Press Alt + R to read the document text or Alt + P to download or print.
This document contains no pages.
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 1 of ARC__.______ .„
4 o „:„.,,,,,,_„ , ,,,,,,
. :...:.:,,,,„4„.„ fi.,,,
0. Au ��IYU3 ,,,,.,
°7 `� STAFF REPORT
07� ty ni of t;
Development Services Department
DATE: June 24, 2014
TO: Honorable Chairman and Planning Commission
FROM: Jim Kasama, Community Development Administrator
By: Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: MODIFICATION NO. MP 14-04 AND OAK TREE ENCROACHMENT
PERMIT NO. TRE 14-05 WITH A CLASS 5 CATEGORICAL EXEMPTION
FROM THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA)
FOR AN 11,052 SQUARE-FOOT, TWO-STORY RESIDENCE WITH A
FRONT YARD SETBACK OF 50'-0" IN LIEU OF 52'-6" REQUIRED;
FIRST-STORY SIDE YARD SETBACKS OF 15'-0" AND 17'-6" IN LIEU
OF 43'-1" REQUIRED; AND SECOND-STORY SIDE YARD SETBACKS
OF 30'-0" IN LIEU OF 86'-2" REQUIRED AT 800 HAMPTON ROAD
Recommended Action: Find that this project qualifies as a Class 5
Categorical Exemption from CEQA and Conditionally Approve
Modification No. MP 14-04 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No.
TRE 14-05
SUMMARY
Modification No. MP 14-04 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-05 were
submitted by Mr. Jack Ng for a new 11,052 square-foot residence on an irregular-
shaped, 35,109 square-foot lot — an aerial photo with zoning information is attached.
The requested Modifications are a front yard setback of 50'-0" in lieu of 52'-6" required;
first-story side yard setbacks of 15'-0" and 17'-6" in lieu of 43'-1" required; and second-
story side yard setbacks of 30'-0" in lieu of 86'-2" required. The proposed architectural
plans are attached. The proposed development will encroach into the protected area of
six oak trees. The Oak Tree Report is attached. The architectural design of the
proposed residence has been reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review
Board of the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owner's Association (ARB) and this project
qualifies as a Class 5 Categorical Exemption from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) as a minor alteration in land use limitations. Based on the irregular shape of
the lot, the ARB approved the proposed design with the requested Modifications, which
will provide for an appropriate improvement of this lot and avoid an unreasonable
hardship. With the proposed mitigation measures recommended in the Oak Tree
Report, the proposed development will not adversely impact the health of the six oak
trees in the vicinity. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve
Modification No. MP 14-04 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE 14-05, subject
to the conditions listed in this staff report.
BACKGROUND
APPLICANT: Jack Ng
LOCATION: 800 Hampton Road
REQUESTS: Approval of TRE 14-05 for encroachment into the protected areas of six
oak trees, and the following Modifications:
• A front yard setback of 50'-0" in lieu of 52'-6" required;
• A westerly first-story side yard setback of 15'-0" and an easterly first-
story side yard setback of 17'-6" both in lieu of 43'-1" required; and
• Westerly and easterly second-story side yard setbacks of 30'-0" in
lieu of 86'-2" required.
SITE AREA: 35,109 square-feet (0.81 acre)
FRONTAGE: 430.66 feet along Hampton Road
EXISTING LAND USE & ZONING:
The site is currently developed with a two-story, single-family residence originally
built in 1955, with a major addition constructed in 1995. The site is zoned R-O
(30,000 sf), First One-Family Zone with a 30,000 square-foot minimum lot size.
SURROUNDING LAND USES & ZONING:
North: Single-family residences, zoned R-O
South: Single-family residences, zoned R-O
East: Single-family residences, zoned R-O
West: Single-family residences, zoned R-O
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION:
Residential Estate (up to 2 dwelling units per acre) — This designation
accommodates low-density single-family residential neighborhoods.
Development is typified by large lot, detached single-family residences on estate-
type lots of 22,000 square feet or larger. Permitted uses include single-family
residences on a single lot and private tennis courts and similar facilities.
DISCUSSION
The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing residence to build a new 11,052
square-foot, two-story, single-family residence with an 890 square-foot, four-car garage,
as shown on the attached architectural plans. The proposed new residence includes
five bedrooms, seven-and-a-half bathrooms, a home theater, an exercise room with
sauna, a library, and a den. The architectural design of the proposal has been reviewed
and approved by the Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association's Architectural
MP 14-04 & TRE 14-05
800 Hampton Road
June 24, 2014 — Page 2 of 5
Review Board (ARB) and they found that the proposed setbacks are adequate — see the
attached HOA Findings and Action Form. The development will encroach into the
protected area of five on-site oak trees, and one oak tree located on the adjacent
property to the east of the site. A Certified Arborist, Mr. Alex Hou, has prepared the
attached Oak Tree Report for the project, which finds that with protective measures the
development will not have a negative impact on the health of these six oak trees. Due
to the irregular shape of the lot, the applicant is requesting approval of a reduced front
yard setback, and reduced first-story and second-story side yard setbacks because
those requirements present an unreasonable hardship for developing this irregular-
shaped lot.
Modification Requests
The applicant is requesting a Modification to allow a 50'-0" front yard setback in lieu of
the 52'-6" requirement based on the average setback of the two nearest properties
along this side of Hampton Road (i.e., 738 & 758 Hampton Road). Because of the
curved frontage of the property, the central and most northerly portion of the residence
complies with the front setback requirement, but the corners of the residence, which are
setback from the center of the house, encroach into the average front yard setback
requirement. The Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association has a minimum
front yard setback of 50'-0", and the proposed residence complies with this requirement.
Approval of a 50'-0" front yard setback for the proposed residence will secure an
appropriate improvement of this lot.
The applicant is also requesting a Modification to allow a westerly first-story side yard
setback of 15'-0" and an easterly first-story side yard setback of 17'-6" both in lieu of
the 43'-1" requirement (10% of the front lot width as measured along the front property
line) and to allow westerly and easterly second-story side yard setbacks of 30'-0" in lieu
of the 86'-2" requirement (20% of the front lot width). The intent of these side yard
setback requirements is to provide adequate buffers between properties proportionate
to the widths of the lots. However, due to the irregular shape of the subject lot, which
has a front property line that measures more than three times the widths of the two
nearest lots, applying the 10 and 20 percent requirements for side yard setbacks results
in unreasonable requirements for this property. Allowing the reduced side yard
setbacks for this property will avoid an unreasonable hardship for developing this lot.
The Rancho Santa Anita Property Owners' Association's Architectural Review Board
has reviewed the plans and is in favor of the Modification requests.
Oak Tree Encroachment Permit
The proposed development will encroach into the protected areas of five oak trees
located on the subject property, and one protected oak tree located just off the site on
the adjacent property to the east. Certified Arborist, Mr. Alex Hou, prepared an Oak
Tree Report for this project. Mr. Hou finds that with protective measures the
development will not have a negative impact on the health of these six oak trees. A
copy of the Oak Tree Report is attached to this staff report, and the recommended tree
protection measures are a condition of approval.
MP 14-04 & THE 14-05
800 Hampton Road
June 24, 2014 — Page 3 of 5
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) the
Development Services Department has determined that the proposed project is a minor
alteration in land use limitations, and is therefore categorically exempt from further
environmental review per Section 15305 of the CEQA Guidelines. A Preliminary
Exemption Assessment is attached.
PUBLIC NOTICE/COMMENTS
Public hearing notices for MP 14-04 and TRE 14-05 were mailed to the property owners
of those properties that are located within 100 feet of the subject property on June 11,
2014 — see the attached radius map. As of June 18, 2014, no comments have been
received regarding this project.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve Modification No. MP 14-04
and TRE 14-05, subject to the following conditions:
1. The project shall be developed and maintained by the applicant/property owner in a
manner that is consistent with the plans submitted and conditionally approved for
Modification No. MP 14-04 and Oak Tree Encroachment No. TRE 14-05, subject to
the approval of the Community Development Administrator or designee.
2. The project shall be developed and maintained by the applicant/property owner in
compliance with all of the recommended tree protection measures listed in the Oak
Tree Report prepared for this project.
3. The applicant/property owner shall comply with all City requirements regarding
building safety, fire prevention, detection, suppression, emergency access, public
right-of-way improvements, parking, water supply and water facilities, sewer
facilities, trash reduction and recycling requirements, and National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) measures to the satisfaction of the Building
Official, Fire Marshal, Public Works Services Director and Development Services
Director, or their respective designees. Compliance with these requirements is to be
determined by having fully detailed construction plans submitted for plan check
review and approval by the foregoing City officials and employees.
4. The applicant/property owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of
Arcadia and its officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Arcadia, its officials, officers, employees or
agents to attack, set aside, void, or annul any approval or conditional approval of the
City of Arcadia concerning this project and/or land use decision, including but not
limited to any approval or conditional approval of the City Council, Planning
Commission, or City Staff, which action is brought within the time period provided for
in Government Code Section 66499.37 or other provision of law applicable to this
project or decision. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action,
or proceeding concerning the project and/or land use decision and the City shall
cooperate fully in the defense of the matter. The City reserves the right, at its own
MP 14-04 & TRE 14-05
800 Hampton Road
June 24, 2014 — Page 4 of 5
option, to choose its own attorney to represent the City, its officials, officers,
employees, and agents in the defense of the matter.
5. Approval of MP 14-04 and TRE 14-05 shall not take effect unless on or before 30
calendar days following approval of these applications by the Planning Commission,
the applicant/property owner has executed and filed with the Community
Development Administrator or designee an Acceptance Form available from the
Development Services Department to indicate awareness and acceptance of these
conditions of approval.
Approval
If the Planning Commission intends to approve the project, the Commission should
move to approve Modification No. MP 14-04 and Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No.
TRE 14-05 and determine that the project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act, subject to the conditions set forth above, or as modified by
the Commission, and find that the requested Modifications satisfy at least one of the
following purposes:
• That the Modification(s) will secure an appropriate improvement of a lot, will
prevent an unreasonable hardship, or will promote uniformity of development.
