Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.2Item 3.2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS June 7, 2012 Staff Report to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN, GRADING POLICY EXCEPTIONS FOR THE DRIVEWAY RETAINING WALLS, SWIMMING POOL, AND REMOVAL OF HERITAGE OAK TREES; LANDS OF THRUN; 13818 PAGE MILL ROAD; FILE #57-12-ZP-SD-GD. FROM: Brian Froelich, AICP, Associate Planner APPROVED: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: 1.) Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the Landscape Screening Plan, removal of 12" Heritage Oak Tree near the driveway and Grading Policy Exception for the driveway, citing the findings in Attachment #2 and subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment #1; And 2.) Deny the requested Grading Policy Exception for the Swimming Pool relocation and the removal of a 15" Heritage Oak Tree near the proposed swimming pool relocation, citing the findings for denial in Attachment #3. BACKGROUND The Planning Commission approved the new residence, swimming pool, and a Grading Policy Exception for the subject property on May 5, 2011(vote: 3-1, Harpootlian no, Collins absent). At the hearing, concerns regarding loss of four (4) large fir trees, grading of the hillside, and the color of the skylight glass were heard from neighboring property owners. The Commission conditioned the project for the Landscape Screening plans to be reviewed by the Planning Commission and that three (3) of the four fir trees on the north side of the residence were to be retained until the presentation of Landscape Screening plans. (May 5, 2011 Planning Commission meeting minutes — Attachment #5) Other project specific conditions of approval included the following: • Retaining wall in the rear yard was modified to preserve three (3) Heritage Oak trees • The 12" oak tree near the driveway was to be transplanted to screen the existing Secondary Dwelling Unit • Interior light fixtures are not to be visible from offsite • Retaining walls were required to be equipped with railing as required by the Building Code • The skylight was required to be a darker blue color Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 2 CODE REQUIREMENTS The requested Site Development Permit is referred to the Planning Commission for review, pursuant to Section 10-2.1305(c) of the Site Development Code. Criteria from Article 8 of the Site Development Code utilized to evaluate landscape plans address erosion, noise, visual effects, maintenance, tree preservation, views, size and placement and amount required to adequately screen new construction. The Planning Commission has authority to allow Grading Policy Exceptions on individual projects. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 9.256 acres Net Lot Area: 9.256 acres Average Slope: 31% Lot Unit Factor: 5.091 Area Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development 38,183 24,046 25,870 -1,824 14,137 Floor 25,455 7,983 7,983 0 17,472 Landscape Screening Plan The proposed landscape screening plan includes plantings around the knoll top building site only. The majority of the site will be unimproved with native vegetation. The project designer has provided irrigation area calculations demonstrating that Ordinance 520 (Water Efficient Landscape) is not applicable because the total irrigated landscape area is less than 5,000 square feet (see plan sheet L0.1). Primary screening plantings include six (6), 36" box size live oak trees near the driveway and front yard and nine (9), 24" box size holly leaf cherry to screen the existing Secondary Dwelling Unit. The oak trees are proposed as a 3:1 mitigation for the Heritage Oak trees proposed for removal. Gradin Policy Exception for the Driveway and removal of a 12" Heritage Oak Tree The applicant is proposing a Grading Policy Exception to cut six (6) feet for a yard area adjacent to the driveway where three (3) feet is the maximum allowed. The additional cut was proposed with the new residence but removed from the plan in order to comply with the condition of approval that required the fir trees to be kept until the presentation of Landscape Screening Plans. The applicant now proposes to revisit the issue and proposes to remove one of the fir trees. Grading in this area would reduce the amount of building materials brought to the site for retaining walls and aesthetically allow the terminus of the driveway to have an "open feel". The approved driveway creates a channel with retaining walls on both sides leading Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 3 to the basement garage. The area of Grading Policy Exception covers approximately 556 square feet. With the new residence approval, the Planning Commission required that a 12" Heritage Oak Tree adjacent to the driveway be relocated to screen the existing Secondary Dwelling Unit. The applicant now proposes to remove this tree and replace it with three (3), 36" box size live oak trees. The project Arborist has prepared an opinion stating that the existing tree is a poor candidate for relocation due to the tree's root and stem structure. (Attachment 7) Grading Policy Exception for a Swimming Pool and removal of a 15" Heritage Oak Tree A 908 square foot swimming pool was approved with the new residence on May 5, 2011. The Building Permit has been issued for the swimming pool, excavation is complete, and construction has begun: With the Building Permit, the swimming pool location was shown in a slightly different location