HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.1Item 3.1
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS February 3, 2011
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
SUBJECT: CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A - NEW 3,098
SQUARE FOOT TWO STORY RESIDENCE WITH A 546 SQUARE
FOOT DETACHED GARAGE AND A GRADING POLICY
EXCEPTION FOR UP TO FIVE (5) FEET OF FILL FOR THE
DRIVEWAY; LANDS OF KEARNEY; 27361 MOODY ROAD; FILE
#61-10-ZP-SD-GD-CDP.
FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner -L4=:,
APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission:
Approve the requested Conditional Development Permit (CDP) and Grading Policy
Exception subject to the recommended conditions of approval and required findings in
attachments 1, 2, and 3.
BACKGROUND
The subject site is located on the west side of Moody Road. The property is 1.04 acres
and has a steep slope of 34.98%. The resulting lot unit factor is .483, thus requiring a
Conditional Development Permit. The existing residence was built in 1927 and there
appears to be additions completed without the benefit of permits. The existing driveway
has sections that measure less than eight (8) feet wide and sections with slopes over 20%.
The existing residence and driveway are in a state of major disrepair.
The site contains approximately 100 trees and 22 heritage oak trees. The applicant
commissioned Barry Coate and Associates to prepare an arborist report. Three (3) dead,
one (1) nonheritage oak trees, and five (5) California Bay Laurel trees are proposed for
removal.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
The proposal requires Planning Commission review per Section 10-1.1104 (Conditional
Development Permits) of the Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Commission must make
findings for the Conditional Development Permit (CDP) in order to approve the project.
Recommended CDP findings for approval have .been prepared (Attachment #2) for the
Commission's review. The CDP findings include consideration of the size and design of
the project with regard to the size, shape and topography of the site.
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 2
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
1.04 acres
Net Lot Area:
1.04 acres
Average Slope:
34.98%
Lot Unit Factor:
.483
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area Maximum Proposed Existing
Change
Development 6,930 6,885 6,088 +797
Floor 4,830 3,644 2,511 +1,133
Site and Architecture
Left
45
1,186
The applicant is proposing a new residence with a 1,141 square foot first floor, 1,957
square foot second floor, and 546 square foot detached garage. The proposed first floor
will not be finished floor space but is included in the Floor Area total per Section 10-
1.202. The upper level includes the primary indoor living spaces and is a two bedroom
and two bathroom residence.
The residence has a flat roof with horizontal cedar siding. Horizontal aluminum louvers
are proposed along the west side of the residence and also as a shade structure to partially
enclose the rear courtyard.
Covered parking is provided by a detached two -car garage. Two uncovered parking
spaces are shown adjacent to the fire truck turnaround.
The proposal complies with height, floor area, and development area standards per Title
10 of the Municipal Code. The proposed maximum building height is 24' at its highest
measurement from the building pad and has .an overall height measurement of 26' from
the highest roof appurtenance to the lowest grade along the building line.
Conditional Development Permit
The LUF for this property is less than 0.50 and a Conditional Development Permit is
required per Section 10-1.1107(3) of the Zoning Code. In order to grant a Conditional
Development Permit, the Commission must make the four required findings specified in that
Section.
CDP findings evaluate the adequacy of the site to accommodate the proposed project,
creation of a balanced development project in relation to the site topography and
surroundings, minimizing alteration of the natural landscape, and compliance with
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 3
regulations of the Site Development Ordinance. Findings for approval of the CDP are
included in Attachment 42.
Grading and Drainage
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and has recommended conditions of
approval as specified in Attachment #1. The applicant proposes a Grading Policy
Exception for portions of the driveway where fill depths up to five (5) feet are proposed
and a maximum of three (3) feet is permitted. The excess fill accommodates -the Fire
Department's standards by reducing the overall driveway slope and allowing for
emergency vehicle turning radius. The proposed driveway design appears to result in the
least overall site impact while accommodating the required emergency access
requirements. Proposed grading quantities for the project include 1,260 cubic yards of
cut, 410 cubic yards of fill, leaving 850 cubic yards to be hauled away.
Pursuant to Section 10 -2.503 -Drainage Facilities Standards, the Engineering Department
has reviewed the proposed drainage design and determined that it complies with Town
standards. New development is required to demonstrate that post -development runoff
levels will not exceed pre -development levels. The proposed drainage for the site
involves area drains connected to underground drain lines on the north and east sides of
the residence. The lines flow to two (2) underground storage pipes where the water is
metered out to an energy dissipater below the leach field. Hydrology calculations were
provided by the project Civil Engineer showing that post development runoff will not
exceed current conditions.
Septic System
The site will continue to be served by a septic system because the nearest sewer main is
over a half -mile away at Moody Road and Murietta Lane. The Santa Clara County Health
Department has issued preliminary approval of a 2,000 gallon tank and newly installed
leach fields. The approved tank and leach fields are located to the north and west side of
the residence.
Trees & Landscaping
The site contains approximately 100 trees. Nine (9) trees are proposed for removal. The
applicant has provided an arborist's report prepared by Barry Coate and Associates,
December 13, 2010. The report documents the health and condition of 50 trees on site.
Condition of approval #5 requires that all heritage oak trees be fenced prior to start of
grading or construction.
