The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 2000 0906 CC REG ITEM 10ATo. From: Date: MOORPARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The Honorable City Council HEM l C'ry C►F M RPAm CAtiFOWA City Cc�nncia Meeting of rr�Ml?, OI �l �DL1 ACTION: A��PPRDJG Al-T cun$,s�T LL Wayne Loftus, Director of Community Development�o� STAFF: Paul Porter, Principal Planner August 28, 2000 (CC meeting of 9/6/2000) Subject: Consider Minor Modification No. 3 to Development Plan No. 318 for Construction of a Parking Lot for Forty - Nine (49) Spaces on the Application of Fred Kavli (Assessor Parcel No. 513 -0- 010 -25). BACKGROUND On July 20, 2000, an application was received for a Minor Modification proposing the development of forty nine (49) parking spaces (designated as Phase II) on the westerly portion of the Kavlico industrial facility located on the west side of Los Angeles Avenue (east) and south of State Route 118. This proposed parking lot improvement will remove or significantly impact sixteen (16) single and multi -trunk Coast Live Oak Trees, two of which have trunk diameters of 24 inches. There are portions of the site with similar topography as the area requested for development that are not planted with oak trees. Chapter 12.12 of the Municipal Code defines the process and criteria for preparation of a Tree Report required to remove trees. The applicant has submitted a Tree Report as required by the Municipal Code. The Minor Modification procedure was selected as the process to address this request because of the proposed removal and or impact on a significant stand of oak trees. HISTORY OF SITE On November 4, 1985, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 85- 249 approving Development Plan No. 318 for construction of a 130,288 square foot industrial building requiring 338 parking spaces (Building No. 1 - main building) and Land Division Map \ \MOR_PRI_SERV\City Share \Community Development \Everyone \City Council Agenda Reports \cc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8124/2000 9:31 AM 000020 Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 2 No. LDM -5 to divide an existing 55.9 acre parcel into two parcels of 26.06 and 29.93 acres. Resolution No. 93 -914 was adopted by the City Council on February 3, 1993, approving a 60,529 square foot building footprint containing 91,549 square feet requiring 259 parking spaces (Building No. 2). Industrial Planned Development Permit No. IPD 97 -3 was approved for a 42,146 square foot single story industrial building (Building No. 3) by City Council Resolution No. 97 -1412, which required 97 parking spaces. Minor Modification No. 1 to DP No. 318 for construction of a wood framed canopy structure and an 800 square foot building addition was approved by the Director of Community Development on May 3, 1993. Minor Mod No. 2 for temporary parking located on the south boundary of the Kavlico site, at the current location of IPD 97 -3 (the third building) was approved by the Director of Community Development on April 20, 1994. The applicant applied for Permit Adjustment No. 2000 -7 on July 20, 2000, for Phase 1 of a parking lot expansion at the north end of Building No. 1 proposing sixty four (64) additional parking spaces (47 standard and 17 compact). This request was processed as a Permit Adjustment due to the lack of impact to the site or any existing vegetation. On August 11, 2000, the Permit Adjustment was conditionally approved by the Director of Community Development for fifty seven (57) parking spaces, including a twenty foot (20') landscaped planter adjacent to Los Angeles Avenue. DISCUSSION On July 20, 2000, an application Modification No. 3 (Phase 2 of the Development Plan No. 318 requesting (49) additional parking spaces (Pha: spaces plus Phase 2 = 49 requested additional parking spaces). was submitted for Minor parking lot expansion) to construction of forty -nine 3e 1 = 57 approved parking spaces for a total of 106 The Phase 2 proposal will cut into the existing hillside located west of Building No. 1 requiring construction of several retaining walls varying to seven (7) feet in height. In addition, the parking lot expansion will impact sixteen (16) IIMOR_PRI_SERV1City SharelCommunity DevelopmenflEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reports1cc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/281200011:16 