HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3.33.3
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS May 3, 2007
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: PERMIT MODIFICATION TO ALLOW REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF TWO
HERITAGE OAK TREES, AND STORAGE OF A 64 -FOOT TOWER CRANE ON SITE
DURING CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF MALAVALLI;
27500 LA VIDA REAL; FILE #131-05-ZP-SD-GD.
FROM: Leslie Hopper, AICP, Project Planner
APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director
That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested tree removal and replacement, subject to the amended conditions of
approval in Attachment 1.
2. Approve the requested use and storage of a 64 -foot tall construction crane if it can be
determined that the benefits outweigh its visual impact.
On December 8, 2005, the Planning Commission approved a new 19,280 -square -foot residence
on an 8.03 -acre parcel located on the east side of Natoma Road, between Black Mountain and
Altamont Roads. The average slope is 25.8%. Conservation and open space easements have
been dedicated over 4.75 acres of the property. The building site is bounded on the north by a
conservation easement, which slopes steeply down towards Deer Creek and includes open
grasslands and densely forested areas. Surrounding properties are developed with single-family
residences.
To date, the applicants have prepared for construction by demolishing the existing house,
removing and relocating some of the trees, rough -grading the building pad, and staging the
construction operation. As directed by the Planning Commission, the applicants have tried to
save two heritage oak trees in the conservation easement adjacent to the building site, but it has
become apparent that removal will be necessary. The applicants are requesting authorization to
remove and replace Trees #130 and #132. In addition, the applicants have requested
authorization to use and store a 64 -foot tower crane on the property during construction.
DISCUSSION
Tree Removal and Replacement
Trees #130 and #132 are located in the conservation easement on a ridge adjacent to the building
site. They were originally slated for removal because the project arborist considered them to be
in poor condition. At the Planning Commission hearing, neighbors who live across the canyon
Plan.wg Cow.
29500 re Vida RW
May 3, 2009
Page 2 of 12
on Foothill Lane voiced their concern that removal of the trees would leave the house exposed to
their view. The project architect offered to save the trees if at all possible, and the Planning
Commission approved the project with the condition that the applicants try to save the trees.
(See Attachment 3 for Planning Commission minutes and Attachments 4 and 5 for original
arborist reports.)
Since that time, it has become apparent that efforts to save Trees #130 and #132 are not going to
be successful. The applicant submitted a supplemental report prepared by a second arborist to
provide additional information on the condition of the trees (Attachment 6). The report details
the decay and structural problems of the two trees in question and recommends removal because
of potential safety hazards. On Much 28, 2007 the Town's consulting arborist, Barrie Coate,
visited the site and confirmed that removal of the two trees is necessary and prudent. In addition,
he recommended removal of Tree #131 because its roots will be damaged in the process of
grading (Attachment 7). The applicants have incorporated this recommendation in their plans;
however, the grading has been minimized and they would like to save Tree #131 if possible.
The applicants propose to replace Trees #130 and #132 with six 60 -inch -box oaks to be planted
as shown on Sheet Ll -OT of the plans. The Town's arborist has reviewed the replacement
proposal and concluded that it will provide adequate screening if the trees are well maintained
until they are established. Amended condition #2 requires a tree maintenance deposit in the
amount of $30,000 for three years to ensure survival of the new trees.
Grading and Tree Protection
The original, approved grading plan includes grading in the conservation easement. The intent
was to remove fill soil around the heritage oaks and to restore the original grade. In the revised
grading plan, the extent of grading in the conservation easement has been reduced so that grading
is limited to the area around the trees to be removed. The revised limits of grading are consistent
with Barrie Coate's recommendations. Mr. Coate also recommends specific maintenance
procedures for Trees #133 though #137. Isis recommendations are incorporated in the amended
conditions of approval.
Grading Policy Exception
In order to reduce the extent of grading in the conservation easement, a new retaining wall has
been designed. The retaining wall is located at the foot of the ridge surrounding the building site.
The retaining wall is seven feet at the highest point, and because it exceeds the maximum cut of
four feet, an exception to the grading policy is required. The grading exception is justified
because the retaining wall is necessary in order to protect the heritage oaks on the ridge adjacent
to the building site.
Use and Storage of Tower Crane
Due to the need to move oversized building materials in an area with limited access, the
applicant is requesting authorization to use and store a tower crane on site during construction.
The crane would enable the contractors to make "heavy lifts" such as setting huge windows in
place, moving steel and wood beams, stacking sheetrock and roof materials, relocating trees, and
placing large mechanical equipment. The crane would be installed on a 24' x 24' pad. When
Planning Commission
27500 to Vida Real
May 3, 2007
Page 3 of 12
fully retracted, the crane would be approximately 18'W x 8'2"D x 64'H. Due to its size and
height, the industrial tower crane would be visible from various locations off-site even when it is
not in use. In comparison with mobile cranes with diesel engines, however, the tower crane
would be quieter. In addition, traffic impacts and road damage would be minimized because the
tower crane would be hauled on and off site just once. According to the applicants, the tower
crane would remain in place until all major lifts are completed, which is estimated to be 14 to 18
months.
To demonstrate the approximate height of the tower crane, the applicants installed a 64 -foot pipe
on site. The photos below show the visibility of the of the demonstration pipe from neighbors'
properties.
To mitigate the visual impact of the tower crane, the applicant is offering to paint the crane a
dark green (or whatever colors preferred by the neighbors) to blend in with the dense vegetation
on the north slope of the property. Comments from neighbors regarding the tree removal and
construction crane requests are included as Attachment 8.
Tower crane when fully extended
would be 18'W x 8'2"D x 64'H
View from 27642 Vogue Court
Planaincommissioo
27500 to VW Real
May 3, 2007
Page 4 of 12
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATION
Removal of the two heritage oaks is supported by three different arborists, all of whom have
found the trees to be in poor condition and potential safety hazards. The trees would be replaced
by six new oak trees, which would adequately screen the house from view. A tree maintenance
deposit would ensure the survival of the trees. The extent of grading has been reduced and a new
retaining wall added, and an exception to the grading policy for the retaining wall is justified in
order to protect the five remaining heritage oaks adjacent to the building site. Recommendations
of the Town's arborist for tree maintenance are incorporated in the amended conditions of
approval. Staff recommends approval of the request to remove and replace Trees #130 and 132,
subject to the amended conditions of approval. The amended conditions provide that Tree #131
may be removed if necessary.
The 64' tall electric tower crane will have potential negative visual impacts to neighbors.
However, it will be quieter than mobile cranes with diesel engines and will minimize traffic
impacts and road damage. If the Planning Commission decides to approve the use and storage of
the tower crane, the applicant should be required to paint the crane to blend in with the
surrounding vegetation in order to minimize the visual impacts to neighbors. (COA #3)
ATTACHMENTS
1. Amended conditions of approval
2. Planning Commission staff report (without attachments) dated December 8, 2005
3. Planning Commission minutes dated December 8, 2005
4. Original arborist report by Deborah Ellis dated November 7, 2005
5. Recommendations of Town's Consulting Arborist dated November 14, 2005
6. Supplemental arborist report by Ray Momeau dated February 18, 2007
7. Recommendations of Town's Consulting Arborist dated March 28, 2007
8. Neighbor comments received
9. Tree removal plans and application materials
10. Information regarding the electric crane
Cc: Kumar and Vijaya Mallavalli Kartik Patel
Archevon Inc.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 991 Montague Expressway #208
Milpitas. CA 95035
Plauaiag Commission
27500 ra Vida Real
May 3, 2007
Page 5 of 12
ATTACHMENT 1
AMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT
FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT INDOOR SWIIvID4ING POOL,
AND THREE DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES
LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 LA VIDA REAL
FILE #131-05-ZP-SD-GD
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. Grading in the existing conservation easement and other sensitive areas of the site shall
occur only in accordance with the following tree protection measures, to the satisfaction
of the Town's consulting arborist:
1. A tree preservation area shall be designated on the grading plan, and shall
consist of the area to be graded in the existing conservation easement, as
well as other adjacent areas northeast of the area drain pipe and retaining
wall behind the new residence.
2. The purpose of the tree preservation area is to protect the heritage oaks in
that location, namely trees # 133 through 138, and #147 through 149.
3. The designated tree preservation area shall be fenced with chainlink fencing
and posted with warning signs.
4. To prevent limb drop, Trees #133 through #137 shall have drop crotch
pruning from the western sides of the canopies. The pruning shall be done in
the winter by a qualified certified arborist This pruning should not simply be
interior thinning of these already thin trees, but should be drop -crotch pruning
from the ends of the longest limbs to reduce the length of those limbs back to
shorter side branches.
5. Root collar cleaning shall be required for Trees #133 through #137 in an area
at least 3 feet from the trunk down to the original grade. Fill soil has been
pushed over the root collars, causing the potential for root collar diseases
including oak root fungus and water mold disease.
2. Tree #147 shall not be removed. Trees #130 and 132 shall be removed and replaced as
per approved plans received April 14 2007 Tree #131 may be removed if necessary. A
tree maintenance deposit in the amount of $30.000 shall be posted Prior to issuance of
building Permit for the main residence An inspection of the trees to ensure adequate
establishment and maintenance shall be made three (3) years after installation. The
deposit will be released after three (3) years if the trees remain viable.
3 Due to the unusual circumstances of the project an electric tower crane may be used and
stored on site during construction The tower crane shall be painted dark green (or any
Planning Co Ssian
275M U Vida Real
May 3,2N7
Page 6 of 12
other color preferred by affected neighbors) to minimize its visual impact. The tower
shall be kept on site the minimum duration required to complete the tasks that require its
use, and the tower crane shall be removed from the site as soon as it is no longer
necessary for construction activities. The tower crane shall be operated only during the
Town's construction hours.
4. Consistent with the Town's policy on "Development Area and Tennis/sports Courts,
Driveways, and Pervious Surfaces," credit for the use of pole -mounted solar panels shall
be granted and only the surface area of the footings shall be counted as development area.
S. The applicant shall demolish all existing structures and driveways prior to the Planning
and Engineering Site and Grading Inspection. Clearance from the Bay Area Air Quality
Management District shall be obtained prior to issuance of a demolition permit and a
building permit.
6. No modifications to the approved plans shall be allowed except as otherwise first
reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending
on the scope of the changes.
7. Exterior lighting shall be limited to one fixture per exit with the exception of two fixtures
at double -door exits. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Lighting
shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source
of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. Light fixture specifications
and a detailed lighting plan for the house and accessory structures shall be reviewed and
approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of construction plans for
review by the Building Department.
8. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing
inspection by the Planning and Engineering Departments, the applicant shall submit
a landscape screening and erosion control plan for review by the Planning
Commission. Particular attention shall be given to plantings which will be adequate to
screen the view of the residence from surrounding properties and maintain privacy
between neighbors. The landscape screening plan shall include trees to replace all
heritage oaks removed at a ratio of three to one. All landscaping required for screening
purposes and erosion control (as determined by the City Engineer) must be installed prior
to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
9. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $25,000.00 shall be posted prior to
final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. An inspection of the landscaping
to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two (2) years after
installation. The deposit will be released after two (2) years if the plantings remain
viable.
10. All outdoor lighting for the driveways and landscaping shall be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for review along with the landscape screening plan. Lighting fixtures shall
generally be shielded downlights. Lighting shall be low wattage, shall not encroach or
Planning Commission
275W to ViE R.]
May 3, 2007
Page 7 a 12
reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible
from off the site. No lighting maybe placed within setbacks except for two driveway or
entry lights.
11. Before receiving a Building Permit, all significant trees designated to remain are to be
fenced at the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced
prior issuance of Building Permit. The property owner shall call for said inspection at
least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain in place
throughout the course of construction.
Tree fencing requirements:
1. Fencing shall be located at the drip line of the tree or trees.
2. All trees to be preserved shall be protected with chain link fences with a minimum
height of five feet (5) above grade.
3. Fences are to be mounted on two-inch diameter galvanized iron posts, driven into
the ground to a depth of at least two feet (2') at no more than 10 -foot spacing.
4. Fencing shall be rigidly supported and maintained during all construction periods.
5. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines
of these trees at any time.
6. No trenching shall occur beneath the drip line of any trees designated to remain.
12. Prior to requesting the foundation inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the location of the new residence (and roof
eaves) and detached accessory structures are no less than 40' from the front property line
and 30' from the side and rear property lines." The elevation of the new residence and
detached accessory structures shall be similarly certified in writing to state that "the
elevations of the new residence and detached accessory structures match the elevations
and locations shown on the site development plan." The applicant shall submit the
stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a
foundation inspection.