Geotechnical Peer Review
The applicant's geotechnical consultant, Murray Engineers Inc. has submitted a
geotechnical investigation. The report was peer reviewed by the Town's geotechnical
consultant, Cotton and Shires Associates (Attachment #5). Cotton and Shires Associates
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 4
concur with the recommendations and findings in the report and have issued standard
conditions of approval (Conditions #14 a&b).
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department has reviewed the plans and required an
automatic sprinkler system be installed throughout the residence, a fire truck turnaround
be accommodated on site, and the driveway be upgraded to Fire Department standards.
(Conditions #27-30)
Committee Review
The Pathways Committee has recommended that an easement be granted along Moody
Road and a Type IIB pathway be constructed- along the length of the property frontage.
The property survey notes a ten foot wide "Future Right -of -Way" along the property
frontage. The easement would cover this area: The Town has not requested the additional
right-of-way with this application because this is a portion of Moody Road maintained by
Santa Clara County. (Conditions #22 and 23)
The Environmental Design and Protection Committee requested that the invasive Scotch
Broom be removed from the site.
ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEQA)
The proposed single family residence is categorically exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act by Section 15303 (a).
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Recommended findings for the Grading Policy Exception
3. Recommended findings for the Conditional Development Permit
4. Grading Policy
5. Cotton, Shires and Associates review letter January 26, 2011
6. Environmental Design and Protection Committee review letter May, 21, 2010
7. Fire Department review letter April 21, 2010
8. Arborist Report prepared by Barry Coate and Associates December 13, 2010
9. Development plans (Commission only)
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 5
ATTACHMENT 1
RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT
PERMIT AND GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION
LANDS OF KEARNEY, 27361 MOODY ROAD
File #61-10-ZP-SD-GD-CDP
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT - Please work with Brian Froelich, Associate
Planner 650-947-2505 to complete the following conditions:
1. No other modifications -to the approved plans are allowed except as
otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the
Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. 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. Plantings shall be adequate to break
up the bulk of the 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.
3. A landscape maintenance deposit in an amount determined by the Site
Development Committee 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.
4. 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.
5. Prior to receiving a Building Permit, all significant trees are to be fenced
at the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 6
fenced prior issuance of Building Permit. 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.
Tree fencing requirements:
a) Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
b) All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a
minimum height of five feet (T) above grade.
c) Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts,
driven into the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than
10 -foot spacing.
d) Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction
periods.
e) No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the
drip lines of these trees at any time.
f) No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees to be saved.
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 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 residence shall be similarly certified in writing to state that
"the elevation of the residence matches the elevation and location shown
on the approved 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'-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 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. Air conditioning units shall be located a minimum of 40' from the front
property line and 30' from the side and rear property lines.
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 7
9. If utilized, skylights shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted
light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
10. All new exterior lighting fixtures shall have white/frosted/etched glass
enclosures or be shielded light fixtures. Seeded or bent glass is not
acceptable. No landscape or site lighting is approved with this plan.
Landscaping and site lighting shall be reviewed with the landscape
screening plan. All lighting must comply with the Town's Lighting Policy
prior to final inspection.
11. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
12. The applicant must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check from Los Altos Hills. The
applicant must take a copy of required fee payment forms that have been
completed by the Town to both the elementary and high school district
offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of their
receipts.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT - Please work ' with John Chau, Assistant Engineer
650-947-2510 to complete the following conditions:
13.. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated
January 26, 2011, the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review–The applicant's Geotechnical Consultant
shall review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project
building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations, drainage,
pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building
Department.
b. Geotechnical Field Inspection—The Geotechnical Consultant shall
inspect, test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the
project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily
be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface
drainage improvements, and excavations for foundations and retaining
walls prior to the placement of steel and concrete.
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 8
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project
shall be described by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and
submitted to the Town Engineer for review and approval prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
14. Peak discharge at 27361 Moody Road 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. The final grading and drainage plans shall show
all elevations and contour lines based on the Town's datum (NAVD
88).
15. The Engineer of Record shall observe the installation of the drainage
system, construction of the energy dissipators, and completion of the
grading activities and state that items have been installed and constructed
per the approved plans. A stamped and signed letter shall be prepared and
submitted to the Town prior to final inspection.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18.. 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
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 9
native soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy
season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.
19. 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 Moody Road and surrounding roadways, storage of construction
materials, placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction
vehicles, clean-up area, and parking for construction personnel. A debris
box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site for collection of construction
debris. Arrangements must be made with the GreenWaste Recovery, Inc.
for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no other
hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
20. 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.
21. The property owner shall dedicate a 10' wide pathway easement adjacent
to Moody Road 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.
22. The property owner shall construct a type 2B pathway along Moody Road
to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection.
23. 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.
24. A permit for the septic system shall be issued by Santa Clara County
Health Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
25. Conditions of Santa Clara County Health Department shall be met prior to
final inspection.
FIRE DEPARTMENT - Please work with the Santa Clara County Fire Department 408-
378-4010 to complete the following conditions:
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 10
26. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara
County Fire Department shall be included in all portions of the proposed
building. Three sets of plans prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be
submitted to the Santa Clara County Fire Department (14700 Winchester
Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032) for review and approval. The sprinklers
shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the new building.
