Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3Item 3.3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 6, 2009 Staff Report to the Planning Commission RE: A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN FOR A NEW RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY BUILDINGS; LANDS OF MALAVALLI; 27500 LA VIDA REAL; FILE # 46-09-ZP-SD FROM: Nicole Horvitz, Assistant PlannerAj� APPROVED BY: Debbie Pedro, AICP, Planning Director,)? RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for a landscape screening plan, subject to the recommended conditions of approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND The subject property is an 8.03 acre parcel on La Vida Real which abuts Natoma Road on the north side of the property. The lot was created in 2005 by a lot merger of two lots. There is 4.75 acre open space easement along the northern portion of the property which encompasses a portion of Deer Creek, steep slopes and heavy oak tree coverage. A new 18,985 square foot residence with a 5,861 square basement, a 1,024 square foot detached office, 867 square foot garden pavilion, and 519 square foot decorative landscape tower were approved on December 8, 2005 by the Planning Commission. (Site Development Permit # 131- 05-ZP-SD-GD) CODE REQUIREMENTS Per condition of approval number 5 of the site development permit for the new residence and accessory buildings, this application for landscape screening has been forwarded to the Planning Commission for review. Section 10.2.80 of the Site Development Ordinance is used to evaluate landscape plans to address erosion, visual effects, tree preservation, views, and the amount required to adequately screen the new construction. DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: 8.03 acres Net Lot Area: 8.03 acres Average Slope: 25.8% Lot Unit Factor: 5.314 Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Malavalli 27500 La Vida Real August 6, 2009 Page 2 of 6 Floor Area and Development Area: Area (sgft) Maximum Existing Proposed Increase Remaining Development 48,224 45,260 0 0 2,964 Floor 27,685 18,985 0 0 8,700 (Basement 5,861) Existing Landscape The existing vegetation consists of 44 heritage oak trees and various other tree species. Many of the existing trees have been preserved or relocated from the building site and placed throughout various locations on the property. Proposed Trees The applicant is proposing to install 72 trees which range in size from 48" to 96" box. The proposed plantings are designed to screen the new residence and accessory structures from offsite. �. i�NN`�•3 -�y., i. ty'.' -:$, ��{ € :�'a. K'�'SiEY�+.�4�;;��tt - � ../""^9` .+7 .`k�SZi �'�S� ,�• 1 h��'d`', k1,�."u 4 3 +"�cc•�'"+1 �1`' �.bm�C£�J.3��f=yf t. i� � r�f'� 5� •; Hr.�...r.�.l i`�2-pw..i"�' Z+§4 L+ � Arbutus Marina 80" Box 36 Beech 72" box 6 Birch 48" box 5 Water Gum 96" box 1 Japanese Pagoda Tree 60" box 2 Pomegranate 48" box 2 Cham aca 48" box 6 Japanese Maple 72" box 1 Chestnut 84" box 1 Bald Cypress 84" box 3 Pindo Palm 72" box 5 Single Weeping Cher 60" box 2 Persian Parrotia 72" box 2 The majority of the proposed 80" box Arbutus Marina will frame the main driveway along either side. The remaining trees will be planted in clusters along the north, east, west, and south sides of the new residence and along the east side of the office building. A vineyard is proposed along La Vida Real on either side of the main driveway and in front of the detached accessory building. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Malavalli 27500 La Vida Real August 6, 2009 Page 3 of 6 OUTDOOR LIGHTING The applicant is proposing to install sixty eight (68) low voltage tree down lights and fifty nine (59) down shielded path lights throughout the remaining 3.28 acres of land outside of the open space easement. All proposed lights are located outside of the required setbacks. (Attachment 4) Two (2) down shielded lights per tree are proposed along the driveway. The lights are spaced at a distance of approximately 20 feet from each other and are also placed surrounding the north, west, and east sides of the residence. The pathway lights are primarily located along the pathway along the south property line and the paths around the residence. COMMITTEE COMMENTS The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented on the number of proposed lighting. (Attachment 3) Neighbor Concerns To date staff has received two (2) emails from the neighbors. The landscape Architect and applicant have been working with the surrounding neighbors who have voiced concerns for the proposed landscape screening. (Attachment 4) CEQA STATUS This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15304 (b) of the CEQA Guidelines. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Staff Report and Minutes from the December 8, 2005 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments dated March 30, 2009 4. Emails from Neighbors 5. Light Fixtures Specifications 6. Landscape Screening Plan and Lighting Plan Staff Report to the Planning Commission f Lands of Malavalli 27500 La Vida Real August 6, 2009 Page 4 of 6 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PERMIT LANDS OF MALAVALLI, 27500 LA VIDA REAL File # 46-09-ZP-SD A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the Planning Commission, depending on the scope of the changes. 2. A landscape maintenance deposit in the amount of $25,000 shall be posted prior to final inspection. An inspection of the landscape to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after the installation. The deposit will be released at that time if the plantings remain viable. 3. Prior to beginning any grading operation, all significant trees, particularly the heritage oak trees, are to be fenced at the drip line. The fencing shall be of a material and structure (chain-link) to clearly delineate the drip line. Town staff must inspect the fencing and the trees to be fenced prior to commencement of grading. The property owner shall call for said inspection at least three days in advance of the inspection. The fencing must remain throughout the course of construction. No storage of equipment, vehicles or debris shall be allowed within the drip lines of these trees. Existing perimeter plantings shall be fenced and retained throughout the entire construction period. 4. The two (2) Japanese Pagoda (Sophora Japonica) trees framing the entrance to the new residence, which may obstruct the view from the neighbors at 12800 Lucero Lane and 13840 Lucero Lane will be subject to Section 5-8.04 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (the View Protection Ordinance). 5. No new fences or gates are approved. Any new fencing or gates shall require review and approval by the Planning Department prior to installation. 6. Outdoor lighting is approved as shown on the lighting plan. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except two entry or driveway lights. Any additional outdoor lighting shall be approved by the Planning Department prior to installation. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Malavalli 27500 La Vida Real August 6, 2009 Page 5 of 6 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 7. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan. 8. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 9. If any trees or large shrubs are proposed to be -planted within the right of way or public utility easements, a letter shall be required to be submitted which has been stamped and signed by a registered civil engineer verifying that the proposed plantings, when mature, will not conflict with any existing public utilities that are located either underground or overhead and will not negatively impact the available sight distance for traffic on the adjacent roadways or block existing pathways or roadways. The letter shall be required to be submitted to the Engineering Department prior to final project approval and prior to commencement of planting. 10. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection.. 11. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. 12. The driveway shall be required to be fully constructed and to be roughened where the pathway intersects, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. An encroachment permit shall be required by the Town's Public Works Department for all work within the public right of way prior to start work. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the date of this notice. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department after August 28, 2009 provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Staff Report to the Planning Commission Lands of Malavalli 27500 La Vida Real August 6, 2009 Page 6 of 6 NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until August 6, 2010). 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 2 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 9131-05-ZP- SD-GD. FROM: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner �( APPROVED BY: Carl Cahill, Planning Director L; C. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission: 1. Approve the requested Site Development Permit, 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 December 8, 2005 Page 2 of 17 DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Existing Conservation Easement Proposed Open Space Easements Total Conservation/Open Space Easements Average Slope: Lot Unit Factor: Floor Area and Development Area: Area (square feet) Maximum Proposed Development Area 48,224 48,046 Floor Area 27,685 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 Site Planning 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 corner 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 Vida Real December 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 (89"1 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 December 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 corner is 44 feet from the south property line. Li" ht 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 L1.1) 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 48 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 framed. All planting required for screening or erosion control will be required to be planted prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 5of17 Fencing 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 concerns 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 LLL because they are 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 27500 La Vida Real December 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 #7. 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. Enemy Efficiency In a letter dated October 12, 2005 (Attachment 48) 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real 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 first 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 Dgpartment 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 41). Open 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 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 411) 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 concerns 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 properly borders the Malavalli's property on the north side. In a letter dated .November 7, 2005 (Attachment 413), 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 LLL) Trees #124 and #180 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 27500 La Vida Real December 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 415). 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 10 of 17 ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended conditions of approval 2. Worksheets 91 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. Cr: Kumar and Vijaya Mallavalli Kartik Patel 24289 Hillview Road Archevon Inc. Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite 201 Fremont, CA 94538 Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 11 of 17 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR ANEW RESIDENCE WITH BASEMENT, INDOOR SWII\M41NG 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 #130 through 138, and #147 through 149. 3. The designated tree preservation area shall be fenced with chainlink fencing and posted with warning signs. 4. An Airspade shall be used to cut a 2 -foot -wide trench to the desired depth to determine whether significant quantities and/or size of roots are present. The trench shall be cut under the supervision of the project arborist and the Town's consulting arborist. 5. If a significant quantity of absorbing roots of 2 inches in diameter or greater are present in the soil between elevation 568 and 572, no grading will be allowed. 6. If a significant quantity of absorbing roots are not present, grading will be allowed to occur only by hand, with the use of shovels, hand mattocks, and hand trowels. No heavy equipment shall be used to remove soil in the tree preservation area. 7. The removal of soil shall occur only under the supervision of the project arborist and the Town's consulting arborist. 2. 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 12 of 17 3. 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. 4. 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. 5. After completion of rough framing and prior to the time of the pre -rough framing inspection by the Planning and 1-Tngineering 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. 6. 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. 7. 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 reflect on adjacent properties, and the source of lighting should not be directly visible from off the site. No lighting may be placed within setbacks except for two driveway or entry lights. 8. 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 13 of 17 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. 9. 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. 10. 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. 11. Skylights, if utilized, shall be designed and constructed to reduce emitted light. No lighting may be placed within skylight wells. 12. Fire retardant roofing (class A) is required for all new construction. 13'. 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 14 of 17 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. 14. 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: 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. All public utility services serving this property shall be placed underground. 18. 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. 19. 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. Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 15 of 17 20. 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. 21. 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. 22. 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. 23. The driveways shall be required to be fully constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final inspection. 24. 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 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. 25. 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 Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 16 of 17 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. b. 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. 26. The properly 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 building plan check FIRE DEPARTMENT: 27. 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. 28. 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 Planning Commission 27500 La Vida Real December 8, 2005 Page 17 of 17 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. 29. 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 Department prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check The hydrants and hose valves shall be inspected and approved by the Fire Department prior to final inspection and occupancy of the new residence. 30. The applicant shall place address numbers on all buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street 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. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 31. 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 NUMBER 4, 15, 20, 21, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, and 29 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 NUMBER 2, 8, and 31 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. 'TOWN U -ft LOS ALTOS MLS 263791'remont Road o Los AIMS P lss C�n1GnD 940.22 N0 941-7222 - FAX (650) 949.3160 WOU RKSTIEET #11 TIT FACTOR CALCULATION Or AVERAGE EA AND MAXIM FWOR AREA MAX AUM DEVELOPME - TURN IN %PITH G / l 1 ATTAC MMMT I RECEIVED I C r 2 5 2005 TOKfiq OFLOS ALTOS HILLS 1. CAL(,UI,ATION OF AVERAGE SLOPE A. CONTOUR LENS WMM4 NET AREA OF LOT (An) _ _ _ _ _ ...,.,•r•rs rnT ]Tf1T 1R LLNCiiI3 aNCHES) UNCM) S © 5AA1 ��2 0 �sr (INCHES) 1 "=40' 1 TOTAL -4. 1, _ �� � �� feet Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) = ( L ) _ (45-14)(40) g, AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT I = contour interval L =total length of An = nct acreage of S = (0.0023) (n (1-) contours in feet lot nearest .001 A in feet S (0.0023) 05 TION OF LpT UNIT FA CTOR OF 2. CALCULA ��„ _ ., earest .00 n 1- 0.02143(S-10))) _ .(,t�SS}.(1—f .021431( 1011=• �/ n 1 25- LUF (AM � if the average slope is icss than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area. 1 If the LUF is equal to or icss than 0.50, you will nerd a Conditional Development Perrnit.. Make an appointment with the Planning Director for further information. REV. M6m1 Page 1 of 2 (INCITES) "70 7.1 / AS (INCHES) 1 "=40' 1 TOTAL -4. 1, _ �� � �� feet Convert inches to feet (multiply by map scale) = ( L ) _ (45-14)(40) g, AVERAGE SLOPE WITHIN NET AREA OF LOT I = contour interval L =total length of An = nct acreage of S = (0.0023) (n (1-) contours in feet lot nearest .001 A in feet S (0.0023) 05 TION OF LpT UNIT FA CTOR OF 2. CALCULA ��„ _ ., earest .00 n 1- 0.02143(S-10))) _ .(,t�SS}.(1—f .021431( 1011=• �/ n 1 25- LUF (AM � if the average slope is icss than 10%, the LUF for the lot is equal to the net area. 1 If the LUF is equal to or icss than 0.50, you will nerd a Conditional Development Perrnit.. Make an appointment with the Planning Director for further information. REV. M6m1 Page 1 of 2 woRKSHEET 01 (continued) A, for S equa) to or less than 1090 square fCrA* (LIF) (15,000) _ 4. B, for S greater than 10%u and less than 3096 10) 1 square feet* NIDA=(1-�[1S,OW-375(S-10))= (.-.3,4) 375(iS�- C, for S equal to or greater than 30% square feet* MDA := (U" (7,500) = 's less than 7,500 -square feet (and the J.LiF is.$reater than 0.50), use 7,500 square fcct for If the NIDA is. . your MDA ,4, for S equal to or less than 10%D square feet* ISA = (LIF) (6,000) f r 5 heater than 1011, and less than 30% _ 7.6 9-<- square feet 010) ] NSA = (l,) [6.000 - 50(S - 10)) _ (St%-) [ 6 , 000-50 (� f - C. for S equal to or greater than 30%, Square feet** MFA = (LUF) (5,000) *4' If the MFA is less than 5,000 square feet (and the LUF.is greater than 0.50) use 5,000 square feet far your IviFA. cil r the: NOTE: The MDA And MFA are maximums alit lowed by the Town Municipal ecodee The re specificnc n�lraints Planning Commission may further lmentpolicy St ttrnmV ent area or floor sr or site visibility (sec Sitc Deve p jtP.V. 7/16811 Page 2 of 2 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS RECEIVED PLANNING DEPARTMENT 26379 Fremont Road • Los Altos Hills, California 94022 • (650) 941-7222 a FAX (650) 941-31610JQ 2005 WORKSHEET #2 EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA AND FLOOR ARTN' 01 LOS ALTOS HILLS • TURN IN WITH YOUR APPLICATION • PROPERTY OWNER'S NAME�'l I U �jI �)�,( j f ,�' 1A SL PROPERTY ADDRESS S-0 0 CALCULATED BY L�e, �jp i �r Gt' V- (I Fin -1,1-n 1. DEVELOPMENT AREA Existing (SQUARE FOOTAGE) A. House and Garage (from Part 3. A..) B. Decking C. Driveway and Parking (Measured 100' along centerline) D. Patios and Walkways E. Tennis Court F. Pool and Decking G. Accessory Buildings (from Part B) H. Any other coverage TOTALS 1 (DATE .7 Proposed Total (Addidons/Deletions) 1-7.3 13, X30 1© 919 1-7)3's-1 C., 151 1 13.530 -T 11yi1 1,�"�11 -T b C', Maximum Development Area Allowed - NIDA (from Worksheet #1) -T L22 41 2. TOTAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE Existing Proposed Total (SQUARE FOOTAGE) TOTALS 3. FLOOR AREA (SQUAxE FOOTAGE) Existing Proposed Total (Additions/Deletions) A. House and Garage a. 1 st Floor b. 2nd Floor c. Attic and Basement d. Garage B. Accessory Buildin s a. �'r �0'ce�oi� b. 2nd44gtor Pkv' l o -n t 1.132 Sr - 0 D 24 q-6,7 c. Attic and Basemen TOTALS 1. 2 3-5 I 21: `Zaximum Floor Area Allowed -MFA (from Worksheet #1) 27 � ��, I,. I o ,, ,� , ,� r.f' �.W o a. � i � I• `Do PS n� )� ��� e, P�-e I'n.e n.i' �t.y'-E'... TOWNUSE ONLY CHECKED BY p DATE !f 3 b D,S Pave. 1 of 1 Town of Los Altos Hills SITE MAP Lands of Malavalli, 27500 La Vida Real SDP#: 131-05-ZP-SD-GD O F F I C E O F C 0 U N T Y A S S E S S O R S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y, C A L I F O R N I A rR' / P.M. 458-M •34 Iq TAA FFE PARTITION, LOT Z t PART of LOT 7p Project Site ULAWILO ri w 8, qd nss, o FM Ly Val ' 90.157 S.Etti 11�sa PG7 4 s xI1 Fero P.M. -$68137 O L01 AG 1 ��� a PCL1 �6Q. •jy ,ar% 7' 20 m ffz I1.00A awl •d ___261.48__, 11' . s ' {.PGE2 dry`zz 4S rib 1 ``�` C /ry ase aX41 0 9M/o41p� Sc�•(,+�9 �P4v 4 R� •'1+a \�+ , /l �vl oP 1� r '4C .7 �• \ , 4c p1511R .s f f6 r / eA�PO QGv ti / 4C.1714.q \- tirr 'Yrk rr 3j1 4y '� oL.4 '0RP SS t If ' / /w/Ac', s `it YJ 24 k' A'i/ d r e 73 4�e % rrl ro, 0.9. /to i j+ 8151 h } ALM gp era° a / ki • �� / �I FN r •Qw s 170 noa9 4 21 L007 pct i 7q� T' i �% 6 tQ / 4���,i r�ieat�t s !`3/ �� \3 PGG . 2 / 2/ ,t <odPa / e IA07AC1IL- P yr /6 i , a01Ct w >K j fA22 AC! �, ' '^�' ' 'b /�• �,"' 10 r 9 j �% • 1sT 'fir +wry T de .� \ �` 30 Eq pG' • pG�-' Ie.Ztt_��d£9�.'e of?'29 � A4 �;. 0 •lq•' WO ACt 51� . ,i4' ;x P5 h Rg ��1oT0ACt `�LSS2Acs ,QpP /8 �F Ip6� t5 S.00o1c� �` to cA ,• 13 a.o 1 n4Si�" 6 �� � + \� •,ars'••' \ IZ+Y1 z I i QVQ rAp TS L XBOfi ATTACHME I'll f mclTCl NOTE: Kirpp- 1-i FOOTIN( l I\1 I V —— ii — — a. . 