Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout3.3 SupplementalFrom: Mark Vernon [mailto:mark@ridgewine.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:56 AM To: Nicole Horvitz RECEIVED Cc: Dianne Vernon; elaine.harney@novartis.com; Debbie Pedro JUL � � 2009 Subject: Malavalli Screening Plan Dear Nicole, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS We live at 12119 Foothill Lane (next to the Harney's). We will be out of town on vacation when the hearing will take place with respect to the Malavalli Screen Plan. Please accept this as our input for the hearing. Our main concern is the solar panels. I understand and support the town's efforts to encourage the use of solar panels. But, that goal needs to be thoughtfully balanced with the goal of preserving open space and our natural environment. I continue to question the need for allowing panels in the Open Space area — given the amount of roof area on the buildings, and other places in the non -open space area where they could be located. Not only are there the aesthetic issues, but the panels can create problems in terms of rain and run-off, especially on the steep, sloped areas adjacent to the proposed location for the panels. In all cases, if the panels are going to be placed on the ground either in or adjacent to the Open Space area as shown in the proposed landscape screening plan, then the screening plan should include specific screening provisions for the panels to be hidden in such a way as not to disrupt the natural appearance of the area. I will point out that Policy 2.7 of the General Plan Land Use Element states that "The natural character of ridgelines shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible." The location for the panels shown in the plan places them along the existing ridgeline. This further supports the position that either 1) the panels should not be allowed in this area or 2) there should be a very specific screening plan to mitigate their impact on the ridgeline. If the applicant indicates that the panels will not be installed until a future date; then we would ask that the applicant be required to return in the future with a proposed screening plan for the panels prior to their installation. The problem with approving a screening plan now for something to be installed in the future is that the conditions on the ground may change and render the plan ineffective. We appreciate the Town's efforts to satisfy all parties with respect to this large and complex project. We have been living with the noise of construction for almost two years and are as eager as the owners to see this project completed. But, we also want to be sure that appropriate care is taken to insure that the beautiful natural setting that we are so fortunate to be living in is properly protected. Sincerely, Mark & Dianne Vernon 12119 Foothill Lane Mark Vernon President & COO RIDGE VINEYARDS, INC. markv@ridgewine.com 408-867-3233 (main) 408-868-1336 (direct) www.ridgewine.com ( Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Malavalli Screening Plan From: zeterre@gmail.com [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:02 PM To: Nicole Horvitz; Jarrod Baumann Subject: Re: Malavalli Screening Plan The solar panels are out and should not have been shown on our plan. This was a mistake on my part. Sent from my Verizon Wireless B1ackBerry From: Mark Vernon [mailto:mark@ridgewine.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:56 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Dianne Vernon; elaine.harney@novartis.com; Debbie Pedro • Subject: Malavalli Screening Plan Dear Nicole, We live at 12119 Foothill Lane (next to the Harney's). We will be out of town on vacation when the hearing will take place with respect to the Malavalli Screen Plan. Please accept this as our input for the hearing. Our main concern is the solar panels. I understand and-support-the-towrt s -efforts to encourage the use of solar panels. But, that goal needs to be thoughtfully balanced with the goal of preserving open space and our natural environment. I continue to question the need for allowing panels in the Open Space area — given the amount of roof area on the buildings, and other places in the non -open space area where they could be located. Not only are there the aesthetic issues, but the panels can create problems in terms of rain and run-off, especially on the steep, sloped areas adjacent to the proposed location for the panels. In all cases, if the panels are going to be placed on the ground either in or adjacent to the Open Space area as shown in the proposed landscape screening plan, then the screening plan should include specific screening provisions for the panels to be hidden in such a way as not to disrupt the natural appearance of the area. I will point out that Policy 2.7 of the General Plan Land Use Element states that "The natural character of ridgelines shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible'." The location for the panels shown in the plan places them along the existing ridgeline. This further supports the position that either 1) the panels should not 41 be allowed in this area or 2) there should be a very specific screening plan to mitigate their impact on the ridgeline. 