27. This project is located within the designated Wildland Urban Interface Fire
Area. The building construction shall comply with the provisions of
California Building Code (CBC) Chapter 7A. Vegetation clearance shall be in
compliance with CBC Section 701A3.2.4 prior to final approval.
28. The applicant shall install an approved fire department engine driveway
and turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet
inside. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details
and Specifications D- 1, prior to final inspection.
29. Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing
buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the
street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their
background.
Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of
approval. The building permit cannot be issued until, the appeal period has lapsed. The
applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department on February 28th,
2011 provided all conditions of approval are completed and signed off by Town staff.
Please call 650-941-7222 extension 235 to schedule a final inspection with the Planning
and Engineering Departments at least two weeks prior to scheduling the final building
inspection approval.
CONDITION NUMBERS 5, 12, 13a, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21 AND 24 SHALL BE
COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT OR
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF
CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN CHECK BY THE BUILDING
DEPARTMENT.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
February 3, 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.
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 11
ATTACHMENT 2
CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FINDINGS
LANDS OF KEARNEY— 27361 MOODY ROAD
1. The site for the proposed development is adequate in size, shape, and topography
to accommodate the proposed intensity of development, including all structures,
yards, open spaces, parking, landscaping, walls and fences, and such other
features as may be required by this chapter.
The primary site constraint is slopes over 30%. The proposed new residence and
site layout has been designed well below the maximum floor area and complies
with the development area, building height limits, and provides four required
parking spaces. -
2. The size and design of the proposed structures create a proper balance, unity and
harmonious appearance in relation to the surrounding neighborhood.
This area of Moody Road consists of a mix of one and two story designs of
varying age and style. The proposed residence is compliant with Town standards
and the architecture and materials are not out of character with residences in the
vicinity.
3. The rural character of the site has been preserved as much as feasible by
minimizing vegetation and tree removal, excessive and unsightly grading and
alteration of natural land forms.
Existing trees will primarily be preserved. The project arborist has recommended
several trees for removal due to health condition or crowding. A landscape
screening plan is required per condition #2 to ensure that existing trees and shrubs
will be supplemented by new landscaping to adequately screen the residence,
blend the visual impact, and preserve the rural character of the site. Proposed site
grading is limited to the driveway and within the building footprint.
4. The proposed development is in compliance with all regulations and policies set
forth in the Site Development Ordinance.
The proposed residence is in compliance with all regulations and policies set forth
in the Site Development Ordinance. Due to the steep terrain, a minor exception to
the Grading Policy is required for the driveway to comply with Fire Department
access requirements.
Planning Commission
Lands of Kearney
February 3, 2011
Page 12
ATTACHMENT 3
GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION FINDINGS
LANDS OF KEARNEY— 27361 MOODY ROAD
1. The proposed plan and grading is in substantial conformance with the General
Plan Land Use Element General Policy 1.1 which states that "Uses of land should
maintain the semi -rural atmosphere, minimize disturbance to natural terrain,
minimize removal of the natural vegetation and create the maximum compatibility
of development with the natural environment through site design, architecture and
landscaping." The proposed area of grading is confined to the footprint of the
proposed buildings to lower their profile and the driveway to conform to
emergency vehicle standards.
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. The proposed residence and driveway are in approximately the same
area as the existing residence and driveway.
The proposed grading significantly lowers the profile of the residence and reduces
overall visible bulk. The residence will appear as a single story from all but the
south elevation.
4. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation
that cannot be effectively mitigated.
5. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff or the alteration of
existing drainage patterns.
Attachment 4
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
LOS.TOSIILLS
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
is
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
CALIFORNIA
Grading Policy
Approved by City Council — 4/2/97
Code Sections:
Section 10-2.7020 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 5
COTTON, SHIRES AND AssocIATES, THTC_
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
January 26, 2011
L5130A
TO; Brian Froelich
Assistant Planner
TOWN OP LOS ALTOS HILLS
27361 Moody Rd
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geotechnical Peer Review
RE: Kearney, New Residence
61-10-Zk` SD -GD
27361 Moody Rd
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geotechnical peer review of
the subject application for the proposed new residence using:
+ Geotechnical Investigation (report) prepared by Murray Engineers
Inc., dated June 8, 2010;
• Topographic Survey (1 sheets, 1"=16' scale) prepared by Lea &
Braze Engineering, Inc., dated April 25, 2010;
• Architectural Plans (6 sheets, various scales) prepared by Joseph.
Bellomo Architects, dated April 15, 2010; and
• Civil Engineering Plans (8 sheets, various scales) prepared by Lea
& Braze Engineering, Inc., dated April 14, 2010 (revision date not
indicated), received by the Town on April 28, 2010.
In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office
files and completed a previous site inspection.
DISCUSSION
We understand that the applicant proposes to demolish the existing residence
and garage and construct a new two-story residence, driveway and attached garage
(final garage floor elevation requires about 10 feet of excavation). A septic leaclfield
system is proposed to serve the residence with effluent distribution lines located on
moderate to steep slopes. Estimates of cut and fill volumes required for the proposed
development include an estimated 1,100 cubic yards of cut, 530 cubic yards of fill and
Notthem CaMomia office Centrax Catifomia Office
330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road
Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218
(408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 35+1852 Sart ArtdlEa CA 95 -9640
(209) 736-4252 • Fax
(209) 73366 -1212
www.cottonshires.com
Brian Froelich January 26, 2411
Page 2 L5130A
570 cubic yards to be exported. Access to the property will be via a new concrete
driveway with approximately the same -alignment as the existing driveway. .