Denial
If the Planning Commission intends to deny this project, the Commission should move
to deny Modification No. MP 14-04 and/or Oak Tree Encroachment Permit No. TRE
14-05, based on the evidence presented, and state the reason(s) why the proposed
project does not fulfill any of the above purposes for Modifications.
If any Planning Commissioner, or other interested party has any questions or comments
regarding this matter prior to the June 24, 2014 public hearing, please contact Associate
Planner, Tim Schwehr at (626) 574-5422, or tschwehrCcr7ArcadiaCA.gov .
Approved:
Jim - ama
Co munity Development Administrator
Attachments: Aerial Photo with Zoning Information
Proposed Architectural Plans
Photos of the Subject Property and Neighboring Properties
HOA Findings and Actions Form
Oak Tree Report
Preliminary Exemption Assessment
100-foot Radius Map
MP 14-04 & TRE 14-05
800 Hampton Road
June 24, 2014 — Page 5 of 5
i;
Site Address: 800 HAMPTON RD
Property Owner(s): HOU,ALEX AND SUSAN S
a
AAA
ea
e.
I ,
a
,a eAAJ
ill , irt, t A e ,
Alia
ii
*
n „ Selected parcel highlighted "
', ` Property Characteristics a,,' ,. '
Zoning: R-O (30,000) «>4 a ��
General Plan: RE l - W4111111 l'
is
Lot Area (sq ft): 35,109 -_ 1►� i�'a. E���%
as-.
Main Structure / Unit(sq.ft.): 5,813 ,'���Year Built: 1955 P.111111111111111111141-alallifilillilli. .. ∎Assam l ��g
Number of Units: 1 d %TENNII I '���
,11,, ,"r`10WE .'/ 1���1 r�
■
"" � '. � � pv rla Overlays r {'' ■fib ��"-
,,�l 1„1 M■:t�■.• ssi�moliM NN
Parking Overlay: n/a f / 1..a X1111 k i�YY
Downtown Overlay: n/a -2: ,.,,"�"���,i,�a�r v,rGV,^����.� [�iiii -C •��` el w ■..,, r r
Special Height Overlay: n/a j Gi 1 �� •\� r 2L■_{�`S4 4*ar r�
Architectural Design Overlay: D Parcel location within City of Arcadia "
This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for Report generated 16-Jun-2014
reference only. Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be accurate,current, Page 1 of 1
or otherwise reliable.
/
/ `` 9aa16 vo blavoav
n NV1 3118 as Noldwvr+006 y'
36 .' 11WVd 31VNI6.21015-L $ 1 k (�
C SSSS
t•.-- .- . , ,i / I$4 A
a.
My Z
- ,5Fil
� •�o • \ aaaooaea'A
itikk.„.
,.,,,...„.__,__.irld
. . .:::::::,::::::,::::::::-..yt44- \ N. „1,..,,,,,,..„„„,:z„ .., :
I 1 I11iiiii�l' %/��'tl eZ•`� • .1111116111:111:-il'
`— � i/k+a'+• �'�__ 111 �.
�- i= \ �FPIII 4iidll�ii�i Se
° I ��. 611111;J < 3°< I ��.► �� r, 1 i 's ��115:e IIII �Ij�iill� .= 3 3 =z �'J'''AE o�� 641 �A 119611- f f,1
z z�zoo �sz= /� fcraIn -- � II $e° III: t; a.In n o o ¢o o a ■ ���� �•p•` i 1 1 11 ?u�' �'�°_ 2Ir °§o° 11r . 4014W . •� ��i � Iy11 'It 11114.• i! 19l
° °z z zMw 8z z �'■_ 1.1.1.1.1 f `� ,{ ,"e;1�`11 d1 it v,. !+1°'2 s z z ° '2 s 111 III I� •� i1 A viii 111 110. ¢ [f!
< • ,�� Ii Ili J
e W a°E g a a = 2 o �---�d, 1 �g ���� a� ,�V 11f111111yi1i 1 n I - -
r1- o°z�.?i�n g i� ' y \ ���IIIII�I�I�i7±�.�
FF N -�a �•�/ • \ � 111 YY
1 NMYN p0.. N� ♦?/// �� \ 1111 , ♦ C
O w 4 i 1 1 1 1 3 I 1 I �/// p �F.1.- I I 1`,,y� '
U g 1 11111 i•. _H
1 Q E 1 ; 1jt1iI I1 I i:�gIEi�l�lul�1�1 '��BC;=
;'11.111111 1116 iiiigi
1 1 <<C)-. \ 111111111 II1111io11a 3
ac :,y 11;1;11:::A>>11111:11 " ,
�y Z N :r1%. �nl�l�
Z o \iitt
, f.'i.'.•. �n
I u z,$ooS W w a\ .............. �...,Zc.'
1, ! 1 Z
co N K N N N U p F- y� Q
VJ - -0 71 Q- O �'-�y
Ai NM ain.onmm _.1 LL ,1
N aaaasaaaaaao I` qq k
1 y 1}
IV:
NMY
[171-4F-2,-V--.1
-
,1',(.,
R
Q � a
2 a c p.b I– 0 ;_..
cn g
?i° g Y ,,g? Z LJ cf, `f .
I– I s 8 XF ., F A g k J F `. ...le
it IC £
il.-1, A5001ki gi m z . ,„ - ,
d , N M n d e H m ;, a U a R .0 X ..
W
q i
fs 9Ba16_V7'VIc v 2 3 N
uNb1d �1d 1S1 36l0H.1111-IV4 rIVN6W..e1016-L i 9 i i Q
110101/r 9l
$' I M „ „9;f1 / ,0;41 ,e-,II ,B,il
��� $I ® 6
+r f
1 n ,L;9 ,L-,GI
-- I-
) 11.'D BMW.IN I mil our.D m I�'�i 9 r� B1 -y
, 1, 1 immaiiiiiiiiiir
,e- ,,-.r I .e-fl U .[ - I WI 9® m
m a a ® _i® ��'_K �1� ®_A 0 o
I 1 o 9
3 E ®�
T
l'Eal.1.: E1 tau ,G;91 ' ,I-AI IMIIMMiie I;rl F
k—I n 1..... II , I L___,
6;9 „6;r pp.11::_-_-1--1:1_,,
, L.O o `' ,`1'11 1 € m \ W m �tr® I m !
ill} 1119 .� 1 .� a 9 ._.; 1 21 i li 1 et
t qt 1 21 Eil
ii ll a = e I-
. e-L 9;GI II „9;G i,9-,6 ,e;9 Glw 01 8 � �^ h' _ !! 9 U 01 ca '' 0 i i; 1112: �� :i2
a m IT spy 3 2 ,2--,7.;L.L__. ��Ill' ICI hl9 \ f: ;4 - 3 Pi
ry�l` ` 441A\- 1 Y® , ..,T i �, a y ° ' 9✓,
i bli 1[1-1-- ® 1 1 ib 4'. -,, e: .43—:! .'q
w q , •Pj ri ...Le...7- r___, a
1 = 41 ' Mlle I NEN I 1 q, 11 li lr
z , 1! Jfl
n•
.: [ '� I lit g 1" s l ,yi
, .--. ,„ 2 111 31—
A� Ng sss his .3 1~g w
,B;ee , ,e,cl c ,0-,01 / A >3 1 O p= ` by
ril
90016 VO•VIOVONV
Nts1d �1d CNZ ON NOla1WVN 006 /i 33 //
0 36f1ON_111WVd 3l'7N16-1N016-L ¢ 3 (1
mil
I 6 A
_'�-®
\ \ \ WEI
hit WE
'® ;l1 E I.
,G-,9 9;c 9.-9
11 ,® �' ��� i
-,,, 11.• x ...k4 .■ 4
,Lir * 'T. ._Ny) Z
\--Vij ligril
CC-
® P. J±tILII i il
e 5 M,� 1!" I!' I�•.•.►•.•41
..„ -. .
♦...•!•• i:•!••♦
m ® N 0r i.4ii �z '•:
m
.m
r21 e
❑��,❑
'1,
I ..
J u ■' _
3 _�faMi y I ❑I.,
1IJ { q G' 'I I ��_4 m i a .w
--7.---::7,-. e lieliii-11 .11IL
J
PI i 71■.' A . ' .
0.114:---li '
1 '•■.W A.■A..4.1. ri
=TA
Y 1
III
1
I
1
eaal6vo'VlavoaV 1
S o SNOlV/�1� ab 11Oldl-VM Sae 3 el4VA 31VNI6 1.2.101.6-Z
I ! S�I
Q
gy1 p II I I
i $ i,1' P iyc i
LL
1 I
I I g
I•; iQ jl■F j f;:I
O I !1 11 101.11 i • I"-!
�' 1 (-Il 11��1
• i � i- •11■ 11..11.!1 �� 1 i....! l
t I I'I■ 1 1•'11 I 1: I.
I;:; 11II•111111111] e e © ,...=
• L 11: ,1--�.I■'.; 1111 I.... I...
::: 1 Inu� 1 1 .... I:.:y. Iii-,1�
I:::: :' nI�I�I111111�iI111111111_ ..
pi: 1=',-:':.,•',:!., !I.�i1. n1� n� Y , a ,J— lie .,5_r
iiii/• 11 imm• CI I I::1:: 1.11 1•�Ilul■
® IC�l.:f�:: I---
• ; 1.' l era
1 g I_
;:::::::::i:c , 1,,.::::::: 1 111
it■-1 1 8 Y �,,c ® /:: I�,� " lam.
1 ii / 1 �Li-1 �®`tl"O' Y I .. 1 ;-1 I3i1■'ll■iO
j .I. II 1 I: I ! • nil■9_I■n11■
. i II I
• I 1. I I:: i I i..- i:••_. .-j X11=11:L°II:
1 / 1 •
I. / • 1 I E E 1.......1".-. 1101.
1 �- 111 I 5 S 1 1r-- ,e
• :::1 I - �- I II, aY a� O 1 1- �1 -.- 111'II 112111 / r meat f
I .:1...::::.:; • _ p3 I. i:p: •
_ { l;G • I.