8/6/2009 Page 2 of 2 If the applicant indicates that the panels will not be installed until a future date, then we would ask that the applicant be required to return in the future with a proposed screening plan for the panels prior to their installation. The problem with approving a screening plan now for something to be installed in the future is that • the conditions on the ground may change and render the plan ineffective. We appreciate the Town's efforts to satisfy all parties with respect to this large and complex project. We have been living with the noise of construction for almost two years and are as eager as the owners to see this project completed. But, we also want to be sure that appropriate care is taken to insure that the beautiful natural setting that we are so fortunate to be living in is properly protected. Sincerely, Mark & Dianne Vernon 12119 Foothill Lane Mark Vernon President & COO RIDGE VINEYARDS, INC. markv@ridgewine.com 408-867-3233 (main) 408-868-1336 (direct) www.ridgewine.com • 8/6/2009 Page 1 of 3 Victoria Ortland 40 From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM • To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Landscape plan for residence at Natoma and La Vida Real From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:18 PM To: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net; jarrod@zeterre.com Cc: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro; archevon@archevon.com Subject: RE: Landscape plan for residence at Natoma and La Vida Real Bob & Linda, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this. I am glad that we could come to a reasonable "meeting point' on these trees. I understand whole-heartedly your fears of loosing your beautiful bay views and feel sure that our clients would never want to take that view away from you! Please let me know if you have any further questions or fears. I will forward you the section and line of sight drawing once we have completed it. Best Regards, Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com From: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net [mailto:diverbobr@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:13 PM To: jarrod@zeterre.com 8/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 Cc: nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov; dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov 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 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. Bob and Melinda Rowe 12800 Lucero Lane is (650)941-0486 8/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 cc: Nicole Horvitz Debbie Pedro 8/6/2009 • 0 V Page 1 of 1 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:46 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Section Attachments: section for Rowes.pdf From: Jarrod Baumann [ma I Ito: zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:56 PM To: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net Subject: Section Bob & Melinda, I just finished the section that I told you I would send. Please see attached. Notes: Your house sits 55 ft higher than the Malavallis —their house at 570 and yours 625 .... then I added another 6 foot on top to accommodate a very tall persons eye height. According to google earth, your house at your balcony sits 802 feet from the malavallis house. This means that a tree such as the Japanese Pagoda Tree at the front of the house would have to be over 60 foot tall before it would appear higher than the existing oaks. However, please keep in mind that we anticipate those oaks will easily grow another 10 ft, and as they are in the conservation easement we are not allowed to trim them. Therefore, even if we had let those get to 70ft....in 200 years, they would never overtake your view before the oaks would. — Just a little peace of mind for you! 19 Please let me know if you have any questions about this or any other screening questions. Best Regards, Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com :Q. 11• • Page 1 of 1 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Screening from the Natoma x La Vida Real Projectq Attachments: View Ord.pdf From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:24 PM To: eran.wagner@gmail.com Cc: archevon@archevon.com; Nicole Horvitz Subject: Screening from the Natoma x La Vida Real Projectq Eran, Wanted to quickly touch base in regard to the Malavalli Project- After we met that day, a month or so ago, I went out onto the site to see the tall trees that we thought were on the Malavalli lands.... unfortunately the trees that you see from your house are actually on the neighbors. property (the cedars and the eucalyptus) I am doing everything I can to screen the porte cochere and side of the house from your view. Currently we have a Japanese Pagoda in front of the Porte Cochere....as well as two Arbutus Marina Trees. We are coming up against a lot of trouble in putting in any more tall trees. Many of the neighbors do not want any tall trees at all! There is a view ordinance that I am attaching to this email that states that screening trees cannot get any taller than the ridge of the roof. Please take a look at the rendering that we are presenting to the city. You will see that I have put 4 trees in front of the porte cochere which we hope will screen your view. Please download a colored rendering if you would like at: https:Hrcpt.yousendit.com/720701074/4c6dcOc3d4cbba6cgl 714378bbc6842e Please let me know if you have any questions. Jarrod 8/6/2009 Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner / Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.1801 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com • • ORDINANCE NO. 427 AN. ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS MS ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TITLE 5 OF LOS ALTOS HILLS _ MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS Whereas, the purposes of this Chapter are to: 1. Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years, prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. 2. Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of such views or sunlight when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation. NOW, TbIEREFORE, the City Council ofthe Town ofLos Altos tills does ORDAIN as follows: L Chapter 9 is hereby added to Title 5 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 9: VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES Section 5-9.01. Purpose and Principles. he rights and the restorative process are based upon the following general'pritciples: 1. The Town recognizes that residents cherish their outward views from the hills, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their. buildings and yards. The Town recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in Los Altos Ifills, and promote the general welfare of the entire community. 2: The Town also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners, and institutions for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees. The Town realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight, and that disputes related to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable. 3. Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of sunlight and outward views. Before planting trees, owners and residents should consider view and 630591-1 sunlight blockage potential, both currently and at tree maturity. Persons have the right to seek civil remedies when threatened by dangerous tree growth. 4. The Town shall establish a process by which persons may seek to preserve and restore views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The Town shall also establish a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to restore views or sunlight. 5. When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful .negotiation, compromise, and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which are not resolved through such means shall follow the procedure established herein 6. It is the intent of the Town that the provisions of this Chapter ieceive thoughtful and reasonable application. It is not the intent of the Town to encourage clear -cutting or substantial denuding of any property of its trees by overzealous application of provisions of this Chapter: Section 5-9.02. DeSnitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of words and pbrases is as follows: , Arbitrator. A neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial, and who will hear testimony, consider evidence, and make a binding decision for the disputing parties. Binding Arbitration: A legal procedure as set forth in Section 1280 e, t sen. of the Code of Civil Procedure. Initiating Party: Any property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing views or sunlight Landscane Screening: A method by which trees and vegetation are planted in order to separate and partially obstruct the view of adjacent and nearby structures and properties from one another. Landscape screening shall generally not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure. Mediator. A neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem. 630225-1 • Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or other legal entity, excluding the Town of Los Altos bills. •m g Living Area: The portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other -portions of the residence. The detemrin a of primary living area is tb be made on a case-by-case basis. Protected Tree: Any of the following: HERITAGE TREF, shall mean any tree that, due to age, size, Iocation, visibility, historic nature, or other unique attribute, has been deemed by the Town to be a heritage tree and accordingly deserves special consideration for preservation and protection. HERITAGE OAK, shall -mean any tree of the, genus quercus, including, but not limited to, Valley .Oak (quercus lobata), California Live Oak (quercus agrifolia), Black Oak (quercus kelloggii) and Blue Oak (quercus douglasii) that has a trunk or multiple trunk thirty-six (36) inches in circumference (approximately twelve (12) inches indiameter) at a point four W) feet above the root crown. Removal: The elimination of any tree from its present location. Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. Stump Growth: New growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk, the main portion of which has been cut off- Sunlight: ff Sunli t: The availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence. Thinning: The selective removal of entire, branches from a tree so as to improve visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural condition Topping: Elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. Tree. Any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References to "tree" shall include the plural. Tree Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the provisions of this Chapter. 630225- 3 Tree Owner: Any person owning real property in Los Altos F13ils upon whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by an Initiating Party to cause an unreasonable obstruction. Trim*nina. The selective removal of portions of branches from a tree so as to modify the tree(s) shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance: View: A scene from the primary Jiving area of a residenc6. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include but are not limited to skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. Some additional examples are: San Francisco Bay, neighboring Silicon Valley Communities, Lands of Stanford, Lands of NdPeninsula Open Space District, The City's of San Francisco and San Jose, East Bay Hills, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, Dmnbarton Bridge. ir"mdowina: A fomn of thinning by which openings or "windows" are created to restore views and or sunlight. Section 5-9.03. Rights Established. Persons shall have the right to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any time since they purchased their property' or not more than 15 years prior to adoption of this 'ordinance whichever option results' in Idss time, when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area and have subsegnently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees. In order to establish such rights p,*-sim►t to this Chapter, the person must follow the process, established in this Chapter. In addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees. All persons are advised that the alteration, removal; and planting of certain trees requires a permit under Title 12, Article 3, Sections 12-2.202, 12-2.302, 12-2.403 of the Town of Los Altos Hills Municipal Code (Parks and Recreation). The applicability of Title 12 should be determined prior to any action on trees. Section 5-9.04. Vnreasonable Obstruction Prohibited. (a) No person shall plant, maintain, or Permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area of any other parcel of property within the Town of Los Altos Hills. 630225-1 • (b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the general welfare of the entire Town, any unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area shall also constitute a public nuisance. Section 5-9.05. Criteria for Deteg Unreasonable Obstruction. The following criteria are to be considered (but are" 'not exclusive) in determining whether unreasonable obstruction has occurred: 9 (a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area of the initiating Party, both currently and at tree maturity. (b) The quality of the pre-existifig views being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vistas, or other unique features. (c) The extent to which the tress interfere with efficient operation of an Initiating Party's preexisting solar energy systems. (d) The extent to which the Initiating Party's view and/or sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than tree growth. Section. 5-9.06. Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action. When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occuaLed, theca the following unweighted factors shall be considered in determining appropriate restorative action: (a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structures on the property of the Initiating Party including, but not limited to, fire danger and the danger of falling limbs or trees. (b) The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements. (c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size. growth, form and. vigor. (d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design, or use of the Tree Owner's property. (e) Soil stability provided by the tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system. (fl Privacy (visual and auditory), wind and landscape screening provided by the tree(s) to the Tree Owner and to neighbors. (g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the tree(s). 630225-1 (h) Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s). (i) Whether trees are "Protected Trees", as defined herein. Section 5-9.07. Types of Restorative Action. Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following: — thinning or windowing — topping removal with replacement plantings — removal without replacement plantings In all cases, the documentable extent of view. or sunlight existing at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, is the maximum limit of Restorative Action which may be required. In cases where trimming, windowing, or other Restorative Action may affect the health of a tree that is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California. Section 5-9.08. Town Guidelines Concerning Restorative Action. The Town of Los.Altos Hills provides the following general guidelines concerning restorative actions: Undesirable Trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth, dense foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability, or invasiveness; certain types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the Town, including Blue Crum Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress trees, When considering restorative action for. "undesirable" trees, aggressive action is preferred. Redwood Trees. Redwood trees are desirable for their scenic qualities and fire- resistance. However, Redwood trees must be sited with care in order to avoid potential view obstructions. Protected Trees. The Town of Los Altos Hills has designated certain trees to be "protected trees", defined in Section 10-2.8.1.02. Any alteration or 630225-1 • • removal of protected trees shall require d permit from the Town pursuant to the Town Municipal Code. SLWW Growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard of weak limbs, and its protection is not desirable. When considering- restorative action for stump growth, aggressive action is preferred. Restorative action which will result in firture stump growth should be avoided Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical restorative action. This option is recommended when minor unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that ongoing maintenance is guaranteed. Thinning or Windowing. When simple trimming will not resolve the unreasonable obstruction, thinning or windowing may be necessary. These should be supervised by a certified arborist. Tovnias. Topping as a restorative action should be used with caution. Topping can have deleterious effects on a tree's health, • appearance, and cost of maintenance. Topping frequently results in stump growth_ Tree removal, with replacement plantings, may be a preferable alternative. Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is essential to preserve pre-existing views or sunlight. While normally considered a drastic measure, tree removal can be the preferred solution !it many circumstances. Disturbance to Nesting Birds Topping and Tree removal should take place between the end of August and the beginning of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act WTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requirements are strongly recommended as part of Restorative Action in order to achieve lasting preservation of pre-msting views or sunlight: Section 5-9.09. Process for Resolution of Obstruction 1Dispikes. The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties: 1. Initial Reconciliation: An Initiating Party who believes that tree growth on the property of another- has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area shall notify the Tree Owner in writing of such concerns. 630225-' 7 The notification should, if pQssible, be accompanied by personal discussions to enable the Initiating Party and Tree Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If _ personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with, the resolution of the obstruction dispute. For trees located on Town -owned property, see Section 10-2.8.1.16. 2. Mediation: If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the Initiating Party shall propose mediation'as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute. Acceptance of mediation by the Tree Owner shall be voluntary, but the Tree Owner shall have rio more than 30 days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties 'shall mutually agree upon a Mediator within 10 days. It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed_ The Los Altos Mediation Program (LJLNLP) is an example of such a service. The mediation meeting may be informal: The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses,. and shall include a site visit to the properties of the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. The Mediator shall consider .the purposes and policies set forth in this Chapter in attempting to help. resolve the dispute. The Mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for Restorative Action, but -shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for binding arbitration or litigation. Section 5-9.10. Tree Claim Preparation - In the event that the Initial Reconciliation process- fails, and mediation either is declined by the Tree Owner or fails, the Initiating Party must prepare a Tree Claim, and provide a copy to the Tree Owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitration or litigation under the authority established by this Chapter. A Tree Claim shall consist of all of the following: (a) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent and corroborating physical evideAce. Evidence may include, but is not limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the obstruction at any time since they purchased their property or not more than 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever option results in less time. (b) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address.. 630225-1 $ • (c) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, td resolve the dispute. The Initiating Party must provide physical evidence that written _ attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence, (d) Evidence that mediation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, has been attempted and has failed, or has been declined by the Tree Owner. (e) Specific restorative actions proposed by the Initiating Party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. Section 5-9.11. Binding Arbitration. In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails and where mediation is declined by the Tree Owner or has failed, the Initiating Party must offer in writing to submit the dispute fid binding arbitration, and the Tree Owndr may elect binding arbitration. The Tree Owner shall have 30 days from service of notice to accept or reject binding arbitration. If accepted, the parties shall agree on a specific Arbitrator within 21 days, and shall indicate such agreement in. writing. The Arbitrator shall use the provisions of this Chapter to reach a fair resolution of the Tree Claim and shall submit a complete written report to the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. This report shall include the Arbitrator's findings with respect to Sections 5-9.05 and Section 5-9.06 of this Chapter, a pertinent list of all mandated Restorative Actions with any appropriate conditions concerning such actions, and a schedule by which the mandates mast be completed. A copy of the Arbitrator's report shall be filed with the Town Attorney upon completion. Any decision of the Arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et_M. Section 5-9.12. Litigation. In those cases where binding arbitration is declined by the Tree Owner, then civil action may be pursued by the Initiating Party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this Chapter. The litigant must state in the lawsuit that arbitration was offered and not accepted, and that a copy of the lawsuit was filed with the Town Attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the Town Attorney. Section 5-9.1.3. Apportionment of Costs. Cost of Mediation and Arbitration: The Initiating Party and Tree Owner shall each pay 501/6- of Mediation or Arbitration fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the Mediator or Arbitrator discretion for allocating costs. 