In our previous project geotechnical peer review (dated May 4, 2010), we
requested that a site geotechnical investigation be completed. We noted that proposed
septic leachfield line layout should be evaluated with respect to measured percolation
rates, the proximity to slopes and proposed improvements. At this time we understand
that septic percolation testing has been completed and that a septic leachfield plan has
been prepared by Steve Hartsell (State Registered Environmental Health Specialist),
Based on the site plan included in the referenced report by Murray Engineers, we
understand that primary septic leachfield lines are situated on moderate to steep slopes
(less than 2:1) and within an apparent cut area located immediately northwest of the
residence. We understand that potential health issues associated with septic leachfield
siting have been evaluated by Steve Hartsell.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTTON
The proposed residence is constrained by soil creep, potentially expansive earth
materials, existing artificial fill materials, and the susceptibility to strong seismic ground
shaking. Based on our review of the referenced report, we conclude that the Project
Geotechnical Consultant has performed a site investigation and recommended project
design criteria that are consistent with prevailing geotechrLical standards. We do not
have geotechnical objections to the layout of proposed buildings or driveway
modifications.
We have not received data regarding percolation testing or evaluation of
distribution line locations for the septic leachfield. We understand that the design of the
proposed septic leachfield system (including location of distribution lines on 48 percent
slopes) will be evaluated by the County Environmental Health Department.
We recommend that the following Items 1 and 2 be made conditions of project
geotechnical approval -
1. Geotechnical Plan Review The applicant`s geotechnical
consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of
the development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site
drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations,
drainage, pavement and retaining walls) to ensure that their
recommendations have been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan reviews should be summarized by the
geotechnical consult -ant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer along with other documents for building permit plan -
check.
COTTON, SHIRES AND AssOCIATBs, INC.
Brian Froelich
Page 3
January 26, 2011
L5130A
2. Geotechnical Construction InsRections - 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 consultant shall verify that
new fill materials are properly compacted, keyed and benched
where appropriate into competent earth materials.
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 Consultant prior to final (as -
built) project approval.
WMATIONS
This supplemental geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide
tecluiical 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:I)TS: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.
LL-P—U-t'� .
Environmental Design and. Protection Cottee Attachment 6
�tnl
New Residence/Remodel Evaluation MAY 2 1 2010
Reviewed by: ���- � TOYVN OF LOS ALTd81MWS �; l p
Applicant
Name I&'Ap—
Address_�L-7 NO
Site impact/lighting/noise:
Creeks, drainage, easements:
Existing Vegetation:
��C'k 4�.o
Significant issues/comments:
FIRE DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-181
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) • www.sccfd.orc
"' CEIVED
A� R 2 S 2010
Attachment 7
Fq CCREDISP
Internationally Accredited
pF LOS ALT
O
S Agency
PUN
REVIEW 10 0923
No.
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS BLDG
PERMIT No.
Proposed new 3,041 square foot two-story single-family residence with attached garage.
Comment #1: Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and
water supply as they 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.
Comment #2: 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.
Comment #3: Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided in all new
structures located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface area. Exception: Any non -habitable
structures accessory to single family residences that have a gross floor area of 500 square feet or less.
NOTE: Covered porches, patios, balconies, and attic spaces may require fire sprinkler coverage'. 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. An automatic sprinkler system shall be provided throughout all existing
buildings located in the designated Wildland-Urban Interface areas when modifications are made
that increases the gross floor area. CFC Sec. 903.2, as adopted and amended by LAHMC
Comment #4: 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
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
LAH ® ❑ N ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
R-3, U
CONST. TYPE
V -B
ApplicantName
Bellomo Architects
DATE
4/21/2010
PAGE
1 OF 2
SEC/FLOOR
2 story
AREALOAD
3041 sf
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
NAME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
27361 Moody Rd, Los Altos Hills
TABULAR FIRE FLOW
1000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
1000
BY
Harding, Doug
5070
anized 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
<S�CLA-aA
FIRE
COURTESY 8 SERVICE
FIRF3..e DEPARTMENT
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818
(408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.org
hLZ
APR 2 8
TOM OF LOMM HW
No.
PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS PERMIT No
G°`Am n o
r nasi°o'
Internationally Accredited
Agency
0923
rotection systems, and/or fire suppression water supply systems or storage containers that may be
physically connected in any manner to an appliance capable of causing contamination of the potable
later supply of the purveyor of record. Final approval of the system(s) under consideration will not
e granted by this office until compliance with the requirements of the water purveyor of record are
.ocumented by that purveyor as having been met by the applicant(s). 2007 CFC Sec. 903.3.5 and
iealth and Safety Code 13114.7
:omment #5 Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required: Provide an access driveway with
paved all weather surface, a minimum unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6
Zches, minimum circulating turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum
lope of 15%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications
heet D-1. CFC Sec. 503
,omment #6: Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required: Provide an approved
ire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet
aside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. CFC
-ec. 503
,o prevent plan review and inspection delays, the above noted Developmental Review
-onditions shall be restated as "notes" on all pending and future plan submittals and any
eferenced diagrams to be reproduced onto the future plan submittal.
