Attachment 06To : Planning Commission
From: Lee Quintana
Re: Agenda Item No 4. 1/11117 S-16-44
CONFLICTS/QUESTION
House Size/ Compatibility
Grading
Landscaping
Tree Impacts
Consistency with HDS&G
B. House Size and Neighborhood Compatibility (Page 4 Staff Report)
• FAR does not apply in hillsides
• This type of comparison ts applicable to standard subdivisions, not hillside lots which
vary greatly in respect to site conditions
• Chart does not include square footage of the cellar at 15580 Gum Tree Land
(application)
• If look at the three most like sized parcels the totals of the three (including house,
cellar and garage the proposed application is the largest. The totals are as follows:
15715 Gum Tree Lane
15675 Gum Tree Lane
15580 Gum Tree Lane
5217 sq ft
7415 sq ft
8895 sq ft (Application)
C Grading and Fill Restoration (Page 5 Staff Report)
• Fill exceeds maximum standard in area of road restoration in area of pool, patio and
turf. (areas that are up to 60+ feet from the house.
• It is not clear what areas actually exceed the maximum fill depth.
• If these areas were brought closer to the house would It be possible to remain within
the maximum fill depth as well as create a more natural restoration of the topography
in the area? Part of rational for the increased fill is to utilize cut from the basement and
reduce the required offhaul (2, 145 cy cut, 1,235 cy fill, total earth movement 3,380
cy, 910cy offhaul (F. Geotechnical Review page 6 Staff Report)
• The previous proposal did not include a cellar. It did not require as much cut or fill or
offhaul.
C. Landscaping (Page 5 Staff Report)
• The Staff Report under E. Tree Impacts (page 5) states that most of the proposed
landscaping is within 30 feet of the proposed residence and can be ornamental
species of the applicant's choice.
.ATJ'ACHMENT 8
• Most of the landscaping on the front and sides of the residence is within 30 feet..
However, in the rear of the house the patio, pool and turf extend up to 60 feet +/-from
the rear of the residence .
• While ornamental and turf areas are allowed within 30 feet of the residence , the
majority of the planting within 30 feet is required to be native species. (HDS&G)
• As shown on the Landscaping Plan L.3 .0 the turf area and pool are located more than
30 feet from the residence.
• It appears that there is an extensive area of hardscape and omimental landscaping
even not considering the driveway/turnaround area
E. Tree Impacts:
• The Staff Report (page 5) states that 12 protected trees have been removed with a
permit and that the removed trees will need to be replaced.
• Four additional trees have been identified for removal with this application.
• The arborist report Ex. 7 includes recommended conditions for replacement of three of
the additional trees in addition to other conditions regarding revisions to the plans to
avoid impact to other trees. It does not include conditions for the replacement of the
origninal 12 trees that were removed . What provisions are being made for
replacement of these 12 trees?
HDS&G
~jh Walter Levison rl CONSULTING AABORIST
,\~ ~~ .·~~~\.:
ASCA Registered Consulting Arbortst #401 /ISA. Tree Rl&k Aaaeumenl Quallfied / ISA Certllled Arborlat lf\IC-3172 eel (416) 203-0990 I drtreeOsboglobaLnet
3.0 Tree Location & Protection Fence
Map
T"8 CTA marked up ihe applicant's preliminary grading
and drainage plan sheet dated June 2016 by Hanna·
Brunetti.
The red dashed lines Indicate the CT A's suggested chain
link root protection fence alignment (Initial rough). Based
on the current proposed plan, most of the trees proposed
to be retained and protected should have enough root
zone square footage retained Inside these fenced areas to
maintain normal vigor (assuming that the general
contractor erects fencing along the routes suggested on
the map markup at right). Trees that may be negatively
impacted Include:
• Treas #1, 4, 6, #71 and #8 due to proposed
graded fill placement.
• Tree #11 due to the proposed drain outfall.
• Tree #14 due to encroachment by the proposed
work footprint
• Tree #19, 25, and #30 due to proposed new
driveway footprint development.
• Tree #29 due to proposed water service line
trenching.
• Tree #30 which will be surrounded by various site
plan elements on most sides of the tree.
Yellow lines indicate the project team's proposed new
drainage pipe trench route and the proposed new water
ser1ice llne trench route.
4.0 Observations & Discussion
(See report section 1.0 Summary above for observation
and discussion Items).
• Site Addl911: 1 SCl80 Gum T191 Lane, Loa Glkla, CA
'•" •11 1,i
=-1 ii.
=·· Iii
II!
I
[3
!Ill·~ . ·s
Realllmd Member, Am9~can Society Of Con1U1fng Albolllll •nd Mllmber Of 111• llillmdonll Sadlly of Albor1Cllllln.
c w•:er t.M410n 20111 Nl Rlahla Ra18M!d
•'q •
111 l'I I"' ~ )1 . 111 14
.:'·
". .
llf r
: 14'
Jilll '•
1ree11JY.
(not tagged)
.
~
tree\.~· i .:~'·15 ~~·;,:_ .......... ..,.. ~ ~
ll I•
0 ' ••
ree #1e---f" ;;· .. J.-> , u.~-;
:27
I .,.
,, 11
' a e e e e e 8 ,,
1
11 •,HHI ,·1 ~·I lllJ I ' .........
I f, ,l t: I I i··· .
I •:11• 11 111, ~ I~ U•il 1
1 ~ Jl1:
/$:\ ~ YJ?Ooe-(_ ~,) ~ I ill i!I !I ; I
/ //""'~ C.<'Y1 G \.t.} a.Y'~ '\ . ' I I U• I II
1// Y~ VYlO oe.J CJ) ...
10 Of37 "* it q J (> ~ J
/ I
Vertlon: 7ISIZ016
"*~· 9 0
:-• ~ • 4
'-~ ~ .. · ' . t . t :. J.~ -. '·:-... • '· ..
~
.,
26
... "··~v. .,..,,.;r)/ . \ \ .)'
-..... .. , .. ,
''·~
r' ..__ " 19 17
,\ /··--._:~\-~;~/ ~~~5
\./ ~
~
·~ ......... ,,,,,_~. ; Nr.1 •40'r>• • . '-' r .J1~.2r .
1
12 Gone
13, 14 Not on map
Deborah Ellis, MS
Consulting Arborlst & Horticulturist
l!grm,g
l'I Sovelroe * Dobotoblo • !Road abrut !tool
l( Romovolroo
0 GaM ;
..
.•
s~ ri.;(e riit<'I' I WM
'U"RE E MAP
y. ~~~~1cr~
/oru--lCe) 0
( : PO Box 3714', Saratoga, CA95070. 408-725-13!57. dtC4h@pacbell.net. http://www.decah.com. : I
Arborist Report for 15680 Gum Tree Ln. Arborist Qeport. June 17, 2013. Poge. 1 of 37
. .