■ gp 1'' a-I I
8 ' 1
1 I 1( O i 1 III I
I 1
I 1�
1 ITWIll
HMI:I: • ll-I I 1 1 1 1 I • ;Ill I
3 a I :-1:.::.::::::: I:: '
•
O ' _.... ll" I--- \\`I ll:::::::::,: .ITarndil
1' ' 1 ;11 Int....::: �Ie9'I •
4 1,,■!�r 1ri......k": 1�1r X11 III
t'--"---'-� f 1� I 1"1 i:c:
1 11 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1, i �le Ji �I' I��IIr ee li I 1 I 'll� (in�1O 11 ,��� II H 3 I •® I 1>.�..... It!Yn�JI ;
11.. -I: : �I���''II <C d �1': ': a7 I_ -■I...•
�l �I `0��! 54 �yI 1 I i::"::::1:: �II � 4!!:
O l SO 11 ,., ; 1 1 I :'1:::1.1. 11�: 1 { 1 '1 9 C1�I �I■1
.::!'r _=.11 i Iy'?i�Ui1i111ni11 �' i. '�1:=r' \i=.•1 p.. 1■ ;. ili
�C! "II •I�pIIIl11III�IIIIIIIIIIII�� a ' 3 ! ! Y3R Y3 O iey luuunu„u
1 ■1 1,,,,■-i f OCOOCCC ,A i■la
:- II!-1 i:I i III111�IIIIIIII11 ilmi O 1'1: II.�.�'r II I! !:
O I1=1 1.: .ilinPl��1p•I■,II 1 c'Fli 1 MIIIIIi a
1•::: I' AMNIA;I 1■3, 1- I::,, p 1__
'j::' i s ,ICI II I'IA; Z e'.1. t i t I is•\ r 1:::: a ..11;1 __
::=:• (II�IIIIIIIIIIIIIII1iI■1- > 1• I'Il■
u
1:::::7. 11•-1��!1 C 111 at
tl::_C. lr. m■r!il,g .. , r �,. �ill, m
1"]:1- 111011 I111 m 1 ■•11 111-r f•13s r 1::.. rt m 1:/ „1 a O O ■_
\IWr� �1 7 II p■1111 1 Q
,I " 11�e1 Z 't
• 9 31f43H�S SIOOQ $ S1OCINIf ,i^
s - 9e016 5112 S1o5a5
o SNOIJ A313 as NOldl-5H 009
CCC 36fOH-1111.159 37N16--1.2,10.1.6-Z 4
b
b 3g gT F
la °I I. Iii -1d q
® II AI ,0 -I IK Ai O A
® h ^ n 8 jI 4 !II, j i 1C1
I! I j II j
® b " @ I I I I
h b b EH j j j j
H j
i 8d O r: I 't pr. t11—�
,,
if b b .. n 1 g l:'I• ,rrl�:::- r,piroj
bb b b a i 1:-!1.:ili li I E- i 1+Illllll.lirl:iqo
um= Wen !NtePum
,, CIS 1I_ ir..; j �; L Il I1�1
§4§gg g / / l 1.::: 1111111 /_. Ir, I���u�i
3 ® }, b ^\ pp I I!--1! j L.i I1 ice:
n b A y I..__.1.. p_... — :-- .!'I.Mi,:•` 111/1111
6 m L_..../:: I 11.1 11 I:- �I. g.-1.
r°--:I..• • ' o III 1:1:'1: r.:... �1'.313 I•--
...7:::: i III ••i_. ltd. 1-•71
OM � •_
,---- 1121, CAI l�llii.._
13 gyk / CL: 1_11-1- I 1 .' _. . II ■G.:! -\ i(y n b kpy yyyy II ''11 IL I;,� . II!•11 I1 L I I�,IL�
cf)to ® " b a � � 8 t ! IL , j /-I-I.11�.... ��`J is
Of ig5 . A
p E3p qq LE I L— /:;:::::,:%!; -: I_i ,.■ I..:: _--"1: ����� _ ter;.
© r!, �' II�1�_::_ /s-` III°ll %IF�1.�11��1u
1:.,:, iii I 1•.. ' `'• ;=1.� ry-1-u!:
•® " O lie _! 1. i.!:.._ � III ! II.��_
\I1 i 1!----
iGil re%a�i it: ..
b
jj 1..1�11 4
::46.I:::'[^ 11�X11 1:.1 �:111 it
.1u• 1.��:.1 -'Al
1:/.«. Illy 1i��11i J 1':�:: ,
I�3 p5I5,�5! I , 1:1[i' 1 �1 S9 1 :,Ili;;N: 1311. ,_ �1:: Ill -11. Qa�: ° 11.311 u.12 O
;,:i.
''F ITw MF;� m
6 b
a Pi
§ b g-\ I I b b b\ - i !Hi i /
w ® § b I4 = © b tR\ 111511 ° i
n :r �
0® '\ ": i tf) :, M \ " i 5 141
9aais vo'viav�av 2
CC 99 3 NO.1..144V1-1 006
6N1OIJ. 8 36nom A-nwrd 317N1e-1.21016-L q ] t.0 rp 2 Q
0 XX 6
ill 4in T4,r a =o
C d
ID , /
o iri, 'III Il ra
i_
/j!ris I III11��«
11111 -(
•
•
ET
F
._
/
IL
_. lrIIIIE-
=-fLJillIl__Lmo
:i Q
1.-lall e on 111111 ■
i i1!i' !IiI�s-?. .EMr
O : 1 . y =8
Ammomomml
\ i
1,1
iil I.,'�i-
o
0
\ W
e � 1 i
Q
m
Y Q
•E m W•
(, a0e
1
o
Ds
In
t 4011 PI
Iniiill
i.DC
LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Land Planning, Civil Engineering,Surveying&Environmental Services
January 30, 2014
Mr. Alex Hou
1165 Altura Terrace
Arcadia CA 91007
Re: Oak Tree Encroachment Permit for 800 Hampton Rd.
Our Project No. 13028-002
Dear Mr. Hou:
At the request of Mr. Jack Ng, Land Design Consultants, Inc. (LDC) conducted a site
visit on January 16, 2014 to evaluate six (6) oak trees that will be potentially impacted by
the proposed construction activities on your property located at 800 Hampton Road in the
City of Arcadia. Five (5) of the six(6)potentially impacted oak trees are within the
subject property and one (1)is located on the adjacent property to the east. The existing
residence is proposed to be demolished and a new residence will be constructed on the
36,100 square foot lot.
A brief evaluation was conducted for the oak trees that included trunk measurement,
canopy measurements, and overall health. The trees are numbered on the attached Oak
Tree Location Exhibit as#1 —6. The field data worksheets for the six(6) oak trees are
included as Appendix A. The photographs in Appendix B illustrate the existing
conditions of the subject trees. The enclosed Oak Tree Location&Impact Map
illustrates the potential impacts that could occur to the oaks as a result of the construction
activities,as proposed. The Oak Tree Location&Impact Map was created using a copy
of the project Conceptual Planting Plan that was provided to us by Jack Ng on 1/28/14.
A full-size copy of this exhibit is included herein as Appendix C. Canopy measurements
were taken in four compass directions. Aerial inspection, root crown excavation, and in-
depth decay or disease diagnostics were not performed.
Oak tree#1 is an Engelmann oak(Quercus engelmannii) and is located near the front of
the property, in an established landscaped area,adjacent to Hampton Road. This oak tree
has a 25.5"trunk and is well-established and in good condition with no major health or
2700 East Foothill Boulevard,Suite 200 Pasadena,California 91107 / 626.578.7000 Fax 626.578.7373
e-mail: ldc @ldcla.com • http//www.ldcla.com
-t —
E. 4QJiON
•
NI APPROVAL
:00101TIOWAI,A14,P1tOVAL,sitbpato thE•folloVoing,Igotigliffmis):
ja.ENIAL
PAIgVE*01MTVW;-R0/14.1A•poikorn• tivoN:
m ixect4 24, '7-01 3
,AIRPNttEatikAl-StVMWJ§OA-kb:,ft.iEmaERm RE-m:1E111Na 764 MAI:61m btOteren*
V-ce.k.... Atirt4-4 Di
Hc.W.AA
Fact.)0.4.1 oe—Prt....5er
H. 80400011NoTH8 givoct.to a,,h,Prp. nA fio
.
L. APPEALS
Appeals from tha Aktes bettetort Shalt 5 thade id the PlanntiV Onw'mission. Artytie
dealt-trg k:Wake Such an'appeal Should ilottiactPiatning Seeddiat fat&facjulternehtse•reee
and'Orbefeddret Said appeal Aid be smad a ih Witintatid d&Iverd td Planning SeiMilita.at
240 lit kuntinitoti Th ,AntEidier DA 91007, Within ae\len (7)beilendat.disra Of the ARB's
•
OPORATOOP ApPROVAt
If Airs period Of One ell-Yeaefibm the d eippteval,any prpj t foi7 which'plans have
been approved by tie Imo.pot begyp construction (as, evidenced by clewing And
Wading ancitbr ingMlatfon of a new*itlogistion )nstskatrpo2 of pew materials vn 4
041.9.40!.i.1.*„(§ M00 tsmg.d...qiest) Qr;Ilas been pooped, abandoned'or dleconllneedi wad
approval shall koc.PIPP:Tatit.8.00 110.0 ancloi no effect Such project r.nay be resubmitted to the
ARB'for relleVied aitileRriali*mover;the ARS shall rvilow'the proloqi as If If had not boon
previoloyapproyetf.ih="Ordar.Com/ith thti,cutrehtattindaids trt effect
--;
ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN'REVIEWBOARO
• FINPI,NOVArt.A011014.
r" A.. ,Xlia0CiATION NAME: eAucc ¼Jrf 1v.1 cr" 11'0 p-SycK.-
0.4 P,R.QAMAPI)14tbS,:,, e%C) . .14/164A.PTOP..1 124"
t PROPERTY OWNER:
APPiESS ctHREN . 11t 3 asee..4.434.3.0cs 1 Arge_0(01 A. CA 0‘1 00 b
b.• FINDINGS(FillYtheekibeeeitlet.OPPIA and Pmvide a.wd tterl.001ariatioti.f6t.ciAbh):.
Tfigpitigokott constrittitiii '43,rri:pgtiMin#11-ttle:existIng
friateilelsklmojuse .
".• „.