City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS
AH ® ❑ ® ❑ ❑
OCCUPANCY
R-3, U
CONST. TYPE
V -B
ApplicantNeme
Bellomo Architects
DATE
4/21/2010
PAGE
2 OF 2
!C/FLOOR
story
AREALOAD
3041 sf
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Residential Development
PROJECT TYPE OR SYSTEM
Design Review
tME OF PROJECT
SFR
LOCATION
27361 Moody Rd, Los Altos Hills
.BULAR FIRE FLOW
1000
REDUCTION FOR FIRE SPRINKLERS
REQUIRED FIRE FLOW @ 20 PSI
BY
Harding, Doug
L5070 111000
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
BARRI E D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Horticutural Consultants
23535 Susr►mit Road
Los Gatos, CA 95033
408353-1052
EVALUATION OF TREES AT TETE KEARNEY PROPERTY
27361 MOODY ROAD
LOS ALTOS HILLS
Attachment 8
Prepared at the Request of:
Stephen Atkinson
Palo Alto, CA 94301
studioati inson@,hotmail.com
Prepared by:
Michael L. Bench
Consulting Arborist
March 31, 2010
Revised
December 13, 2010
Joh #03-10-036
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE ICEARNEY PROPERTY
27361 MOODY ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS
Table of Contents
Assignment.................................................................................................................................. 2
Summary...................................................................................................................................... 2
Methods....................................................................................................................................... 2
Observations................................................................................................................................ 2
Comments about Specific Trees..............................................•................................................... 3
ProtectedTrees............................................................................................................................ 4
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 13, 2010
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KEARNEY PROPERTY 2
27361 MOODY ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS
Assignment
I was asked by Mr. Stephen Atkinson, Architect, to evaluate the existing trees within the
proposed construction envelope at the Kearney Property, 27361 Moody Road, Los Altos Hills,
California.
The plan provided for this evaluation is the Proposed Site Plan prepared by Stephen Atkinson
Studio, Palo Alto, CA, dated 11-29-10.
Summary
I estimate that there are approximately 100 trees on this property. I have included 50 trees in this
inventory. The attached map shows the locations of all 50 trees and their approximate canopy
dimensions.
Of these 50 trees, 44 are located on this property, and 6 are located on the adjacent property
toward the east. l tagged all of the trees with metallic labels for field reference.
All of the 50 trees are identified by species, briefly described (trunk diameter, height, spread,
health, structural integrity) and given an overall condition rating of Excellent, Good, Fair, Poor,
Extremely Poor and Dead.
There are 22 "Heritage trees" included in this evaluation. They are Trees #1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14,
15, 16,17, 21, 24, 25, 26, 32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, and 47.
Methods
The trunks of some of the trees were measured using a standard measuring tape at 4 %i feet above
soil grade (referred to as DBH or Diameter at Breast Height), except those specimens whose form
does not allow for a representative measurement at this height. The trunk measurements of low
branched trees was taken below the lowest fork on the trunk of a multi -stem specimen. The
canopy height and spread were estimated using visual reference only.
A few of the existing trees were not shown on the Site Plan provided. I have added Trees #24-29,
32, and 40, which may be impacted by construction. The locations of these added trees have been
estimated using visual references only.
Observations
The existing residence, planned for demolition, is located near the top of a knoll. The majority of
the property slopes downward from this knoll toward the south, east, and north Portions of the
sloped areas are steep. Many of the existing trees have had their trunks covered by soil apparently
during the original grading for site development.' Soil covering the root collars often exposes
trees to serious disease, for example oak root fungus (Armillaria mellea). It appears that the coast
live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Trees #37 and 38 have died from this condition. Although unrelated
to the proposed construction, I recommend that the root collars of all of the trees, which have
been covered by soil, be excavated carefully by hand to expose the tops of the buttress roots on
all sides. It may be essential to stack cobble stones (without mortar) on the upslope side to
prevent further soil intrusion. If cobbles are used, sufficient soil must be removed to prevent the
cobbles from direct contact with the trunks. It would be essential to keep the root collars
relatively clean and dry, except during the seasonal rains to prevent root collar infection.
Several trees are located on a fairly steep slope and likely away from proposed construction.
There are approximately 30-50 additional trees that are not included in this evaluation on the
north facing slope. I have included only the tees nearest the top of the slope. Should excavated
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCK CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 13, 2010
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KEARNEY PROPERTY
27361 FOODY ROAD LOS ALTOS FULS
soil, or results of grading, be allowed to move down the slope, all of the trees located downs slope
would be at risk of further soil intrusion of their Hoot collars or of their root zones. This soil
intrusion must be prevented-
The
revented
The 50 trees are classified as follows:
Trees #1-7,12-17,21,22,24,25,26,29,30,
32,33,34,37,38,39,41-48,50- Coast live oak (Quercus agnfolia)
Trees #8-11, 18, 19, 20, 23, 27, 28,
31, 35, 36 - California bay laurel (Urmbellularia californica)
Tree #40 - California buckeye (Aesculus cal formica)
Tree #49 - European olive (Olea eurofraea)
In addition to these, there are two small California buckeye (Aesculus californica) specimens on
the south side of the existing driveway. The trunks of these two are approximately 3 inches in
diameter. Virtually all of the other trees not included in this report located on this property are of
the two species: Quercus agrifolia and Umbellukuia californica.