13. Prior to requesting the final framing inspection, a registered civil engineer or licensed
land surveyor shall certify in writing and state that "the height of the new residence
complies with the 27'-0" maximum structure height, measured as the vertical distance at
any point from the bottom of the crawl space or basement ceiling if excavated below
natural grade, to the highest part of the structure directly above (including roof
materials)." The overall structure height shall be similarly certified in writing and state
that "all points of the building (including chimneys and appurtenances) lie within a
thirty-five (35') foot horizontal band based, measured from the lowest visible natural or
finished grade topographical elevation of the structure along the building line and the
highest topographical elevation of the roof of the structure." The applicant shall submit
the stamped and signed letter(s) to the Planning Department prior to requesting a final
framing inspection.
Planning Commission
27SMU Vida RW
May 3,2W7
Page g d 12
14. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No
lighting may be placed within skylight wells.
15. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction.
16. For swimming pools, at least one of the following safety features shall be installed to the
satisfaction of the Town Building Official:
a. The pool shall be isolated from access to the residence by an enclosure
(fencing).
b. The pool shall be equipped with an approved safety pool cover.
c. The residence shall be equipped with exit alarms on those doors providing
direct access to the pool.
d. All doors providing direct access from the home to the swimming pool shall
be equipped with a self-closing, self -latching device with a release mechanism
placed no lower than 54 inches above the floor.
17. Standard swimming pool requirements:
a. Lights shall be designed so that the source is not visible from off-site.
b. Drainage outfall structures shall be constructed and located to the satisfaction
of the Town Engineering Inspector.
c. Fencing or a locking pool cover is recommended for safety.
d. Equipment shall be enclosed (solid) on all four sides with a roof for noise
mitigation, and the enclosure shall be screened with landscaping prior to final
inspection. The pool equipment enclosure may not encroach into any required
setbacks.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
18. Two sets of a final grading and drainage plan and hydrology calculations shall be
submitted for review and approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance
of plans for building plan check. Final drainage and grading shall be inspected by the
Engineering Department and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the
Engineering Department prior to final inspection. A letter shall be submitted from the
project engineer stating that the site grading and drainage improvements were installed
as shown on the approved plans prior to final inspection.
19. Any, and all, changes to the approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted as
revisions from the project engineer and shall first be approved by the Town Engineering
Department. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (November 1 to
April 1) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place
within ten feet of any property line except to allow for the construction of the driveway
access.
20. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground.
Planning Com siw
275001e Vida Rw1
May 3, 2007
Page 9 of 12
21. At the time of foundation inspection for the new residence and the second unit and prior
to final inspection, the locations and elevations of the new residence and the accessory
structures shall be certified in writing by a registered civil engineer or licensed land
surveyor as being in/at the approved locations and elevations shown on the approved
Site Development plan. At the time of framing inspection for the new residence and the
accessory structures, height of each building shall be similarly certified as being at the
height shown on the approved Site Development plan.
22. The location and elevation of the pool, deck, and patios shall be certified in writing by a
registered civil engineer or licensed land surveyor as being in/at the approved location
and elevation shown on the approved Site Development planprior to final inspection.
23. Two copies of an erosion and sediment control plan shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Engineering Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. The contractor and the property owner shall comply with all appropriate
requirements of the Town's NPDES permit relative to grading and erosion/sediment
control. The first 100 feet of the driveway shall be rocked during construction and all cut
and fill slopes shall be protected from erosion. All areas on the site that have the native
soil disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be
replanted prior to final inspection.
24. Two copies of a grading and construction operation plan shall be submitted by the
property owner for review and approval by the City Engineer and Planning Director prior
to acceptance of plans for building plan check. The grading/construction operation plan
shall address truck traffic issues regarding dust, noise, and vehicular and pedestrian traffic
safety on La Vida Real and surrounding roadways, storage of construction materials,
placement of sanitary facilities, parking for construction vehicles, clean-up area, and
parking for construction personnel. A debris box (trash dumpster) shall be placed on site
for collection of construction debris. Arrangements must be made with the Los Altos
Garbage Company for the debris box, since they have a franchise with the Town and no
other hauler is allowed within the Town limits.
25. The property owner shall inform the Town of any damage and shall repair any damage
caused by the construction of the project to pathways, private driveways, and public and
private roadways, prior to final inspection and release of occupancy permits and shall
provide the Town with photographs of the existing conditions of the roadways and
pathways prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
26. The driveways shall be required to be fully constructed to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer prior to final inspection.
27. The property owner shall be required to connect to the public sanitary sewer prior to final
inspection. A sewer plan that is prepared by a registered civil engineer shall be required
Planing Commission
275001 Vida RW
May 3. 2007
Page 10 d 12
to be approved by the City Engineer prior to acceptance of plans for building plan
check. An as -built mylar shall be required to be submitted to the Town prior to final
project approval. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works
Department for all work proposed within the public right-of-way prior to start work. A
copy of a permit from the City of Los Altos shall be required to be submitted to the Town
prior to submittal of plans for building plan check.
28. As recommended by Cotton, Shires & Associates in their report dated August 23, 2005,
the applicant shall comply with the following:
a. Geotechnical Plan Review–The applicant's Geotechnical Consultant shall
review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project building and
grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and
design parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have
been properly incorporated.
The results of the plan review shall be summarized by the Geotechnical
Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer for review and
approval prior to acceptance of construction plans by the Building
Department.
In. Geotechnical Field Inspection—The Geotechnical Consultant shall inspect,
test (as needed), and approve all geotechnical aspects of the project construction.
The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation
and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and
excavations for foundations and retaining walls prior to the placement of steel
and concrete.
The results of these inspections and the as -built conditions of the project shall be
described by the Geotechnical Consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town
Engineer for review and approval prior to final inspection and occupancy of
the new residence.
For further details on the above requirements, please refer to the letter from
Cotton, Shires & Associates dated August 23, 2005.
29. The property owner shall grant an open space easement to the Town as shown on the
approved plans. The open space easement agreement shall be prepared by the Town and
shall allow the location of solar panels within the easement. The property owner shall
provide a legal description and plat exhibits that are prepared by a registered civil
engineer or a licensed land surveyor. The grant document, including the agreement and
approved exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to
the Town prior to acceptance of plans for buildingplan check.
Plavaing Com ni.
275M U Vida Real
May 3, 2007
Page 11 of 12
30. Construction of a native path through the north end of the property shall occur as follows
a. The property owner shall construct a native path on the south side of Deer Creek,
within or near the existing hiking and equestrian easement. The path shall be of
variable width from 2 to 5 feet, depending on terrain. The property owner shall
consult with the City Engineer on the final location of the path.
b. If necessary, the existing easement shall be widened to include the preferred
location of the path. The property owner shall provide a legal description of the
expanded pathway easement and plat exhibits that have been prepared by a
registered civil engineer or a licensed land surveyor, and the Town shall prepare
the dedication document. The dedication document, including the approved
exhibits, shall be signed and notarized by the property owner and returned to the
Town Prior to issuance of a building permit.
c. Culverts or footbridges shall be constructed if necessary to cross Deer Creek and
its tributaries. The property owner is responsible for obtaining required permits
from appropriate local, state or federal agencies such as the Regional Water
Quality Control Board, State Department of Fish and Game, or the Army Corps of
Engineers.
d. The path and culverts or footbridges shall be constructed prior to final inspection
to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department.
IaItMa7717Ot71Oki I7isN
31. An automatic residential fire sprinkler system approved by the Santa Clara County Fire
Department shall be included in all portions of the buildings. Three sets of plans
prepared by a sprinkler contractor shall be submitted to the Planning Department and
approved by the Fire Department and received by the Planning Department, prior to
acceptance of construction plans for plan check by the Building Department, and the
sprinklers shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department, prior to final
inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
32. An access driveway shall be provided with a paved all-weather surface, a minimum
unobstructed width of 14 feet, vertical clearance of 13 feet 6 inches, minimum circulating
turning radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside, and a maximum slope of 15%. Plans
for the access driveway shall be revised and submitted to the Planning Department and
reviewed and approved by the Fire Department prior to acceptance of plans for building
plan check. The access driveway shall be fully constructed, to the satisfaction of the
Santa Clara County Fire Department, prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new
residence.
33. The applicant shall provide a utility plan that shows all required new hydrants and hose
valves. The utility plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department and reviewed and
approved by the Fire Departrnent prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check.
%inning Commission
27500 to Vida R.1
May 3, 2007
Page 12 of 12
The hydrants and hose valves shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence.
34. The applicant shall place address numbers on all buildings in such a position as to be
plainly visible and legible from the skeet fronting the property prior to final inspection
and occupancy of the new residence. The address numbers shall be a minimum of four
inches high and shall contrast with the background color.
BUBAING DEPARTMENT:
35. Property owners must pay School District (Los Altos or Palo Alto) fees before receiving
their building permit from Los Altos Hills. The owner must take a copy of required fee
payment forms that have been completed by the Town to both the elementary and high
school district offices, pay the appropriate fees and provide the Town with a copy of the
receipts.
CONDITIONS 7, 18, 23, 24, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, and 34 SHALL BE COMPLETED
AND SIGNED OFF BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE OF CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR PLAN
CHECK BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONDITIONS 5, 11, and 35 SHALL BE COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF BY THE
PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO
ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
Throughout the construction, a Site and Grading inspection and a Pre -Rough inspection shall be
required to be set with the Planning and Engineering Departments.
Upon completion of the construction, a final inspection shall be required to be set with the
Planning and Engineering Departments two weeks prior to final building inspection and
occupancy of the new residence.
NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until
December 8, 2006). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work
on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed
within two years.
ATTACHMENT Z
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 8, 2005
Staff Report to the Planning Commission
RE: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A NEW RESIDENCE WITH PARTIAL
BASEMENT, INDOOR SWIMMING POOL, AND THREE DETACHED ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES; LANDS OF MALAVALLI; 27500 LA VIDA REAL; FILE #131-05-ZP-
SD-GD.
FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner
APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director e C.
RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission:
1. Approve the requested Site Development Pennit, subject to the conditions of approval in
Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
The subject property is an 8.03 -acre parcel located on the east side of Natoma Road, between
Black Mountain and Altamont Roads. The parcel was created in 2005 through the merger of two
existing lots. There is one existing house on the western portion of the property; another house
on the eastern portion was demolished prior to approval of the lot merger. There is an existing
3.50 -acre conservation easement on the north end of the property, which is steep and heavily
wooded. Another 1.25 acres is proposed as new open space easement, making a total of 4.75
acres or 59% of the property under conservation/open space easements.
A 20 -foot -wide hiking and equestrian easement runs along the north boundary of the property, on
the south side of Deer Creek. Existing utility easements include a storm drain easement that
varies from 20 feet to 30 feet in width through the western portion of the property; a 15 -foot
PG&E easement and a 15 -foot PUE along a portion of the frontage on La Vida Real; and a 10 -
foot Purissima Hills County Water District easement along the eastern and southeastern
boundaries.
Access to the property currently is provided by two driveways on La Vida Real. Surrounding
properties are developed with single-family residences.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by Section 10-2.301 of the Site Development Code, this application for a new
residence has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review and approval. Criteria for
site development review include grading, drainage, building siting, pathways, landscape
screening and outdoor lighting. Zoning Code review encompasses compliance with floor and
development area limitations, height, setbacks, and parking requirements.
Planning Commission
27500 La Vida Real
Decanter 8, 2005
Page 2 of 17
DISCUSSION
Site Data:
Gross Lot Area:
Net Lot Area:
Existing Conservation Easement
Proposed Open Space Easements
Total ConservationlOpen Space Easements
Average Slope:
Lot Unit Factor:
Floor Area and Development Area:
Area (square feet) Maximum
Development Area 48,224
Floor Area 27,685
Site Planning
Proposed
48,046
19,280*
8.03 acres
8.03 acres
3.50 acres
1.25 acres
4.75 acres (59% of site)
25.8%
5.314
Existing Increase Left
31,423 +16,623 +178
8,623** +10,657 +8,405
*Does not include 5,752-s.f. basement
**Includes existing house and demolished house
The applicant requests approval of a Site Development permit for a two-story, five -bedroom
residence with an attached six -car garage, daylighted basement, indoor swimming pool, and three
detached accessory structures including an office, garden pavilion, and decorative landscape
tower. Most of the living area for the house is on the first floor (14, 088 square feet plus 382
square feet of double -counted high -ceiling areas). The second story (1,132 square feet) accounts
for approximately 6.5 percent of the total floor area for the main residence.
The first floor consists of an entry foyer flanked by a living room and dining room; a family
room, kitchen, media room, library and garage in the south wing; and a north wing consisting of
the master suite, guest rooms, indoor pool, exercise room, and laundry room clustered around an
inner courtyard. The second story consists of a family room and telescope room above the main
family room and kitchen below. The basement includes a theatre, wine cellar, and entertainment
area, as well as two mechanical rooms, a computer room to house the equipment that controls the
house and grounds, and a utility tunnel to provide service access to the infrastructure of the
house.