AM Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 3 single and multi -trunk Coast Live Oak Trees, nine (9) of which would be removed, with seven (7) additional trees impacted in an existing woodland area located west of the existing parking lot improvements. Photographs of the woodland area are included with the report as Exhibit Nos. 3 and 4. The woodland area contains Coast Live Oak, Holly -Leaf Cherry, Currant, and Prickly Pear Cacti. According to the proposed grading plan for this expansion, sixteen (16) single and multi -trunk Coast Live Oak Trees will either be removed or impacted as a result of the Phase 2 parking lot expansion. The applicant indicates the requested increase in the number of parking spaces is needed due to the increase in the number of employees and the need to accommodate future employees. The current ratio of building approved square footage and uses compared to available parking'' spaces meets or exceeds current code requirements. Phase 1 of the currently proposed parking lot expansion (Permit Adjustment No. 2000 -07) has been approved for 57 additional spaces. The parking increase proposed by this minor modification involves 49 spaces, although only 43 spaces impact the oak trees as six (6) of the spaces result from a redesign of existing paved areas. When the above proposed current parking lot space increases are added to the required parking of 694 spaces, a total of 800 spaces result. Kavlico already has 65 more spaces than required by the code, or 759 parking spaces. Adding the proposed 49 spaces to the actual on- site spaces of 759 will result in a grand total of 865 parking spaces. Kavlico Corporation has been using the adjacent parking lot located on the southeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Condor Drive belonging to Card Services International for overflow parking, however, this parking area will not be available in the near future after Card Service facility fully occupies their building. The applicant has informed staff that several parking spaces in the vicinity of Building No. 3 are currently not being used (approximately 80 unused parking spaces were counted on a site visit by staff on July 25, 2000) . These spaces will be utilized by Kavlico employees currently parking in the Card Service's parking lot after that facility is no longer available. 000022 S:ICommunity DevelopmenAEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8128200011:16 AM Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 4 Landscape Consultant Review of Impacts to Existing Trees On July 24, 2000, the City's Landscape Consultant, a registered Landscape Architect and Arborist and Registered Civil Engineer conducted a site inspection of the Phase 2 parking lot expansion area to survey potential impacts to the woodland area. The attached memorandum from the consultant (Exhibit 2) indicates that the Phase 2 parking lot expansion will impact sixteen (16) single and multi -trunk Coast Live Oak Trees, two of which have massive trunk structures. The applicant submitted a Tree Report prepared by Tree Life Concern, dated July 25, 2000, which has now been evaluated by the City's landscape consultant, with consultant comments (refer to Exhibit No. 2 for full comments) incorporated into the following staff comments: Trees to be removed Pursuant to the applicant's proposed plan for the parking lot expansion, a total of nine (9) trees are proposed to be removed (tree Nos. 2, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) . In addition, Tree No. 9 although not proposed by the applicant to be removed, will not survive due to the amount of damage to the root structure as a result of the project according to the City's Landscape Consultant. Therefore, it is being added to the list of trees to be removed for purposes of evaluating the financial value of trees that will not survive the construction impact. The total value of trees as determined by the City Landscape Consultant to be taken out as a result of the project as proposed by the applicant is $156,798. The following is a breakdown of the trunk sizes and value of trees to be removed (Refer to Exhibit No. 9 for location of trees): Tree No.2 - is comprised of one trunk with a 16 inch circumference. This tree is located in the proposed parking lot and has a value of $9,799.98. Tree No.9 - is a single trunk tree with a 28 inch circumference. This tree is located north of the proposed retaining wall and will most likely not survive due the impact to the root system. This tree has a value of $29,414.80. 