The particulars regarding these 50 trees (trunk diameter, height,. spread) are included in the data
sheets that follow this text. The data sheets rate the health and .structure of each specimen on a
scale of 1-5: (1) Excellent, (2) Good, (3) Fair, (4) Poor, (5) Extremely Poor, (6) Dead. An overall
condition rating of each tree, combining the health and structure, is stated as follows:
Excellent
Specimens
Good
Specimens
Fair
Specimens
Poor
Specimens
Extremely
Poor
S imens
Dead
Specimens
6, 8, 40,
4, 5, 9,10,
2, 3, 7, 14,
1, 12, 23
33, 34,
13, 37, 38
11, 15, 19,
16, 17, 18,
44,45
39,42
20, 27, 28,
21, 22, 24,
49
25, 26, 29,
30, 31, 32,
35, 36, 41,
43, 46,47,
48,50
Comments about Specific Trees
The California bay laurel species (Umbellularia californica) is much faster growing than the
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia). The canopies of California bay trees aggressively compete
with the canopies of the oak trees often resulting in dieback of the oak specimens, or in extreme
cases total death of adjacent oak specimens. For this reason, I recommend removal of any of the
California bay specimens that are growing within the driplines of oak trees or are positioned to
shade the adjacent oak trees. Those California bay trees that exist as "stand alone' specimens (not
having the potential to shade out adjacent oak trees) should be preserved.
The coast live oak Tree #37 has fallen into Tree #35, a California bay laurel. Tree #37 is
hazardous and should be removed.
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 13, 2010
EVALUATION OF TREES AT THE KEARNEY PROPERTY
27361 MOODY ROAD LOS ALTOS HILLS
Trees #41-47 are located in a raised planter bed supported by a retaining wall on the west side of
the existing residence. If this retaining wall is not removed, it appears that the construction risk to
these trees may be minimal.
Protected Trees
The Town of Los Altos Hills Ordinance, 2 (part), 332, eff. dune 1, 1990, states:
"Heritage Tree" shall mean any tree that due to age, size, location, visibility, historic
nature, or other unique attribute, has been deemed by the Town (of Los Altos Hills) to be
a heritage tree and accordingly deserves special consideration for preservation and
protection (Title 12, Chapter 2, Section 12-2.113).
"Heritage Oak" shall mean any tree of the genus Quercus, including, but not limited to,
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata), Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolla), California Black Oak
(Quercus Irelloggir), and California Blue Oak (Quercus douglasia) that has a trunk or
multiple trunk thirty-six (36) inches in circumference (approximately twelve (1211) in
diameter) at a point four (4') feet above the root crown.
Of the 50 total trees included in this report, 22 are protected by the Town of Los Altos Hills
regulation. The 22 "Heritage trees" are: Trees ## 1, 2, 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 26,
32, 33, 37, 38, 39, 41, 46, and 47.
MLB/m
Encl.:
Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
Tree Data Accumulation Charts
Definition of Tree Charts
Map
Respectfully submitted,
Michael L. Bench, Associate
Barrie D. Coate, Principal
PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST DECEMBER 13, 2010
Tree Evaluation During Property Development
MEASUREMENTS
CONDITION
DISPOSITION
NOTES
F-
o
BARRIE D. COATE
o
w
a
and ASSOCIATES w
�y�
°
w
w
w
a�
(409)333:,052
13533SwnmHRoad
Q
o
U
C,
W
w
CL
Los Oalos, CA 93030
4u!
U
W
0
�u
�u
�
w
N
v
o
d
o vOi
g
❑
a
Q
L1L
_j
m
W
0
0
Lu O
w
w
Tree # Tree Name Cl
as
❑
m
❑
❑
w
=
a
CO
u�
t4
v
0
I—
=
¢�
c�
?
❑
❑
x
z a
z
u�
❑
cn
w 0
or
-___1 ____
Coast Live Oak 12at 31...........
--oast ----------------------------- ---
ZO
20
_4
2
____
____
____
___
___
____
____
___
___ ___
_x_
---
---
-------___ver.......s.......
Quercus a rrfoila
2
Coast Live Oak 12
25
25
1
4
x
x
3 ___
Coast Live Oak _________________ 16
_
_
20
25
3
2
-
_
_
_
-
-
_ _
x
_
-
small leaveslsDarse
4
Coast Live Oak 6
12
15
1
3
5
Coast Live Oak 10
30
20
1
3
6
Coast Live Oak 28
30
40
1
2
x
7
Coast Live Oak 10
12
20
2
2
___8 ___
California Bay Laurel___________ 6
_
-
25
5
1
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_ _
_
-
R _,___e.___.._.__._.......
Umbellularia californice
9
California Bay_ Laurei___�_______ 16
-------------- ---
----
----
.............--
45
30
_1
3
__
..................____
____
___
___........................._._..__....__.......
- -
10__
California Bax Laurel_______-___ 8
8
_
-
45
25
,1
3
_
_
_
_
_
-
- _
_
_
-
.................. .......