Three clusters of solar panels are located in the southeast comer of the site; one of the clusters is
in a proposed open space easement. The square footage of the solar panels has not been included
in the development area because the plans are still preliminary. (See discussion of solar panels
on page 7.)
Detached accessory structures include an office building (1,024 square feet), a garden pavilion
(867 square feet), and a decorative landscape tower (519 square feet). The landscape plan
Planning Commission
27500 La Vide RcM
D.mb 8, 2005
Page 3 of 17
features several fountains and water features (2,358 square feet) as well as patios and walkways
(10,999 square feet) and decks (891 square feet).
Driveway and Parking
Access to the property is provided by two new driveways on La Vida Real. The longer of the
two driveways runs in an easterly direction, roughly parallel to the long leg of La Vida Real.
Two small guardhouses flank the front gate, providing a grand entry to the estate. The second,
shorter driveway begins at the cul de sac and provides direct access to the garage. The driveways
and parking have been fully counted at 13,530 square feet.
The Zoning Ordinance requires at least four on-site parking spaces, which have been provided in
the six -car garage. Additional uncovered parking spaces are provided in the motorcourt in front
of the garage. The motorcourt is located outside of the required setbacks. During parties and
family gatherings, the longer driveway will provide additional on-site parking. Other than
driveway accesses, no pavement is proposed within setbacks.
The long driveway spans the existing drainage easement with a bridge and will not impact the
drainage easement area.
Architecture
The architecture of the new residence is Santa Barbara Mission style, with a contemporary flare.
The Malavalli residence has many characteristics that are typical of the Mission style, such as the
following:
• Smooth stucco siding
• Low-pitched, red clay tile roofs
• Roof parapets
• Square towers
• Arches above doors
These traditional characteristics are blended with contemporary elements such as rounded,
circular forms and areas of metal roofing, extensive windows and skylights, limestone banding,
and stone cladding. Colors are traditional peachy -beige stucco walls and red clay tile roofing,
with reddish -brown stone cladding and metal roofing, mahogany and sand colored limestone
banding, and patina -green window frames.
Height and Visibility
At the highest point, the vertical plane height of the proposed new residence is 26 feet 5 inches
measured from the bottom of the crawl space. The maximum overall height is 35 feet lowest to
highest point of the new residence.
The house will not be highly visible from the street because it is situated in the southeast
quadrant of the property, well back from Natoma and La Vida Real. In addition, the building pad
will be lowered as much as 8 feet in order to restore the natural grade by removing the existing
fill that was used to raise the previous house. The house will be most visible from the back to
Planning Commission
27500 La Vida Real
Dremba 8, 2005
Page 4 of 17
neighbors who live across the canyon, but existing mature trees and dense vegetation will screen
their view.
The portion of the house located closest to a neighbor is the garage, which is 45 feet from the
east property line. The detached office structure is closest to both Natoma and La Vida Real, and
at one comer is 44 feet from the south property line.
Lightine
The roof plan (Sheet A4) shows 22 skylights, including one large skylight at the front entry, 14
skylights over the indoor pool, 6 over the guest suite, and one over the library. No lighting will
be placed in the skylights. The large number of skylights is not likely to have an adverse impact
on neighbors because of the relatively remote location of the house.
Exterior lighting shall be limited to one fixture per exit with the exception of two fixtures at
double -door exits. Lighting fixtures shall generally be shielded downlights. Lighting shall be
low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting
should not be directly visible from off the site. Light fixture specifications and a detailed lighting
plan shall be reviewed and approved by the Planning Department prior to acceptance of
construction plans by the Building Department. Staff recommends that all outdoor lighting for
the driveway and landscaping be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review along with
the landscape screening plan as specified in Condition #5.
Landscaping and Tree Removal
The landscape master plan (Sheet L1.0) is not under review at this time and is included in the
plan sets for information purposes only. Since more than half of the property will be protected
by existing and proposed conservation/open space easements, most of the existing vegetation will
not be affected by construction of the proposed residence.
A tree inventory prepared by the project arborist lists 182 trees in the project area. The tree
removal and relocation plan (Sheet LI.I) calls for removal of 24 trees, including three heritage
oaks. All of the heritage oaks to be removed are in poor condition and could be hazardous.
Another 29 trees, including six heritage oaks, will be relocated. In addition, several trees were
previously dug up and boxed during the demolition of the existing house, and they are currently
being maintained on the site for future relocation. The ultimate destination of the relocated trees
and the replacement of the heritage oaks to be removed will be addressed in the landscape
screening plan that is required under Condition #5.
Condition #8 requires that the trees within the vicinity of the construction be fenced for
protection and preservation. The Planning Commission will review a landscape screening and
erosion control plan once the house is fumed. All planting required for screening or erosion
control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new
residence.
Planing Commission
27500 U Vida Real
D.bv 8, 2005
Page 5 of 17
Fencin
As shown on the site plan (Sheet Al) existing chainlink fences will be removed. The existing
split rail fence along the front of the property will be partially removed, leaving a portion along
the intersection of Natoma and La Vida Real in place. New hedges will define the front entry
and south side of the property along La Vida Real. A new 8-foot-high deer fence will wrap
around the residence, following the perimeter of the existing and proposed conservation/open
space easements. The purpose of the deer fence is to keep deer out of the landscaped areas.
Attachment #4 shows the proposed design for the deer fence.
In response to concems about potential impacts on deer and other wildlife that move through the
8-acre parcel, the applicants requested Live Oak Associates, an Ecological Consulting Firm, to
study the issue. In a letter dated October 12, 2005 (Attachment #5), Michele Korpos concludes
that the proposed fencing would not have a significant effect on wildlife movement in the
immediate vicinity of the site or within the region. She explains that deer and other wildlife
currently move through the property in a broad manner. Even though the proposed fencing will
preclude wildlife from entering the site, wildlife will have access to approximately 4.8 acres or
60% of the site. The aerial photo attached to the letter shows the wildlife movement corridors on
the project area.
Grading and Tree Protection
The Engineering Department has reviewed the plans and recommended the conditions of
approval incorporated in Attachment 1. All proposed grading on the site conforms to the Town's
grading policy. Estimated earthwork quantities for the project include 9,700 cubic yards of cut
and 780 cubic yards of fill. The remaining 8,920 cubic yards of excavated material will be
exported off site.
The proposed residence will be located approximately in the same location as the demolished
house. In that location, an elevated building pad was constructed approximately 30 years ago to
artificially raise the level of the house. As documented in the soils report for the project, the old
building pad contains approximately 1.5 to 9 feet of unconsolidated fill. The intent is to restore
the site to its natural grade by removing the fill, thus providing a more stable foundation for the
new residence.
Some of the fill associated with the demolished residence extends into the existing conservation
easement area north of the proposed residence, where six heritage oaks could be adversely
impacted by the removal of soil. Two of these trees (#130 and #132) are marked for removal on
Sheet Ll.l because they me in poor condition. However, the project architect would like to save
the trees if possible, and the Town arborist supports this effort, especially with regard to tree
#130.
The grading plan (Sheet C3) shows the area where removal of fill soil in the conservation
easement would occur. Tree preservation notes on the grading plan stipulate that no heavy
equipment will be used and all digging will be by hand. In addition, all digging will be done
under the supervision of the project arborist. These tree protection measures have been reviewed
Planning Commission
Ikcemb. 8, 2005
Page 6 of 17
by the Town's consulting arborist, Barrie Coate, who has determined that they may not be
sufficient to protect the trees. Mr. Coate believes that after all these years, tree roots are likely to
be present in the fill and that any kind of grading or removal of the soil, either by hand or by
equipment, will damage the roots of these heritage trees.
The Town's consulting arborist recommendations are attached as Attachment V. In Item #4 Mr.
Coate recommends that a test trench be cut with an Airspade, which will not damage any roots if
they are encountered. If a significant quantity of absorbing roots are found between elevations
568 and 572, no grading should be permitted. This recommendation is incorporated in the tree
protection measures included in Condition #1. In addition, chainlink fencing will be required to
separate the area where no heavy equipment is allowed and digging must be done by hand only.
The trenching and hand digging, if any, will be supervised by the Town's consulting arborist.
Drainage
Natural drainage at the site is characterized by sheetflow directed away from the north -trending
ridge, where it is intercepted by Deer Creek to the north and by a north -trending gully to the west.
Proposed drainage improvements for the new residence involve the collection of stormwater
through a system of area drains, catch basins, and pipes that carry the water around and away
from the new residence. A retention/dissipator structure southwest of the new residence will
collect and dissipate the drainage, which will be discharged at a point north of the driveway and
near the drainage easement. The final drainage will be reviewed by the Engineering Department
prior to final inspection and occupancy of the residence.
Sanitary Sewer
Sheet C4 shows the proposed connection to an existing sanitary sewer line at the intersection of
Altamont, Natoma and Tripoli Court. The sewer will be extended along Natoma and connected
to a lateral in the southwest corner of the property. A sump pump and basin will be located
behind the 30 -foot setback line along Natoma. A connection fee will be charged for hook-up to
the existing sewer line, which is in the Los Altos Basin.
Energy Efficiency
In a letter dated October 12, 2005 (Attachment #8) the project architect describes the energy
saving features of the new residence, such as the following:
• Solar panels to generate a portion of the power used for house and grounds
• Computerized control of heating, cooling, lighting, and other mechanical systems
• Energy Star certified appliances, mechanical units and pool equipment
• Additional insulation in exterior walls
• Insulated "low E" glazing on windows and exterior doors
• Skylights to bring in natural daylight and provide ventilation in the pool area
In addition, the project will use recycled materials as much as possible, and when the existing
house is demolished, materials will be salvaged and reused.
December 8, 2005
Page 7 of 17
Water use will be minimized through the use of tankless water heaters with recirculating pumps,
low -flow toilets, and a computer -controlled irrigation system.
Solar Panels
As noted previously, the plans show three clusters of solar panels located in the southeast comer
of the site. One of the proposed clusters is located an open space easement, which was not
considered by the Open Space Committee during its review of the project. The square footage of
the solar panels has not been included in the development area because the plans are preliminary
only. As stated in the information booklet provided in Attachment 16, the architect is currently
researching the use and integration of the photovoltaic panels. Normally a separate permit for
installation of solar panels is required, and details will be reviewed when that application is
submitted.
Based on the preliminary plans, approximately 3,000 square feet will be covered by solar panels.
Town policy exempts the fust 500 square feet in order to encourage the production of solar
energy. The addition of 2,500 square feet for solar panels will push the project over the
maximum development area.
Fire Department Review
The Santa Clara County Fire Department reviewed the plans for the project and determined that
prior to issuance of a building permit the driveway must be modified to provide adequate turning
radius for a fire truck. In addition, a utility plan must be submitted showing all required hydrants
and hose valves. Fire Department requirements are incorporated in the conditions of approval
(Attachment #1).
Oven Space Committee Review
Bounded by an unnamed tributary of Deer Creek on the north, the 8.03 -acre parcel includes a
natural swale that is protected by a drainage easement. It also includes areas of steep slope with
forested areas and open grassland that serve as habitat for deer and other wildlife. A portion of
the property (mainly the swale and riparian area along Deer Creek) is designated in the General
Plan as open space conservation area. Most of this area is included in the existing 3.5 -acre
conservation easement.
In order to protect the remaining areas of steep slope and as much of the natural swale as
possible, another 1.25 acres are included in proposed open space easements. The proposed open
space easements are contiguous to the existing conservation easement. Together the combined
easements total 4.75 acres, comprising 59% of the site, and they wrap around three sides of the
new residence and grounds. The Open Space Committee has visited the site to view the
proposed open space easements and recommends approval.
The solar panels were added after the plans were reviewed by the Open Space Committee, and
the committee has not considered the proposed placement of solar panels in the open space
easement.
De.ber 8,2005
Page 8 of 17
Pathway Committee Review
The Master Pathway Plan shows a path along an existing 20 -foot hiking and equestrian easement
on the south side of Deer Creek. During the Master Plan adoption process last March, the
Planning Commission recommended that this segment of the pathway plan be removed from the
plan because the terrain is steep and heavily wooded. The City Council decided to leave it in
because there is an existing easement and construction of the path could be determined at a later
date.
The Pathway Committee reviewed the project plans and visited the site on several different
occasions. As reflected in the attached minutes (Attachment #11) the committee recommended
construction of a native path. The best route for the path would not necessarily be located within
the existing easement, and the committee recommended that the easement be adjusted as
necessary to be consistent with the path.