630225' 9 Cost of Litigation: To be determined by the Court or through a settlement Cost of Restorative Action: To be determined by mutual agreement, or through mediation, arbitration, court judgment, or settlement Section 5-9.14. Liabilities. The issuance of mediation findings, an arbitration report or a court decision shall not create any liability of the Town with regard to the Restorative Actions to be performed. Failure of the Towm to enforce provisions of this Chapter shall not give rise to any civil or criminal liabilities on the part of the Town. Section 5-9.15. Limitations. It is not the intent of the Town in adopting this Chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid pre-existing covenantor agreement. Section 5-9.16. Trees on 'Down -owned ]Property dr within Conservation -Easements. Trees located on Town -owned property or naturally occurring native species within conservation easements are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Requests or complaints regarding trees located on Town -owned property should be made in writing to the Superintendent of Public Works for consideration in accordance with policies adopted by the Town. U. SeverabiIiiv. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this ordinance to other situations. iIL Effective Bate. Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) after adoption. Within fifteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos BMs, as required by law. 10 530225-' • INTRODUCED: May 15, 2003 PASSED: June 5, 2003 AYES: Mayor Fenwick, Mayor Pro Tem Cheng, Councilmember O'Malley Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None BY: Mayor A T: City. Clerk CStY, e3� 630225-1 11 �. ZETER new open spa �sement `'\ existing conservation' easement LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE 14407 BIg Besln my. SVitoE SeretogA. cwf_la 95070 IT`! i • ~ `\ Ph. 408.395.1801 Fu 08.867.6596 m V _ ' L t r tl 1 ) to ems. tr 1 ..a i I�Pea� r •.' '' \� r' n new:open space easement L © 1 n w -?pen space easemenf 1 I Of, I. .il .sem _ I I 1 ,` 1, ,`L t/ �1 , : , H -� "�� as E]❑LI� � 1' J 1; I, )( '' i - A. , � r / ra 1 � , ._ The Malavalli Residence VIDA REAL 21500 La Vida Real, Las Alfas Hills, CA --- PROPOSED TREE LEGEND: (TOTAL NEW TREES- 72) EXISTING TREES ONSITE BOIANICAL NAME __ CONMON NAME SIZE _HCGHT• !l1_DTF 0-Y_. -REEL BOTANICAL NAME 1NEE0 BOTANICAL NAME _ _ TRE_j/_ B01 [CAL NAME _ 21-23 COAST LIVE OAN_ 84 9 COAST LIVE OAK _ 19_ ENGLISH WALNUT RL)_ -1 ARBUTJS 'NRR NA' NO CC IMON NAM' 8:] BO% 36 -IT 30 F 36 27 COAST LIVE OAK 110 VALLEY OAK 70 COAST LIVE OAK 'RL -2 FAGJS 'RIVERSII B EfF 72• BOX 6C FT 40 FT 6 31 COAST LIVE OAK '12-116 COAST LIVE OAK 108-I C3 EURCP_AN OLIVE 'RL O J bGIJLA JAGOUEMC\N II BkCH c8- BOX 60 FT ]0 FT 5 35 c0 COAST RED'S'000 11] VALLEY OAK 170 RhOOGCENCRON RL) 4 TRISTANIA LAURNA WATCR CUM S, BOX 4S FI 0 FI 7 COAST LIVE OAK 1"9 COAST LVE OAK 172 JAPANE MARE L �S SOPHCRA JAPONICA JAPANESE PA00DA TREE 50' 0 70 FT 50 FT 4484 CALIFORNA BAY TREE 129 1'=HN PNE 1/3 CHAPL MYRTLE RL T6 POMEGFANATE NO COMMON NAM=_ c8- ROX 7' FT 15 'T 1 49 COAST LIVE OAK 130 COAST LIVE OAK 174 EURCP=AN OLIVE RL SALE T"=20' -C" I IlICHELIA CHAAIPACA CiAMPACA c9_ BOX 20 FT 20 FT 6 68-69 VA -LEY OAS 133-134 COAST LIVE OAK 175 CFAFE MYRTLE RL DAT=: MAY In, 1009 "8 AGER P.'VARIEGATA' JAPANESE NA�LE 72• BOX 20 FT 20 FT - I 70 COAST LIVE OAK 135 VALLEY OAK 176 EUROPEAN OLIVE RL T9 CASTANEA 'CHESTNUT CRESTNUT - 0 FT 1 1 71 VA -LEY OAK 136-'38 COAST LIVE OAK 177 COAST LIVE OAK 'RL IfU IAXOUIUM DSIICHUN UALU GYPII SS B4• BOX 7C FT - 30 FT 3 72 1 COASf LIVE OAK 147-1c9 VALLLY OAK -11 BLLA CAVIIAIA PNJO PALM _ 72" BOXBOX 20 ITT _15_-T ;_- 5 73-79 VA -LEY OAS _ fi COAST LIVE OAK (RL) —Y ISLAND PA --V 12 PRUNUSCNOJLA SINGLE 1YYEPNG CII_RR" 72' BOX 12_FT 35 —2 75-771 COAST LIVE OAK 1 C(RL)- ftELOCA-E] TREE LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN T13 PARNC IIA PEkSICA _ PRS AN PAkRUIIA 72=p0X- _3 FT _ �5_fi _2_ 53 VALEY-OAK 15 17 CALIFORNIA FAN FALN_(RL -NOTE: ALL HEIGHTS/NDTHS DESIGNATIONS ARE AT FULL NA -URI -Y CF TREE RECEIVED AUG 0 6 2009 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 6, 2009 Summation of Meetings with Malavalli Neighbors in Regard to the Screening Submittal I have spoken on the phone with Bill Lanadan at 12145 Foothill Lane in regard to the oaks. He was concerned that more oaks might be moved, trimmed or relocated. I assured him that the oaks in question were within the conservation easement and could therefore not be trimmed or relocated. I swapped emails with Duncan Macmillan on Foothill Lane. He was mostly concerned with the removal of the original water features and the olive trees that we had originally proposed for within the public right of way along La Vida Real. I explained the reason for the changes I met in person with the Laney Harney on 12117 Foothill Lane on the 23rd of July. She and John had concerns about the cabana structure. I reassured her that this is the area where we are planning to put in a small orchard- though the trees aren't on the screening plan. We do plan to install table -grapevines off of this structure. This seemed to greatly please her. I met in person with the Wagners at 26800 Almaden Court on June. They were mostly concerned about the Porte Cochere that is sticking out and wondered if there are any trees going in front of it. I assured her that the Japanese Pagoda Trees would soften the porte cochere and if there is anything that we can do in addition to this we will. After looking at her line of sight, I don't think there are any trees tall enough to really add additional screening. They sit very high on the hill. I did speak in person with Sandy Miller @ the end of La Vida Real several weeks ago. She had concerns about how much she would be seeing the house from the street. I assured her that there would be the wall and many trees to soften the front. We did receive a call from her today while I was out at a meeting and she asked for me to call her as she has a few questions. I plan to call her this afternoon as she requested. Update: Spoke with Sandy several time and moved trees around on the plan