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job #: 03-10-036B • CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 ` RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 1 of 6
Tree Evaluation During Property Development
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job #: 03-10-036B' CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 " RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 2 of 5
MEASUREMENTS
CONDITION
Disp3srnoN
NOTES
o
BARRIE D. COATE
�
Lu
and ASSOCIATES U.
❑
Lu
v
z
�N
(400) 353.1052 _
939935mnmltRoadQ
_
O
U
c..
Lu
W
W
H 2
g Lot Gatos, to 99030
O
V
�..
W
CL
O
O
p;
Gv
m
L
W
�'
QLIJ
WZ
J
fn
V
W
fn
O
❑
O
I
I"
I—
H
Q
g in
O
¢
0
w
O
w
w>>
p
Tree # Tree Name ❑
❑
❑
❑
=
w
=
co
v
F-
ug
=
U
Z
o
❑
=
z
tL
=
w
.
w
w
w Z
___ 11
California B..______Laure____________ 15
__
25
30
1
3R
___ 12 ._
Coast Live Oak __._ ______ 70
-------------------------- ---
----
---
---
50
---
80
----
4
---
2
--- ..........
...................----
---
__-
__-
_ x -
---
......
sparse 1-2" tip arovAh
-------------- - -- -
13.
....................
Coast Live Oak 20
---
16
----
15
-------
--
----
---
---
---
---
-- -
A
D
...................
---
x
----
.........---
DEAD
--------------------------
14
Coast Live Oak 18
17
16
_
40
45
_3
3
___
____
..........
___
____
____
x
.............
..... stump sprout--_-_
sparse
15
-- --
Coast Live Oak 15
20
25
1
3
x
----------------- �-
-
-
-
-
.......
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
------------......------
16
Coast Live Oak 20
30
35
2
2
x
4
x
-_ 17 __
Coast Live _________________ 15
J.._30
25
3
3
--
-
_
-
-
_
3
_
x
_
-
---------------- -..........
___ .. ___
California Bax Laurel____-_____ 13
-----
____
____
---
25
30
_3
3
._
___:
..............
-
-
3
-.........-
-...........................
19
California Bax 10
25
25
1
2
3
R
20
----
California Bay Laurel _____ 12
-----------------------------
-
-
45
-
25
1
3_
x_
____
____
___
___
____
____
3
-
-
_
R ---_.----................
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job #: 03-10-036B' CD WIIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 " RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 2 of 5
Tree Evaluation During Property Development
MEASUREMENTS
CONDITION
DISPOSITION
NOT S
I
o
BARRIE D. COATE
I
°w
z
g
and ASSOCIATES
a
�
W
Lu
�((
to
N
a
z
(408) 353.1052 N
23996 SummItRoad
0
0
(�
U
W
to
Lu
Z
Los Gatos, [A 99030
"n
V
�`
0.
d-
m.
a
°o
g
Q O
o
o,
V
WCL
z
WO
V
�0V
WW
N
�
J
z
�
'M
f
Q�CC
fn
V
o
0
ooa
p=
O
O
W
W=>
O
Tree # Tree Name
to
to
U
=
z a=
0
N
w z
21
----------
Coast Live Oak 24
------------------------------------- ---
----
---
---
40
---
40
----
2
---
2
---
---
----
----
---
---
----
----
3
---
--- ---
x
----
---
---
--- --------------------------
22
CoastLive Oak 11
30
25
2
3
3
__ 23__
California Bay Laurel_________ 14
12
_
_
40
45
4
3
_
_
_
_
-
3
_ _
_
_
R __ sparse/chlorotic __
24
...........................................................................
Coast Live Oak 14
50
25
2
---
2
---
---
----
---..........
----
----
3
---
--- ---.......................
x
--...... ...... --.......
__ 25 __
Coast Live Oak _________________ 16
_
_
30
30
3
2
_
_
_
_
_
3
_ _
x
_
_
_______ sparse_-______
26
Coast Live Oak 17
50
30
2
2
3
x
...........................27
California Bay Laurel_____ 8_
iforniaB- Laurel -------
6
----
---
---
40
---
20
---
1
---
2
---
x
---
----
____
___
___
____
____
2
___ ___
____
___
___
___ __________________._____ -
--_28 __
California Bay Laurel------------ 8
4
40
_15
-�-
-2-
----
----
----
---
---
----
--...........
---
----
--
-
...........................
29
Coast Live Oak 9
20
25
3
3
3
30
Coast Live Oak 8
30
15
3
3
3
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job ##: 03-10-036B • CD WlIB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 • RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 3 of 5
Tree Evaluation During Property Development
MEASUR
MENTS
CONDITION
DISPOSITION
NOTES
�
BARRIE D. COATS w
❑
w
z
and ASSOCIATES U-
�.
w
w
z
(400)353.1052 `1
=
W
~
❑
c.
W
Z
W
13993 SurnmkRoad
Los dabs, CA 99030W
N
Ca
V
h
W
W
CL 0
0
H
0:
❑
w
w
w
V)
�
�
�
�
���uu
Q
m
�
� o
u.J
J
❑
0.