000023 UM0R_PRI_SERV0ty SharelCommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reports1cc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8128!200011:16 AM Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 5 Tree No. 10 - is a multi -trunk tree consisting of one trunk with a 10 inch circumference and a second trunk with a 16 inch circumference and is located in the proposed manufactured slope above the proposed parking lot expansion area. This tree has a value of $17,555.35. Tree No.12 - is a multi -trunk tree consisting of one trunk with a circumference of 10 inches and a second trunk, with a circumference of 8 inches. It is located in the proposed manufactured slope above the proposed parking lot expansion area and has a value of $23,413.97. Tree No.13 - is a multi -trunk tree with three trunks with circumferences of 6, 3 and 10 inches. This tree located in the proposed manufactured slope area has a value of $23,413.97. Tree No.14 - is a multi -trunk tree located within the proposed parking lot consisting of two 6 inch trunks, and has a value of $6,751.32. Tree No. 15 - is a multi -trunk tree consisting of two 6 inch trunks and an 8 inch trunk and is located in the proposed manufactured slope area. This tree has a value of $13,617.96. Tree No.16 - is a multi -trunk tree with an 8 and 10 inch trunk located in the proposed manufactured slope area, and has a value of $11,042.97. Tree No. 17 - is a multi -trunk tree with a 13 and 14 inch trunk located in the manufactured slope area. This tree has a value of $21,787.67. Citv's Tree Consultant's Evaluation of Tree Report The City's consultant has also indicated that the Tree Report does not adequately analyze the grade changes and grading impacts that will be required to develop the proposed parking lot which encroaches on seven (7) additional trees. Her specific comments are as follows: IIMOR_PRI_SERVICity SharelCommunity DevelopmenAEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011:16 AM 0,00024 Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 6 Tree No.l - is comprised of one trunk with a 103 inch circumference. A retaining wall is proposed on the south side of the tree, within the canopy. Approximately three (3) feet of fill will be placed to create the drive aisle into this portion of the new parking lot. The canopy would need to be raised (tree trimmed) significantly to allow for tall vehicles to pass. Overall, between existing parking lot encroachments and additional root zone impacts, approximately fifty percent (500) of the root zone of this tree would be impacted and loss of the tree is likely. This impact could be reduced substantially if the drive aisle was moved slightly to the south, which would result in the loss of one of the proposed new parking stalls; (spaces reduced by one). Tree No.3 - is comprised of two (2) trunks with a 29 inch and 34 inch circumference. A seven (7) foot tall retaining wall is proposed on the northwest side of this tree, within the canopy. Overall, the canopy would have to be raised approximately seventeen (17) feet from the ground in order to accommodate vehicles. In addition, a wall of this size would require a substantial footing, significantly worsening the dripline encroachment. This impact could be reduced substantially if the southerly most parking stall is deleted; (spaces reduced by one). Tree No. 4 - is comprised of three (3) trunks two of which are 20 inches and one 29 inches in circumference. A retaining wall is proposed on the northwest side of this tree, within nine (9) feet of the trunk. This constitutes a six (6) foot encroachment into the minimum fifteen (15) foot protected zone, versus a two (2) foot encroachment depicted in the Tree Report. This impact should be considered moderate due to the amount of root zone area impacted. This impact could be reduced substantially if the southernmost parking stall was to be deleted, as described for Tree No. 3; (spaces reduced by one). Tree No.6 - is comprised of three (3) trunks of 20, 36 and 40 inches in circumference. The proposed parking lot encroaches approximately six (6) feet into the dripline of this tree. The Tree Report does not discuss what amount of pruning would be required for vehicular clearance and no photograph was provided, therefore, the