TIAPTPDP,setIlnatarlaiS WILL la ati,NOT13 haVe."telgtffIttrit etI'Verte hil6ett 6h
the--Wetallipiltidititisibbkiathe:fitipeity,because
a'The,Rappmf:.project IS Di 1.5:10Tt.1.4)Fifficaritty NOW' the ktfOlhitaigaid
tights brAVETst; muse .
_ .
The tiroptised phtecOS,Ch IS-NOT,C14317111.i.,lahtlyvieffitif fr150116e bi.1,160410Vrolitittios
bectuso
0. The eleftEifter.the sti*tiire's design AR A Di Alt NOT with the Aotistilt
.0.41frlirlii441gn;because
•
.. .
&Vie proposed proJect 189,18 NOT[I In tooltiorirrip.tovOmilis a1 the
.Rtbk.rotisitfAxmlo tquitoiidmentS the.begjI*6#10444?ePEIPse
• _ ,.
. _ .
The 1004.49y1 cif Ifig.pmppApcf pplEictWILLELVIALLACitp debirtfeihttd Id-the Dee
and ordpymenfatid vke.of adjEidettlitetiettythd.pefghbetocck Om:wee
4. The proposed piojecrs.sAtbmakw.14.1aDO tsibt 9 proviciB fikadegtittesepitietten:
betinieeh.lniphikibmehteeti the sathetiredjelnjog pioperues.))0cellee
9 OTHER FINDINGSt at2ocr -rue Fem., %0S7Q.C:i
twtooi (ATI 4.3wt aue- 1-120Feerr,
(p.ver)
.
'
,+t, .44
as
i
•
Fps
li,1-' • °, A•
s
•
n
r
..,.� F,
.!;1111111 _,r
it A
111111101.'
o
U
{.-1 t $ ,--7-.1.5-,..,..-,.
L.
cu
w
Q
---4 .,rh ;5..
r}—�1�� ' .. - ,
VJJ ....•-*t-,--a_ s tea +.
..
•ti ..
Z
•
•
t
C.I•l t id w W
SI
x 4 11* " e
E fi
T a
a
.
c
Q .q: Y y�Exy,9 \^.I .• ., C
C Y t • - ; cd
CO
`, '1"
W
2 s r
L
. .
E
x
00
b l , : ''. . ' 'T'.1'11:'.41111.,''I'll -_-___`.'"''' ., ,
X,' b •
• t-gi; a e'.z :
ct
cn•
cl
0 ___ t• orr74,
,_,
... _..
,,
\-,- .,. . ,=
. i .„.,-,,l-k,r*D
'~J r O
i
.a
rs
H }
O Or•-•.)I .
c
m
o 14.E - . -
0
0
Mk
O .:'1 vs
C7 -� -a
00 , , . '11
o
ir, a.l • °'
ft ._,,,L
`s x z ,
If, •
r: t .
♦if
allgrr
is
1
8
Ph.. G 0
cli
, , .- V'',i—,Iii' 4 —u v i 4,7
fie'
'y ,. .. f O
Q z 4''
,2 e.-: ,„ '10, 4116A,..?":„,;,, -8... ;?it litl
' 'll 7
.{f 4
Vie '4'Y .F 'xa'"r �° *
,'At - .
-1*r
I:4 '4,4 'I".'
,� if
Q
X
bn
•..r .. ,.
SC , .
1.•
,Y
Q , . .
E ., t • �#„...„ „. .. .
, . > b'Y
'4 Y.. ..4
■+ !`
0 e. O O'
•00 1� "s.. cad
Y y L
, W
+M
r .4
I
G
z
w”
t
N
yT f .a ...5.
. A
i
Mr. Alex Hou January 30,2014
800 Hampton Rd. Page 2 of 6
structural deficiencies'. Several pruning events have been performed on the tree over the
years,mostly for clearance purposes on the property.
The project proposes the placement of a brick driveway, lawn, and various species of
landscaping within the canopy and protected zone of the tree. The 15-foot wide brick
driveway will be located completely beneath the canopy. The edge of the driveway is
proposed to be approximately 10 feet from the trunk. The use of bricks to construct the
driveway would minimize the impact to the tree by the placement of the driveway. The
bricks are permeable and would allow air and moisture to reach the roots. The grade is
not expected to be significantly changed. However,if grading does occur for the
placement of the driveway, the tree's root system could be impacted. The removal of a
significant portion of the root system could compromise the overall health and stability of
the tree. Since the location of actual roots is unknown until excavation occurs, actual
impacts to specific roots cannot be determined at this time. Any change in grade and the
placement of the new driveway has the potential to negatively impact the tree. However,
with implementation of the mitigation recommendations included herein,the impacts to
the tree can be reduced.
Oak tree#2 is a coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia)and is located along the frontage of
Hampton Road. This oak tree has a 21"trunk and is well-established and in good •
condition with no major health or structural deficiencies'. Several pruning events have
been performed on the tree over the years,mostly for clearance purposes for the property.
There is epicormic growth on that part of the scaffold branched that have been previously
pruned. A tire swing is currently hanging in the canopy and is recommended for
removal. The tree is currently in an established landscaped area that is mostly lawn
beneath the canopy.
The project proposes the placement of a decomposed granite (DG)walkway and various
species of landscaping within the canopy and protected zone of the tree. In addition,the
brick driveway will encroach approximately five (5)feet into the protected zone of the
tree. The project proposes a seven-foot circle with DG surrounding the trunk. The grade
is not expected to be significantly changed with the placement of the DG. However, if
grading does occur for the placement of the DG,the tree's root system could be
impacted. The removal of a significant portion of the root system could compromise the
overall health and stability of the tree. Since the location of actual roots is unknown until
excavation occurs, actual impacts to specific roots cannot be determined at this time.
Any change in grade has the potential to negatively impact the tree. The potential impact
to the tree is minimal and the overall health and structure of the tree will not be
1 As noted from a ground-plane macrovisual inspection only. No aerial inspection,root excavation,or
decay detection devices were used except as noted otherwise herein.
P:IDATAIPROJEC S13113028-002 IENVIRONMEN7'AIMAK TREFSypgl{3REE_01-30-14.DOC
1. pc
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd. Page 3 of 6
negatively impacted. The implementation of the mitigation recommendations included
herein can help prevent impacts to the tree.
Oak tree#3 is a coast live oak(Quercus agrifolia)and is located along the frontage of
Hampton Road. This oak tree has a 41"trunk and is well-established and in good
condition with no major health or structural deficiencies'. The tree is currently growing
in an established landscaped area that is mostly lawn beneath the canopy. A portion of
the northerly canopy overhangs Hampton Road. Pruning events have been performed on
the tree over the years,mostly for clearance purposes for the property.
The project proposes the placement of a DG walkway and various species of landscaping
within the canopy and protected zone of the tree. In addition, a walkway to a proposed
gazebo will encroach approximately four(4) feet into the protected zone of the tree. The
project proposes a seven-foot circle with DG surrounding the trunk. The grade is not
expected to be significantly changed. However,if grading does occur for the placement
of the DG walkway, the tree's root system could be impacted. The removal of a
significant portion of the root system could compromise the overall health and stability of
the tree. Since the location of actual roots is unknown until excavation occurs, actual
impacts to specific roots cannot be determined at this time. Any change in grade and the
placement of the new DG walkway has the potential to negatively impact the tree. The
potential impact to the tree is minimal and the overall health and structure of the tree will
not be negatively impacted. The implementation of the mitigation recommendations
included herein can help prevent impacts to the tree.
Oak tree#4 is an Engelmann oak(Quercus engelmannii) and is located on the
southwestern property boundary. This oak tree has a 30"trunk and is well-established
and in fair condition. The client indicated that the 2011 windstorm caused a few large
scaffold branches to break off and cause an adjacent power pole to fall. Extensive
epicormic growth is present where those branches broke off.
The project proposes the placement of a gazebo with an adjacent walkway and various
species of landscaping within the canopy and protected zone of the tree. The proposed
gazebo will encroach approximately two (2)feet into the canopy of the tree and the
walkway will encroach approximately four(4) feet in the canopy. The project proposes a
seven-foot circle surrounding the trunk that will be covered by natural leaf litter. The
potential impact to the tree is minimal and the overall health and structure of the tree will
not be negatively impacted. The implementation of the mitigation recommendations
included herein can help prevent impacts to the tree.
PADATATROIEC S113113028-0021ENVIRONME:NTAUOAK TREEy\OAKTREE_01-30-14.DOC
.Alex Hou LDC
800 Hampton Rd. January 30,2014
Page 4 of 6
Oak tree#5 is an Engelmann oak(Quercus engelmannii)and is located in a lawn area
near the southwesterly boundary of the property. This oak tree has a 13"trunk and is
well-established, but is in poor condition'. There is extensive dieback with sparse foliage
throughout the canopy. It is recommended that this tree be monitored to assess the health
of the tree during the construction period.
The project proposes the placement of a brick driveway, lawn, and various species of
landscaping within the canopy and protected zone of the tree. Approximately seven (7)
feet of the 15-foot wide brick driveway will encroach within the canopy. The edge of the
driveway is proposed to be approximately eight(8)feet from the trunk. The use of bricks
to construct the driveway would minimize the impact to the tree by the placement of the
driveway. The bricks are permeable and would allow air and moisture to reach the roots.
The grade is not expected to be significantly changed. However, if grading does occur
for the placement of the driveway,the tree's root system could be impacted. The
removal of a significant portion of the root system could compromise the overall health
and stability of the tree. Since the location of actual roots is unknown until excavation
occurs, actual impacts to specific roots cannot be determined at this time. Any change in
grade and the placement of the new driveway has the potential to negatively impact the
tree. However, with implementation of the mitigation recommendations included herein,
the impacts to the tree can be reduced.
Oak tree#6 is an Engelmann oak(Quercus engelmannii) and is located on the adjacent
property to the east. This oak tree has two(2)trunks, at
established and in good condition. Several pruning events have been eg n performed on the
tree over the years,mostly for clearance purposes on the subject property. The canopy
currently overhangs approximately 15 feet onto the subject property.