to soften her view. She had concerns about the deer fence and whether we might obstruct the agreed upon wildlife corridor. I assured her that we would not. Met in Person with Bob and Melinda Rowe at 12800 Lucero Lane on July 30"'. They had concerns about the Pagoda Trees along with the Beech and Birch Trees. After seeing their view, I realized that the Birch Trees could in fact impact their view in the future. I took the Rowes to the site so that they could see the proposed tree locations. It was decided to eliminate the birch and move the Beech Trees down the hill so as to lower their root crown elevation. After discussing the pagoda trees at the front of the house, it was agreed that the pagoda trees should be kept to a maximum height. I told the rowes that I would do a sectional drawing so that they could see a line of sight and verify if ever the trees could be an issue. Zeterre Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596 Cont- page 2 of 2 Met in Person with David Buffer at 12840 Lucero Lane on July 29`h. along with Kartik Patel of Archevon He had concerns about the Beech, Birch and Pagoda Trees. We reassured him that from his line of sight, the oaks behind the residence would distort his view before any of the other trees. Met in Person with the Rao's at 12835 Lucero Lane on August 4t'. They had concerns about the tree heights and after seeing the site, they understood that it had been decided to eliminate and/or relocate all trees that caused concern. I corresponded with Marc Vernon on 12119 Foothill Lane who was concerned about the proposed Solar Panels. I assured him that the panels were no longer proposed in that area. I spoke with and corresponded with Anne Degheest on Foothill Lane who was concerned about her view of the Malavalli Residence through the oak trees on the ridge. I assured her, after seeing the photos, that vines on the deer fence and low shrubbery would block her small view of the side of the malavallis house. She also had concerns about the aesculus Californica (California buckeye) growing on the slope....that is rust in color. She thought it might be due to a lack of water ...due to our stopping water from rolling down the slope. I assured her that this was normal for the aesculus this time of year, and sent her online information on Aesculus Californica. Zeterre Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596 August 2, 2009 Nicole. RECEIVED AUG 0 0 2009 !OWN Of LOS ALTOS HILLS In your email you suggested that we document our view, so here are two photos taken through our windows. We are enclosing eight copies --five for the Planning Commission, and three more for your files or other use. Would you please include these in the packet for Thursdav's meeting? Jarrod says the Malavalli house is at an elevation of 570'. We are at 626', just 56' higher. So it doesn't take much math to see that 60' trees would be right at our eve level, completely obstructing our view of the Bay, Moffett Field, the valley lights, etc., most of which are at or near sea leve.!. Thanks for your assistance. Bob and Melinda Rowe 12800 Lucero Lane Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Malavalli Screening Plan From: zeterre@gmail.com [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:02 PM To: Nicole Horvitz; Jarrod Baumann Subject: Re: Malavalli Screening Plan The solar panels are out and should not have been shown on our plan. This was a mistake on my part. Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry From: Mark Vernon [mailto:mark@ridgewine.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 11:56 AM To: Nicole Horvitz Cc: Dianne Vernon; elaine.harney@novartis.com; Debbie Pedro Subject: Malavalli Screening Plan Dear Nicole, We live at 12119 Foothill Lane (next to the Harney's). We will be out of town on vacation when the hearing will take place with respect to the Malavalli Screen Plan. Please accept this as our input for the hearing. Our main concern is the solar panels. I understand and support the town's efforts to encourage the use of solar panels. But, that goal needs to be thoughtfully balanced with the goal of preserving open space and our natural environment. I continue to question the need for allowing panels in the Open Space area — given the amount of roof area on the buildings, and other places in the non -open space area where they could be located. Not only are there the aesthetic issues, but the panels can create problems in terms of rain and run-off, especially on the steep, sloped areas adjacent to the proposed location for the panels. In all cases, if the panels are going to be placed on the ground either in or adjacent to the Open Space area as shown in the proposed landscape screening plan, then the screening plan should include specific screening provisions for the panels to be hidden in such a way as not to disrupt the natural appearance of the area. I will point out that Policy 2.7 of the General Plan Land Use Element states that "The natural character of ridgelines shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible." The location for the panels shown in the plan places them along the existing ridgeline. This further supports the position that either 1) the panels should not be allowed in this area or 2) there should be a very specific screening plan to mitigate their impact on the ridgeline. 