than approved, three (3) feet further south and away from the residence. This new pool location on the site plan was not disclosed to Town staff nor noted as a project change in the Building Permit documents. The Building Permit documents did not contain a revised grading plan and the change of location was not noticed by Town staff during plan check. As part of the Landscape Screening application, a revised grading plan was submitted and the relocated swimming pool was noticed by staff. The Planning Department informed the owner to halt all work pending Planning Commission review because the new location requires a Grading Policy Exception due to the pool coping elevation proposed at five (5) feet above the adjoining grade for a total area of 71 square feet. In addition, the applicant is proposing removal of a 15" Oak Tree south and downhill of the swimming pool. The new pool location does not encroach within the dripline of the tree canopy and the project Arborist has commented that the swimming pool construction does not necessitate removal of the Heritage Oak Tree (Attachment 7). The Planning Department is recommending denial of the revised swimming pool location and the removal of the 15" Heritage Oak tree. The proposed Grading Policy Exception facilitates a site amenity and does not serve to lower the profile or visibility of any structure. Design alternatives exist that would allow the property owner the construct a swimming pool that would comply with the Grading Policy. Specifically, the previously approved grading plan showed the swimming pool in nearly the same location and complied with the Grading Policy. Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 4 Other Tree Removal The project plans show removal of ten other trees including: six (6) redwoods, three (3) pines, and a pepper tree. The trees were shown to be removed with the new residence application and the owner has preserved the trees to screen the construction operation. Outdoor Lighting The applicant is not proposing outdoor landscape lighting beyond the previously approved building mounted lighting. Town Committee's Review The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that the dead redwood tree to the south of the residence should be removed and that a large amount of lawn is proposed. (Attachment 6) ENVIRONMENTAL CLEARANCE (CEOA) The proposed landscape screening, tennis court, and swimming pool are categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15303(e). ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Grading Policy Exception Findings for Approval — Driveway 3. Grading Policy Exception Findings for Denial — Swimming Pool 4. Los Altos Hills Grading Policy 5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes, May 5, 2011 6. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, March 22, 2012 7. Project Arborist Letter, May 29, 2012 8. Proposed Landscape Screening Plans Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 5 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF THRUM, 13818 PAGE MILL ROAD File # 57-12-ZP-SD-GD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or Planning Commission, depending on the scope of changes, prior to planting or commencement of work. 2. All required plantings shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the new residence. 3. Building mounted lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Please note that any additional lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. Generally, lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, the source of the lighting shall not be visible from off the site. 4. The property owner shall contact the Building Department and acquire any and all required building permits prior to commencement of work on landscape or hardscape. 5. A landscape maintenance and water use deposit of $5,000.00 shall be posted prior to final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the screening plantings to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. Prior to deposit release, the property owner shall also furnish to the Town the second year (months 13-24 following receipt of the Certificate of Completion) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds the calculated PWB, the deposit will be held for an additional 12 months. At the end of the additional 12 month period, the property owner shall provide the Town with the previous; 12 months (months 25-36) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the water usage still exceeds the estimated PWB, the deposit shall be forfeited to the Town, in full. All Town staff time and materials expended to ensure compliance with this condition will be deducted from the deposit. Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 6 6. No fences, gates, or columns are approved with this permit. The owner may apply for a separate Fence Permit. B. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 7. Any, and all, changes to the proposed Site Plan 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. 8. Final grading and drainage shall be inspected by the Engineering Department and any deficiencies corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final approval. 9. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the action. Building Permits cannot be accepted until the appeal period has lapsed. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until June 7, 2013). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years. Please refer to the Conditions of Project Approval set forth herein. If you believe that these Conditions impose any fees, dedications, reservation or other exactions under the California Government Code Section 66000, you are hereby notified that these Conditions constitute written notice of a statement of the amount of such fees, and/or a description of the dedications, reservations, and other exactions. You are hereby further notified that the 90 -day approval period in which you may protest such fees, dedications, reservations, and other exactions, pursuant to Government Code Section 66020(a), has begun. If you fail to file a protest within this 90 -day period complying with all of the requirements of Section 66020, you will be legally barred from later challenging such exactions. Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 7 ATTACHMENT 2 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS OF APPROVAL FOR A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION (DRIVEWA)o LANDS OF THRUN, 13818 PAGE MILL ROAD File # 57-12-ZP-SD-GD 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." 2. The proposed grading will not result in the removal of any substantial vegetation that cannot be effectively mitigated. 3. The proposed grading will not increase the quantity of runoff. 4. The proposed area of grading will not result in a substantial visual alteration of the natural terrain. The property's existing contours and basic landform are retained. 5. The proposed grading will result in the reduction of imported artificial materials for retaining walls. Planning Commission Lands of Thrun — Landscape Screening June 7, 2012 Page 8 ATTACHMENT 3 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR DENIAL OF A GRADING POLICY EXCEPTION (SWIMMING POOL) LANDS OF THRUM, 13818 PAGE MILL ROAD File # 57-12-ZP-SD-GD 1. The proposed Grading Policy Exception facilitates a site amenity and does not serve to lower the profile or visibility of any structure. 2. Design alternatives exist that would allow the property owner the construct a swimming pool that would comply with the Grading Policy. Specifically, the previously approved grading plan showed the swimming pool in nearly the same location and complied with the Grading Policy. Attachment 4 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LOSALT08HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Phone: (650) 941-7222 r www.losaltoshills.ca.gov CALIFORNIA Grading Policy Approved by City Council 07/21/2011 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, encouraging terraced retaining walls where possible, and emphasizes cut to lower the profile of structures over fill or foundation walls, which tend to raise the profile of the structure. While balanced cut and fill is desirable to 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: Cuts and fills in excess of the following levels generally will be considered excessive and contrary to Town ordinances and policies to grade only to the minimum extent necessary to accommodate structures and to site structures consistent with slope contours, i.e., "step down" the hill*: Cut Fill House 8'* * 3' Accessory Bldg. 8'** 3' Tennis Court 6' 3' Pool 4'*** 3' Driveways 4' 3' Other (decks, yards) 4' 3' * Combined depths of cut plus fill for development other than the main residence should be limited to 6 feet, except that for tennis courts cut plus fill may be permitted up to a maximum of 8 feet. ** Excludes basements meeting Code definition. *** Excludes excavation for pool. 2. The height of the lowest finished floor(s) of a structure should generally not be set in excess of four feet six inches (4'6") feet above the existing grade, to assure that structures step with the slope. Supported decks shall generally not exceed three (3') feet above adjoining grade except where located within six (6') feet of a building. Driveway cut may be increased up to a maximum of ten (10') feet for the portion of the driveway or backup area which is adjacent to a garage that has been lowered with a similar amount of cut. Terracing shall be utilized for cuts exceeding six (6') feet. 4. Cut and/or fill for drainage shall be limited consistent with the guidelines set forth above for each type of structure, but shall be the minimum grading needed for drainage purposes, as determined by the City Engineer. 5. The Planning Director may approve exceptions for required driveways and Fire Truck turnarounds where cut does not exceed seven (7') feet and fill does not exceed five (5') feet at a noticed public hearing. Attachment 5 Minutes of a Regular Meeting Approved June 2, 2011 Town of Los Altos Hills PLANNING COMMISSION THURSDAY, May 5, 2011, 7:00 p.m. Council Chambers, 26379 Fremont Road 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Abraham and Commissioners: Clow, Harpootlian, and Partridge Absent: Commissioner Collins Staff: Debbie Pedro, Planning Director; Richard Chiu, City Engineer; Brian Froelich, Associate Planner; and Victoria Ortland, Planning Secretary 2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR - none 3. PUBLIC HEARINGS Planning Commission Ex Parte Contacts Policy Disclosure: Commissioner Harpootlian had met the applicants for Item 3.1; Commissioner Clow had met the applicant and neighbors Dru Anderson and John Hughes for Item 3.1; Chairman Abraham had met with neighbors Dru and Bob Anderson for Item 3.1. 