1, ALL LUMBER TO BE CONST, HEART REDWOOD 2, ALL METAL FASTENERS TO BE HOT -DIPPED GALVANIZED. DETAIL- DEEB FENCING E LWTVI -9T IR OAK A an Ecologi 12 October 2005 Mr. Paul Reed President Reed Associates, Inc. 477 South Taaffe Street Sunnyvale, California 94086 ATTACHMENT 5 WIT DXU� - S cal Consulting Firm 9ECEIVED OCT 1 93 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS MLLS SUBJECT: Wildlife Movement on the Property Located at 27500 La Vida Real, Los Altos, California (PN: 829-01) Dear Paul: Per your request, Live Oak Associates, Inc. (LOA) has prepared this letter report with the express purpose of determining whether or not fencing on the above referenced, approximately 8 -acre property would have an adverse effect on the movement of wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the site or within the region. This analysis is intended to provide to the Town of Los Altos sufficient information to aid them in their decision to approve the proposed project. The site is located at 27500 La Vida Real in Los Altos; California (APNs: 182-20-054 and 182- 20-055), and is bordered by Natoma Road to the north, La Vida Real to the west and south, and open space to the east. Low to medium density housing surrounds the site, and the areas in between houses are forested. The site is irregularly shaped and ranges from 470 feet to 565 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum. The site can be found on the Mindego Hill U.S.G.S 7.5 minute quadrangle, in the northwest quarter of the northwest quarter of the southwest quarter of Section 36, Township 6 south, Range 3 west in the Mt. Diablo Meridian. The proposed project will set aside 4.8 acres (60%) of the approximately 8 -acre site as a conservation easement. The remaining 3.2 acres will be the build -out area, and will consist of an approximately 17,000 square foot home, a separate office building, a small putting green, a small vineyard, and extensive gardens. The applicant wishes to fence in the garden areas using a 6 - foot high wrought iron fence (vertical slats approximately 4" to 6" apart). The purpose of this fencing is to preclude deer from entering the landscaped areas. The town of Los Altos has expressed concern regarding the proposed fencing, especially in an area that carries runoff from the houses to the south of the property via an underground culvert. The area in question does not qualify as a drainage, creek or riparian area in a traditional sense, as there is no defined channel or a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. While wildlife may use this area to access the site, deer and other animals are just as likely (if not more likely) to San Jose Office: 6830 Via Del Oro, Suite 205 -San Jose, CA 95119 a Phone: 408-281-5885 a Fax: 408-2241411 Oakhurst Office: P.O. Box 2697 -49430 Road 426, Suite B a Oakhurst, CA 93644 o Phone: 559-642-4880 5 Fax: 559-642-4883 access the site from the conservation areas, which are more densely vegetated and offer natural cover. Animals typically use riparian corridors for movement from one area of suitable habitat to another. This is due in large part to the typically gentle slope of riparian areas that offers easy movement for most species. The installation of deer -proof fencing, especially without forethought, alters the movement of medium to large size terrestrial wildlife and can lead to a decrease in biodiversity by precluding larger predators to remain in an area. In San Diego County, for instance, it was found that the presence of coyotes (Canis latrans) might actually improve biodiversity by suppressing the devastating effects of mesopredators (e.g., feral cats, raccoons and opossum) that wreak havoc on songbird populations. Therefore, altering large tracks of landscapes with fencing is inappropriate in many cases. However, the installation of deer -proof fencing should be looked at on a case-by-case basis. This project site currently supports a single-familyhouse, open grassland (a mixture of manicured, native and ruderal), trees and a riparian area. The riparian area is an unnamed tributary of Deer Creek (located to the south and east of the site), and has a mature canopy _ consisting mainly of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and California bay laurel (Umbellulxla californica). The understory and surrounding vegetation consists mainly of poison oak (Toxicodendron &versilobum), horehound (Marrubium vulgare), curly dock (Rumex crispus), coyote bush (Baccharis pilularis) Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), little tarweed (Madia exiqua), and non-native grasses of European origin. Wildlife species that were directly observed on the property include western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), red -shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), western scrub jay (Aphelocoma ,californica), California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), eastern gray squirrel -black phase (Sciurus carolinenas), and western gray squirrel (Sciurus griseus). Indirect observations (scat and prints) of rabbit, likely cottontail (Syhdlagus nuttallii) and black -tail deer (Odocoileus hemionus) were made. Other species that may occur on-site, especially within the riparian area are common bat species, dusky footed wood rat (Neotoma fuscipes) though no nests were noted during the reconnaissance visit, opossum (Didelphis virginiana), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), feral cats (Felis catus), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and perhaps mountain lion (Puma concolor). Currently, deer and other wildlife move through the site in a broad manner. Although the applicant proposes to fence approximately 3.2 acres of the site to preclude deer from browsing on the landscaped areas, the proposed project will set aside 4.8 acres (60%) of its total acreage via a conservation easement. This 60% of the site represents a much higher biological value than the proposed landscaped areas. Therefore, while the fencing will preclude wildlife from entering 40% of the site, it will not effect the regional movement of wildlife. Figure 1 shows movements of local wildlife in the immediate vicinity of the site, based on field observations made by LOA wildlife ecologist N ichele Korpos on 29 September 2005. In summary, using fencing that is impermeable to large mammals over large tracks of land, or an accumulation of smaller adjacent parcels, leads to a reduction in regional biodiversity. However, 2 Live OakAssociates, Inc. thoughtful placement of fencing (e.g., portions of a parcel close to home and garden areas) while still allowing wildlife movement on appropriate portions of a given parcel is not necessarily detrimental. It is our professional opinion that the proposed project would not have a significant effect on wildlife movement in the immediate vicinity of the site or within the region. If you have any questions or comments regarding our findings please contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Michele Korpos Project Manager/ Wildlife Ecologist 3 Live OakAssociates, Inc. I,iY 1' �Jt IBJ al I' }IIf�� 1. • 1 :j.1. i ,., •r , f tf ��. .1 �. Ir �I J 1 i' •a ,. 'a i ,T, y 0 l'1V ^ � ., �tj ` yYYYYYY n .. ',' �• • I f - i { 1 � I' �: _ I,•.'t Ill1) 1 ' 11 I` pr i�;'a .. erl,yl # 1.0 , �: ;"" _ `:,��•� yy.-• I '�r 111 I le� '".§av � .'fit l ' roll • . 1 I'°. I �j ('" rS , �' r , �Iy�jy #. ! x + I.I:i y lj-' •tl A),t ;I YJ— 4 ..:.i - •A N,1 'I ' J •!' ' 1 f k • :ul •I _ ,I •. •_,.• I . �. ' 1. I to I, � 1 v � , � , I y J! i• R ' A.,l: 7 I r , }I al.i:a 1 of e, .� � ,r �"h.� C', r ii ' r-ff .l " � vi ' :, yh " �.-} t. 'v"'•x 1 .}hal a p .. ! , i[,•,:c, o, 5 a 1 .: Road .� �. �.. { �Wtirl 1 I'1 Nit t • 'k: I a r. 1', � rf � �� � "' ,rd tl l,,i?„Gy n ,,f� �,, y „°s 1.1141 1i}li•.p 11.:1 l t. :xtn A)� � s-J,j,' . ' � � t_a�\/�d �fl�Cl�l;.� r, �' ,.1 lfi 1... }•.,;a. ' ° rlr ll- ,:€�� ..n lF'.,r a' � � YT . c.; ml ..I a l 41. f,Y ,rx' . 4 •` I .,� y. i.{T`ii , , 1rA•� y�Pj M(. �` ,. t it , f 1 �. �d J ,: ',uFl�•Yrt' �� *� t�`"i4 t+ r'.G •w{Y ,,,I i' �,), t "k, t. l-l•a�''' •�. ' I ,® ., �+ \`i tayrl 11 �..m� r .q Ot I � 'k.,r, 'J' q I,I ,•, , 4 �nit �,!{�i dJ f }fW +5 f , .. ! Xt 11 +q tr }l�3 a a r l Cq. l g ,f I 7 1 r ) Ftt A t, ri J I 5 1 :. r 1 I .1 r C, ���Imaden Ct• ta:�,i�� tl, �ll�l '�” f ;, 1 JI} , •�. x•,I•: ,, lilry ift ® ' I I? r� alclnl 1 + , S:. i �4,{ F ! ��r' J t� t•C !18 K41 q �Cd.-..s J u.r. ° p ,fir^ u,•Y 5a t t t A. 1 , 1, ^ pVJp1IPV{a t .t4 �Lu•„ ✓,t, IF,I�P f ,�,. 511! If `ISI s IIj4f ' ,I,.,,1 x r yk)ttijYtyl} li •Yd � w-' 19 1•y,. I' e t.. I , t I • , ' , 4' f13iTT1�h1<; I y �� 1)m (-�} �:.' v `.,•t f'.l. JJ.,-- �:�. '•i"�I` si:1"!u, h } 4. #.. J I r °1� !i y :t. { 1 y.`iei 5al'' !, t(' } i4 .J:Ik�. '� .. I'n •!y }. ;�iJ'' 1• �''� rt> �{!1.;.�. 1, u� 1'rl•� �I�}Ity ;Vj -,I.4 5. `�;F A V? L:ii. ' :t� ' 11�ii� i:ift4.'ci. ,SiM` ''i�rJ i:.. .,d' '3�!'I� wt' ,.. �;.;I�.d{1 :)L'!�ii,•..�j ��'I 1�`�� I { 11..v �:f• j� -�i �ySb�.i. 41 P ,f ) IJ � II .•: 1.,� •� �1,� _; 'la ' +4', 1 '�j`:, l 1. t RNLR b id # S 1 n 1:•5y �.w H I.. i lyy�:rYt 't,�'ipj �Lt (�. ....,,9'• a4'a Nt,i,i�,&Live Oak 1 •• k t1-1"Rz8h IJ l I I, J��r,• �+ \ty I;:'ta , = 5, t! t4k', Yjyl�,y�i4,.4i� , f ,• .a�5'i� .mwi , .._.:fR' R?f"-ii�'s"lil J,�l�'j_�l .'t'I I.. « Ir' .. 7 ._.�. v,.. 1 „ ... �5. .1r1' ., .. y )•�, Ir�ltwl ��" �^ `•t fffiYl�•'7 f�E— _ _ _ Wildlife. • �� COTTON, SHIRES & AssOCIATES, INC. ATTACHMENT CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS August 23, 2005 L0185 TO: Leslie Hopper Project Planner TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, California 94022 SUBJECT: Preliminary Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Malavalli, Proposed New Residence File #131-05-ZP-SD-CD 27500 La Vida Real At your request, we have completed a geotechnical peer review of the application for proposed construction using: . • Report - Soil Investigation Including Geologic Evaluation of Potential Seismic Slope Stability Hazards, Planned Malavalli Residence, prepared by Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. (GEI), dated June 24, 2005; Archifectur,.al :Plans,.. including. Site. Plan, Floor Plans, and Sections (9 sheets;' 40. an'd.', 8 -scale prepared by ,ARCHeven,_ dated July._27, .2005;. • Preliminary Drainage and.. Grading (Plan. and Sanitary; Server EXliibit (2 sheets, 20 -scale -and' 200 scale) prepared by DeBolt Civil Engineering, dated July 22, 2005 and July 25, 2005; and • Landscape Plaits (2 sheets, 16 -scale) prepared by Reed Associates, dated July 27, 2005. In addition, we have reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files and have inspected site conditions. DISCUSSION Our review of the referenced documents indicates that the applicant proposes to construct a new 16,172 square -foot residence with a partial basement in approximately the same location as a recently demolished residence. In addition, the applicant proposes to construct a swimming pool and a 1,840 square -foot garage. Access to the proposed residence will be provided'by.a-. new driyevway,extending east from. La Vida Real Road. The provided estimate' of earthwork quantities' for this project includes 9,700 cubic yards. of cut and 780,, cubic, yards ..of. fill: place_ merit. ,,The. remaining 8,920 yards of excavated material ill.be'.ebite. xpoff site." Northern California Office 330 Village Lane Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 (408) 354-5542 ® Fax (408) 354-1852 ..---L:__- Southern California Offic 5245 Avenida Encinas • Suite. Carlsbad, CA 92008-437 (760) 931-2700 m Fax: (760) 931-10, P-Tnai7-. rarlsbad@cottonshires.co: Leslie Hopper Page 2 SITE CONDITIONS August 23, 2005 L0185 The subject property is characterized by a north -trending ridge with level to gentle slopes along the top of the ridge, and moderately steep to very steep (25 to 65 percent inclinations), west-, north- and east -facing slopes flanking the ridge. Grading associated with the demolished residence has resulted in several steep to very steep (47 to 65 percent inclinations) fill slopes along the perimeter of the ridge. Drainage at the site is characterized primarily by sheetflow directed away from the ridge, where it is intercepted by Deer Creek to the north and by a north -trending gully to the west. The Town Geotechnical Map indicates that the site is underlain, at depth, by Franciscan Complex greenstone. During our site visit we noted that Franciscan Complex melange (locally consisting of greenstone, limestone, and graywacke) is exposed in the walls of the demolished swimming pool excavation. Site surficial materials consist of sandy clay collo i�um and soil. The potentia'_ly active Altamont fault, potentially* active Monta Vista fault and potentially active Berrocal fault are located approximately 900 feet southwest, 1,300 feet east, and 2,000 feet southwest, respectively, of the proposed residence. The active San Andreas fault is located approximately 2.9 miles southwest of the property. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION The proposed development is potentially constrained by expansive surficial soil materials, creep along moderately steep to very steep slopes, the presence of existing artificial fill beneath parts of the proposed building site, instability of temporary basement cuts, and susceptibility of the site to strong seismic ground shaking. The Project Geotechnical Consultant has characterized apparent site geotechnical constraints and has provided recommendations that, in general, appear appropriate for site conditions. We do not have geotechnical objections to the proposed layout of site improvements. Consequently, we recommend geotechnical approval of permits for the construction of site improvements with the following conditions: Geotechnical Plan Review - The applicant's geotechnical consultant should review and approve all geotechnical aspects of the final project building and grading plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and deEiign -parameters for foundations) to ensure that their recommendations have been properly incorporated. In addition, the Project Geotechnical Consultant should address the following items: a) The Project Geotechnical Consultant has indicated that near -source factor Na for the site is 1.2 (based on the Type A San Andreas fault as the controlling fault). The Project Geotechnical Consultant should re-evaluate this seismic parameter based on the location of the site with respect to Type B faults (e.g. Altamont, Berrocal, and Monta Vista faults). b) It appears that the northwestern part of the proposed residence is located near the top of a fill prism with very COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, INC Leslie Hopper August 23, 2005 Page 3 L0185 steep slopes up to 10 feet in height. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should evaluate whether proposed structures in this area will be founded on adequate bearing materials. Structures in this area may warrant removal and/or replacement of existing fill. C) The Project Geotechnical Consultant has recommended that foundation piers be embedded at least 6 feet into underlying bedrock or at least 10 to 16 feet below existing grade. The Project Geotechnical Consultant should clarify which embedment criterion controls the drilled pier depth (whichever is greater). For conformance with prevailing local standards for hillside residential construction, the Consultant should consider minimum pier embedment depths -of 8 to 10 feet into bedrock. d) The Project Geotechnical Consultant should verify that proposed steel reinforcement for the piers meets minimum geotechnical standards (i.e., the minimum local standard of practice includes minimum 16 -inch diameter piers reinforced with a cage containing a minimum of four No. 5 vertical bars). e) The Project Geotechnical Consultant should either verify that the design of the proposed swimming pool shell is sufficient to resist hydrostatic and active lateral earth pressures, or the Consultant should specify pool shell design criteria. The results of the plan review should be summarized by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer prior to acceptance of documents for building permit plan -check. 2. Geotechnical Field Inspection - The geotechnical consultant should inspect, test (as needed), and approve all. geotechnical aspects of the project constr=uction. The inspections should includef 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 should be described by the geotechnical consultant in a letter and submitted to the Town Engineer- for review prior to final (as - built) project approval. LIMITATIONS This peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town with discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of COTTON, SHIRES & ASSOCIATES, IN( Leslie Hopper Page 4 August 23, 2005 L0185 the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied. Respectfully submitted, COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC. TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT Ted Sayre rvising Engineering Geologist CEG 795 I Patrick O. Shires Principal Geotechnical Engineer GE 770 POS:TS:JS:klc Cc Taghi Manbeian, GEl, 38750 Paseo Padre Parkway, Suite B-1, Fremont, CA 94536 COTTON, SHIRES &ASSOCIATES, INC A REVIEW OF THE ARBORISTS REPORT FOR T.91E MALAVALLI PROPERTY AT 27500 LA VIDA REAL LOS ALTOS HILLS Prepared at the request of: Leslie Hopper Town of Los Altos NiUs 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Bills, CA 94022 Fax: (650) 941-3160 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist November 14'h, 2005 Job# 10-05-212 ATTACHMENT BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES YY � Hor icuturai Consultants 23535 SummitRoad Los Gatos. cA 95033 408/353-9 052 A REVIEW OF THE ARBORISTS REPORT FOR T.91E MALAVALLI PROPERTY AT 27500 LA VIDA REAL LOS ALTOS HILLS Prepared at the request of: Leslie Hopper Town of Los Altos NiUs 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Bills, CA 94022 Fax: (650) 941-3160 Prepared by: Barrie D. Coate Consulting Arborist November 14'h, 2005 Job# 10-05-212 ATTACHMENT REVIEW OF THE ARBORISTS REPORT FOR THE MALAVALLI RESIDENCE Assignment On November 10'', 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 1-4. As example, an explanation seems appropriate for the information on those charts for trees #78 and 81. Why is there an SOD threat? Or tree #123, a large, well formed Aleppo Pine is to be removed. I would want more �Z2 i S explanation for this decision and even some pictures explaining the claimed poor conditions. n. 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 grown up into this fill, making the trees dependant upon that fill and these roots for a significant part of their moisture and nutrient supply. 2. 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 shaII 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 # 136, a 31.5" Oak. 4. 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, I 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 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 ATTACHMENT b C H e v ® n I n eo, A r c h i t e c t u r e P l a n n i n g I n t e r i o r s 3 9 0 3 9 P a s e o P a d r e# 2 0 1 F r e m o n t C A 9 4 5 3 8 3 .i RECEIVED October 12, 2005 OCT 12 2005 TOWN OF LOS ALT OS HILLS To: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. PROJECT: New residence wl indoor pool, second dwelling and other accessory structures 27500 La Vida Real File # 131-05-ZP-SD-GD RE: Letter for "Justification for Energy Efficiency and Green Architecture" Based on our meeting we have put together a series of proposed energy efficiency suggestions for the above mentioned project. The project will be Energy Star Qualified. Alongwith this we have also included suggested Green Architecture practices. They are as follows: 1. The home will have a computer manager that will manage the various systems associated with the project such as mechanical, electrical, plumbing, security, shades, phones etc. 2. Mechanically, the home will be zoned for 8 different zones. Within each zone there will be mechanically controlled dampers to shut off individual rooms not using heating or cooling. This will allow each occupant to use heating or cooling as needed for the occupied spaces only. All zones will have an automated "Whole -Attic Fan" system to vent out the hot air from the attic. 3. All mechanical units will have highest level of energy star certification for the project. 4. There will be several water heaters that will also be used to allow for zone control. Tankless water heaters shall be specified for the project. All water heaters will have recirculating pumps in order to save water consumption. All hot and cold water lines shall be insulated in unconditioned spaces. All toilets for the project shall be specified as "Low Flow Models." When available all appliances shall have a Energy Star rating. 5. The use of solar energy has been proposed for the project. The solar panels are located on the project site plan. These panels will provide hot water for the entire project. The indoor pool and spa will be heated via solar panels. The solar panels will be supplemented with regular energy during cloudy days. The hot water generated from the solar panels will also be used for radiant floor heating systems that will be designed for the home. 6. We are currently researching the use and integration of the "Photovoltaic (PV) Panels on the flat roof areas. This will help generate electricity for the project that can be used for certain components such as security lighting, outside landscape lighting or walkway illumination. The inherent problem with these systems is the integration with the Home Manager. We are currently talking to suppliers for the Lighting Control Systems to help with the integration. 7. The pool equipment will have highest level of energy star certification for the project. 8. The skylights in the indoor swimming pool are located at the roof to help conserve energy. They bring in natural daylight to the pool and spa area. The skylights provide natural ventilation for the indoor swimming pool which helps in conserving energy that would be otherwise used for the operation of the mechanical system for ventilation purposes. 9. There is a lighting control system that will allow zoning for each room. Within each room there will be additional zones (scenes) that will permit efficient use of power. High energy transformers, light bulbs and fluorescent lighting will be used for efficient use of power. 10. The project will have a minimum of 2x8 stud wall construction at all perimeter walls. In some cases the walls may be thicker. This will allow us to use R-19 and greater insulation for all exterior walls. The sub -floors will have R-30 insulation. The roof will have a 2 layer insulating system made up of R-38 and Rl l for a total of R-49. If recycled fiberglass insulation qualifies we propose to use it wherever possible. This far exceeds the California T- 24 energy compliances. 11. All exterior doors and windows will have insulated "low E" glazing and will be supplemented with tinting to allow for greater insulating values. 12. The home will use recycled products as much as possible. Currently the products that are being considered are engineered lumber, structural steel, carpet, wood flooring, wood products for cabinets, trims and various ceiling treatments. 13. The waste generated on the project will be segregated for recycling. 14. The project will use Low/No VOC and Formaldehyde -Free Paint, Low-VOC Water -Based Wood finishes and Solvent -Free Adhesives wherever possible. Landscape and Environment Items: 1. Using composted yard waste for soil amendment. 2. Using recycled wood for wood chip mulch. 3. Using recycled wood and plastic for landscape header board. 4. The only trees that will be removed from the site will be Eucalyptus and Pine trees. All other trees will be protected in place or moved and replanted. 5. Use of an Efficient Irrigation System that will have the following characteristics: a. Rain Sensor b. Flow Meter (detects breaks/leaks) c. Central control will provide detail reporting d. Controller with download daily weather up dates and adjusts watering times. This will avoid urban runoff. Above and beyond this, our firm is in contact with PG&E and special energy consultants to look into other possibilities that are available for the project. I hope this letter addresses the concerns about the high levels of energy and water consumption. If you have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to call me. Thanking you ka 14 t. Kartik Patel, Principal , Archevon FIRE DEPARTMENT SANTA, CLARA COUNTY PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 05 3393 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER A ACH IBti'T 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) 6 vJWW.sccfd.org CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 131-05-ZP-SD-GD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODEISEC. I SHEET I NO.I REQUIREMENT Review of revised site plan for a proposed 23,499 square foot single family residence with an attached garage. Bridge live load requirement stated on sheet 3 is duly noted. Revise drawings in writting to reflect compliance with item 2 from review 05-2291 Applicant must provide a utility plan which shows all required new hydrants and hose valves. Consult with Ryan Rucker to spot the locations of all hydrants and hose valves prior to submitting plan. Revise drwings to show fire department turn around which complies with standard specification D-1. IDo not issue building permit. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE LAH ❑ ❑ ® ❑ ❑ R-3 5N ARCHEVON 11/22/2005 1 3 OF SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Bsnmt,1 and 2 23,499 Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- MALAVALLI 127500 La Vida Real Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga 0 :PDEISEC. C pendix A I'C D3.1.2 as needed by ,HMC 3.0.1 FIR &.� DEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 • (408) 378-9342 (fax) e www.sccfd.org PLAN RENEW NUMBER 05 2291 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER C p+ FILENUMBER 131-05-ZP-S®-G DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT Zeview of site plan for a proposed 23,499 square foot single family residence with, in attached garage Review of this Developmental proposal is limited to acceptability of site access and water supply as they pertain to fire department operations, and shall not be construed as a substitute for formal plan review to determine compliance with adopted model codes. Prior to performing any work the applicant shall make application to, and receive from, the Building Department all applicable construction permits. Required Fire Flow: The fire flow for this project is 4250 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. As an automatic fire sprinkler system will be installed, the fire flow has been reduced by 75% establishing a required adjusted fire flow of 1062 gpm at 20 psi residual pressure. The adjusted fire flow is available from area water mains and fire hydrant(s) which are spaced at the required spacing. 2- Automatic Fire Sprinkler System Required: Buildings requiring a fire flow in excess of 2,000 GPM shall be protected throughout by an automatic fire sprinkler system, hydraulically designed per National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #13. A State of California licensed fire protection contractor shall submit plans, calculations, a completed permit application and appropriate fees to this department for review and approval prior to beginning their work. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE ;AH El El 11 11 ARCHEVON 8/11/2005 1 OF 3 !ECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- MALAVALLI 27500 La Vida Real Organized as the Santa Clara County Central l=ire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the Communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga CODFJSEC. I SHEET jFC 303.2 UFC 903.2 UFC 903.2 UFC 903.2 UFC 902.2.4.1 F I L DEPARTMENT SANTA GL ARA COUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 a (408) 378-9342 (fax) ® www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 05 2291 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 131-05-ZP-SD-GD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMEN'D'S NO. I REQUIREMENT 3. Public Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 1 public fire hydrant(s) at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department and Purissima Water Company. Hydrant(s) shall have a minimum single flow of 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual, with spacing not to exceed 500 feet. Prior to applying for building permit, provide civil drawings reflecting all fire hydrants serving the site. 4• Private On -Site Fire Hydrant(s) Required: Provide 1 private on-site fire hydrant(s) installed per NFPA Std. #24, at location(s) to be determined by the Fire Department. Maximum hydrant spacing shall be 500 feet, with a minimum acceptable flow of 1500 GPM at 20 psi residual pressure. Prior to design, the . ., _1 _11 -- --' ----'-L iL- C--. -1-- .-.I.—_«t-.--L-- - . . — 1 , . —F4r; .. 1.,. 5 Hose Valves Required: Buildings three stories or more in height, or where emergency access has been deemed minimal, shall be equipped with standpipes designed per NFPA Std. #14, and be equipped with 2-1/2" inch hose valves. Meet with water supply officer to determine location of two required hose valves. 6. On -Site Private Fire Service Mains and/or Hydrants: Installation of private fire service mains and/or fire hydrants shall conform to National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) Standard #24, and Fire Department Standard Details and Specification W-2. If the supply piping is "combined" (sprinkler system & hydrants), a U.L. approved 2 -way FDC shall be provided. A Separate installation permit 7. Fire Apparatus (Engine)Access Driveway Required:" Provide an access driveway 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%. Installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications sheet D-1. Revise drawings to reflect compliance with this requirement City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE DATE PAGE LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ jApplicantNarne ARCHEVON 8/11/2005 2 DF 3 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- MALAVALLI 27500 La Vida Real Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga )DE/SEC. �c 2.2.4.1 .0 2.2.4.1 FIRSDEPARTMENT SANTA CLARA GOUNTY 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) o www.sccfd.org PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 05 2291 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 131-05-ZP-SD-GD DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS SHEET I NO. I REQUIREMENT Timingof Required Water Supply Installations: Installations of required fire service(s) and fire hydrant(s) shall be tested and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of framing or delivery of bulk combustible materials. Building permit issuance may be withheld until required installations are completed, tested, and accepted. Fire Hydrant Location Identifier: Prior to project final inspection, the general contractor shall ensure that an approved ("Blue Dot") fire hydrant location identifier has been placed in the roadway, as directed by the fire department. 10. Fire Department (Engine) Driveway Turn -around Required: Provide an approved fire department engine driveway turnaround with a minimum radius of 36 feet outside and 23 feet inside. Installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1. 11. Timing of Required Driveway Installations: Required driveway installations shall be constructed and accepted by the Fire Department, prior to the start of combustible construction.Note that building permit issuance may be withheld until installations are completed.Temporary driveways may be approved on a case by case basis. 12. Emergency Gate/Access Gate Requirements: Gate installations shall conform with Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access roadways or driveways. Locks, if provided, shall be fire department approved prior to installation. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE .AH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ARCHEVON 8/11/2005 3 OF 3 ;ECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- MALAVALLI 27500 La Vida Real Drganized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Serving Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga �It 0 CoQ FIR]- DEPARTMENT a SANTA CLARA COUNTY � FIRE '� 14700 Winchester Blvd., Los Gatos, CA 95032-1818 (408) 378-4010 0 (408) 378-9342 (fax) a www.sccfd.org COURTESY 6 SERVICE PLAN REVIEW NUMBER 05 2291 BLDG PERMIT NUMBER CONTROL NUMBER FILE NUMBER 1.51-®J-Zr-$U-k2 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMENTS CODE/SEC. SHEET NO.I REQUIREMENT UFC 902.2.2.5 UFC 901.4.4 13 14. 15. Provide walkway around the entire building for fire fighting and rescue use. Bridges (Driveways): The bridge shall be designed for a live load of 40,000 pounds as stated in Fire Department Standard Details and Specifications D-1 and in accordance with Accepted Standards as identified in Article 90 of the Fire Code. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be placed on all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. Numbers shall contrast with their background. City PLANS SPECS NEW RMDL AS OCCUPANCY CONST. TYPE ApplicantName DATE PAGE LAH ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ARCHEVON 8/11/2005 4 DF 3 SECJFLOOR AREA LOAD DESCRIPTION BY Residential Development Rucker, Ryan NAME OF PROJECT LOCATION SFR- MALAVALLI 27500 La Vida Real Organized as the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District Seruing Santa Clara County and the communities of Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga ATTACHMENT 10 Report of Open Space Committee Planning Project Discussions, Friday 9/10 meeting --- Malivalli: First, we recognized that the designer/architect may have wanted to be there to discuss it with us, and we want to make it clear that we're happy to meet with them in the future to discuss the project if they like. However, not having received a written request to postpone, we proceeded to discuss it, and we support in full the current proposals as described to me by Leslie, in particular, requesting two areas of conservation easement, one to protect the "gully" area that already has a drainage easement, and one behind the house on the region of steep slope that connects to an existing conservation easement. Our only additional comment was our concern that the existing drainage easement, that runs completely across the property, should not be blocked by landscaping walls, as this will be the only remaining corridor for wildlife movement through the parcel, and the only access into the "gully" area. Currently, there is a wall indicated at the end of the gully. Thanks, Roger Spreen chair, Open Space Committee PATHWAY COMMITTEE . Minutes of Meeting of September 26, 2005 Prepared by Ann Duwe IA. The meeting was called to order at 6:05 p.m. by Committee Chairman Ginger Summit. (Nancy Ginzton noted the need for an information packet containing such items as the easement map, the Pathway Element, etc. for each new member of the Committee.) B. Present: Duwe, Brunzell, Dunckel, Ginzton, Kamangar, Montgomery, Stutz, Vargas and Welch. Absent: Wagner Ad Hoc Committee present: Ernest, Schreiner C. Agenda was approved after moving item Ai to Bii and adding Simon Lane under A. Dunckel moved, Ginzton seconded. Unanimous 2. New Business A. Recommendation on properties (ACTION). ii. 27210 Ohlone (lands of Parvenda). The Committee agreed to a pathway fee. Ginzton moved, Dunckel seconded. Unanimous. iii. 27861 Natoma (lands of Askari). The Committee agreed to a pathway fee. Kamangar moved, Ginzton seconded. Unanimous. iv. 27500 La Vida Real (lands of Malavalli.) The Committee agreed to extend the path in consultation with the Town Engineer and a member of the Pathway Committee and construct a 5' native path to connect with the path going from Elena to Black Mt. Road, with the connection at the northern corner of the property in accordance with what's on the 2005 Master Path Plan. In so doing the easement should be widened to 40 ` where necessary so the gradient will not exceed -15% and so there will be an adequate crossing of the creek. Dunckel moved, Stutz seconded. Unanimous v. Simon Lane, request for abandonment of easement. This item was not put on the agenda in time though it was reviewed during Saturday's walk. Arguments were heard from two residents of Simon Lane, Liccardo and Papp, members of the committee aired their views, but no action could be taken until the next meeting, when it will be the first item of New Business. Schreiner reminded the Committee to look at the fencing ordinance in preparation. B. Master Pathway Plan Recommendations (ACTION). i. 13303 Wildcrest. (There was a general recollection that this had already been done. Chairman Summit will get clarification as to what issue brought it back to the agenda. i. 12581 & 12620 Zappetini Court, connections to Central Drive. (Committee member Montgomery lives within 500 feet of the potential "East side" route and so was speaking as a member of the public when he distributed a six-page handout outlining his preference for a "West side" route.) After lengthy discussion as to the feasibility of various alternatives, the Committee agreed to consult with the owner of 12541 Zappetini to determine whether a swap of the s b IrfikC E ENT R C H e v o n I n c., Architecture Planning Interiors 3 9 0 3 9 P a s e o P a d r e# 2 0 1 F r e m o n t C A 9 4 5 3 8 T e I: 5 1 0 7 9 3 8 3 4 4 F a x: 5 1 0 5 0 5 7 9 1 4 RECEIVED IVO V 7 2005 November 7, 2005 TO . WN 0FL0SALT0s HILLS To: Leslie Hopper, Project Planner 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 PROJECT: New residence w/ indoor pool, second dwelling and other accessory structures 27500 La Vida Real . File # 131-05-ZP-SD-GD RE: "Request to pay in -lieu fees for pathway at north end of the project" Based on our meeting and walk thru with the pathway committee at the project site on 11/2/05, we have the following to offer. We have some serious concerns about the possibility of building a pathway at the proposed easement at the north end of the project site. They are as follows: 1. The construction of such a pathway with the provided specifications from the Town of Los Altos Hills (refer to attached sketch) would create significant amount of grading, cutting of existing mature historic trees, construction of retaining walls and bridges. These are all prohibited in "open space conservation easements." 