impact is presently unknown. The encroachment IIMOR_PRI_SERVICify SharelCommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reports1cc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011:16 AM 000025 Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 7 within the root zone should be considered moderate due to the amount of area to be impacted. Again, this impact could be reduced substantially if the southernmost parking stall was to be deleted, as previously described above for Tree Nos. 3 and 4; Tree No.9 - is comprised of three (3) trunks, which range from 12 to 14 inches in circumference. A retaining wall is proposed on the east side of this tree, within seven (7) feet of the trunk and well within the dripline. The impacts to this tree are quite severe, especially since they occur on the downhill side of the tree, where the roots are usually concentrated. Over twenty -five (25) percent of the most critical portion of the root zone would be impacted. The Tree Report does not discuss the amount of pruning that would be required for vehicular clearance; however, it is likely to be significant as the canopy touches the ground according to the photograph included within the Tree Report (no spaces lost if the tree remains, but this tree will most likely not survive). This tree may initially survive the construction impacts, but would likely decline and /or become hazardous within a. relatively short time frame. Reduction of this impact to avoid the future loss would require that seven (7) or eight (8) parking stalls be deleted from the project. If this project proceeds as proposed, this tree should be mitigated as if it were being removed; (spaces reduced by eight). Tree No.21 - is comprised of a single trunk 93 inches in circumference). A retaining wall is proposed on the south side of this tree, within the canopy. Areas of cut and fill will be placed to create the drive aisle into the westerly portion of the parking lot. The encroachment within the root zone should be considered moderate due to the amount of the area to be impacted. The Tree report does not discuss what amount of pruning would be required for vehicular clearance; however, it is likely to be significant as the canopy touches the ground according to the photograph included within the Tree Report. This impact could be reduced substantially if the drive aisle was moved south of the tree (spaces reduced by one). IIMOR PRl_SERVICity SharelCommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reports1cc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011 :16 AM 000026 Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 8 Tree No.22 - is comprised of two (2) trunks with a circumference of 97 inches and 114 inches. Two of the proposed new parking stalls encroach within the protected zone of this tree to the south and east sides. All work can be performed outside of the dripline and the encroachments are relatively minor, considering the amount of the root zone to be impacted. This work can be performed with little long -term adverse impacts to the subject tree. Grading The parking lot expansion as proposed by the applicant will require 2,000 cubic yards of cut and 670 cubic yards of fill. The applicant has not indicated where the surplus dirt will be taken. A manufactured 2:1 cut slope area ranging from approximately 15 feet to 43 feet in height over a distance of approximately 320 feet is proposed along the west, south and north sides of the proposed parking lot expansion. A four (4) foot to seven (7) foot high retaining wall is also proposed to retain this manufactured slope area with the seven (7) foot high segment located on the southwest corner of the upper (westerly) parking lot as proposed. This manufactured 2:1 slope will create an exposed cut area, which will be visible from SR 23, and Los Angeles Avenue. The construction of a landscaped key wall similar to that required for IPD 99 -1 and -2 (Rice) at Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue, and as required for the widening of Los Angeles Avenue (east) between Spring Road and Condor Drive would allow for reduced grading and result in a well - landscaped backdrop for the proposed parking lot, and if located properly will reduce tree removal. Alternatives to the Proposed Project Due to the impacts on the woodland area, consideration should be given to one or more of the following alternatives each of which allow the applicant to address the parking needs analysis would be appropriate. 