The applicants do not consider construction of the path to be appropriate, and they have
expressed their concems in the attached letter (Attachment #12) which includes a report by
Michele Korpos of Live Oak Associates. In addition to potential environmental and biological
impacts, the applicants raise safety issues, noting that Natoma is particularly narrow and steep in
that area, and there is limited visibility along that stretch of road.
That opinion is shared by Brian Macnick, whose property borders the Malavalli's property on the
north side. In a letter dated November 7, 2005 (Attachment #13), Dr. Macnick expresses his
concern due to practical, environmental and safety reasons.
The applicants request that they be allowed to pay pathway fees in lieu of constructing the path.
Having hiked through the area, planning and engineering staff agree that the path would be
difficult to construct and maintain.
The Planning Commission has two options regarding the path
1. Require construction of the path in or near the existing easement along the south side
of Deer Creek.
2. Require payment of pathway fees at the standard rate of $46.00 per linear foot of
average lot.
A pathway condition will be added to Attachment #1 to reflect the option selected by the
Planning Commission.
Environmental Design Committee Review
The Environmental Design Committee recommended that the largest oaks slated for removal be
saved and relocated instead if possible. As shown on the tree removal and relocation plan (Sheet
L1.1) Trees 4124 and 4180 will be relocated. Both trees are sizable oaks with 28 -inch and 30 -
inch diameters, respectively.
The committee also commented on the extensive number of skylights and the use of metal
roofing. As noted on the plans, no lighting will be placed in skylight wells. The metal roofing
will not be copper but will be a non -reflective material painted to match the red clay tile roof.
Planning Commission
Ckcemhr 8, 2005
Page 9 of 17
The plans originally included maids quarters and a bell tower but they have since been omitted or
revised. The decorative landscape tower no longer includes a bell so that neighbors will not be
impacted by the noise.
Neighbor Comments
A letter of support has been received from Sandy Laws -Miller at 12821 La Vida Real (see
Attachment #15). The Laws -Millers are the closest neighbors, and their only concern is the
proposed path along Deer Creek.
Environmental Review
The project is categorically exempt under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (a) construction of
single-family residences.
SUMMARY
The proposed project is below the allowable floor and development area for the property. The
project is in compliance with the requirements of the Zoning and Site Development Codes. The
proposed grading in the conservation easement is acceptable provided the recommended tree
protection measures are required. The proposed open space easements have been recommended
for approval by the Open Space Committee. The project will be energy efficient, will minimize
water use, and will incorporate recycled building materials as much as possible. Pathway options
include construction of a path in or near the existing easement as recommended by the Pathway
Committee, or payment of pathway fees if construction is not practical. Although neighbors have
voiced concerns about construction of the path, they have no objections to the project in general.
Staff recommends approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
Commission
n .bcr 8, 2005
Page 10 of 17
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended conditions of approval
2. Worksheets #1 and #2
3. Site map
4. Proposed design for deer fence
5. Letter from Live Oak Associates, dated October 12, 2005
6. Comments from Cotton, Shires & Associates, dated August 23, 2005
7. Recommendations of Town's Consulting Arborist, dated November 14, 2005
8. Letter from Archevon Inc., dated October 12, 2005
9. Santa Clara County Fire Department comments dated August 11; 2005 and November 22,
2005
10. Open Space Committee recommendations, dated September 10, 2005
11. Pathway Committee recommendations, dated September 26, 2005
12. Letter from Archevon Inc., dated November 7, 2005
13. Letter from Brian Macknick, dated November 7, 2005
14. Comments from Environmental Design Committee, dated August 18, 2005
15. Letter from Sandy Laws -Miller, dated November 30, 2005
16. Development plans and informational booklet prepared by Archevon Inc.
Cc: Kumar and Vijaya Mallavalli Kartik Patel
Archevon hic.
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 201
Fremont, CA 94538
ATTACHMENT 3
Minutes of a Regular Meeting, Approved 1/19/06
Town of Los Altos Hills
PLANNING COMMISSION
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 8,2005,7:00 p.m.
Council Chambers 26379 Fremont Road
cc: Cassettes (2) #1-06
ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the
Council Chambers at Town Hall,
Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey, Kems, Collins & Clow
Staff. Carl Cahill, Planning Director; Leslie Hopper, Project Planner; Debbie Pedro,
Senior Planner; Brian Froelich; Assistant Planner; Lani Smith, Planning Secretary
2. PRESENTATIONS FROM THE FLOOR -none
3. PUBLIC HEARINGS
3.1 LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real (131-05-ZP-SD-
GD); A request for a Site Development Permit for a 17,389 square
foot two-story new residence with a 5,752 square foot basement
and a new driveway, a 1,024 square foot detached accessory
building, and an 867 square foot detached garden pavilion
(maximum structure height 27 feet). Parcel size: 8 acres including
3.54 acres in conservationlopen space easements (staff -Leslie
Hopper).
Planner Hopper introduced this item by reviewing the staff report, in particular, the following
items: description of the project on an 8.03 acre site; background of the project including an
aerial photo of the site; access to the property provided by two new driveways both of which
have been counted 100% in development area; the Santa Barbara Mission style architecture;
the height and visibility of the project and the lowering of the building pad as much as 8 feet
in order to restore the natural grade by removing the existing fill that was used to raise the
previous house; the visibility of the back of the house to the neighbors who live across the
canyon; lighting which includes 22 skylights; landscape and a tree inventory including trees
proposed to be removed; grading and tree protection; and connection to an existing sanitary
sewer line. She further discussed the existing conservation easements (3.50 acres) on the
property as well as the two new proposed open space easements (1.25 acres) all totaling 59%
of the property. The Pathway Committee recommended the construction of a native path.
The best route for the path would not necessarily be located within the existing easement so
the Committee recommended that the easement be adjusted as necessary to be consistent with
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 2
the path. However, the applicants do not consider construction of the path to be appropriate
per a report from Michele Korpos of Live Oak Associates. They are requesting that they be
allowed to pay pathway fees in lieu of constructing the path. Staff, having hiked through the
area, agreed that the path would be difficult to construct and maintain.
She continued stating that the site plan calls for three clusters of solar panels located in the
southeast comer of the site with one of the clusters in a proposed open space easement.
Altogether, the solar panels would comprise approximately 3,000 square feet. This total has
not been included in the development area. At this point, the solar panels are conceptual only
and if they are to be installed in the proposed location it would push the project over the
maximum development area. This needs to be addressed. Another item to be addressed is
while restoring the natural grade by removing the existing fill there is a concern with the six
(6) Heritage oaks with possible roots extending into the fill. In order to protect the oaks, they
have proposed some tree protection measures which have been incorporated into the
conditions of approval recommended by the Town consulting arborist (COA #1). Planner
Hopper concluded her presentation noting that there was a model of the project site available
for review.
Commissioner Carey clarified that during the time of reviewing the Master Path Map, the
Planning Commission recommended the removal of this pathway with the City Council
recommending the path to be kept.
Discussion ensued regarding how a driveway was counted toward development area.
Planning Director Cahill indicated that the first 100 feet from the required garage is counted.
Anything beyond the first 100 feet of the required driveway is not counted. In the case where
someone constructs accessory paving and driveway that is more for personal aesthetic
reasons, it is counted the same as a patio or any sort of hardscape surface. Commissioner
Kerns questioned the deer fence plan which appears to be for reference and will return with
the landscape screening plan. Planner Hopper indicated that the deer fencing is also shown on
the site plan and will be a part of this proposal tonight. For clarification, she indicated the
location of the proposed deer fencing noting the areas of fence within the conservation
easement which drops in height to meet the current fence ordinance.
OPENED PUBLIC HEARING
Kartik Patel, project architect, provided a brief history of the project. He felt that everyone
would be proud of this project, not only the applicants but also the community. He discussed
green architecture, architecture that is sensitive to the environment taking into account the
topography, the neighbors and the surrounding neighborhood architecture. The project team
was present which included the landscape architect, the environmental consultants, team
arborist and also a representative from Valley Crest who will be taking cue of all of the trees
that have been removed when the first home was demolished and have been cared for the past
year. Also present was their solar consultant as they want to make this house as efficient as
possible and try to conserve energy. With the aid of a visual presentation and a full scale
model of the site, Mr. Patel discussed the following: the recent lot merger; the existing and
proposed conservation areas which will total close to 60% of the property; the long narrow lot
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 3
with a house placement on a flat area; the long driveway which addresses the estate type
home with a drop off point at the front door of the house; the long driveway to accommodate
any traffic on the site; the request for some credit for the driveway to accommodate the
proposed solar panels; several gardens on the site; the Santa Barbara Mission style house with
a central courtyard in the back; the proposed color palette; and the landscape design and water
features. He understood that there were two neighbors who were concerned with the view of
the tower element indicating the distances from each neighbor. In conclusion, Mr. Patel
stated that the architecture of the house was inspired by the Santa Barbara Mission style.
They felt strongly that given the geographic location, this style best fits the area. The projects
will implement green architecture and energy conservation.
Mr. Patel indicated that the representative from Valley Crest will be discussing the removal
and transplanting of specific oak trees. Regarding the conditions of approval, they would like
the Commission to review four items: (1) request to remove/clew poison oak from the current
and proposed conservation easements; (2) development credit for the long driveway which
will be used for the solar panels; (3) grading proposed around the oak trees asking if they
would be allowed to use very light power equipment to move the dirt in the presents of an
arborist. If there is evidence of significant roots, they would not grade in that area. (4)
opposed to the construction of a pathway. He felt there was a major safety issue with the path
as there is no good termination of the pathway once you reach Natoma Road. Natoma Road
is a very steep, windy road with a blind comer at that point. This is a very dangerous area and
not a good termination of the pathway. Also, it is an environmentally sensitive area needing
two bridges involving the Army Corp of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game.
Also, they have not found anyone in the neighborhood who is requesting them to build the
pathway.
Commissioner Clow asked if the solar arrays were visible to any neighbors. Mr. Patel
responded not to his understanding. The way they could find out is to erect story poles. In
answering a question, he noted that the natural foot paths leading into the new conservation
would be allowed as it meets the conservation easement goals.
Mr. Malavalli, in discussing his dream house will make sure it is a quality house retaining the
nature habitat of the area. Los Altos Hills has been their home for the last 10 yews indicating
it took that long to find the ideal area for their house. He does want to keep his neighbors
happy. He appreciates Los Altos Hills' environmental restrictions as they want to maintain
the natural environment.
Dale with Valley Crest stated the company has been moving trees for the last 50 years in
California. They have already moved many trees on site and have maintained them for the last
year. They are all doing great. There is thought of moving two additional trees on the site
which we larger than the ones already moved. It should be a successful move (the company
is in the high 90% success rate). Cue of a tree after it is moved is important so they maintain
the trees after they are moved which could last for years.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 4
Mr. Patel would like to try to save the existing oak trees #130 and #132 slotted for removal.
Even though the approval package shows them to be eliminated they have requested that they
try to save them and maintain them throughout construction and review their conditions at the
end of the construction period.
David Bulfer, Lucem Lane, looks down on the two properties that have been merged and has
had the pleasure of meeting the applicants who care about the environment. He felt the
improvements will make the site more rural. He walks every morning with his wife and he
felt the proposed path was too dangerous to use. His biggest concern was the process of the
construction and felt the applicants will consider the neighbors in the entire process. He
voiced support of the project
De Gheest, 12133 Foothill Lane, property located across the canyon. She provided a photo of
the property site as viewed from her kitchen. She explained that she will not only see the top
of the roof but also a part of the walls. There will be a significant view of this property from
her house as well as being an eye sore with the proposed removal of trees. She asked that if
the two oak trees are removed they be replaced three to one to provide privacy to the people
across the canyon. She noted that they asked for the same thing when the two lots were
merged. She would also hope that the construction site would not be too visible by using a
dark color fence instead of an orange fence. She also noted that the tower was very visible
and one of the trees behind it is slated to be removed. Regarding the proposed solar panels,
she requested that they erect orange poles prior to approval to view the full impact.
Brian Macknick, 27608 Vogue Court, resident for over 22 years, spoke against the off road
pathway through Deer Creek wildlife corridor as proposed due to environmental and
ecological issues. He referred to the letter from Live Oak Associates regarding their findings
and the value of preserving this wildlife corridor in its natural state. He also supports the
efforts of the wildlife survey recently mailed out by the Town. Maintaining natural corridors
will keep animals healthy and wild and minimize contact with humans allowing them to
continue living in as natural state as possible. He further discussed safety, ingress and egress
on this pathway which includes crossing over Natoma Road with a very narrow and tight
turning road with no shoulder. He felt it was a foreseeable event that horses or people could
be injured by having this path exit right onto and then cross over Natoma Road to the other
path on a blind curve as presently proposed The Town's Master Pathway Plan was just
reviewed last March when the Planning Commission recommendation regarding B3.22 or
Deer Creek was not to retain MPP due to erosion issues on steep ravines and redundancy to
existing off road paths from Black Mountain Road.