The tree's canopy will extend approximately 15 feet within the proposed patio area
adjacent to the property boundary wall. An existing driveway is currently beneath the
canopy and roots are not likely to be prominent in this area. If the depth of the new patio
is not changed,no additional impact should occur due to the placement of the patio, but
care should be taken during construction activities. The removal and replacement of the
patio is not anticipated to negatively impact the overall health and structure of the tree.
The proposed encroachments to these trees should not impact the overall health and/or
structure of the trees. The encroachment beneath the canopy may result in pruning to the
tree's canopy. With implementation of the mitigation recommendations included herein,
the encroachments will not significantly impact the ordinance-sized oak tree.
P:%DATA\PROIEM-SW\]3028-0DZENVIRON •ALOAK ThEESIOAK3, _01-30-14.D0c
UaIC
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd. Page 5 of 6
RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
This section details the recommendations for avoidance/mitigation measures related to
the encroachment impacts on the oak tree.
1. The applicant shall be responsible for notifying the City of any changes in the
scope of the work and shall insure that all work is performed in accordance with
applicable ordinances, permits and procedures. Work performed within the
protected zone of the tree shall be preceded by not less than 48 hours notice of
same to the City.
2. Except as approved by the City in the encroachment permit, all work in the
protected zone of the trees approved for encroachment must be done using hand
implements only.
3. Except as approved by the City in the encroachment permit, all work in the
protected zone of the trees approved for encroachment shall be done in the
presence of a certified arborist.
4. Any root or canopy pruning shall be performed by a certified arborist in
compliance with the latest ANSI pruning standards.
5. Root-pruning within the protected zone of the subject oak shall be reduced to the
minimum amount that is absolutely necessary. All roots pruned shall consist of
clean, 90°-angle cuts, utilizing sharp hand tools and shall not be sealed unless
directed by a certified arborist.
6. Unless specified in the Oak Tree Permit conditions of approval, equipment,
materials, and vehicles shall not be stored, parked or operated within the protected
zone of an oak tree, except on existing hardscape surfaces.
7. Tree #5 should remain under observation during construction activities to make
sure the health of the tree does not continue to decline. If this tree further
declines,it should be immediately assessed by a certified arborist.
8. Landscaping under native oaks is not generally recommended due to the different
moisture needs of oaks and ornamentals, and the subsequent risk of oak root rot.
However, there are selected native, dry shade-adapted, ground covers and shrubs
that are suitable for the turf or under oaks. A good resource for those species is
"Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks", published by the California Oak
Foundation and downloadable for free from their website at:
http://www.californiaoaks.org/.
9. The provided Conceptual Planting Plan does not indicate the location of any
utility trenches or catch basins. It is recommended that any proposed trench shall
be located outside of the protected zone of the trees.
P:\DATA\PROJECI\13\13028-002\ENVR°NMENTAL\OAK 7REES\°AKIREE 01-30-14DOC
Mr. Alex Hou LC
800 Hampton Rd. January 30, 2014
Page 6 of 6
If you have any questions,please feel free to give me a call. Thank you.
Sincerely,
LAND DESIGN CONSULTANTS, INC.
Scott McAllaster
Project Planner
ISA Certified Arborist, WE-7011A
Cc. Steve Hunter/LDC
Attachments (3)
PADATATROIECIS113 13028-0021ENV@O .ALwAK TREESIOAKTREE_01-30-14.DOC
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd.
Appendix A
OAK TREE FIELD DATA
PADATA\PROJECTS\13U3028-001\ENVIRONMENTALOAK TRSBS\OARTREE_01-30-14.DOC
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET LDC Project No. 13028-002
Survey Date: 01/16/2014 Tree Number: 1
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
- - --
Health Rating': ®A- ❑B ❑C ❑D ❑ FSpecies: Q.a 9 nfotia ❑ Q.lobate ® Other 1_ - --
--- —- Q. engelmannii I Form: ®symmetric 0 minor asymmetry
i Trunk Count: 1 Height(ft.): 30
___ — -- -- -.. - i - ---0 major asymmetry 0 stump sprout
1 Trunk DBH(in.): 25.5 --._--
-- -_-_-- ❑stag-head
LI Percent Canopy Cover: 70 % ! Crown Class2: ❑ Decurrent ®Excurrent
.---..-----------'- --._.-- ----- -t------ -- _.-..
Existing Terrain:
i 9 ® Flat ❑ Slope A e Class: El immature ❑semi-mature
4 Aesthetic Rating: ®A ❑B ❑C ❑D ❑F ® mature ❑over-mature/senescent
-------------
Overall Grade: ®A- ❑B ❑C ❑D ❑F
CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS
TREE HEALTH
Dripline Radius ' Canopy to Grade Wound Wood
i cellent 0 Average❑
(Feet) (Feet) I Development: Poor ❑ None ❑
22 � Foliage Density: 10 Normal❑Sparse
i NE - - --
------- _ Weak crotches: 0 No ❑ Yes
f._ _.. __._25.-. . Oak Pit Scale: I® No ❑ Yes
j—..-- ;- - Mainm dieback - -- -
,— sbe ste No ❑ Yes
r _ _ I Exposed Roots: 0 No ❑ Yes
_-- - Epicormic growth: E� No Yes
IW----_- .-.-= .--_.___-29 . Shading Out: 0 No ❑ Yes
Cavities: ONone b Trunk ❑Branch
---- --_ __-_ _- Exfoliating Bark: 0 No ❑ Yes
CANOPY SPREAD(FEET): 56
Water Pocket(s): 10 No
❑ Yes •
Mechanical Damage: :❑Trunk ®Branch
PROPOSED ACTIONS
_ - - ❑None
Monitor for Progress: ---
Yes ❑ No Canker/Galls: No 0 Yes
Treat Infestations: ...-._--
Yes ❑ No Fungus: ►5 No ❑Yes
Remove Deadwood: _ -- -
Yes _-__
No Vigor: 10 Excellent ❑Average
Support Structure: ,
❑ Yes ❑ No j2 Fair ❑ Poor
-
IMPACTS&MITIGATIONS Twig/Branch b None ❑ Minor
Dleback: ❑Moderate ❑F-xtensive
In Impacted Area: ❑ Yes
❑ No Leaf Size: 0 Normal 0 Small
------ -----
Proposed Land Use:
__--- _ _-._. . Heart Rot: No ❑ Yes
Impacts:
Insects: IS1 Minor ❑Moderate
❑Extensive ❑None
Mitigations: _ ____ _
s Exudations: ,'®No❑Yes
Comments Notes: Old pruning scars;minor ivy at trunk base-should be maintained to avoid growth up
trunk; South side of canopy overhangs structure;West and Northeast side of canopy overhangs lawn;growing
in irrigated area
1 Health:A=Outstanding;B=Above Average;C=Average;D=Below Average;F=Dead
Decurrent=Lacking Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
3 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical, healthy tree—F=Dead
P:IDATAIPROJECTS113\13028-0021ENVIRONMENTAL\OAK TREESIFIELD DATA WORKSHEETS-1-0.DOC
�V DC
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET LDC Project No. 13028-002
Survey Date: 01116/2014 Tree Number:2
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
— .•
Species: 0Q.awifolia 0 Q.lobate El Other Health Rating's: OA DB+ OC OD OF
_ . _ -I-
+
Form: 0 symmetric 0 minor asymmetry
-
Trunk Count: 1 Height(ft.): 25 • El major asymmetry 0 stump sprout
I _ _
Trunk DBH(in.): 21 i 0 stag-head
--4
Percent Canopy Cover: 75 % ,' Crown Class's: E Decurrent 0 Excurrent
Existing Terrain: El Flat 0 Sloge Age Class: 0 immature 0 semi-mature
Aesthetic Rating6: OA 0B+ DC OD 0 F 0 mature Dover-mature/senescent
Overall Grade: IDA (DB+ OC OD 0 F H-I
I--
CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS TREE HEALTH
Dripline Radius 1 Canopy to Grade ' Wound Wood pacellent 0 Average 0
(Feet)
-] (Feet) LDevelopment: Poor 0 None 0
:
N 9 I Foliage Density: Normal 0 Sparse
NE j Weak crotches: No 0 Yes
,
E 19 Oak Pit Scale: e No 0 Yes
---
SE
Mainstem dieback: D No 0 Yes
S 34 Exposed Roots: b No 0 Yes
SW Epicormic growth: No El Yes
;
W 29 i I Shading Out: No 0 Yes
NW Cavities: EINone b Trunk 0 Branch
•
Exfoliating Bark: '0 No 0 Yes
,.-
CANOPY SPREAD(FEED: 48 ; Water Pocket(s): k1:1 No 0 Yes •
Mechanical Damage: ID Trunk 0 Blench
PROPOSED ACTIONS D None
Monitor for Progress: ' 0 Yes 0 No Canker/Galls: '0 No 0 Yes
, . ,
Treat Infestations: ; 0 Yes 0 No Fungus: El No 0 Yes
Remove Deadwood: i 0 Yes 0 No Vigor: al Excellent DAverage
Support Structure: 1 0 Yes 0 No 0 Fair 0 Poor
, Twig/Branch 0 None 0 Minor
IMPACTS&MITIGATIONS Dieback: 0 Moderate ['Extensive
, In Impacted Area: 0 Yes 0 No Leaf Size: 10 Normal 0 Small
Proposed Land Use: Heart Rot: C4 No 0 Yes
Impacts: Insects:
;0 Minor 0 Moderate
DExtensive ONone
Mitigations: Exudations: 0 No 0 Yes
Comments&Notes: Epicormic growth only where previously pruned;Tire swing hanging from upper scaffold
branch; exposed root on North side–damaged
4 Health:A=Outstanding;B=Above Average;C=Average;D=Below Average;F=Dead
5 Decurrent=Lacking Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
8 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical,healthy tree—F=Dead
PADATA\PROJECTS\13113028-0021ENVIRONMENTAMAK TREESFIELD DATA WORKSHEETS-1-6.DOC LDC
____
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET
Survey Date: 01/16/2014 LDC Project No. 13028-002
Tree Number:3
I GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS __.