J
W
w
❑
H❑
0 Lu
o w
g m
Tree # Tree Name ❑ ❑
m
Dial=
w
0_
=
0
a
m
?
o'w
0
w
f-
=
v
❑
❑
0:
z
0-
I=
U)
co
w Z
___ 31 ---
California Bay_ Laurel_______-____ 8
---------- -
5
-
30
----------------------------------
20
1
4
x
?
--
--l-
4
--------
--------------------------
___ 32
Coast Live Oak _ 22
15
_
_
50
60
3
3
_
_
_
_
-
_
-
4
_
-
x
_
............................
33
--------
Coast Live Oak 121.......................
-------------------------------- T-
40
5
3
-..................-
4
-
-...................
................... -------
___ 34 .............
Coast Live Oak 10
---
----
�_
___
35
--
20
----
4
---
3
---
---
----
----
---
---
----
----
4
---
---
---
----
---
--
--- --------------------------
___ 35
California Bay Laurel 15
50
25
2
2
3
___ 36 -----
California Bay_ Laurel_____ 24
------------ ------ ---
----
----
---
70
---
35
----
2
---
3
---
' ---
----
---
---
---
----
----
3
-3
-.-
---
----
---
---
--- -------------------------
37
----------
Coast Live Oak __________________ 12
----------------- ---
----
DEAD - fell into tree #35
5
x
---
............-
---
--- •--------- --- --- ----
----
---
---
---
---- 4DEAD
---
---
---- ----
.... 38
Coast Live Oak 12
------------------------------------- ---
----
---
---
---
----
.............
DEAD
----
.............
----
----
5
---
---
---
x
----
---
---
DEAD
--- --------------------------
39
Coast Live Oak 14
40
25
4
2
7
—d
4
x
----------------------------
California Buckeye ________ 5
_
-
20
25
1
2..-..l...
Aesculus calif6mica
-
-
-
-
-
--
- --
- -
--- ----- ------
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job #: 03-10-036B • CD WAB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 • RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 4 of 5
Tree Evaluation During Property Development
MEASUREMENTS
I
CONDITION
DISP091T
O
I NOTES
D. COATE
°w
>
g
.203
and ASSOCIATES L
°
w
w
co
«
4jBARRIE
(908) 353.1052 N
°
O
h'
N
Zz
133955ummfthad
Los Calor, [A 95030
*
O
U
w
N
w
°-
1--
a: O
a:
(�
o:
w
m
z
°z
$
g
Q°
w
°
z U
U
w
W~
y
U
U¢
W°
J
pp�ggC
w
paJ�
2 0
_=
O
W
J
0.
m
w
O
w
O
I
C=
W
V F—
Tree # Tree Name ❑
m
❑
m�
❑
❑
w
_
a
m
u�
=
w
°
U
O
�—
u�
=
Q
U
?
p
°
o
w
z
a
w>>
=
w
0
w O
w z
41
Coast Live Oak __________ 15
15
___
___
30
35
_2
4
____
___
___
___
____
____
___
___
___
_x_
___
stumasprout
___ ..
-----
Coast Live Oak ..
------------------------------------- 10
----
---
___
10
..
_5
4
____
........................x
.............
___
�__
___
___
___ _tom broke put at 10__
43
Coast Live Oak 11
25
25
3
3
44Coast
Live Oak 11
.40..20
.4-2
45
Coast Live Oak 10
30
15
4
2
---------
------------------------------------- --
........................
---
---
-
----
.............
----
........
---
---
----
---
---
--- --------------------------
__ 46 __
-- ---
Coast Live Oak _________________ 15
- —
14
---------
_
_
35
---------
40
3
3
--------------
_
_
_
_
----------
_
_
_
_
--
_
-------
x
_
_
--
stumsrout__
-.....................-
........................................
Coast Live Oak ______ 19
oast--- ---
----
----
---
30
30
_3
2_
____
____
____
___
___
____
____
___
___
___
_x
---
---
--------
--------------------------
__ 48 __
Coast Live Oak _________________ 8
_
_
9 5
20
3
3
x
_ ..
_
_
_
_
_
3
_
_
_
_
...-Jan ..
...................Euroean
Olive---------------- 8
-- ---
7
----
5
---
---
10
---
20
----
1
---
2
--
.---
..................
----
---
---
---
..................
5
--- 50
Coast ....LivOak 6
----
---
---
15
20
_2
2
---
----
----
---
---
----1—fi
t
---
--...--
---
---
--- --------------------------
Job Name: Kearney Property
Job #: 03-10-036B , * CD W/IB = CODOMINANT LEADERS WITH INCLUDED BARK
Date: December 13, 2010 * RECOMMEND = P=PRESERVE, T=TRANSPLANT, R=REMOVE Page 5 of 5
Doc 36 iia 12:37p
Szace.4 Lane
55E3-338-D19S p, i
let
ku
07
j•� ." - try
HIM
na �
=
y
mC
3
Gt 'a 9rS�
a
paou x -
i
IT
A `
cam,Cf
0401 k
PC
'T`
LA/L8 3m 31VW a 3I
TVA QeITV R;827PT/7T
8UIES£88V 9b=80 ol@Z/VT/ZI
I