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length of growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several pnmings over a number of years. CROWN RAISING Removes the lower branches of a tree in order to provide clearance for buildings, vehicles, pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that a tree have at least one-half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lower two-thirds of its crown to ensure a well -formed, tapered structure and to uniformly distribute stress within a tree. When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through the foliage of the tree, rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. PRUNING PRIORITY The relative importance of the recommended pruning based on the danger created by the unpruned portions. - REMOVE END -WEIGHT Defined as requiring the removal of the ends of major limbs or major branches in sufficient quantity to prevent the breakage of the limb in question. This' is done by thinning. Different species will require different amounts of end -weight removal depending on the inherent structure of the tree. As an example, Elm trees must not be allowed to develop heavy end -weights, where the same amount of end - weight on Magnolia may not be dangerous. Possible. entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning no attention is needed, 5 meaning immediate attention is needed. CABLES NEEDED If support cables are needed, the quantity needed would be noted here. INSECTS This would define the proportion of insect presence and damage to a tree. 'A separate list might accompany this to show what insects might be found in each different species of tree. The potential numbers listed under this column would be 1 through 5 showing the proportionate severity of the infestation of insects. Number 1 being no presence visible at the time the survey was taken,*5* being a very severe case that should be treated immediately. TREE CROWN DISEASES Defined -as the proportion of diseases present in the specimen at the time the survey was taken. Potential entries in this column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying very severe disease presence that should be treated. For this column a high rating may only serve to provide warning for the following year that treatment for the diseases in question should be planned in advance. Examples are Anthracnose disease on Modesto Ash. They would have to be sprayed before foliage is developed far enough for the disease to damage the foliage, usually in early March. DEAD WOOD Self-explanatory. Defines the proportion of dead wood that is in the crown of a tree. Entries possible in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 meaning none present, 5 meaning a significant quantity of dead parts present. This would usually be reflected in the health rating for this tree, but not always if the species typically accumulates dead twigs in the tree, as does Albizia julibrissin. TRUNK DECAY Trunk decay would signify the proportionate amount of decay in the trunk of the tree. This is usually a result of removal of large limbs or branches from which decay travels and is a far more serious problem in some species than in others. Significant amounts of trunk decay in Elms would be a very serious potential problem, where the same amount of trunk decay in a Magnolia might not be nearly so dangerous. Potential entries in that column would be 1 through 5. Number 1 signifying no decay, 5 signifying so much decay that the tree should be immediately removed. ROOT COLLAR COVERED When the root collar of many species is covered, Armillaria mellea, Phytophfhora cacforum, or other diseases, may kill vascular tissue, implying that this condition must be corrected. HORTIC' "JRAL CONSULTANTS CON. -,TING ARBORISTS )hnson Property 24182 Summerhill Avenue, Los Altos Hills BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES (408) 3531052 Prepared by; Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist Requested by, Mark Johnson 23535 Summit Road Los Uoi,CA 95030 Date; March 4, 2010 Job # 03-10-023 This logo Is attached to a plan done by another professional, The presence of this logo is not for the purpose of claiming credit for the plan but merely to add horticultural or arboricultural information to a Ian prepared by others. Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. All dimensions and tree locations are approximate. SKETCH — NO SCALE DRAINACP nrrrU Attachment 7 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSALTOSHILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 d. r www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council -4/2/97 Code Sections: Section 10-2.702 (c) of the Site Development Ordinance states that: "The amount of grading, excavation, or fill shall be the minimum necessary to accommodate proposed structures, unless grading is proposed to lower the profile of buildings." Section 10-2.703(a) requires: "Type II foundations — step -on -contour, daylight, pole foundations, or a combination thereof — shall be used on building sites with natural slopes in excess of fourteen percent (14%)." 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 Policy: 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. Attachment 8 RECEIVED O A-1iPq QF IOS ALTOS HiLis, JUL 23 2010 PI-A3'NNG D1:PARTNIENT hos .JtHIs, c41;" c,r?& 9=:02 2 F (650) 941-7222 - rAX ����-LQ�gLi'OS HILLS EXISTII,;(=r ANDPRO OSED DEkLLC)PJ�fT3N'I'AR:EA AND FLOOR AREA TURN JKy MVITR YGUIR APPLICATION ?ROPER'{ CA fVER'S 1I;Q1E T �) f� PIZOPL-'Rf i� �i.fJD}.'\I'B'S Y t. C Lt;tJ.i 7 L1a 13 �Z �i J r i - ATF i i xistit] P3'n}.,c?sc.c 7 dial 1SQT.Jf,Rrr'OCTAtiF) (.l iiiiiiionsri7rli-Ituns) . A, C]l;se anc, (3al'aff (11,om Part 3, A.) % �1 =�" -_ _.------- � __ Q. i:Ic�ekirt3 l:?riWWay and Peirki;] (Measur6d I1)Q'along cenirrline) c l J�. i�f1t1C]S incl ��t''%il}<1i:f{1'� } �� � •� 4 �„�'-----r----- ;'. C:;. Accessory l3)tiluit]`7s iMtm Piirt J3J IL Any Wwr covemw f TOTAIS I A-tr]xi3nt3ti] 1_,ew.lcsl MOM Area All`c) veci - MDA (i1-o11iorks!]«1 7-- 2. F'x;stit Proposed ,1 (SUTA QRP 1Y)OTA01'.) 1't]it, TOTALS Proposed 7'oia! r AciJitiuus{f]t=.le?ions) A. 13ollse E1I](1 (7Gri;£!C': . V. i st Floor b. 2nd Floor Al1.ic ankisen;cnl —•�---�- 13- Acc±essc;ry Buildings - 41i. 1st F lcr b. 2M.Floor C. Alik a]]d l3ti4ljjje.;11 -- '--- ---_- l1taxin�tttn Flew -Area A11mved - (frot]•t Workshee! l l Tt:.)Wht l!SE ONlyt Jif3C;K.Gf) f3Y - � �— ' — BE