2. The neighbors from the surrounding area have expressed severe concern about this pathway at our neighborhood meeting for the project. The major concerns are as follows: a. Encroachment into the riparian area that has been dedicated to an open conservation easement area with significant historic trees, deer creek and steep slopes. They are all concerned with erosion that could occur due to the construction of the pathway. b. Serious hazard created at the intersection of the proposed pathway and Natoma Road due to the fact that Natoma is a very narrow winding road and the pathway would create serious visibility issues due to the site's steepness. 3. The cost of construction and approval process from various agencies to construct such a pathway would be significantly higher than the "in -lieu fees." 4. Our general contractor has walked the site for the proposed pathway and has several construction issues. Please refer to the attached letter from LWGC. 5. There are some serious environmental and biological issues with the proposed pathway alongside of deer creek. Please refer to the letter from our team's wildlife ecologist dated 11/2/05 (letter from Live Oaks Associates, Inc.) 6. The construction of the pathway would alter the natural habitat, topography and vegetation. It would also encroach into the banks of Deer Creek. This will cause some erosion problems. After discussing with our consultants we have collectively come to a conclusion that building the proposed pathway will be in conflict with the goals of the open space conservation area and the Town's Wildlife Corridors. Mr. and Mrs. Malavalli have been asked to dedicate more land towards open space conservation and restrict themselves from developing (landscaping and building) in these areas. Furthermore, we changed our landscape plans to reflect that no planting would occur in these areas. On one hand we are being asked to dedicate land for open space conservation while on the north side of the property we are being asked to construct a pathway in an open space conservation area. There seems to be a conflict with the design goals for open space conservation area on the same project. 8. I have listed some thoughts and planning principals from the Town of Los Altos Hills "A guide to understanding Conservation Easements" handbook These seem to be in conflict with the construction of the pathway. They are as follows: a. To leave for our children and grandchildren a heritage that has not been dug up and paved over and -it's ironic word -HUMANIZED. b. Under a conservation easement the landowner promises to keep the land in its natural condition without extensive disturbance. c. The natural conditions of conservation easements often provide unique terrain, vegetation, watersheds, wildlife habitats or wildlife corridors, and are fundamental to maintaining a rural, open space atmosphere, and these are the values that make our Town a desirable place to live. d. "Any now there is a considerable body of public opinion in favor of keeping for our children's children, as a priceless heritage, all the delicate beauty of the lesser and all the burly majesty of the mightier forms of wild life." - Theodore Roosevelt The goal of the project has been to preserve the natural surroundings that the site offers. Mr. and Mrs. Malavalh bought two properties and combined them into one so that they could create an estate type home. The design goal has been to create an architectural masterpiece that responds to the site. Our design reflects that. Once complete the home will feel like it has been there for years. This is due to the fact that there is a huge inventory of large trees, vegetation and wildlife that would be preserved. Furthermore, we are supplementing the existing landscaping with a large number of mature trees and shrubs. We strongly believe in providing pathways for the citizens of Los Altos Hills. We would gladly build a pathway if it were in an area that would not be in conflict with the alteration of preserved lands. We have spent a significant amount of time and money to convince Planning Staff that this is an area that should remain in its natural state. We have offered to pay the in -lieu fees since the very beginning of this process but have been offered nothing but resistance. We suggest that this is one area we should not encroach into, and is the best heritage we would leave behind for our children and grandchildren. I hope this letter addresses the concerns about the construction of the pathway in a very sensitive natural habitat. If you have any questions regarding this letter please feel free to call me. Thanking you Kartik Patel, Principal Archevon Encl: Live Oaks letter dated 11/2/05 LWGC letter dated 11/7/05 Cc: File, Michelle Korpos, Paul Reed, LWGC and Mr. & Mrs. Malavalli 0 Ul.l, L7. 1UU7 IU.ZIAM ��U�uS ALI�vI1�LL5 �NU UIl4 f: L V. -.0. { FAM• o' 9PA WAS 9;� � o 414AK.1bja Qo of p,�ti4tVptt� sipas i AS DETAIL "C" VEGETATION CLEARING FOR PATHWAYS MAI an Ecological Consulting Firm 2 November 2005 Mr. Kartik Patel Principal ARCHevon Inc. 39039 Paseo Padre Parkway, #201 Fremont, CA 94538 RE: Site Visit to Look at Trail Location Proposed by the Los Altos Hills Trail Committee and the Town of Los Altos Hills within the Conservation Easement on the Malavalli Property located on La Vida Real (PN: 829-01) Dear Kartik: I am writing to recap our walk through today that occurred within the Conservation Easement (CE) on the Malavalli Property located on La Vida Real in Los Altos Hills, CA. The north. side of property line (and northern edge of the CE) was staked as was a southerly 20 -foot set back from said line. Deer Creek (the Creek) and tributaries thereof occur within this 20 -foot setback area. This reach (riparian area) of Deer Creek supports a mature canopy consisting mainly of valley oak (Quercus lobata), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), and California bay (Umbellularia califo»aica). The understory consists mainly of Himalayan blackberry ((Rubus discolor), California rose (Rosa californica), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). As such, this riparian corridor offers a medium to high biotic value for local fauna, with the limiting factor being its proximity to low-density housing. The thick leaf litter and decaying logs in this habitat provide a moist microclimate suitable for amphibians such as the California newt (Taricha torosa), ensatina (Ensatina eschscholtzt), arboreal salamander (Aneides lugubris), California slender salamander (Batrachoseps attenuatus), western toad (Bufo boreas) and Pacific tree frog (Hyla regilla). Western fence lizards (Sceloporus occidentalis), and southern alligator lizards (Elgaria multicarinata) may also occur in this habitat. Avian species such as California quail (Callipepla californica), black phoebes (Sayornis negricans), ash - throated flycatchers (Myiarchus cinerascens). Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna), acorn woodpecker (Melanerpes formicivorus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallit), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), northern flicker (Colaptes auratus), Stellar's jay (Cyanocitta stellari), and western scrub jay (Aphelocotna californica), among other avian species are likely residents of this riparian corridor. Winter migrants would include Townsend's and yellow-rumped warblers (Dendroica townsendi and D. coronata, respectively), and ruby -crowned kinglets (Regulus calendula). Summer migrants breeding here could include orange -crowned warblers (Vermivora celata), black -headed grosbeaks (Pheucticus melanocephalus), and warbling vireos (Vireo gilvus). Avian predators (i.e., raptors) such as white-tailed San Jose Office: 6830 Via Del Oro, Suite 205 • San Jose, CA 95119 a Phone: 408-281-5885 a Fax: 408-224-1411 Oakhurst Office: P.O. Box 2697 a 49430 Road 426, Suite B • Oakhurst, CA 93644 a Phone: 559-642-4880 a Fax: 559-642-4883 kites, red -shouldered hawks, red-tailed hawks and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus), may roost or nest within this riparian corridor. A number of mammals occur or are likely to occur in this habitat, either using this riparian area as all or part of their home range, or using it as a movement corridor. Such species include the pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), California mastiff bat (Eumops perotis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern grey squirrel (Sciurus cardinensis) — black phase, western grey squirrel (Sciurus griseus), ringtail (Bassariscus astutus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), coyote (Canis latrans), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), cougar (Puma concolor), bobcat (Lynx rufus), and black -tailed deer (Odecoileus hemionus columbianis ). The area along the property line on the northern edge of the CE slopes gently to the south for a short distance (approximately three to eight feet), and then the slope associated with the CE is rather steep (e.g., greater than 15% slope in most areas, approaching 30-40% in some areas) on both sides of the Creek. Creating a trail within the CE would necessitate the crossing of the Creek or its tributaries between one to three times, depending on where the trail alignment would occur. The removal of woody vegetation or significant trimming of trees would also be required. It is highly probable that these activities would require permits from various agencies. For instance, if bridges were used to cross the Creek, and were constructed using culverts, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) would need to be consulted, and it is likely a 404' -Clean Water Act permit would need to be acquired. Removal of woody vegetation or installation of footings for a bridge between the high water mark and the top of bank, would require consultation with the California Department of Fish and Game (Department), and likely necessitate a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement. The Regional Water Quality Control Board would likely require a 401 Certification regardless of Corps or Department involvement. The need for such permits and agency involvement would trigger the CEQA process (e.g., a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Review). Due to the size, species and function of many of the trees within the riparian area, they may fall under the moniker of a "Heritage Tree" as defined by the Town of Los Altos Hills, which may require a permit to remove or trim them Furthermore, depending on the number of trees to be removed and the degree to which they provide habitat for a variety of species, their removal would likely require mitigation (usually at a 3:1 replacement to loss ratio). Due to the fact the habitat within the CE consists of a mature canopy, off-site mitigation would be likely. Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns regarding this recap of our walk through today. Sincerely; Michele Korpos Project Manager/ Wildlife Ecologist Live Oak Associates, Inc. Prov 07 05 02:06P LWGG, Ino. 81(4 San Ramon Valley Blvd., Suite 203; Danville. CA 94526 (Drfeee: (925) 362-8922 Fax: (925) 362-9022 Letter To: Mr. Kartik Patel from: Principal. ARCHevon 39439 Pasco Padre Pkwy, Suite 201 Fremont, CA 94538 L825i 862-5022 P,1 Limnsc# 720-524 Bate: November 7, 2005 LWGC, Inc. _ — Re: Feasibility of buildings proposed path requested by the Town of Los Altos ITills Trail Committee parallel to the northeast property li-ne contained within conservation casement. Tear i4csrtik, . On Friday November 4, 2005 after our morning; meeting, I throve to the, property and walked the entire northeast property line. The purpose was to investigate the feasibility cif' constructing a horse/human walking path along this line. The requirements I. base my opinion on are: (a) town document labeled "pathway standards detail C" and (b) town document labeled "horse path general plan". As a contractor, with years of experience in the Los Altos Ifills and having built many of these sante trails, I am quite familiar with the requirements of the town. From a construetability standpoint, building this trail would require (a) a small retaining wall along one or possibly both "ides of trail, (b) a section of at least six inches of compacted granite for footing as required by the town of Los Altos I-TiIIN and (c) at least two small bridges would need to be built. The volume of material and equipment traffic to facilitate constructing the trail would be considerable. All of thiti traffic (human, equipment, and material) would flow directly off of or onto Natoma Road. With no staging area, this presents a sizeable risk to the safety of people performing the work and traffic on Natoma Road. The choice of location for this pathway entrance doesn't allow for a staging area. 'T`heref'ore, a secondary traffic path would be required, which would leave a sizeable scar in the conservation easement. Based on the steepness of the slope:. the singularity of the entrancQ/exit pe)int, the forced method of linear construction always working; on the path to prevent any further erosion or scarring of the natural surroundings, creates excessive costs. In my estimation, the cost of building; this path to the Malavalli's will brat least ten fold that of a normal section ol'town sanctioned pathway. Sincerely, f ukd Wtimel, President, LWG , Inc cc: T 14:05:05 RECEIVED Off -Road Pathway between the properties of 27608 Vod.ie I:tLOS ALTOS DILLS and 27500 La Vida Real in Los Altos Hills 7 November2005 I and my family have lived in Los Altos Hills for over 22 years. I have during this enj�;e time had an off-road pathway along my property. At times in the spring I have cut the grass all the way from Black Mountain Road to Elena along path B3.21 to make this path more accessible. I do not plan to apply for any permits any time soon, but I did apply and received a development permit for my property in 1989. This is on file with the Town and no additional off-road pathways were requested. If this new off-road path, B3.22, goes in, 56% of my property will have off-road parfhs. I have never met, I have never talked with nor do I know the person or persons who purchased 27500 La Vida Real in Los Altos Hills, CA 94022. It is my understanding that the Town of Los Altos Hills may deny a development permit for Lands which include 27500 La Vida Real in Los Altos Hills, CA unless they build (at any cost) a human/horse pathway through what has been for decades a nature reserve. This path may. be on or directly adjacent to my property. I gathered my information because I questioned surveyors who used my property during multiple surveys (at least 4 to date) and private citizens. No notice from the Town or its representatives (e.g. Environmental or Pathways Committees) was given to me, as an effected resident, about the many negotiations for or against construction of the pathway designated as B3.22; it was only through the time I spent on the telephone from surveyor to engineer to architect to city planer to neighbors to Council member(s) that I got at least part of the story. I would like to thank those who truthfully gave information. I have serious concerns with an off-road pathway B3.22 between the above mentioned properties (27608 & 27500 LAIC. 1. This potential pathway was extensively reviewed during the last Pathway Master Plan update (Spring 2005) and at least 8 people involved in the Master Plan physically toured this creek -side setting in March 2005. At that time it was decided by this group that it was not advisable to build a path for practical, safety, and environmental reasons. The Planning Commition recommended that this path be removed from the Master Pathway Plan (MPP). This is documented in Attachment #1. It was also documented until recently on the Town's Web site (Attachment 42). The Town Council chose to reject the Planning Commissions recommendations. I would like to know why and why it is now time to build this path. 2. The residents adjacent to this potential pathway where not notified of construction discussions which have been ongoing for months, yet a non-member of the Pathway Committee toured and strongly influenced discussions which were not open to residents along the proposed pathway. It may be legal, but I feel not involving effected residents but inviting `pathway friends' to tours and discussions is inappropriate. 3. The area of the proposed human/horse pathway has one of the few year-round, spring - fed creeks which many indigenous animals routinely use. Is this the best place for human encroachment? 4. The site has extremely steep slopes. This is a good place for indigenous animals but not for people with dogs and horses. 5. How will vegetation removal effect soil erosion and maybe even landslides? Is there and environmental impact study? Can we not find a better place to walk with or without our domesticated animals? I do not think defoliation, tree cutting and building retaining walls are consistent with asking residents to devote over half of the same lands to be dedicated to permanent open space. 6. The proposed, new path does not significantly add access already afforded by existing off-road path B3.22. After 22 years of personal observation I do not think the proposed path would aid children going to school or neighbors visiting each other. I would like to see data (not unsubstantiated opinions) which refute my 22 years of personal observations regarding this specific site. I would be willing to assist polling residents along the existing pathway, the proposed creek pathway as well as those which are near the pathways on their opinions. I think local residents should have at least a voice in the discussions before people with special agendas get to influence the Town. 7. Can we not negotiate with the developer(s) of 27500 La Vida Real to get funds to build and/or maintain pathways which are better investments for our community? I would be willing to assist in this endeavor. 8. The entrance/exit for the proposed path B2.21 has safety issues. It is on a very narrow part of Natoma Road and on a tight curve. People and horses entering or exiting this proposed path would have limited visibility to vehicular traffic even at 25 MPH. These are just some of my opinions. Please let me know if you would like me to expand on the merits of this path as well as the procedures used to negotiate development permits. Regards, �I-e: U.- , Brian Macknick, Ph.D. 27608 Vogue Court Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 I support efforts of volunteers of the Town of Los Altos Hills. It is often a difficult and thankless job. Without their endeavors the Town would not be the great place in which I brought up my children. We may agree to disagree, but at least we should all have access to information in this Internet world to voice our opinions. We cannot do this without free and open information from the Town and its committees. "I f- tv 7 *1 .1 dd!t. it! Ur qwd n:11 mqz= IV.11511{m.� ;E) .111119VI 1111.1 b:I1n-1-Jjt-kIj- tit, iIju-- rJaq JjoPmlo= aq :!II.d I! t!wo Ill -ac) V lFpuvl 1,12o. k-.a1.:,!W,p.: It";. :,;.)I: Z.q qj,•%l I! vow ;wwlc lm: C; ? 1;p�cj u-11 I .!4.2t: Lnu"Ja.ap., 1-:om, -.:) tplf-1 vyll Immli-avIll, lay "JI JWJJ -IMI'll MI.. U. I '.It LILI j :T Cil C-' CU . . .. ....... lilmd i1pil of jovijfff.uf iqv-,U� mV4 )iN'IrJ hil 411;a dpj h, wep, lbal .10 . p . . .... ....... pram ut, fwIItqt;k1r.;Il3 f"llil -amlln) 011) '-it UI1IlrJlluO:pram e muo.—il !w?.1 SpIl wlo�I-AID:j P. w.II . ........ mr t .4 Itt4d ml Allut-Im., :- 411-111 .,);,.V, t4jo�, Itle-punl5ul., wI1:ra.L :Mlls dzjlj In 111PI3I %fill 0,� nlem P—u 7,11 Im rw � rig P-.. X) --Too IF mapo.w 0 -Pr -LIVYW #'D blj-.4 i 4: 27644 0 15 .13 7360 2.76.10. )977-AC-�JM,E.A/r (lvoU. z 00 S-) 12130 12120 27645 '2742. 12139 0 .1.2133 '.12123 1211* 276da:*"": 114,112121 12113 B3.2 V�A -12119 12117 27500 '10A REAL 26727 26723 EN VIRONMENTAL DESIGN COMNUTTEE NEW RESIDENCE EVALUATION /Y) -A L'AVA-t,�! ATTACHMENT 1� Applicant's Name: !4 A L-A V,A L Address: Reviewed by: Existing Trees Proposed Gracing: impact on water table; nearbYgetation. grading at least 10' from property line?) -So c-) L A V u) A a-f-a°r c_ Date: u) (Comment on size, type, condition, location with respect to building site. Recommended protection during construction.) Erosion potential. All Creeks and drainage: (Should a conservation easement be recommended? Sufficient space between house and conservation easement for circulation. Will construction impact wildlife migration (bridges, fences)? Is there a ✓�% need for removal of invasive species?) Siting: (View impact: ridgeline, across valley, on neighbors. Will driveway impact neighbors' privacy (lights, noise)? Recommended mitigation (height, color, landscapL).) 7 8 /D ii v November 30, 2005 Leslie Hopper, Project Planner Planning Commission 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 Proiect : New Residence with Indoor Pool at 27500 La Vida Real Dear Leslie, This letter is in support of the above -referenced project. Mr. and Mrs. Malavalli invited my husband and me to their current home on Sunday, October 30, to review the drawings of the new residence, along with the other neighbors of La Vida Real. Their architect Kartik Patel and his team presented the project to us for a good part of the afternoon. There were several questions from various neighbors during the presentation and the team was able to respond to our satisfaction. We are the future next -door -neighbors of the Malavalli's and would be impacted the most by the layout of the building and the grounds. As a result of what we learned at the meeting, we now support the project and look forward to seeing it built. The Malavalli's new home will be a welcome addition to La Vida Real and an enhancement of our neighborhood. We list here a few of the factors that are most appealing to us. 1. The preservation of the existing landscape is refreshing. The Malavalli's have boxed several existing trees that were affected by the demolition of the original house. These are currently being taken care ` of so that they can be replanted. The proposed additional landscaping will further enhance the neighborhood. 