John Spar, 12121 Foothill Lane, as a new owner, he has not had time to digest the proposed
application.
Mark Vernon, 12119 Foothill Lane, echoed comments made by resident at 12133 Foothill
Lane as he was very concerned with the removal of trees which currently helps screen the site.
He felt any new plantings would not screen anything unless they were of significant height
and span like the trees presently on site. He felt he needed more information regarding the
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 5
trees slated to be removed. He stated he was not strong on the pathway issue. The letter from
the Town's consulting arborist had requested more information regarding the trees to be
removed.
Ginger Summit, 13310 Lennox Way, Chairperson of the Pathway Committee, spoke to the
proposed path which is potentially a very beautiful path. She felt it was important to maintain
the existing paths and increase them whenever possible. The easement exists, only requiring
construction. When the Committee walked the path there was some question as to where the
boundaries actually exist. She believed that the applicants were going to have the area re-
surveyed to clarify the boundaries. The proposed native easement is for 5 feet however, it
could be less. She did not feel it was infringing on anyone's privacy. She further discussed
the flexibility where the path would exit onto Natoma Road. Discussion ensued regarding
culverts and/or retaining walls made of natural material (not concrete). It would be the
Committee's preference not to have the path cross the creek but to stay on one side of the
creek by modifying the easements appropriately so they would not have to construct bridges.
The Committee would work with the property owners and their landscape person to make it as
financially reasonable as possible.
Dot Schreiner, Saddle Mountain Drive, quoted from the General Plan Pathway Element
adopted in 1996 stating that "the pathways system serves three basic and important function;
circulation, recreation, and preservation of the open character of the Town". "Off-road paths,
which connect to roadside paths or open space lands, are generally located on dedicated
easements on private property (usually along property lines), through public lands, or through
privately owned conservation/open space easements". She further referred to B3, off-road
paths. She felt this was a very important path in Town and has been on the Master Pathway
Plan forever. She hoped that the Commission would honor the commitment of all the work
that has been done in the past and the decision by the Town Council that this is a path that
should be in this Town.
Bob Stutz, Elena Road, walked the area in the 70's. He noted that if you come in contact with
poison oak you use a Borax solution for relief.
Steve Kellenberger, Vogue Court, supports the pathway system but not in this case as the
grade and terrain me steep. The existing easement 20 feet from the center line of the creek
would put the potential path mid -way up the grade fall line. There is a severe problem with
erosion with any path that is built. Privacy is also an issue. He did not feel the pathway
would be used as much as those pathways already existing.
Scott Vanderlip, Fremont Pines Lane, supported the path. If a bridge is built, it could service
another trail connecting to Taaffe.
Denise Williams, Corbetta Lane, voiced support of the path
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 6
Roger Spreen, Chairman of the Open Space Committee, was very thankful for the
conservation easements on the site, thanking staff and the applicants. In general, the
committee would prefer to leave an open space easement in a natural state but it is not against
the terms of an open space easement to remove poison oak.
Kristin Emery, 12121 Foothill Lane, new owner, asked that the trees be preserved for
screening purposes.
David Bulfur, Lucem Lane, asked that trees #130, 132, 147 and 150 not be removed.
Resident at 12845 La Vida Real, has small children and takes them onto Natoma Road
everyday. It is his experience that it is very dangerous on that road. Unlike other neighbors,
if some trees are removed it will improve the views he use to enjoy.
Mr. Patel addressed comments regarding the trees scheduled to be removed: #150, a large
eucalyptus; #147, 24" box oak tree to be relocated; #130 and #132 deemed structurally
unstable. These are the two trees that they would like to save. Most of the trees proposed are
going to be significant in size (15'x1 5'x10' in height), approximately 40 specimens.
Commissioner Kerns questioned tree #147 w it provides screening of the bell tower which
some residents voiced concerns. He asked Mr. Patel if he was willing to keep #147 in its
current location along with #130 and #132.
Mr. Patel responded yes. He indicated that he had walked the site with both Bob Stutz and
Les Eamest. He stated that the property line is the center line of the creek. They staked this
property several times, even the 20 foot easement. It is clear that when you take the 20 feet to
the center line of the creek it is impossible to build. It is clear that they will need to cross the
creek in two places; bridges will need to be built. They have never been under the impression
that the path would be a 2 foot trail (native path). They have been told that the Committee
had the authority to go beyond the 20 foot easement but there seems to be an issue regarding
the removal of poison oak within the conservation easement. There is a real conflict of basic
principles of what they are trying to achieve as a community.
CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING
Disclosures: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey and Collins walked the site in the
company of the architect. Commissioner Clow walked the site with the architect and met
with two of the neighbors. Commissioner Kerns walked the site and spoke to the architect by
phone.
Commissioner Clow suggested separating the application and the pathway. He felt the project
is beautiful. The applicants we spending approximately one million dollars moving and
preserving trees which is an outstanding contribution to the community. They have a real
commitment to energy efficiency with the plans for solar power. He would like to find a way
to support the proposed solar power perhaps with an exception in development area. Planner
Cabill suggested only counting the actual footprint of the free standing solar. Commissioner
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 9, 2005
Page 7
Clow could support this suggestion. He did not feel that they would find oak tree roots in the
fill area and he could support removing that fill using light machinery. The architect had
indicated that tree #147 would be moved but he felt it was not intended to be removed. The
residents across the valley have a real interest in keeping a tree that would shield the house
from their views. He would support retaining tree #147. He does not support retaining the
Eucalyptus tree. He would recommend approval of the project. Regarding the pathway, he
felt that they needed to honor the process. They went through a process as a Town to create a
path map. As a Commissioner he had voted against this path segment as did the other
Commissioners. However, the Council voted for it. He would honor a type of path
appropriate for that valley. The Gintzen path in Byrne Preserve is a good example of an
appropriate path (more like a two foot wide path). Any retaining walls would be 2'x 1'0 with
stake into the hillside (no concrete retaining walls). There may be a need for bridges. The
idea of having a path going into the conservation easement going away from the creek where
needed to make a comfortable path makes sense. He would not expect any large trees to be
cut down to create this path.
Commissioner Collins discussed the four points presented by Mr. Patel: (1) poison oak
removal in the conservation easement (supports); (2) credit for the driveway (does not
support); (3) grading, agrees to save tree #147. She thought he had it in his heart to save the
other two trees. They should be able to use light equipment if they do not discover roots. (4)
Pathway, the pathway was already decided upon during the Master Pathway process (honor
the map).
Commissioner Kerns voiced support of the application with the use of the energy efficiency
(solar panels throughout the project). He also agreed that he would rather not give credit for
the driveway but instead allow the construction of the solar panels. He felt trees #130, 132 &
147 should remain and shown as not being removed, making every effort to keep those trees.
He also supports the use of light machinery if they determine that the roots are not substantial
in that area as well as the poison oak removal. He has not been a strong advocate of off-road
pathways in areas where the neighbors do not support them. He felt there was a parallel
pathway on Black Mountain that essentially connects the same areas. He was very concerned
with the wildlife corridor and when they had this discussion at the Planning Commission
during the review of the Master Path Map it was unanimous that they did not support this
pathway.
Commissioner Carey supported the removal of poison oak from the conservation easement.
He would allow more credit for the driveway as it is a required element for the house giving,
credit for the fust 100 feet and the like credit for the smaller driveway, using the available
development area for the solar panels only. Regarding the grading around the oak trees, he
would allow grading to be done in that area with light machinery whether or not there me
roots in the fill. Grading in the area is preferable to retaining walls. He supports the retention
of trees #130, 132 and 147 rather than removing those trees. Regarding the pathway, he
agreed with Commissioners Clow and Collins by supporting the Master Pathway Plan.
Planning Commission Minutes Approved 1/19/06
December 8, 2005
Page 8
Chairman Cottrell stated to all of the neighbors present how fortunate they were to have an
applicant who cares about them and the environment and who has brought in a plan of this
kind. He supports the removal of poison oak, using light equipment for the grading and trying
to save trees #130, 132 and 147 and any others except the Eucalyptus tree. He also voted
against the pathway last March but they do need to support the City Council. The pathway
should be a nature type pathway. If there are issues when it comes time to lay it out, he
suggested going back to the Pathway Committee so you end up with a path that has some
common sense to it. He also supports the solar panels.
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by
Commissioner Carey recommending that the pathway be built with the guidance that it be
more of a 2 foot wide pathway rather than a 5 foot pathway something similar to the Gintzon
trail in Byrne Preserve. Concrete retaining walls or large tree removal is not recommended.
Two bridges may be necessary. At the applicant's discretion, they could widen the pathway
easement to allow the pathway to go further away from the property line to better stay with
the terrain. The actual layout of the pathway is at the applicant's discretion (construct a native
path) with any needed assistance from the Pathway Committee, Lands of Malavalli, 27500 La
Vida Real.
AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Collins, Carey & Clow
NOES: Commissioner Kerns
MOTION SECONDED AND PASSED: Motion by Commissioner Clow and seconded by
Commission Kerns to approve the Site Development Permit for a new residence with partial
basement, indoor swimming pool, and three detached accessory structures, Lands of
Malavalli, 27500 La Vida Real, with the following additions/changes to the conditions of
approval: add to the conservation easement description that the applicants are allowed to
remove poison oak; exempt the solar panels from development area except for the footing
area; allow light equipment for the removal of the fill; the applicants will try to save trees
#130 & 132; tree #147 shall not be removed; tree #150 (Eucalyptus tree) can be removed;
remove. Delete#1 (5); change #1 (6) as follows: Grading will be allowed to occur by hand,
with the use of shovels, hand mattocks, hand trowels and light equipment.
AYES: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey. Collins, Clow & Kerns
NOES: None
This approval is subject to a 23 day appeal period.
Brief break at 9:30 p.m.
3.2 LANDS OF PERRELL, 26300 Silent Hills Lane (165-05-ZP); A request for an
exception to Section 10-1.507(c)(5) of the Municipal Code for a six foot (6')
tall brown vinyl coated chain link fence along the Silent Hills Lane frontage.
The Code requires four and a half feet (4.5') tall as the maximum height
permitted. The request for the exception is pursuant to Section 10-1.507(d)
(staff -Brian Froelich).
�jCC/%o� {Yos2L r{'Ovr� (x�
tiebege&A
ATTACHMENT
TM # 0111111111 Podocerpusgrecifi-
M 8.9, 11.4(11.4@3,
SUIMIWtlftl
6®�B fem pine
AR I OWIt 3 (11.4
15x16
CIMMOttte 70
AI"ATrw1-1
CEM ffmau l50 Fair
CENOefl WW 0
WW fear
YM NOW
F>ftr -nedeWO Severe Adie Transplant l/lle
tills 5 to 5 feet from proposed stone drain line. Tunnel or hand -dig line within 7 feet of trunk.
Trunk also located
within zone to be graded (cut), which will cause this
tree to be removed.
Canopy somewhat Vold to E (previous tree or bldg here?) New foliage slightly chloroha
TM# '� � Qua=$agdlofra
M 38.5
Will tthMIII ft)
illtlol■1 coasllhreoak
INK 1901t
30x40
CNIM M e0 Mi7lrytl
MTW&d
CmdtA MOWW720 Poor/Fair
CeWMIAvffW 50
b w felt
INWIL mum
fnelYlOlfeMlctlawrt-noderate UVE Remove b= Stnuwre(wdereivedecay)
titY This tree will not be safe to keep in a high use, high target area such as the house. There are many large
areas of decay in the main trunk (at the base, NW side) including a12x5x12 inch deep cavity here where 1 can
see decayed wood all around. Also a large cavity S. decay at p.o.c. to trunk & lowsr4 feet of a 24 inch scaffold
to E (will be toward house). Other large areas of decay on this scaffold farther out on the branch. Small
pockets between 2 opposite large scaffolds & another between where a previous scaffold removed. Heavy
sycamore borer damage to bunk & scaffold bark
Tel # M Mft I= QuercusagnPolia ltd 15.3 Will mtwYft]
t'r®M mastliveoak Aft IMOE 40x40
GIII011111 le 75 p MTWRj
TMIlteaMON1150 >IfI111M Fair
CaY m[AYr 1 63
"WWW
wfll 100 Clear root collar
Fjftft Afffstrfe- kjW Low Able Sava RB®
111111 Very lion -tail pruned.
Monday, November 07, 2005 Page 44 of 62
7n1 # 132 AtA.I-1 Im Quercusagnfub'a 4 38.8 211110MIM
IM
F m coast live oak AA f Moto 35x55
cmdu llltp 50 Proura 1 Ortin1T®
CIIIIIIIIIIIN tAaiIM7I 20 tabift UnaccePtable/Poor
imIId QYfW 35 .