3.1 LANDS OF THRUN, 13818 Page Mill Road; File #257-10-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,026 square foot new residence with a 4,916 square foot basement and 780 square foot swimming pool (maximum height: 24 feet). The applicant requests a Grading Policy Exception to cut up to eleven (11) feet for the driveway and permission to remove four (4) heritage oak trees. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15303 (a) (staff -Brian Froelich). Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report for the new residence and swimming pool with a Grading Policy exception, and request for heritage oak tree removal. The proposed 5,147 square foot new glass sided residence would be constructed in a circular shape with a pyramid shaped skylight constructed of a sky blue Teflon material. Eighteen trees, including four heritage oaks were proposed for removal; however, according to a follow-up arborist's report, the three heritage oak trees near the retaining wall can be preserved and the oak at the driveway can be relocated on the site. The Grading Policy exception is required for the fire truck turn around and vehicular access to the basement. Three letters in support of the project had been received. Two neighbors had expressed concern over the color and reflectivity of the skylight, removal of four pine trees on the front slope, grading of the hillside and subsequent removal of existing vegetation, and the utility poles and the possibility for undergrounding. Planning Commission Minutes Approved June 2. 2011 May 5, 2011 Page 2 Sebastian Thrun, applicant, explained that the heritage oak tree must be removed for compliance with fire department driveway requirements but could be relocated to provide screening for the existing guest house. Eli Attia, architect explained the theory behind the design of the round structure, the properties of the glass and other materials to be used in construction of the house. OPENED PUBLIC HEARING John Hughes, Saddle Court, expressed concern over the removal of several large trees and existing vegetation on the project site. The resulting loss of screening would allow the new residence to be in view from his property. The new retaining walls would be visible from off-site if the hillside north and northeast of the driveway was graded to bare ground. Jitze Couperus, Page Mill Road, supported the project and was delighted by the design and size of the new residence. Dru Anderson, Saddle Court, said her home is on the ridge line opposite of the project location and considered the mature trees important screening for the new house. She was concerned with the light color of the skylight pyramid, suggested thought be given to the possibility of undergrounding utilities, and water conservation. John Dukes, Lupine Road, requested that the color of the skylight pyramid be changed to blue from white. He encouraged relocation of the heritage oak tree to the area of the existing second unit to block the view for the neighbors. The retaining walls should be softened with vegetation if visible from off-site. Mr. Chown, Page Mill Road, supported the design and size of the new residence. CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Clow asked for an explanation of the choice of color for the skylight pyramid and the possibility of utility undergrounding. Eli Attia said that the proposed color for the skylight pyramid is light blue, but because the material is not reflective, it would not reflect the sky. Mark Helton, Civil Engineer, stated a PG&E easement on the property contained overhead lines that serve the applicant and a neighbor. The utility lines from the pole to the new residence and existing second unit will be underground. Commissioner Partridge supported the design and size of the proposed residence. He suggested that the Planning Commission review the landscape screening plan. The Grading Policy exception for the fire truck turnaround and resulting retaining walls was acceptable. The retaining walls don't need to be terraced but should have railings at the top. The skylight should be pale blue in color. Planning Commission Minutes Approved June 2. 2011 May 5, 2011 Page 3 Commissioner Harpootlian supported the house design with the following requirements: any retaining walls over six feet to be tiered, landscape screening reviewed by the Planning Commission, and no light source visible from off-site. Commissioner Clow supported the new residence project. The color of the skylight pyramid is acceptable. The existing tall pine trees should be preserved to provide screening for the neighbors. Regarding the oak tree proposed for removal, it was a good idea to transplant for screening for the existing second unit. There should be no visible light source seen from off-site. The retaining walls do not need to be terraced for the project. Chairman Abraham supported the project and Grading Policy exception for the driveway and related retaining walls without terracing. The landscape screening should be reviewed by the Planning Commission. The skylight pyramid color should be as unobtrusive possible. The pine trees should be retained until landscape screening. The south retaining wall should be modified to protect the oak trees nearby. Utility undergrounding along the road and PG&E easement was not the responsibility of the applicant. MOTION MADE, AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Clow and seconded by Commissioner Partridge to approve the requested Site Development Permit with the following additional conditions: the rear yard retaining wall shall be redesigned to preserve the three heritage oak trees; the heritage oak at the driveway