11MOR PRI_SERViCity SharelCommunity Developmen8EveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011:16 AM 000027 Honorable August 28, DP No. 318 Page 9 City Council 2000 Minor Mod 3 Alternative No. 1 The applicant could provide incentive currently car pool and formally establish program and company van pool to reduce spaces. Alternative No. 2 s to employees who an employee car pool the need for parking This alternative would relocate proposed additional parking spaces to the hillside area between Building No. 2 and 3 where the topography is slightly steeper, but no oak trees would be impacted. The pictures (Exhibit Nos. 5, 6, and 7) show this area. Alternative No. 3 Alternative No. 3 would be to provide an on -site parking structure. The advantage of this alternative is that additional parking could be provided where needed and not require cutting into existing slope areas, however, the cost is higher than for open parking. Alternative No. 4 Staff has drafted an alternative parking lot design, which provides for 48 parking spaces (a loss of one parking space from the applicant's proposal which is for 49 additional parking spaces). This proposal, with the use of key walls should reduce the number of impacted trees and reduce the amount of visibility of the graded slope. This alternative, as presently envisioned, would require the removal of only one tree (Tree No. 9) which would not likely survive the proposal submitted by the applicant, as previously noted. Other trees are not likely to be impacted to the extent of applicant's plan; however, further analysis would be appropriate. A keywall was required of the Rice Development project (IPD 99 -1 and -2) located on the corner of Condor Drive and Los Angeles Avenue and for widening of Los Angeles Avenue (east) which will begin shortly between Spring Road and Condor Drive. IIMOR_PRf SERVICity SharelCommunity DevelopmentlEveryonelCBy Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/281200011:16 AM 000028 Honorable City Council August 28, 2000 DP No. 318 Minor Mod 3 Page 10 On August 16, 2000, there was a meeting with the applicant's engineer to discuss the staff alternative. However, applicant's engineer informed staff on August 18 of the applicant's desire to proceed with the plan as submitted to the City. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION This minor modification is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a Class 11 Exemption, for the construction or placement of minor structures such as small parking lots accessory to industrial facilities. SUMMARY In summary, the proposed project impact to a grove of significant trees can be reduced significantly through the deletion of one (1) parking space, relocation of some paved areas, and the use of key walls. Generally however, the project encroaches into a significant natural area and the impacts that should be considered would extend beyond those to individual trees (ie. The habitat as a whole) . As discussed previously, there are alternatives available that do not impact these trees. This project as proposed also will require a 2:1 graded slope up to forty -three (43) feet in height, which will be difficult to landscape and maintain. There are three primary options: 1. Deny applicant's request and direct applicant staff concerning Alternative No. 4 (and Alternative No. 1); or 2. Direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Conditions for presentation at the next Council meeting on September 20, 2000. 3. Deny applicant's request and direct applicant staff concerning Alternative No. 2 (and Alternative No. 1). Staff recommends the first option. to work with incorporate Approval and regular City to work with incorporate 11MOR_PRI_SERV1City SharelCommunity DevelopmenAEveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011:16AM 000029 Honorable August 28, DP No. 318 Page 11 City Council 2000 Minor Mod 3 STAFF RECOM-4ENDATION Deny applicant's request and direct staff to work with the applicant concerning Alternative No. 4 (and incorporate Alternative No. 1). Exhibits: 1. Applicant's exhibits including Site Plan and Landscape Plan 2. Memorandum from Landscape Consultant, dated July 24, 2000 3 &4. Pictures of woodland area behind existing parking lot area. 5 -7. Pictures of alternative development site between Building Nos. 2 and 3 (west of the main building). 