MMOFEMN
N111 NMhd
Elft" i�etln 41St Low ACUM Remove ACMa Sbuclure (extensive decay)
IWM Large percentage of trunk decayed B/or missing. Very hazardoUs Wwill be near proposed house, as is shown
on plans.
int# AtlnM Quercusagrikom --18.0.15.0 ShImiWlfil
Com® coastliveoak Aft fnAfetK 40x35
CIIIIIIIIINNIlInMW 75 Pima Id ifgi®
Cadlls ti69Ctr1140 111111�tf PoorlFair
Cufff [AvwW 58
hon in
L4A INN Clear poison oak away from time. clear root collar.
ftft C4sci Low/Moderats ACAs Save AOI
Ada About 5 feet of included between 2 trunks starting from the ground. Trunks twist away from one another.
Limrtall pruned. Could not get close to tree due (or see bark N side at all) due to dense poison oak. Tree is
far enough from Wilding ads so 8 should not cause a problem there R it fails, which is the only reason I would
recommend keeping @.
int # AdleMle om Quercus egriPoNa 4 -15.0.18.0,10.0 MO M IN I tY1
L®Ci coast in s oak AR A MMIR 4Nr40
CIOMCW 75 testy Otlinq®
CNIMMlraws0 OAyA�Iy Fair
CwM(AvwW 63
AMA1d IMIW Root Collar exca"bondevalualion
lNX NNW Clear root collar
E*ftt'klW Moderate ACIIM Save teal
%fhC Within 7 to 8 feet of limit of grading, which will be done by hand. See Tree Protection Space for directions on
the grading (cutting) of this area).
Very lion -tail pruned.
Monday, Novamler 07, 2005 Page 45 of 02
BARRIE D. COATE
and ASSOCIATES
Fbrdatarel Corakants
23535 sammit Po d
Los Gatos. CA 9.5033
40 4080353-1052
A REVIEW OF THE
ARBORISTS REPORT
FOR THE
MALAVALLIPROPERTY
AT
27500 LA VIDA REAL
LOS ALTOS HII.LS
prepared at the request of
Leslie Hopper
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Fax: (650) 941-3160
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate
Consulting Arborist
November 14'", 2005
Job# 10-05-212
ATTACHMENT 5
REVIEW OF THE ARBORJSTS hePORT FOR THE MALAVALLI RESIDENCE
Assignment
On November 10's, 2005, I received a copy of a report titled "Tree Protection Specifications"
Malavalli Residence, La Vida Real, Los Altos Hills as prepared by Deborah Ellis, Consulting
Arborist It was accompanied by a full size and reduced sized map. The full size plan
includes topographical lines.
I've been asked to review this report.
It is my understanding that you are particularly interested in grading near trees # 130-138,
native Oaks.
Summary
Pages 1-4
With the exception of Item 6 of the 9 items on these pages, the information and instruction
offered are general in nature and not that specific.
That is not necessarily a problem unless you need more information about a specific tree than
that provided in the data accumulation charts which accompany pages 14.
As example, an explanation seems appropriate for the information on those charts for trees
478 and 81. Why is there an SOD threat?
Or tree 4123, a large, well formed Aleppo Pine is to be removed. I would want more
Z3 i S explanation for this decision and even some pictures explaining the claimed poor conditions.
� Pf' Kin other words, a textual part of the report should be included that provides enough
information about trees to be removed and reasons for removal, and specific tree preservation
details for trees which are to be saved.
Different trees need different preservation procedures, depending upon species, tolerance of
root disturbance, the health of the specimens, and its proximity to proposed grading or
construction, so general preservation guidelines do not provide adequate directions for
preservation of individual trees.
Grading in the conservation easement:
Assuming that fill soil has been added to the site, including the area beneath the
canopies of Oaks #130-136, as Mrs. Ellis states, and that fill was added more than
2 years ago, one would assume that absorbing roots have gown up into this fill,
making the trees dependant upon that fill and these roots for a significant part of
their moisture and nutrient supply.
Mrs. Ellis states (Item 6, p2) that the grading in the conservation easement "shall
be done by hand and under the direct supervision of the Project Consulting
Arborist."
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
REVIEW OF THE ARBORISTS REPORT FOR THE MALAVALLI RESIDENCE
In contradiction, however, in a single page note to you on 10/28/05 she states
(Item 3) "soil shall be removed only around the trunk of trees. Other areas or old
fill soil or natural grade shall remain undisturbed."
The plan from DeBolt Engineering dated 11/7/05 shows grading in much of the
area beneath the southern part of the canopies of these trees down to elevation 572
(titled Limits of Grading) which would result in removal of four feet of soil in
areas beneath some tree canopies and imply removal of tree 4136, a 31.5" Oak.
If the permission to make grading cuts beneath the canopy of these trees hinges on
presence (or lack of) roots in the soil to be removed, an Airspade® could be used
to cut a 2' Wide trench to the desired depth to determine finally whether
significant quantities and/or size of roots are indeed present. This device removes
soil without harming the encountered roots.
Without evidence that no significant quantity of absorbing roots of 2" diameter or
larger roots are present in the soil between elevation 568 and 572, 1 suggest that
this grading not be allowed. - -
Respectfully submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/phlg
Enclosures: Assumptions and Limiting Conditions
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST
WARNING
TREE PRESERVATION AREA
KEEP OUT
NOTICE: PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING IS
REQUIRED ON THIS JOB SITE.
ITS REMOVAL OR DAMAGE MAY RESULT
IN A FINE.
This card must be posted on the protective fencing on 10 foot
centers for each protected tree on the job site, and remain up
during the entire construction period. Fencing may not be
removed without written permission of the Town Arborist.
During demolition and construction all reasonable steps
necessary to prevent damage, or the destruction of protected
trees is required. Failure to comply with all precautions may
result in a STOP WORK order being issued by the Town.
Call for information
A'.T..ArleW Ray Morneau
19A 0srd5ed Arbo #VWE-0 32A
wwa.membersaotcam/AMArbons • ARBORIST
eMea rmarboriseOaol.cam
Contract Arborist Services
Tree Inspection Summary
ATTACHMENT (o
550 S S harem BkKL
MaurR ,Mew, CA. 90041-1928
Td:650864-7654
Fdc 650835-1577
Ray Morneau, Arborist
650.964.7664
Site: Malavalli Residence, La Vida Real, Los Altos Hills, CA Report Date: 2/18/2007
Contacts: Joe Grupalo (LWCC), Paul Reed (Reed Assoc.) Inspection Date: 2/6/2007
Inspector: Ray Momeau, ISACertitied Arborin#wC-0132A
------- — ------------- ------ -------------------------------------
Tree #130 & #132: Supplemental Report
1.0 Assignment, Introduction, & Summary
1.1 Assignment: Inspect and report on the condition/status of two coast live oak trees (Quercus
agrifolia) [#130, #1321 growing at the edge of a conservation easement at the Malavalli
Residence construction project on La Vida Real in Los Altos Hills.
1.2 Introduction: By way of background, pre -construction arborist inspections and reports have
been prepared by another Consulting Arborist, Deborah Ellis.
Early on in this project, the owners realized the importance of their site's trees and
established a policy to preserve as many as possible. Evidence that they are carefully
following a well -conceived plan shows in several ways, including:
• the preparation of a very professional tree survey and arborist report (dated
December 12, 2005),
• follow-up communications with the Project Arborist [memos, "Tree Notes",
"Poison Oak Management"– to mention a few],
• implementing tree preservation measures (including tree protection fencing),
• preparing for transplanting several specimens on-site (boxed and held in watchful
storage off to the side).
Ms. Ellis's first report identified the two subject oak trees as candidates for removal based
on the presence of extensive decay and proximity to the proposed construction rendering
them high risk for failure.
The owners decided to try to save them, if possible. Therefore, a wait-and-see attitude has
been likes and they were not removed during the prior demolition stage.
Ray Morneau, Arborist I5ACertifled Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664
1.3 Summary: This February 6, 2007 follow-up inspection finds the area of proposed
construction now clearly identified. This arborist now sees that Ms. Ellis's observations of
extensive compromised tissue in both oaks are very correct. She even called out these two
oaks with special photographs on pages 16 and 17 of her 12/12/05 report, as if to emphasize
the importance of their defects.
The construction staking shows how close actual construction impacts must come, which
will be an additional factor in root loss (especially for #130). Also, in the event of failure
of either specimen, the risk of injury and/or damage is very high because they are located so
close to a high use areas.
Scheduling of removal before continuing with this project is the most prudent conclusion.
2.0 Observations & Discussion:
2.1 Locations: northeast of the new residence, just inside of a conservation easement.
2.2 Size Table:
#130
#132
39"
39"
diameter at 4.5 feet
30'
35'
height
20'
25'
average foliage crown radius
40% oor
25% (Very Poor
overall condition ratio
2.3 The foliage crowns are lop -sided as they compete(d) for the same space from adjacent trees.
2.4 Both crowns are reasonably green (especially #130), carrying on photosynthesis. So, they
are alive. But, upon close observation, one sees indications of decline (especially #132.
The leaves are smaller than normal. The annual twig growth (tip extension) has been
shortening over the most recent five years.
2.5 Many old wounds have
cavities started there, with a
substantial amount of
decayed tissue.
This pair of
photographs (right)
show areas of extensive
decay -compromised
tissue on oak #130.
February 18, 2007 Oak #130 8 #132 Status Report: Malavalli Residence, LAH. Page #2 of 6.
4041161
Ray Mornatu, Arborist ISA Certified Arbnrist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664
These three photographs (below) show oak #130's "see-through" defect from two
sides, plus an 18 -inch -diameter lateral branch with decay weakening the already -
poor -attachment.
The supporting structure of both of these oaks is severely compromised, which presents a
problem of a high risk of failure of large portions of these trees. [Large pieces meaning
trunks and/or major limbs.]
2.6 Fill soil from construction of the previous home has been a problem for these oak trees —
suffocating the roots and promoting root -rotting fungi in the critical areas of the root flares
(where the trunk changes from stem tissue to scaffold roots).
A root crown excavation would expose the original root flares and find extensive
compromised cambium and sapwood from collar rot (Phyrophthora) and oak root fungus
(Arrai/lario) connecting up with the columns of decay visible in the above -ground trunks.
Sounding the trunk tissue at ground level found disintegrating areas, which "sounded
hollow" because the cambial tissue just under the bark had been destroyed by fungi.
2.7 As shown by the construction staking, more roots will be lost to excavation work which
must come closer to the trees than it is now — especially 9130.
2.8
in his 11/17/2000, Hazard Tree Assessment Workshop, Hayes presented guidelines and
directions for making such an analysis as discussed by Smiley and other arboricultural
researchers/writers (Coder, 1996; Matheny & Clark, 1994; Mattheck & Brelcer, 1994; Minnesota
DNR & USDA Forest Service, 1996).
NOTES: A "Hazard Tree" is defined as a tree with a significant defect of such a magnitude
February 18, 2007 Oak #130 & #132 Status Report: Malavalli Residence, LAH. Page #3 of 6.
Ray Morneau, Arborist ISACertified Arboristt#WE- 132A 650.964.7664
that a substantial risk of failure exists in the presence of a target. A "target" is
someone/thing that would be damaged when struck by the failed portion of the tree. A
target's exposure and/or frequency -of -use are taken into account in hazard assessments. The
size of the part with the highest likelihood of failure is another element. The likelihood of
failure is what these analyses attempt to forecast based on something relatively objective.
All of our discussions take into account the fact that trees are living organisms, constantly
actively changing. Typically, changes in status quo occur slowly (absent catastrophic events
like chain saws and fires). We have needed to adopt even our best formulae and analysis
from correlative concepts in other disciplines. As a result, all consultants employing these
calculations do so with a healthy dose of caution — knowing these are only one of the tools in
our analysis — attempting to allow enough margin so as not to shave safety factors too
closely.
2.9 Modem literature points out a dichotomy that must be noted in such an analysis as here.
On one hand, the fact that this oak can produce green leaves may be a positive element for
this tree as a living organism. However, it is extremely important (Matheny, 4/98, p. 7) to
differentiate between: a.) tree vigor, and
b.) tree structural stability.
A tree's vigor may be unrelated to its structural soundness (or lack thereof) (Bloch, 7/98, p.
34). It is also known that as a function of age, a particular specimen's ability to wall off
decay fungi deteriorates (Matheny & Clark, 1994, p. 6, p. 20).
2.10 Risk (of failure) is a relative concept. We all assume some degree of risk in our daily lives
— we get in an automobile and enter a world in which car accidents are commonplace. We
mitigate our risk of such accidents by driving defensively, obeying stop signs and other
traffic laws, avoid being on the road at tam when the bars close, and turn in our licenses
when senile dementia becomes too overwhelming.