shall be transplanted to screen the existing second unit; modify the grading plan to preserve a minimum of three pine trees and the fourth pine tree to the greatest extent possible; interior fixed lighting sources shall not be visible from off-site; the retaining walls shall have railings at the top as required by the Building Code; the skylight pyramid color shall be a darker blue than the material board exhibit and reviewed by staff; and the landscape screening shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing. AYES: Commissioners Clow and Partridge, Chairman Abraham NOES: Commissioner Harpootlian ABSENT: Commissioner Collins Commissioner Harpootlian could not support the retaining walls without terracing. This item will be forwarded to a future City Council meeting. BREAK TAKEN AT 8:56 PM AND RECONVENED AT 9:10 PM 3.2 Chaparral Way Public Service Easement Vacation: To consider a General Plan Conformity Finding, pursuant to Government Code Section 65402(a), for vacation of a Public Use Easement on Chaparral Way and reserve a public utility easement of equal dimensions, and a -seven (7) to ten (10) foot pathway easement within the Public Use Easement. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section 15061 (b) (3) (staff -Richard Chiu). Richard Chiu, City Engineer, presented the staff report for the resolution finding that the vacation of the public use easement on Chaparral Way is consistent with the Town of Los Altos Environmental Design and Protection Committee L Reviewed by: Applicant Name _ U /f Address Site impact/lighting/noise: Creeks, drainage, easements: - Existing Vegetation: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 6 Date _�.. :lam Mr. Sebastian Thrun 848 Pine Hill Rd. Stanford, CA 94305 RE: 13818 Page Mill Rd. Los Altos Hills; CA Greetings.Mr. Thrun, IAN GEDDES Attachment 7 AND ASSOCIATES ARBORICULTURAL CONSULTING P.O. Box 2962, Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 379-8011 • (888) DR TREES Fax (408) 374-8262 wwwArtrees.com May 29, 2012 In response to your request that we present arguments to support the removal of Tree# 1(Quercus agrifolia) in rebuttal to the Planning Commission's recommendation that the tree be transplanted, and to address the perceived conflict between existing trees and the location of the new swimming pool, I report the following. Our most recent recommendation in support of removing Tree #1 was made in a previous Arborist report dated April 26, 2011 and stands, as is, this 29th day of May 2012. Our assertion that the tree be removed was later verified by two expert sources each of which are involved in the art of transplanting established specimen trees—Tree Movers of Mountain View and Frank & Grossman Landscapes who operates throughout the greater Northern California coastal area. Representatives of both companies advised Mr. Peter Winters, President, P H Winters Construction, that this particular specimen would not survive a transplant due to it having established upon a slope and the tree's asymmetric stem structure near the root buttress. It is my professional opinion, which is supported by the expert observations and advice of those contractors mentioned above, that Tree #1 located at the comer of the driveway is not a proper candidate for transplanting as the asymmetric root structure and stem structure near the root buttress combined makes a successful transplant impossible using current technologies. I reaffirm my original recommendation that tree #1 be removed and a suitable replacement be planted elsewhere on the property away from structures, property lines, streets, driveways, utilities, etc. A S CA AnlvtluN SOOLT' OF CONSULT G AWORIS Mr. Sebastian Thrun 5/29/12 Page 2 In regard to the proximity of the pool to existing trees, I offer the following observations and recommendations. The Coast Live Oaks on the downhill side of the swimming pool can be pruned in a manner that "tucks" them back from the pool without compromising their health and condition. And, although the canopies are depicted on the blueprints as overhanging the pool area to a greater extent, the canopies are in fact asymmetric and not as large as depicted on the blue prints; the software used to show landscape features does not, in my knowledge, allow the user to constrain the proportions of drawing plants and trees asymmetrically; trees are always drawn round and generally do not represent an exact likeness. That said, those same Coast Live Oaks near the pool have established upon a hillside and likely have an. asymmetric root structure. We have witnessed in other trees on hillsides that the uphill side of the critical root zone contains fewer roots that do not necessarily grown uphill and out to the drip line. Therefore, the pool as designed is likely to have little if any adverse effect upon the trees' health and condition due to perceived root damage and/or pruning. The underbrush below those same Coast Live Oaks can be cut to grade to allow line of sight through the lower canopies of the Oaks. The cut stumps however should neither be ground to below grade nor dug out as the former and latter activities would likely damage a large percentage of the roots to the extent of compromising the trees' well being. We have enjoyed the opportunity to assist you with your tree related issue. Please do not hesitate to contact our office should you require any further assistance. Sincerely, Pf JAW LMJVV�9. David A. Laczko PN -ISA Certified Arborist #1233A ® IAN GEDDES AND ASSOCIATES.