8. Staff proposed Alternative Site Plan 9. Tree location map S :ICommunity DevelopmentLcveryonelCity Council Agenda Reportslcc000906 DP318 MinMod 3 sr.doc 8/28/200011:16 AM vi CO3 PHAEN I PAF"qo AREA j 1. -- --- ----- emrM PPKXWM LFe .. . ...... ............. ...... .... k14 ..,.r —"ci Jl' 4 -71. °"'! A 2 6 4A E9-- I; . .......... ........ .................. ................. ................ NOTES AND LEGEND 4�- .................. 2CWl. I A 2V ....... I .......... *XFT DETAIL DORT CXJAITa� PAIWO4 DATA PARKING LOT - ADDITION CITY OF MOORPARK rhj� � P1.4 Nftow W. tee„ M wI ,j � E �ARKIIUQ - I �fSY. PARKIN Cow JA I ..,.w EXIST. PAF2jk1r -JO 1 - 1 1 TREE PJAN M AND STAKING 9� �s� y C i3if AIM 111M f` KVW"TW"" tmrftRTBlil0 . EXIST. PAF2jk1r -JO 1 - 1 1 TREE PJAN M AND STAKING 9� �s� y C i3if AIM 111M f` KVW"TW"" Kay S. Greeley (805)577 -8433 08/11100 10:1SA P 001` , SS3iJ i To: Paul Porter, City of Moorpark Nov. n Kay Greeley, Landscape Consultant Date: 08/11/00 Ree Kavlico Parking Lot Expansion As requested, I completed an initial review of the Tree Report prepared in support of the proposed parking lot expansion at the Kavlico facility, located at 14501 Los Angeles Avenue. Tree Life Concern prepared the Report, dated July 25, 2000. As stated in the Report, the proposed project requires the removal of nine (9) oak trees and encroachment within the protected zone of an additional seven (I) oak trees. In general, the Report does not adequately analyze the grade changes that will be required to accomplish the proposed encroachments. Specifically: Tree Number 1 --A retaining wall is proposed on the south side of the tree, within the canopy. Approximately three feet (3') of fill will be placed to create the drive aisle into this portion of the now parking lot, The canopy would need to be raised significantly to allow for tall vehicles to pass. Overall, between existing parking lot encroachments and additional root zone impacts, approximately fifty percent (50 %) of the root zone of this tree would be impacted. This impact could be reduced substantially if the drive aisle was to be moved slightly to the south. However, this would result in the loss of one of the new parking stalls. Tree Numt?er 3 —A seven -foot (7'} tall retaining wal(is proposed on the northwest side of this tree, within the canopy, Overall, the canopy would have to be raised approximately seventeen (17') from the ground in order to accommodate vehicles. in addition, a wall of this size would require a substantial footing, exceeding the apparent encroachment. This impact could be reduced substantially 9 the southernmost parking stall was to be deleted. Tree Number 4 — A retaining wall is proposed on the northwest side of this tree, within nine feet (9) of the trunk This constitutes a six -foot (6') encroachment into the minimum Wen- foot (15') protected zone, versus the two-foot (2) encroachment depicted in the Report. This impact should be considered moderate due to the amount of root zone area impacted. This impact could be reduced substantially if the southernmost panting stall was to be deleted, as described above for Tree Number 3. Tree Number 6 — The proposed parking lot encroaches approximately sic feet (6) into the dripline of this tree. The Report does not discuss what amount of pruning would be required for vehicular clearance and no photograph was provided, so this impact is presently unknown. The encroachment within the root zone should be considered moderate due to the � page I of 2 EXHIBIT 2 € 0003 Kay ;. Greeley C- 305)577-8433` 08%11/00 10A15A P.002 08111/00 MernonwKkvn: Kavlioo Partdrig Lot Expertsiort amount of area impactec. Again, this impact could be reduced substantially if the southernmost parking stall was to be deleted, as described above for Tree Numbers 3 and 8. Tree NMMber 9 -- A retaining wall is proposed on the east side of this tree, within seven feet (T) of the trunk and well within the dripline. The impacts to this tree are quite severe, especially since they occur on the downhill side of the tree where the tree roots are likely to be concentrated. Over twenty-five percent of the most critical portion of the root zone would be impacted. The Report does not discuss what amount of pruning would be required for vehicular clearance; however it Is likely to be significant as the canopy