F Species: ---- ---- --- . -
_,�Q`agrifolia ❑Q.lobate
❑other -- - --
Health Rating':
B
C+ ❑D ❑F
F O^n: ❑sym metric m metric
10 minor asymmetry
- -
_ .Trunk Count: 1 Height ft.) 50 ❑major asymmetry ❑stump sprout-' Trunk DBH
rcent Canopy Cover: --- ❑stag-head
----- - Crown Class.: -rit
Existing Terrain:--_----_ --------
Flat 0 Slope T_ -_-- - __- ❑Excurrent
Age Class: -_-
Aesthetic a -- --- ❑immature -
g : ❑A _I B - ----_-- ❑semi-mature
Overall Grade: ®mature
___-- ❑A ❑B ®C ❑p ❑F -- ❑over-mature/s@nescent
-----------
- . _-.
L
CANOPY CH .- __
CHARACTERISTICS
I TREE HEALTH
—
Dripline Radius Canopy to Grade 1 Wound Wood -
(Feet) (Feet) cellent ❑ Average El
I N
Development:
I NE 30 f- -i--- ❑ None - -
' Foliage Density:
Normal 0 Sparse
' Weak crotches:
E ---
SE
Oak Pit Scale: — -
No
+ i f-._ - - Yes
S Mainsbem dieback: ►_� -
.._ 30 - -- - - No ❑ Yes
' SW - Exposed Roots: -
Epicormic growth Yes
® Yes
NW Shading Out:
No
❑ Yes
Cavities: Trunk►'�None
: nk Branch
Exfoliating Bark:
CANOPY SPREAD(FEET): 80 _._--
Water Pocket(s): No ❑ Yes
No ►'': Yes •
PROPOSED ACTIONS Mechanical Damage: 0 Trunk
®Bra'
ranch
Monitor for Progress: None
rogress:
-- ❑ Yes ❑ No
Canker/Galls
Treat Infestations;
❑ Yes ❑ No
Yes
Remove Deadwood:
_._ Fungus: ,►=� No
❑ Yes
❑ No
__.. Yes
_. Vigor: ....-
Support Structure
' El Excellent
❑ Yes ❑ No ❑Average
Fair
❑ Poor
IMPACTS 8 MITIGATIONS
Twig/Branch
Dieback: 0 Moderate 0 Minor
In Impacted Area
Yes ❑ Moderate
❑ No ❑Extensive •
Proposed Land Use:
Leaf Size:
- -. - - Normal
El Small
Heart Rot: ;
Impacts:
' No
❑ Yes
Insects;
0 Minor ❑Moderate
E
Mitigations:
xtensive ❑None
-- ---_ --Mitigations:
Exudations
Comments&Notes: Included bark where scaffold branches diverge from main trunk;slightly sunken area No❑Yes
est side of trunk(no signs of decay); --
Y);epicormic growth on main scaffold branches rea°n
A
Health: =Outstandin B_
K Dec Health:A =Laskin g' -Above Average;C=Average;D=Below Average;F=Dead
g Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
6 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical, healthy tree-F=Dead
P:IDATAIPROJECTS\1311302&0021ENVIRONMENTALIDAK TREESIFIELD DATA WORKSHEETS-1-8 DOC
LDC
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET LDC Project No. 13028-002
Survey Date: 01/16/2014 Tree Number:4
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS ., —.-�---- --
Species: [1Q.agrifolia ❑ Q.lobate LEI Other Health Rating10: ❑A ❑B DC ❑D ❑F
Q.engelmannii ; Form: D symmetric ❑minor asymmetry
Trunk Count: 1 Height(ft.): 40 i ❑major asymmetry ❑stump sprout
Trunk DBH(In.): 30 stag-head
- --- - ------ ------
i Percent Canopy Cover. 55 % ! Crown Class": 0 Decurrent 0 Excurrent
Existing Terrain: D Flat ❑ Slope Age Class: ❑immature semi-mature
Aesthetic Rating12: ❑A ❑B ®C- ❑D ❑F ®mature Dover-mature/senescent
Overall Grade: DA DB DC- OD 0 F
CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS ITREE HEALTH
i Dripline Radius Canopy to Grade Wound Wood xcellent ❑ Average
(Feet) (Feet) I Development: poor I - 0 -None ❑
— , — ►-_ Normal❑Sparse
16 Foliage Density
, N __
NE
Weak crotches: 0 No 0 Yes
E i 14 Oak Pit Scale: 0 No 0 Yes
SE i i Mainstem dieback: No 0 Yes
S 24 Exposed Roots: No 0 Yes
3W Epicormic growth: El No D Yes
W ■ 28 Shading Out: 10 No 0 Yes
i NW Cavities ®None ❑ Trunk 0 Branch
Exfoliating Bark: No ❑ Yes
CANOPY SPREAD(FEET): 42 Water Pocket(s):
O. No 0 Yes •
Mechanical Damage: 0 Trunk ® Branch .
PROPOSED ACTIONS 0 None
Monitor for Progress: , ❑ Yes ❑ No Canker/Galls: No 0 Yes
Treat Infestations. . ❑ Yes ❑ No . Fungus: ®No .._Yes
! Remove Deadwood: ❑ Yes ❑ No Vigor: ❑ Excellent ®Average
0 Fair ❑Poor
Support Structure: ❑ Yes ❑ No
Twig/Branch ❑ None 0 Minor
Dieback: ;D Moderate DExtensive
IMPACTS&MITIGATIONS
In Impacted Area: 0 Yes ❑ No
Leaf Size: II]Normal ❑Small
Proposed Land Use: Heart Rot: El No El Yes
Insects: ❑ Minor D Moderate
impacts: ❑Extensive ❑None
Mitigations Exudations: ❑No D Yes
Comments&Notes: Some past damage in upper canopy,client indicated that the 2011. windstorm resulted n
several large branches breaking off and taking down an adjacent power pole;extensive epicormic growth where
branches broke off;power lines running through canopy;South portion of canopy overhangs adj.property
10 Health:A=Outstanding;B=Above Average;C=Average;D=Below Average;F=Dead
"Decurrent=Lacking Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
12 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical,healthy tree—F=Dead
P:\DATA\PROJECTS\1311302&0021 ENVIRONMENTAL\OAK TREES\FIEID DATA WORKSHEETS-1-6.DOC LDC
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET
LDC Project No. 13028-002
Survey Date: 01/16/2014
Tree Number:5
7-- -
j GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
—
i Species: jDQ.agrifolla 0 Q.lobate ig Other : Health Rating13: OA Os DC OD 0 F
1--- --------------------------------------;--------
I -
— —
Q.enge/mannii ; Form: 0 symmetric 0 minor asymmetry
i
Trunk Count: 1 Height(ft.): 25
El major asymmetry 0 stump sprout
;_ ____ _ _
i--
! Trunk DBH(in.): 13
1 0 stag-head
1._ _ _____ _ _
Percent Canopy Cover: 30_%_ Crown Class": 0 Decummt ElExcurrent
_
Existing Terrain: 0 Flat 0 Slope , Age Class: 0 immature 10 semi-mature
I_Aesthetic Rating15: ____OA..__OB. OC__OD 0 F ,
0 mature Oover-mature/senescent
1 Overall Grade: OA OB Oc
D 0 F -t--
I CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS
TREE HEALTH
!— ,
---
Dripline Radius I Canopy to Grade Wound Wood LExcellent 0 Average 0
(Feet)
(Feet) I Development: IPOor [X] None 0
i N 25
Foliage Density: Normall$1 Sparse
NE
Weak crotches: 01 No 0 Yes
1 E
13 _
Oak Pit Scale: 15-4 No 0 Yes
!-- ..
! SE
Mainstem dieback: 6 No la Yes
!
S 8
Exposed Roots: e No 0 Yes
;--.
SW
Epicormic growth: LI No 0 Yes
Lw _ _
20 . _
Shading Out: la No 0 Yes
NW ,
Cavities: 0None 0 Trunk 0 Branch
1 .
1
1
Exfoliating Bark: ;C:1 No 0 Yes
.
CANOPY SPREAD(FEET): 33
Water Pocket(s): 0 No 0 Yes •
Mechanical Damage: 1:1 Trunk 0 Branch
PROPOSED ACTIONS
, 0 None
Monitor for Progress: 0 Yes 0 No , Canker/Galls: ig No 0 Yes
! --
,
Treat infestations: ; 0 Yes 0 No ' Fungus: '0 No 0 Yes
Remove Deadwood: 0 Yes 0 No : Vigor: 0 Excellent 0Average
0 Yes
n Fair Z Poor
. Support Structure: 0 No
•
! Twig/Branch
0 None 0 Minor
IMPACTS&MITIGATIONS
, Dieback: El Moderate 0Extensive
In Inipac Leaf Size: El Nonnal CI Small
,
Proposed Land Use:
Heart Rot: No 0 Yes
Impacts:
Insects: 0 Minor 0 Moderate
;0Extensive 0None
Mitigations:
Exudations: 0 No 0 Yes
. . .