2. The design retains the path for deer travel at our shared property line at our request. 3. The design incorporates sensitivity towards energy conservation and "green architecture." 4. Mr. and Mrs. Malavalli salvaged for recycling a significant amount of the original home that was demolished. We appreciate the fact that they will do the same with the second home that is also slated for removal. 5. The design takes into account the neighbors' privacy issues, and also preserves the views of each of the neighbors' homes. We especially like the fact that the house is, for the most part, a single -story building. 6. The design of the driveway ensures that La Vida Real would not be impacted by traffic visiting the new residence. 7. Not only is the architecture of this estate -type home outstanding, but the design also keeps more than fifty percent of the property under Open Space Preservation. The completed project would be a credit to the neighborhood and to Los Altos Hills. The only concern we have for the project is the fact that the Pathway Committee for the Town of Los Altos Hills is proposing a path at the north end of the property by Deer Creek. We feel that this is an Open Conservation Area and is an environmentally sensitive area. The construction of a pathway in this area is not only intruding into this area but is also unsafe for pedestrians. The termination at Natoma Road also makes it very dangerous. In closing, I wish to reiterate my full support for the project and would hope that the Planning Commission feel the same way I do. Thank you, and Best Regards, Sandy Laws -Miller 12821 La Vida Real Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 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 1. ROLL CALL AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The regular meeting of the Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at Town Hall. Present: Chairman Cottrell, Commissioners Carey, Kerns, 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 s=* 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 conservation/open 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 December 8, 2005 Page 2 Approved 1/19/06 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 corner 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 care 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 December 8, 2005 Page 3 Approved 1/19/06 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/clear 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 corner 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 years 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 are larger than the ones already moved. It should be a successful move (the company is in the high 90% success rate). Care 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 December 8, 2005 Page 4 Approved 1/19/06 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, Lucero 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 seethe 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 December 8, 2005 Page 5 Approved 1/19/06 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 are 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 December 8, 2005 Page 6 Approved 1119106 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, Lucero 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'xl5'x10' in height), approximately 40 specimens. Commissioner Kerns questioned tree #147 as it provides screening of the bell tower which some residents voiced concerns. He asked Mr. Patel if he was willing to keep 4147 in its current location along with #130 and 4132. Mr. Patel responded yes. He indicated that he had walked the site with both Bob Stutz and Les Earnest. 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 are 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 Cahill suggested only counting the actual footprint of the free standing solar. Commissioner Planning Commission Minutes December 8, 2005 Page 7 Approved 1/19/06 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 first 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 are roots in the fill. Grading in the area is preferable to retaining walls. He supports the retention of trees 4130, 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 December 8, 2005 Page 8 Approved 1/19/06 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). Environ-mental-Designg and rotection Comm ee U 'Attachment 3 Landscal2efflardscape Evaluation Reviewed bv: PA=T-, . L1 L . Applicant Name lel j4yjq U a �1 Address 7 is'6—o LA VQ>A Litigation: caz- Creeks, drainage, easements: Planting Plan: Significant issues/comments: Attachment 4 Nicole Horvitz From: elaine.harney@novartis.com RECEIVED Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 11:37 AM To: Nicole Horvitz �L Cc: johnharney01 @gmail.com; jarrod@zeterre.com Subject: Malavalli screening plans �QV.jN OEs�.TQS NULLS Dear Nicole - We live at 12117 Foothill Lane. Jarrod had asked our opinion re: potential landscape screening from our perspective. He came over last Thursday 7/23 to view the Malavalli property from our house and yard, and discuss what can be done to best screen their structures from our view. Our main concern is the cabana, adjacent patio and the cement retaining wall, which we see clearly from our bedroom, master bath and backyard. The window of the cabana is large and the light that will come through at night will be significant. Also, noise from the patio will definitely carry. We discussed the fact that solar panels will NOT be part of the landscape at this juncture (confirmed by you on the phone that afternoon), hence we would like to have stated in the conditions for approval of the screening plan that the orchard be extended or shifted over to go in behind the cabana and circular retaining wall. We are re! questing maximal tree/orchard screening in that area. As you can see from the most recent version of the plan (dated 5/8/09), the area where the solar panels are drawn would now just be empty bare space. That is precisely the view we have of the property. Jarrod mentioned that he plans to plant grapes along the circular retaining wall, and we would like to have that stated in conditions for approval as well. We will be out of town on August 6, which I believe is the date of the town screening plan meeting. This matter of screening the view of the Malavalli's structures and preventing excessive noise from traveling across our little canyon is extremely important to our quality of life. Before construction began, our view in this direction was of a giant eucalyptus tree which contained at least one large hawk nest, in a pristine sloping meadow that led to a beautiful ridgetop. I shared "before -and -after" photographs with Jarrod and am happy to submit these if it will help the committee appreciate our perspective. Thank you for your consideration of our opinions, my discussion with Jarrod, and this written request. Please don't hesitate to call or email us with any questions or clarification of our request. Sincerely, Elaine and John Harney (650) 949-5830 Elaine WH Harney, Pharm.D. Medical Science Liaison - Hematology Area Scientific Assoc. Director Novartis Oncology 650-948-2143 Palo Alto CA office 650-280-1112 mobile 7/28/2009 Nicole Horvitz From: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:13 PM To: jarrod@zeterre.com Cc: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro Subject: Landscape plan for residence at Natoma and La Vida'Real Date: July 30, 2009 To: Jarrod Baumann Zeterre Landscape Architecture From: Bob and Melinda Rowe Page 1 of 2 RECEIVED JUL 31 2N9 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Re: Proposed Tree Landscaping for the Property of Mr. Malavalli, on La Vida Real Thank you for meeting with us this afternoon and for showing us the jobsite with the locations of the proposed trees. The following is our understanding of the agreements we reached. We also understand that you will alter the landscape plan to reflect these changes and forward a copy to us. ITEM 1: T3 on map, five birch trees with a height of 60' These will be removed from the plan and replaced by shrubs. ITEM 2: T2 on map, six beech trees with a height of 60' These will be relocated below grade W -SW of original planned location. (Below the grade of the Sunset Terrace). Some concern persists about this item. These are still 60' trees. Planting them 8-10' below original grade just buys some growing time. ITEM 3: T5 on map, two Japanese pagoda trees with a height of 70' These are to be pruned to maintain a maximum height of 40' as a condition of town approval of the landscape plan. Again, we'd like to say thanks to you, Nicole Horvitz, and Debbie Pedro for the time. all of you spent addressing our concerns. As you have seen, our home is a very modest one, but its best feature is its spectacular view. We have enjoyed this view for 33 years, and would like to be able to enjoy it for many more years. As you requested, Jarrod, according to our original architect's drawings, the floor of our house is at an elevation of 626'. We hope this helps you. 7/31/2009 Page 2 of 2 Bob and Melinda Rowe 12800 Lucero Lane (650) 941-0486 cc: Nicole Horvitz Debbie Pedro 7/31/2009 0 FX I LUMINAIRE° VL -20 DOWNLIGHTING ARCHITECTURAL TREES & EAVES ACCENTS THE EASE OF LIGHT Use low voltage lighting to transform and prolong the use of your garden. Highlight a magical scene and create desired effects with simple, dean fixtures. As the sky turns to a deeper shode of violet your garden can come to life with the golden glow of copper fixtures. Unify your garden, obliterate shadows, make the shadows of bronches dance on sidewalk Attachment 5 DOWNLIGHTING SMALL, POWERFUL HANGING LIGHT When a moonlighting effect is desired, but the caliper of a tree is too small to use the TrellisSolarea series, specify the FX LuminaireO ViteLume(D. This micro downlight actually hangs from the host tree by a cinch tie requiring no screws or permanent hardware. A small brass hook is also included for beam mounted applications. Milled from heavy copper and solid brass hardware, the ViteLume incorporates a long life halogen lamp originally designed for aero- space which has an integral frosted lens. Use two or more fixtures per tree for an even illumination. An elegant moonlight effect is produced when an evening breeze gently swings the VL making foli- age shadow patterns dance on the ground below. 0 v 2.00" ©2009 FX LUMINAIRE® 800-688-1269 www.FXL.com® M FX I LUMINAIRP PR -10, PR- 15, PR -20 PERIMETER LIGHTING %Z� PATH i LIGHTING ALLURING DESIGN, GRACEFUL PERFORMANCE Designed specifically for those who prefer soft rounded shapes, to angles, the PR is unlike any other. Its unrivaled performance coupled with its exceptional pricing will fit nicely into any demanding design. This patent pending luminaire, milled from extra -heavy gauge copper and solid brass, is designed for today's crowded planters. When incorporated with plant material, the PR simply disappears into the garden. Compare FX copper luminaires with any other, and you will find a dramatic difference in quality of materials, precision of fit and consistency of finish. The copper will patina naturally over time and can be accelerated with solution spray — for patina formula visit our website at www.FXL.com/leaming/patina.htm PERFECT HARMONY Highlight your detailed or simplistic garden while making whatever is beyond it remain in darkness Lighting should be used to highlight, not overpower. Use it to create boundaries and mystery. Lighting your landscape can be 3.75" compared to the ort of stage lighting. You must know where to strategically place your lighting to create emotion. You can illuminate paths, focus attention on fountains and enhance a gorgeous area of fauna. Different types of lighting can combine to create on intimate scene. ©2009 FX LUMINAIRE® 800-688-1269 www.FXL.com®