touches the ground according to the photograph included within the Report. This tree may initially survive the construction impacts, but would likely decline and/or become hazardous within a relative short timeframe. Reduction of this impact would require that seven or eight parking stalls be deleted from the project. If this project proceeds as proposed, this tree should be mitigated as if it was being removed. Tree Nuntber 21 - A retaining wall is proposed on the south side of the tree, within the canopy. Areas of cut and fill will be placed to create the drive aisle into the easternmost portion of the new parking lot. The encroachment within the root zone should be considered moderate due to the amount of area impacted. The Report does not discuss what amount of pruning would be required for vehicular clearance; however it is likely to be significant as the canopy touches the ground according to the photograph included within the Report. This impact could be reduced substantially if the drive aisle was to be moved slightly to the south. This would result in the loss of one of the new parking stalls, adjacent to the drive aisle to the south of the tree. Tree Number 22 — Two new parking stalls encroach within the protected zone of this tree on the south and east sides. All work can be performed outside of the dripline and the encroachments are relatively minor, considering the amount of the root zone to be impacted. This work can be performed with little long -term adverse impacts to the subject tree. In summary, project impacts to trees that are to remain dan be reduced significantly through the deletion of three parking spaces. Generally speaking however, this project encroaches into a significant natural area and the impacts to be considered should extend beyond those to individual trees (.e., the habitat as a whole). As we have discussed previously, the applicant should consider alternative parking solutions, such as a parking structure to be located within the existing parking lot. The Report does not provide a proposal for mitigation of the trees to be removed. If this Project is to proceed in any fashion, a full set of conditions will be required to protect the trees to remain and to mitigate the loss of the trees to be removed and/or significantly impacted. Please advise if further information is desired at this time. • Page 2 of 2 000034 F- LU w 7/25/200010:31am UJOU:01 OOOZ /SZ /L ` a..,. r8 a :� biz Mfr ,? � .r v '. ,� fN ;t. �. •�;" r y 55p� .{ R �s�p �• �'F 14i IA� "{. y 7p01 am fF .M p ' - .Ii f f y i �"'':c`!. c • _ 1 - �.•_,S .� �.._ -� fig.. L _ s- �� \ - '� ti` r. =M�'� _ .. t Y�y\�,r1'.' .' ~� 1r) � �y t i � !t i � �_ Q E '_ _ �., / - -'� __ _'_+'"1/• `� �•�__ - -+ ,. ^ r + �j,y iCi•.l*- . K ,,,,r,. -. s- f - �• C it s � � ?r �:. /� \\ \` �r v a �,J•+ YS•� ,.(431) ._._ - — �; d� , r ;, ; `jb "�' .�::_, -1, ~� 3C)� • ' \: � �.. for 4 Ktat, �o(-(L��) 4✓. F ,; R�_1 \ .:< r ` ¢ {�r� � ' •4. t:rF � _ � _ -; _ _- �`"'. —`" iy�r -- t 1 {4 4 1: ;` ��$9 � h- .a%`'^`!- �.l w...." —+-.�� "`�R.6., �>r �•t Y I rr-"" , � '' ', � � `� \ `\ `'\ •, y �1% v�^� --.... `'i'i -" ° /rr ": ;jv �/ i i� � �° � {+ \ � 2,36j �— '.i62C`. _� � , rrr ♦ f ` ol fA xt r `` 16 M 2 AT -17-2000 .,Jwq. Thu Jul 2VIO: 3t..40 2000 C' 'D Cf) f(9! -AT A AN. c!. W.k�' 'ZA —3 IM 46 2A 4, y f2 U m (.%I) co"', 0 MAX RETAINING WALL V, f A -it All .7; zp X:: V Uy r X. EXHIBIT A:> 00004-11 � ^S s a f �r w t t �a Tc k � w .dxf3 t, '�. , r "�:� �L'•�: e- } � �'s�E' '�M 7,Tir ' �. �' � ,b 's.''FGT 'vwij � �- _... J•- `w a��" -. .x i`•�. µ .� >1,..�� "a `r .0 4 , c ->. r i v s ` '�I•.(� c'r � ^'y �� a ,< � r.#.` ��;,� � •v r'- .gat s ,s+;. .H �. � = � ,rte Y �� L �� , ✓sue. r' / .� •? �� ,.1c'. -• _ !' - ; J r,rti a-ra�.• ' �-t? -?�, ,�}} � Y r J,.'� y�l'fr .ai ri7 a - - x r }' ��r.Kt?a -'t•r ,a"`� ..r >7' T - s- vi�k�r' ,� ,�.a x '4,e.' � f - �� J;..r "�"�i� ,,, � L'�- i. . f � a .�L .•X � ti �A r��. v. '* � �', r 7r ��r� y- .L��i•� c" - ✓',� �• 'ter' -• ; °M •J °`r h5� '3 1 ,¢t ffif f {-% ¢'SKI '�' -•!. X"'p : w < '.n iX _. .t - i Z T's!µ {•^ A J. .y r _ a� _...- ....- .- a.. :,.... MAO .�u "r•. rc�i.- •�- �,.a.�'. � i:-• -: .:.v..,.u.F- .- '-- ,•,•...,:yam _ l ,......�. _. .. ..... �i- '^.',?.,. .3 }}r n i:'i $1('i hex • ' _ �+ a" A F • 7, •,r ,.7/25/200010:28am i$ v `f 9 .. ✓, ?. �a4K .`1€e+y- ff4Y..if: %.'�•r..+Ta £§rY8 � � _ �/ � / vw z� � \ .y�` ' n j5 -r !.-el E"i