Comments&Notes: Extensive dieback;tree appears to be in decline;sparse foliage;some dead branches;
surrounded by lawn;trunk slight lean to North
3 Health:A=Outstanding;B=Above Average;C=Average;D=Below Average;F=Dead
'4 Decurrent=Lacking Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
15 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical,healthy tree—F=Dead
P:\DATAPROJECTS113113028-0021ENVIRONMENTALIOAK TREESWIELD DATA WORKSHEETS-1-6.DOC
I Dr
OAK TREE FIELD DATA WORKSHEET LDC Project No. 13028-002
Survey Date: 01/16/2014 Tree Number:6
----- ---------------------
GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS
Species: ❑Q.agrifolia ❑ Q.lobate ® Other I Health Rating7 : ❑A ®B ❑C ❑D ❑F
Q. engelmannii , Form: ®symmetric ❑minor asymmetry
Trunk Count: 2 Height(ft.): 45 ❑major asymmetry ❑stump sprout
Trunk DBH(in.): 19,30 1 ❑stag head
Percent Canopy Cover: 85 % Crown Class": 0 Decurrent ❑ Excurrent
r-
Existing Terrain: ® Rat ❑ Slope Age Class: ❑immature ❑semi-mature
Aesthetic Rating18: ❑A ®B ❑C ❑D ❑F ®mature ❑over-mature/senescent
Overall Grade: ❑A ®B ❑C OD ❑F
CANOPY CHARACTERISTICS TREE HEALTH
1
Dripline Radius 1 Canopy to Grade Wound Wood Excellent ❑ Average El
i Development: poor ❑ None ❑
N 26_. - —-- -- --
Feet Be Foliage Density: V]Normal❑Sparse
NE
i Weak crotches: I-� No 0 Yes
E 38 Oak Pit Scale: '►e� No ❑ Yes
SE
Mainstem dieback: 0 No ❑ Yes
Exposed Roots No ❑ Yes
IS
1
SW Eplcormic growth: ;❑ No V] Yes
W 30 Shading Out: 0 No ❑ Yes
NW Cavities: None ❑ Trunk ❑Branch
' Exfoliating Bark No ❑ Yes
CANOPY SPREAD(FEET): 68 Water Pocket(s): p No ❑ Yes
Mechanical Damage: 0 Trunk ® Branch ,
PROPOSED ACTIONS r.3 None
Monitor for Progress: ❑ Yes ❑ No Canker/Galls: 0 No ❑Yes
Treat Infestations: • ❑ Yes ❑ No Fungus:
J►5 No ❑Yes
Remove Deadwood: : ❑ Yes ❑ No ' Vigor: ® Excellent ['Average
Support Structure: ❑ Yes ❑ No ❑ Fair Poor
Twig/Branch None ❑ Minor
IMPACTS&MITIGATIONS Dieback: la Moderate ❑Extensive
In Impacted Area: ❑ Yes ❑ No 1 Leaf Size: Normal ❑Small
Proposed Land Use: Heart Rot: 0 No ❑ Yes
Impacts: Insects: V]Minor ❑Moderate
❑Extensive ❑None
Mitigations: Exudations: 0 N❑Yes 1
Comments&Notes: Not tagged;on adj. property to East;visually surveyed from behind property fence;
several trees growing beneath canopy;pruning events on West side(over subject property)—nothing recent;
overhangs existing structure(garage)
16 Health:A=Outstanding;B=Above Average;C=Average; D=Below Average;F=Dead
"Decurrent=Lacking Strong Central Leader. Excurrent= Strong Central Leader.
18 Aesthetic(compared to standard tree of same species):A=nearly symmetrical,healthy tree-F=Dead
PIDATAWROJECTS\13\13028-002\ENVIRONMENTAL\OAK TREES\FIE1D DATA WORKSHEETS-1-8.DOC 1 DC
/ 0 A. ,..', `.‘ 1h : .
; • .4`. - ' . 4 ■4
".• ,
is., , .,,,,, Ar-, I I ,I . i
I oa 5 -...— c. ic,.....i: ler- 'i4 tz.,.....,,
,
/ LLI Z
ill
° 1..::.::..:::::.:.:•:::-•:::::::: .-!., \-....„ , ,,,,,..., , ,
, :•-:::•:::: :;:::::::.:•••::.:.., ,\ \.\\L ., .-------
I— i— 0 1-I hi!
/ .::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::,, \ . .,.
< , . .
\
, <
< %-- 0- m..-
0 m 0 i _ / ley .1.-::::::: • :::::::::::::::::::.-;::, .::.".,,,-.\‘..--1., . ;1
. . ,.....:.:.:.:.::::::...::: ,,,,-,:ii., ‘..,...‘livi .
0 ',- •
/ ,ft,?.) \::, . :::.:::::::•:•:•:•:•:.., -,.ii*A", • rOil
IFQ !:4e4A• ' i. ,::::::::::: - ,, ,,,,
, , :.. .
I
1,,C,1,4) %•'..! .. ''•::::::::.:::•:.:.:.:.:.:•:.:•:.1:: ,• / 0 1- '' .'
' .3 4,7, ,, •,,
%4-' w .
•
\ i. -
• 1 1 ,
. ', •i.7.,\‘
1
\ • A ri7o,141" Op lk::•:::::•. ,:::1':',\N ''..%,,\,1 Co
' Z'.• 1'' '''
11 " ,c',' ,-'4it''.1.1:7•: : ::•:.::,:s.....17, '3 .• A:',,,, . .;•k -‘,.. ,
i i 11 ,0 -----Alffir";;%.1..*•'•:.:•::::::.:::::it mot' ::.:.?:..
,...z...,._-- ,..".:2.- `---- .....•••.,$1.--"1,6_, :-.: ... :ia .411(:"1: \ \"" .
<9 w x ',ii.----N.* -.7-',, .:::::.:::./v-'71K,,,'•:.,:::?.,.., 4•;., \ .: . .
-_t''''4,901tmv 24:1,,H.L.,'t/A-, ...:-'''',:v'',. '''':::::::•.... , % \ \ ‘02,
c"%,1,,(E--,-- '10 , -,-/..' ..--', 0,-'' ' f 1:•:•:::::::::::!::.•.:......
i p 1 i 1--, it - t..::::.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.:.::., At':-.1..s•\ ';''', *
,1 ,•'1_, tot ,„,....1 ,, \i,. _, .::::::::::::::::::::::::::...:,... ..*4-„,‘. .
± 1 y 0 Ilk, 1 Ilkin 4+:*;:44, /k, _. .s.,::::.:::::::.;:::::n:.,;:.:;:.::::::.::..;i:!:. ;a4c,■\ -‘.
o 1 is V •I,V,&-Vii Ihri 0,4•,,," 414111,*,)14, , 7,-. •..'...-•'--.•.'.v.•••••••.•••.... 4,114,.`%,Nkt,.
_.„_--... .‘fiff.,1 ,..„.,.;" g mit,.... .t,....,_•.w.liit 1 .. ', '4,..,.,,,, -.:::::,:;::.:::,::.:::::;:::.::::,:,1w,,,,,e..,, ,....„,,, ,, $
ri .
u
_, !k,.t ,.......„„v4.5.7. 11Iptriso.v..1. 11 4,6 •::::::::,::.:.h.: Ivitt.m.4.- epio
H
1 °t r4,-4„,,_ , . iiiii ov:,..c,Ire- 1 iit:,,,,.,-*El, -. irt„,,,,,,„,.,v,,,, ...*,.\•
il
... ,.
L EPql 7.7'7-7 PI V, i $4.-k•'II II ,1 I.
'Li P EN i 1 ::-.1.1.• .., ''%C.----_-.^,-----,-.-7:::T„;;J4.')'4;kl'*-r ..' \'',\NN\ 1
..l• `;'-rn i j:. r, -•',,,ili,,,,s.,,I .4 ,,:.„.:.:.:... ,. ,„ ,,,„,,,,,.., ,,,o,,.,,,,,,,,‘, i
.. ,
- it \
V i 4/4,..•.ti.4.0 1 1 si____gip' 'v ' 14,t+,1"4,,,X44,,.;500"... ,IN
c., = , , ,. ..,_ , ,„,AIN,;..g.,-.0--•,, ,,,,,,,4,0 .., ..
(i ., . _-•-- ,it‘,P,V4e.eb 1>'0,-''‘w •.., k
'• ,,t,..itiou ' -''-•.. I-1--.---TI vgc..,4,4 ...,''
m.i,„,e,,,,..41 11 ---:--i.k', SU -La- - -' i . tolo;r., ,e/i/..e0. 0 ..,,, ■ w
,,,,,,...;_,T.1 1. , - ,, ••• *t .
;7.,t II , .1-4. -._ . ' 4::.• ■-..401 -.
z
,..,,,14.31 I ,i; , ■ ie4 . :::::i. V.:,•,.^.4.z.,::::,4?.. ; o-'N ; i '-
,AO•.:::.,:, ....,.............,,,c, ., 0 64's.'''';`,.`,„ ',.,' ,. .4
'
1*-9,P= 6 ! ''''"''..:X.. .n'4:4...7".*IV, .,' . '■' N, (
''. ;.:'.''':;*::::.• :::::•.‘tir..1:.::**:.:.:.; :4•,-„ce 0 0-: N,. •. >.5.-g
AV:AI •••`1`0:':::'h:'':': ; ..7****:14.4.414%, ' .---,;.‘\ - ,0
WIP • \ i '. 1 L',.1:
iff :rig 1011 . I' ii lij 1 .t:411§4:Nalilliiii '' '
t : ' .,
Ftivl
• 1 'AO ' ‘...WC**...e.A. I,.
,,d4.::.:.;:::4 0 ,'\",..:44,14."-""„. ; -m-•-•".1„ „ 0 w .41 ,•.
',,.1,11.:;i::::::•.;&IL V'C' e' .;,..'7.,.t::.''''''INN\ ••■
.in ,4r1,....:,::::4•40,4.*„......,:•:-::,:::,:::•:..
A116,. 111 li Li
*14:4761i4 I II,. I
Awit-,all' ..40 Lft*-,e.,i, ,,,Vkis,,,gr„ -..:.:.:':.:.:i.::::::•:::.:esi, Nr.
.• 1,11, - , "-,,_r , ,lor.,,,.,,,i,, --- -- "V.,,,........ -, ',:•:•:.:•:,.s,...........ove• -.1:. .
*.° •IIPI 114 . ;
.„-2...„..vu44' ---4 1---*A4:* - :4;4.,,..‘,.;.,;,.fr,::::...:..5.. A NI.\..
-144 11" 11 -- ..„..,
-.^04404:4 '• '.. .''.:';'....,::'. .i....4q?..'-.\. I
5 •z4f4-.-,
_101 1 %II I
IIV' I I
'. -:•:::?•,, 1 ' 111:**:•:.10 11;:.:::::;::::.::::Aw....44 , , - 1;‘. '
••...
r- ",°'•-00.4,....p. .— .-...-•••••,•••..,,,-,0*, to
1..",,:‘,44•_-•+:,.-,•. , ,„--....:::::::•:.::::::..:::-.0, ,,,„,4 . .
.„..rL ,..0 " :: :::;:;.;;V::„P,„;.1,1‘\\ • • '
0 a 11.• -] 71n1 1 ei..::;:::. ;',A 7#/#44•'''''SM 42 mi.„-d_,....,...,1 %.', . \..;4.
- 1 1 •L . ,
,
. .
-**:: ::.„
i, k ss!