Likewise with our trees, we reduce our risks with good tree care practices, including:
implementing effective tree protection measures during construction, hiring tree care
contractors whose crews make proper cuts, maybe deciding to install support (cables, bolts,
props) or address pest control issues or take it down safely before it fails out of control.
And, in the end, our tree decisions become a risk benefit analysis, too. We do what we can
to "obey the signs" and apply good tree Gaze practices. But the final decision of how much
risk one shoulders is ultimately the tree owner'. The arborists' analysis and opinions are
one tool to help identify and categorize hazards and degress of risks.
3.0 Conclusions & Recommendations
The severely compromised root Hazes of these two oak trees place them in a "Critical Risk of
Failure" rating. Both #130 and 4132 have an accumulation of problems with development of
decay and poor -structure, plus the declining vigor, plus root challenges with both vigor and loss.
February 18, 2007 Oak #130 & #132 Status Report: Malavalli Residence, LAH. Page #4 of 6.
Ray Morneau, Arborist ISACertified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.9647664
Their declining vigor, compromised structures, and unthrifty roots are no longer sufficient to
support these trees within the guidelines of typically reasonable risk. We cannot predict when
they will fail — and the trees would likely stand for a few months yet — but all factors considered,
have a notably high risk of failure. Planning now to schedule its prompt removal would be
prudent.
Alternatively, twice -annual monitoring inspections to continue evaluating their changes in status
quo would be required during the course of the construction project, and at least annually
thereafter.
Appendices
4.0 Literature & Authorities
Bloch, Lew. July, 1998. "A Difference Between Health & Structure." Tree Care Industry Magazine. Tree Care
Industry Association, P. O. Box 1094, Amherst, NJ 03031-1094.
Clark, James R. August,1983. "Age -Related Changes In Trees." Journal ofArbori"Itue. Volume 9; Number 8.
International Society of Arboriculture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874-9902.
Coder, Dr. Kim D. 1996 "Tree Risk Management and Harard Assessment A General Overview' University of
Georgia Cooperative Extension Service, Forest Resources Unit. Publication FOR96-33: URL:
hap://www.forestry.ugaedu/dms/for96-33.h=l.
Florida Cooperative Extension Service. June 1993. How to Recognize and Prevent Hazard Trees. Fact Sheet DH
102. University of Florida. Institute of Food and Agriculture Sciences. Gainesville, FL 32611.
(Originally published by National Arbor Day Foundation.)
Hayes, Ed. 2001. Evaluating Trees for Defects, Second Edition. Safetrees.com, 532 22nd. Street NE, Rochwteq
MN 55906
Matheny, Nelda P. and James R. Clark. 1994. A Photographic Guide to the Evaluation of Hazard Trees in Urban
Areas. (2nd ed.) International Society of Arboriculture, P.O. Box GG, Savoy, IL 61874-9902.
Matheny, Nelda and James Clark. April, 1998. "Therapy for Construction Damaged Trees". Tree Care Industry
Magazine. Tree Care Industry Association, P. O. Box 1094, Amherst, NJ 03031-1094.
Mattheck, Claus and Helge Breloer. 1994. The Body Language of Trees, A handbookfor failure analysis. HMSO,
London.
Minnesota DNR, and USDA Forest Service. 1996. How to Recognize Hazardous Defects in Trees. USDA Forest
Service NA -FR -01-96.20 pp. Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, 500 Lafayette Road, St. Paul,
MN 55155-4044. Also availableon the World Wide Web at:
http9/www.pueblo.gsagov/press/nfcpubsthazards.t# (last accessed 223/04)
Smiley, E. Thomas, with Bruce R. Fmedrich and Neil Hendrickson. September, 2002. Tree Risk Management.
Bartlett Tree Research Laboratories, 13768 Hamilton Road, Charlotte, NC 28278
February 18, 2007 Oak #130 & #132 Status Report: Malavalli Residence, LAH. Page #5 of 6.
Ray Morneou, Arborist ISA Certified Arborist#WE-0132A 650.964.7664
Universityof California Insect Pest Management Guidelines jar California Landscape Ornamentals (UC
Publication 3317). U.C., Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources, ANR Publications, University of
California, 6701 San Pablo Avenue, Oakland, CA 94608-1239.
5.0 Certification
I certify that all the statements of fact in this report are true, complete, and correct to the best of
my knowledge, ability, and belief, and are made in good faith.
Thank you for the opportunity to apply my knowledge and expertise working with your trees.
Good luck with the risk management decisions ahead of you. If I can answer any further
questions for you, the City staff, or anyone with concems about your trees, please call or e-mail
to inform me.
Respectfully submitted,
Raymond J. Momeau
ISA Certified Arborist 4WE-0132A
ASCA Member
February 18, 2007 Oak #130 & #132 Status Report: Malavalli Residence, LAM. Page #6 of 6.
BARRIE D. COATE ATTACHMENT
and ASSOCIATES RECEIVED
Hm6t -1 Conseil n6
'?. s
Los 6aros. CA 95033
4081353,052 RPR 11 2007
TOWN OF IDS ALTOS HILLS
ANALYSIS OF THE EFFECT OF PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION
ON
TREES 9130 - #137 ON THE NORTH SLOPE
OF
THE MALAVALLI PROPERTY
27500 LA VIDA REAL
LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared at the request of:
Nicole Horvitz/Leslie Hopper
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Prepared by:
Barrie D. Coate, ASCA
Consulting Arborist
March 28, 2007
Job # 10-05-212-07
MALAVALLI TREES 0 130 - 137
Assignment:
On March 28`", 2007, I met Nicole Horvitz and Leslie Hopper of the Town of Los Altos
Hills at the Malavalli property to review the condition of Trees 4130 and 9132 and to
estimate the effect of proposed grading on those as well as the rest of trees #130 through
#137.
Summary:
It is my understanding that a building permit was issued in November 2005 which
included grading in the area currently occupied by or adjacent to this semi -circular row of
trees. In a previous report prepared by our office in October 2005 regarding these 7 trees,
I commented that trees #130 and #132 were both capable of being preserved if the goal
was to preserve as many trees as possible on site with the minimal level of risk tolerable
by the owners.
I suggested at that time that a combination of cables and supporting posts could
artificially support these two trees over a long period, but there would always be some
level of risk of limb failure.
At that time a permit for grading had not been issued and that factor was not part of my
equation in offering that opinion
The proposed grading line would be far north of tree # 130 and would certainly
necessitate the removal of # 130 and it would be so close to the trunk of tree # 132 that it
would remove an excessive proportion of that tree's root system as well.
Under these circumstances, i.e. the numerous decay sites in each of these trees when
combined with the effects of proposed grading, I suggest there is no option but to remove
those trees.
In addition, tree # 131 will be so adversely affected that I suggest its removal be allowed
as well.
It is my understanding that the removal of those trees is important because of the
proposed location of the swimming pool and other portions of the construction which
must extend into the root zone and under the canopy of those trees.
I suggest however that the grading line be amended from that proposed in proximity to
trees 4133 through 4137 to maintain the canopy of those trees for the benefit of the view
protection for neighbors directly north across the valley.
In addition, it is my understanding that the Malavallis have offered to transplant
significant trees to the areajust north of tree #130 to provide this screening desired by the
neighbors directly across the canyon towards the north-northwest.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 28'x', 2007
MALAVALLI TREES 8130- 137
If those trees were planted no farther than 15' north of the existing tree 4130, they should
not only serve that function well, but provide longterm useful replacement for tree M130.
Recommendations:
I recommend that:
1. The removal of trees #130 and 4132 is allowed considering the grading which
has been permitted combined with the many decay sites in each tree.
2. I suggest that tree #131 be removed as well due to the root damage which will
occur when that grading occurs.
3. I suggest that the grading line be changed south of trees #133 through 4137 to
comply with the grading line drawn on the enclosed plan.
4. I suggest that trees #133 through #137 have drop crotch pruning from the
western sides of the canopies by a highly qualified certified arborist this
winter to prevent limb drop from any of the long limbs which reach towards
the west sun. This pruning should not simply be interior thinning of these
already thin trees, but should be drop -crotch pruning from the ends of the
longest limbs to reduce the length of those limbs back to shorter side
branches.
5. I suggest root collar cleaning around each of these trees in an area at least 3'
from the trunk down to the original grade. It would appear that fill soil has
been pushed over the root collars of many of these trees causing the potential
for root collar diseases including oak root fungus and water mold disease in
the future.
Specific Questions:
To answer the specific questions asked by Mrs. Hopper:
1. "What is the condition of trees #130 and #132?"
Answer: Fach of these trees have major significant decay sites in the trunk
which would make them vulnerable to limb drop and breakage if artificial
support was not provided for them.
2. "Given the construction of the residence having been approved, do you
agree the trees should be removed?
Answer: Under this set of circumstances, yes I agree that the trees should
be removed.
3. "If the trees are to be removed, do you have recommendation on how the
removal should be accomplished in order to minimize damage to other
trees?"
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 29�, 2007
MALAVALLI TREES 4 130 - 137
Answer: Yes, I suggest that a protective fencing be installed at the margin
of the adjusted grading line and that no equipment be allowed beyond that
fence line or in areas beneath the tree canopies.
4. Is the proposed tree replacement feasible and will it provide adequate
screening for the residents across the canyon on Foothill Drive?"
Answer: I believe that the installation of Coast Live Oak (Quercus
agrifolia) trees in the locations suggested on 25 to 40' centers will
accomplish that goal very effectively and maintenance of trees # 133
through # 137 will accomplish the goal for neighbors north across the
valley.
Respectfully submitted,
Barrie D. Coate
BDC/phlg
Enclosures: Assumptions & Limiting Conditions
Photographs
Map
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 28"', 2007
BCOATS
annddASASSOO CIATES
HON3 S mitConRoads
33535 515. CA 9503
oad
Los Ge 5 1095033
4063531053
1. Any legal description provided to the appraiser/consultant is assumed to be correct.
No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to
the quality of any title.
2. The appraiser/consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of
information provided by others.
3. The appraiser/consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason
of this appraisal unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an
additional fee for services.
4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire appraisal/evaluation.
5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imp Tright of publication or use for any
purpose by any other than the person(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of
this appraiser/consultant.
6. This report and the values expressed herein represent the opinion of the
appraiser/consultant, and the appraiser's/consultant's fee is in no way contingent upon the
reporting of a specified value nor upon any finding to be reported.
7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, etc., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are
not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys
8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable appraisal/evaluation/diagnostic
reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of
Arboriculture.
9. When applying any pesticide, fungicide, or herbicide, always follow label instructions.
1 O.No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root
collar inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover the root collar
and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. We cannot take
responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an
inspection.
Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training, and experience to
examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of trees, and attempt to
reduce risk of living near trees. Clients may choose to accept or disregard the recommendations
of the arborist, or to seek additional advice.
Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree.
Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Conditions are often
hidden within trees and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or
safe under all circumstances, or for a specified period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments,
like medicine, cannot be guaranteed.
Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some
degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees.
Barrie D. Coate
ISA Certified Arborist
Horticultural Consultant
EXISTINu UUNV LRV^11-1' \�..
40
c \ Y
rW
�s
y
I
�N
4E
°d
N
2
p
n E ry
}
#o
•
•,
d
//NEW
i
dN
g
N
�Ls
o�aa�
n
N
�+
Z O
U
V g
z
'O
y
GC
JO
;7 U
O
i
1
•
•,
//NEW
i
e
F
a
av
i
�§
MALAVALLI PROPERTY, LOS ALTOS HILLS
T 4. Decay sites in tree 9130.
� 5. Decay sites in tree #130.
PREPARED BY BARRIE D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 20, 2007
-<w =- �
� \«�;
. .: ;
. wy�.
�\\i:�2
\ :� y'
5� \ \
���,2
.���?
. , � <:
�y x
dj
..>
. &»�..mk
-
� . w:® ® m
_�
�
�y,�:�\dj
�:��
. �
/�
>y\\
�
\� �\
< <
�y>a/yx�
\ y
�
y..
,
y\
-
^\
����\dd\�\
MALAVALLI PROPERTY, LOS ALTOS HILLS
� 10. Tree # 133.
1 11. Trees#134-137.
D. COATE, CONSULTING ARBORIST MARCH 29�, 2007
ATTACHMENT$
Leslie Hopper
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Leslie Hopper
Subject: FW: LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real
-----Original Message -----
From: [mailt O:
Sent: Tuesday, April 29, 2007 9:55 AM
To: Debbie Pedro
Cc: Nicole Horvitz
Subject: Re: LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real
Debbie Pedro wrote:
> Hi Boman,
> The pole shows the height of a 65' tall construction crane that the
• Malavallis are proposing to keep on site during part of the
> construction (approximately 19 months).