T-L-22"---- -1
Iill 1614 ,' . 1- =I -
( '111!•:%::::::: 1164.V py:v..... ...-7". ..,1' '-' 1
IMI:::::::- '111.4•.4 4.:::::::*I bowl ---- i
:II -'1,r ita ,,(411'Au'-V' ...4 1111,111 /11.•;:.
'eV:•:•'. It' 11*-.•'r.. .- t*.:,.., pm
r 6-7:•■::::::::::., .- .., '_., ..-.r•-,-, ..,. ,. ..
Lw . ....::::::::::.-'1 '", ‘-,•:.- ..' ,.... • .1 ,,,,)/
: • "® - •).,- •''. *N.
r,........:.:::::.:..... ...,,,,,..,..... ,..,...,...., .,..k.,..
I, , ,.. %,::::4:::::
- • • ,,,,‘
,. . .:.:-:.:.:,..:..•:.:,: tti„-,,, 0,-,::::.:•:::::::V::::.. '7- -,..-,,\:. -,‘.
• - ..:".±,,,41::.:•..:•••:.:•:-:•:,. ''..,:v),.:.:.:•:•:,:,:.:.:.:.:.:•.•.P..k ‘1.,,,, L.N•• /
1 .0,'ipo 7::•:*:::::.' ik..vr.:::::::::::::::::7:'::::::::;:;:;
„.
■
'01) •..:.:.:,:::::.:.: 5 ...:.:•:,..:.:•:.7.•.:•;.::,::::-:.•.; •m..,''‘.\-7%,\::.,..-., --•'
1-1'1 -•••-■ • 014 , ' '1 "i, ,...,,...:•:.:•:.:.:„ ,,,,...,, •.•:•:•:•:•:•:,:•,...:.::::„..... .,1.... ,4,, •
iiii,ig-vzir.”- -; -,---- imi i 0 .:.0:::,wil: .o0.7::.::::::::::::::: :: ::-r.;::(. ..,.4N
,. ..., ..,44,_„••,,T,,,0.::::',.:;::,:i:;::::•:::.*:.:::,:i:i...:-•„,. „!••`N.,, ,
...., i . ,..,
w
.-'‘Ze .. \.. :„..] -\,,,,,,."' 161.4,:..7;:-iformir ' L ....4._ 111-i.0 N:44:i ir■ .., ::::::::::::::•:•:.4: ', s 1
;,'4 .4 0 li::::;:i:;:.:::::;:;:ii;4:;,,% . .• '
,..:,.., ,lic .,, ,00.,::::::::::::::$ „ 60 e i ..
. •
..„-A-4.,y.......- •,..::;:;::::::::::::::,z; R,- -,,,-:,
/ -.... -,•:: -1--.4-.1.zwRia7.6,i,:t -•.-- - , v:::::::::::::::::::::•:-nR' N .., .
* eti ., ,..,ido, '..0 :::::::....:•:::.:::::: ..,, ,, ,, ,
( * -I I!'•, -. •;,,,,
f I ". -,''•-, ' *,.„... !,:: •4 cfo:::::::::;:;:•::•:':iii:•:::;5 e.‘, '',.... ., 1
• •. . • ,
.: / f ('N '',ek•iv, ref. . (:....:.:•:.:.:.:.:•:.:.:: • •\ s J
i )
i • ‘.:'''•;e*, ,;,.• o ••• et-4*.V\\•,. --• •
I „ p 4'....•,3-. -'• '. , - .) %,3,__ ,Lsi ■.7 ,.•
,
) !1-----D--/-„_____H ,-•' 1 '''''''k,..i-.,'
■ § *fro il.1 s __- `4,i',.,,T,...4,--ce
\ (i if ° 1, if f,f_ __. ' A. „ /..-• ,
- . .. .•...., - •,.“.4.■:' ,..■•.,. . /r,,,:.S,.. r. , ......- +-.• .... .
Mr. Alex Hou January 30,2014
800 Hampton Rd.
Appendix C
OAK TREE LOCATION&IMPACT MAP
PADATAIPROJECTS\13113028402 NENVIFtONMENTAWAK TREES\OARTREE 01-30-14Doc
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd.
,' -,,.':.,:;,,,*-1:-.;:4;..‘--,::'1';';',:44-2:':l'''''..di'141.7"424:171.: .''''-'jr'''4'.'''
L •0 F
a --,.",,,',•::i..�'� Y + f
r � �_ Yom ? y+ r St y y _ <
�4 e`i., " to 'Y.' �
' 'Y €4g, ' . .4'., ' .( 2 '4--
yy,� f '' EN j.4 .1, '' `L - -: + .
•ar . 411 Si ) ; . .rd rl.
_ ...' 1� » �1—tit. -e,a,,y '^��. ,�t �i T ••H
Y q--7-;:'-''
y 't Bri ..- ►•`e' !Ail, ,4 .Hr
,
' ee � t t
�°� �� � � e iy
a'
9 S � ]l+Fa . y.'A4. /4'.•'4'4~ �f''- l� t 1M..,4.14 -
View of oak tree#5
1 '
j:A'.-•
n ( 1
F C1 .a-,
C p� ;
^
, q'.''4 v.-5 Z'!f It2` '
2�' , �',0"`^
:. A .
1i! 1� a+s.y
�� fly' '..
f , a xG - ti n
(� »\ ':ASR _, e'Fk .,"yA',. 'I, ,T ,1:4Atl
b
q r v s u
�rw ;y ��a
E ,,
x a
`
'Lk.
• r t samwrou -
r( _ -
View of oak tree#6
P:\DATAW ROJECrSU3U3028.002\ENVIRONMENTAUOAK TREESIOAK1REE 01-30-14DOC
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd.
Y ' 1,4 ,,: 1,T 4 -f..,,v, kLi .
v f.i '. p " r
77•:* ti •„,+ ` •
°'mot "'
w.
1 • s*:::
View of oak tree#3
} jam" c» y
Sg i x b1 .y, Y eti
..tie.. wax •,. LP ,i x ti'.: .1b.. w AL
ice. } k�.`.-1+'..,,`•,E"" K ."' „},1 .:
,+, ,1', ,- ?+, Wyk 5 . .'' 46' riis
, T
.4 i
View of oak tree#4
NDATATROl ECT S\13\1302g-0021ENVIROMENTAL\OAK TREES\OAKTREE 01-30-14.DOC
Mr. Alex Hou January 30, 2014
800 Hampton Rd.
4�a 'i s� 5 e ' S•TM r T' -
''-s T%� € r PYe4. �v d- / • ,R0 t om' Y�
+}'l,i'S 3.�4,�,.y1;" t'f. ` �s+3a3 +e ... ':u.. _, __ - ,r,.•„,,�y•
"g R .a s' W.,::,1.-';;-'!1"-- I uVr Y.T -11,-.(11+';:.:.t.- ,.z... ,, f i' w .w V
;� ,nr'^ a t r
d F
''',,,,F4.t','-',.':.: ."?.-..'",.,:;...,-7..; ..-1-. ",..-;::.' ."....:,- ' .•
p
'� r ¢ Sri LA
i i1e H ! �. x. p fit: '' . .f.1:1,044,•kl" •A.•' JC
"` K1' - 11- 'p,. N TT ?, •�1 ,7`
A
� � � ry' l� �J 1�k l rl �.l f
r t q ff `� (/
ry
e"" , /,, . .A ,rte
"' i '1 •
View of oak tree#1
,.,. rt.
v
1' y 9 )
":. i CS, T,X, '4 . Y N !
T'7�'N ,P s 1 ,
fin}} 3•
•
1
J d3'F1 ',`1 a r
E ,` r iff .
. v<;:fib -
View of oak tree#2
P:\DATA\PROJECFS\13\13028-002\ENVIRONMENTAL\OAK TREES\OAKTREE 01-30-14.DOC
Mr. Alex Hou
800 Hampton Rd. January 30, 2014
Appendix B
SITE PHOTOGRAPHS
PA DATAIPROJECI SU3U3028-002 1ENVIRONMENTALOAR TREES1OAX REE_01-30-14.DOC
'FA{
ALIFokvi.;‘,I
CITY OF ARCADIA
240 W. HUNTINGTON DRIVE
% ARCADIA, CA 91007
PRELIMINARY EXEMPTION ASSESSMENT
(Certificate of Determination
When Attached to Notice of Exemption)
1. Name or description of project: MP 14-04
2. Project Location— Identify street 800 Hampton Rd, between Fallen Leaf Rd & Santa Margarita Dr
address and cross streets or attach
a map showing project site
(preferably a USGS 15' or 7 1/2'
topographical map identified by
quadrangle name):
3. Entity or person undertaking A.
project: B. Other(Private)
(1) Name Jack Ng
(2) Address 1729 Alta Oaks Dr.
Arcadia, CA 91006
4. Staff Determination:
The Lead Agency's Staff, having undertaken and completed a preliminary review of this project in
accordance with the Lead Agency's "Local Guidelines for Implementing the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA)" has concluded that this project does not require further environmental assessment
because:
a. ❑ The proposed action does not constitute a project under CEQA.
b. ❑ The project is a Ministerial Project.
c. ❑ The project is an Emergency Project.
d. ❑ The project constitutes a feasibility or planning study.
e. ® The project is categorically exempt.
Applicable Exemption Class: 15—Minor Alteration in Land Use Limitation
f. ❑ The project is statutorily exempt.
Applicable Exemption:
g. ❑ The project is otherwise exempt
on the following basis:
h. ❑ The project involves another public agency which constitutes the Lead Agency.
Name of Lead Agency:
Date: 6/9/14 Staff: Tim Schwehr, Associate Planner
Preliminary Exemption Assessment\2010 FORM "A"
,ate ar�rPies-
Lit
$ it
„_„:„,„ I ... ii
II 1
I
i L f .»
1
ikl '
1 1,...1.0 ti 1 11 1
11 1
M LA CA. el ±
CU t
•
GL 1
Cii 1, °i ti
LL M \
C }
•M N 1 ,
H 11 ;
co o
4., /,/ i;<<, n
”
z -
co 1
\\A_ / /7-,•- ---
00 m._... ! _ i 4..
, , z
, , ,„ .