Alright. Thanks Debbie! I don't have an issue with it so long as it is a temporary
structure.
Regards,
--Boman.
1
Leslie Hopper
From: Debbie Pedro
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 11:09 AM
To: Leslie Hopper
Subject: FW: LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real
-----Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Monday, April 23, 2007 4:47 PM
To: Debbie Pedro
Subject: LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 La Vida Real
Hi Debbie:
I've noticed this really tall poll erected on the above mentioned lands.
Is this to indicate the height of the house to be built there or the height of the crane
that will be used there?
Thanks
--Boman.
26776 Almaden Court
LAH.
(650) 991-9989.
Page 1 of 3
Leslie Hopper
From: Mahoney, Phil [
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:44 PM
To: Leslie Hopper
Cc: Anne Degheest
Subject: RE: clarification
65 ft in height for however long ( 2 yrs? I is not what we have in mind to look at ... there are cranes that lower to MUCH
less ht, I would hope the planning commission would make them employ a crane no higher than the structure ( when not
extended that is I ... painting it will help but would you like to look at a crane that height EVERY day for 2+ yrs ??? That
is not an acceptable solution.
I think the solution is not only to paint it but yes, to haul it in and out as necessary, and being in commercial real estate, I
know there are cranes with less non extended height that can get this done. Thanks
--Original Message -----
From: Leslie Hopper[mailto:lhopper@lomltoshills.ca.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 3:38 PM
To: Mahoney, Phil
Subject: RE: clarification
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your comments on the Malavalli project. I will make sure the Planning Commission receives a copy
of your message so that they are aware of your concems.
In response to your questions, although the house is mainly a single -story structure, it reaches the maximum
height in several areas and will involve commercial -scale construction. For example, the indoor swimming pool
area will require the placement of huge windows, which are best positioned with a crane.
The contractors would like to use this particular crane because the electric engine is cleaner and quieter than a
regular gas engine. Also, if they leave it in place during construction instead of hauling it in and out numerous
times, there will be less wear and tear on the roads.
When the crane is shut down, it is 65 feet in height. Yesterday the contractors put a pole up to show how high
that would be if the crane is allowed. They have offered to paint the crane dark green or whatever color would
make it less obtrusive.
Thanks again,
Leslie
From: Mahoney, Phil [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 10:25 PM
To: Leslie Hopper; Anne Degheest
Cc: Mark Vernon; Kristen Emery-Sphar
Subject: RE: clarification
Dear Leslie
As another Foothill Lane neighbor, and one that just built a complicated house, I cannot understand the need for a
crane. My understanding is this is a one story house, massive, but one story. If I did not need a crane for a 2 story
4/25/2007
Page 2 of 3
house, why do they for a one story? This is not a commercial midrise office bldg. At the very least, if a crane is
really needed, and again I strongly doubt it is, it should be down every day after use and not erect during
wknds...I will be out of town on business on May V so I will miss the mtg but my neighbors know our feelings on
the below mentioned issues and now so do you. Thank you.
Phil Mahoney
-----Original Message -----
From: Leslie Hopper[mailto:lhopper@losaltoshills.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 5:20 PM
To: Anne Degheest
Cc: Mark Vernon; Mahoney, Phil; Kristen Emery-Sphar
Subject: RE: clarification
Hi Anne,
Thank you for letting us look at the Malavalli property from your house this afternoon, The other Town
planners with me were Debbie Pedro, Planning Director, and Nicole Horvitz, Assistant Planner.
In response to your questions:
1. A decision has not been made regarding tree removal and replacement. That decision will be made
by the Planning Commission at their meeting on May 3rd.
2. On May 3rd the Planning Commission will consider an application for permit modification
including grading, tree removal and replacement. Use of the electric crane will also be under
consideration.
3. There are severe[ other items on the May 3rd PC agenda.
4. Construction will start as soon as building permits are issued. Permits for the accessory structures
(the office and cabana) maybe issued this week. A permit for the main house will not be issued until the
PC reviews the matter on May 3.
Thank you for your comments on the crane. We will share your comments with the Planning
Commission.
Leslie
From: Anne Degheest [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:31 PM
To: Leslie Hopper
Cc: Mark Vernon; Phil Mahoney; 'Kristen Emery-Sphar
Subject: clarification
Leslie,
Could you clarify a few things after our discussion today?
1. Has the decision been made and finalized to remove the two large oak trees and replace them
with 6 young trees?
2. Will the oak trees removal discussion be on the agenda for the May 3 meeting at 7pm
3. Is the Malavalli construction the only issue on the agenda on May 3?
4. When will the construction start?
As far as the huge crane for the next 14 months, I would prefer a permanent crane IF it has a dark green
4/25/2007
Page 3 of 3
colored and is electrically driven versus having a noisy gas/diesel yellow -canary crane coming on/off the
site 50 times.
Could you give me the names and positions of the people who were with you today?
Thanks
Anne
Anne DeGheest
4/25/2007
Page 1 of 1
Leslie Hopper
From: Anne Degheest
Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2007 4:31 PM
To: Leslie Hopper
Cc: Mark Vernon; Phil Mahoney; 'Kristen Emery-Sphar'
Subject: clarification
Leslie,
Could you clarify a few things after our discussion today?
1. Has the decision been made and finalized to remove the two large oak trees and replace them with 6 young trees?
2. Will the oak trees removal discussion be on the agenda for the May 3 meeting at 7pm
3. Is the Malavalli construction the only issue on the agenda on May 3?
4. When will the construction start?
As far as the huge crane for the next 14 months, I would prefer a permanent crane IF it has a dark preen colored and is
electrically driven versus having a noisy gas/diesel yellow -canary crane coming on/off the site 50 times.
Could you give me the names and positions of the people who were with you today?
Thanks
Anne
Anne DeGheest
d/26/2007
.v
Page 1 of I
Leslie Hopper
From: Mark Vernon [
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 5:10 PM
To: Leslie Hopper
Cc: Anne Degheest; Mahoney, Phil
Subject: Follow up to our conversation today
Dear Leslie,
Thank you for calling me today to discuss the situation with the trees on the Malavalli site. I also appreciate your faxing
me a copy of the minutes from the public hearing as well as a copy of Barry's report.
Upon re -reading the report it is clear that Mr. Coate did not specifically address the issue of the condition of trees 130 and
132 and their proposed removal. Because he makes several references to "Oaks #130.136° in the section of his report
discussing grading and tree roots, it appeared that he was assuming that these trees would be present during possible
excavation.
He provides a general criticism of the report with respect to its lack of detailed and specific information about individual
trees and states "a textual part of the report should be included that provides enough information about trees to be
removed and reasons for removal, and specific tree preservation details for trees which are to be saved."
In reviewing the minutes to the meeting I noticed that it only included my comments from the first time that I spoke, early
in the meeting. I again spoke at the and of the public hearing. I was the one that asked specifically that trees #130, 132,
147, and 150 not be removed, not David Bulfur of Lucero Lane. The commissioners were not favorable towards retaining
tree #150, a large eucalyptus which are now not welcome in Los Altos Hills, but asked the architect directly ff they were
willing to keep trees #130, 132, and 147 and he responded yes.
I understand the concerns about the health of trees #130 and #132. The second arborist's report obviously makes the
case in more detail for their removal. I feel that the right next step is to seek Mr. Coate's evaluation of this second report
and obtain a second opinion from him that is specific to trees #130 and #132. If Mr. Coate supports the conclusions of the
second report then I would have no further objection to the removal of the trees. However, if Mr. Coate is of the opinion
that the trees can be saved, then I would expect the applicant to proceed to implement Mr. Coate's recommendations for
the preservation of these trees. In this situation, a difference in opinion of the experts should favor conservation — which
Mr. Malivalli has repeatedly stated is his preference as well.
I very much appreciate your comment to me on the telephone that any removal of trees #130 or #132 is an issue that
would need to go back to the planning commission. I think the commissioners would expect to see that an aggressive
effort was made to save the trees, and that removal should only happen if all the experts agree that it is not possible to
save these two trees.
I also appreciate your review of the issues surrounding the grading and tree roots. The applicant may ultimately have to
adjust his plans to deal with the presence of tree roots from the other heritage oaks along the ridgeline.
Sincerely,
Mark Vernon
Los Altos Hills
Mark Vernon, Chief Operating Officer
4/26/2007
Page 1 of 2 '
Leslie Hopper
From: Dianne Vernon [
Sent: Tuesday, March 20, 2007 9:36 AM
To: Nicole Horvitz; grupalo@astound.net
Cc: 'Mark Vernon'; 'Anne Degheesf;'Mahoney, Phil'; Leslie Hopper
Subject: FW: Malavalli Oak Trees
Hello Nicole -
Thank you for speaking with me this morning. I am forwarding this mail -see below- from my husband to
you and to Joe at L.W.G.G. Inc.
We definitely need to hear from and once again consult Barrie Coate before any action is taken on trees # 130
and # 132. I was told - and I think all of us at that meeting yesterday were- that all the arborists were on board
with the decision that trees were not salvageable. I was truly dismayed to find out Barrie knew nothing about
these new reports, let alone agreed with them.
I now feel like we don't have all the information to make a decision regarding these trees.
Please don't make any plans for their removal until we all sit down again with Barrie and review everything.
Please have Leslie give my husband Mark a call this afternoon when she gets in. He will have hopefully gone
over the "new" arborist's reports with Barrie by then. His number is 408-868-1336 or 408-690-1103.
Thank you very much!
Dianne Vernon
Subject: Malavalli Oak Trees
Dear Ms. Hopper,
Dianne Vernon
---Original
REALTORe
Message -----
110 First Street
From: Mark Vernon
Los All: 4022
Degheest;
I am one of the neighbors who has been following the Malavalli project. I have recently learned via Anne DeGheest that
the Town has given the approval to the Malavalli's to remove two large Oak trees. Two trees that they were told
specifically at the public meeting six months ago that they were not to remove.
I attended that public meeting, and when I spoke I was the person who specifically requested by number that these trees
not be removed. My argument was based on the report of Barrie Coate, the arborist who had been hired by the Town to
provide a second opinion regarding the health of these trees. Mr. Coate's report stated that although these trees had
4/26/2007
Page 2 of 2
i some hollow places that they were healthy and that with proper care and maintenance they did not need to be removed
I called Mr. Coate today and asked him if he had been in contact with the Town regarding any follow-up to his report and
he told me no. He was surprised to learn that yet another report has apparently been obtained by the property owner and
submitted to the Town making the case for the removal of these trees. He asked me who authored this report and I told
him I did not know.
I will tell you that I have dealt with Mr. Coate professionally and greatly respect his knowledge and expertise. He has
made a number of recommendations to my company, Ridge Vineyards, over the years. He has helped us save several
specimen trees that were diseased and which were located very close to some of our buildings including our winery.
Please re -consider the removal to those two trees. At a minimum I request that you have Mr. Coate review this new report
prior to the any final approval of the removal of these trees.
Sincerely,
Mark Vernon
12119 Foothill way
Mark Vernon, Chief Operating Officer
4/26/2007
Page 1 of I
Leslie Hopper
From: Mark Vernon [
Sent: Monday, March 19, 2007 4:24 PM
To: Leslie Hopper
Cc: Anne Degheest;
Subject: Malavalli Oak Trees
Dear Ms. Hopper,
I am one of the neighbors who has been following the Malavalli project. I have recently learned via Anne DeGheest that
the Town has given the approval to the Malavalli's to remove two large Oak trees. Two trees that they were told
specifically at the public meeting six months ago that they were not to remove.
I attended that public meeting, and when I spoke I was the person who specifically requested by number that these trees
not be removed. My argument was based on the report of Barrie Coate, the arborist who had been hired by the Town to
provide a second opinion regarding the health of these trees. Mr. Coate's report stated that although these trees had
some hollow places that they were healthy and that with proper care and maintenance they did not need to be removed.
I called Mr. Coate today and asked him if he had been in contact with the Town regarding any follow-up to his report and
he told me no. He was surprised to learn that yet another report has apparently been obtained by the property owner and
submitted to the Town making the case for the removal of these trees. He asked me who authored this report and I told
him I did not know.
I will tell you that I have dealt with Mr. Coate professionally and greatly respect his knowledge and expertise. He has
made a number of recommendations to my company, Ridge Vineyards, over the years. He has helped us save several
specimen trees that were diseased and which were located very close to some of our buildings including our winery.
Please re -consider the removal to those two trees. At a minimum I request that you have Mr. Coate review this new report
prior to the any final approval of the removal of these trees.
Sincerely,
Mark Vernon
Los Altos Hills, CA
Mark Vernon, Chief Operating Officer
4/26/2007