8/6/2009 Page 2 of 2 If the applicant indicates that the panels will not be installed until a future date, then we would ask that the applicant be required to return in the future with a proposed screening plan for the panels prior to their installation. The problem with approving a screening plan now for something to be installed in the future is that the conditions on the ground may change and render the plan ineffective. We appreciate the Town's efforts to satisfy all parties with respect to this large and complex project. We have been living with the noise of construction for almost two years and are as eager as the owners to see this project completed. But, we also want to be sure that appropriate care is taken to insure that the beautiful natural setting that we are so fortunate to be living in is properly protected. Sincerely, Mark & Dianne Vernon 12119 Foothill Lane Mark Vernon President & C00 RIDGE VINEYARDS, INC. markv@ridgewine.com 408-867-3233 (main) 408-868-1336 (direct) www.ridgewine.com 8/6/2009 Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Malavalli pic 1 From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:57 PM To: 'Anne DeGheest' Cc: archevon@archevon.com; Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: malavalli pic 1 1 can see your concern. I think we can correct your view issues with shrubs as you need more lower greenery. The oaks seem to be doing a great job up above. This will be part of a later plan. I will keep you posted. In regard to the "orange —rust' colored trees along the slope. These are Aesculus California — also knows as buckeye. This is normal for them this time of year. If you notice around town, there are a lot that look like this. They simply loose their leaves earlier in the summer ... and get their new leaves before anything else in the spring. Just the nature of the tree. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_californica Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Thankyou Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com From: Anne DeGheest [mailto:anne@medstars.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:44 PM To: 'Jarrod Baumann' Subject: RE: malavalli pic 1 Pictures are attached. It looks like around trees 131. 8/6/2009 I will email separately due to size anne Anne DeGheest Tel: (650) 917 9254 Anne@MedStars.com hap://www.MedStars.com/ From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:04 PM To: anne@medstars.com Subject: Here you are 8/6/2009 Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner / Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com Page 2 of 2 Aesculus californica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Aesculus californica From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Aesculus californica (California Buckeye or California Horse -chestnut) is a species of buckeye endemic to California, and the only buckeye native to the state. It is a large shrub or small tree growing to 4-12 in tall, with gray bark often coated with lichens or mosses. It typically is multi -trunked with a crown as broad as it is high. The leaves are dark green, palmately compound with five (rarely seven) leaflets, each leaflet 6-17 cm long, with a finely toothed margin and (particularly in spring) downv surfaces. The leaves are tender and prone to damage from both spring freezing or snow and summer heat and desiccation. The flowers are sweet -scented, white to pale pink, Page 1 of 2 produced in erect panicles 15-20 cm long and 5-8 cm broad. The fruit is a fig -shaped capsule 5-8 cm long, containing a large (2-5 cm), round, orange -brown seed; the seeds are poisonous. The California Buckeye has adapted to its native Mediterranean climate by growing during the wet winter and spring months and entering dormancy during dry summer and fall months; it begins the year's growth in early spring and begins dropping leaves by mid -summer. This buckeye is found growing in a wide range of conditions from crowded, moist, semi -shaded canyon bottoms to dry south -facing slopes and hilltops. It is also widely distributed in the state, growing along the central coast, in the foothills and lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada, up to 1700 in altitude and in the Cascade range. In the coastal ranges north of Big Sur it is found growing alone on slopes or intermingled with Valley Oak, Oregon Oak, Coast Live Oak and Bay Laurel. In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada it can be found standing alone in grassland at the lowest elevations, intermingled in Blue Oak woodlands at intermediate elevations, and in mixed evergreen forests of Black Oak, Digger Pine, Ponderosa Pine and Interior Live Oak as it nears the limit of its range. The tree acts as a soil binder, which prevents erosion in hilly regions. It is sometimes used as an ornamental. Local native American tribes, including the Pomo, Yokut, and Luisefio, used the poisonous nuts to stupefy schools of fish in small streams to make them easier to catch. The bark, leaves, and fruits contain the neurotoxic glycoside aesculin, which causes hemolysis of red blood cells. Native groups occasionally used the nuts as a food supply when the acorn supply was sparse; after boiling and leaching the toxin out of the nut meats for several days, they could be ground into a meal similar to that made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_califomica 8/6/2009 Aesculus californica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 2 from acorns. The nectar of the flowers is also toxic, and it can kill honeybees and other insects. When the shoots are small and leaves are new they are lower in toxins and are grazed by livestock and wildlife. Sources ■ Casebeer, M. (2004). Discover California Shrubs 9665463-1-8 ■ Bakker, E. (1971). "An Island Called California". Press. ISBN 0-520-04948-9 External links ■ Jepson Flora Project: Aesculus californica ■ Photos of California Buckeye Sonora, California: Hooker Press. ISBN 0 - Berkeley, California: University of California Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_califomica" Categories: Poisonous plants I Flora of California I Aesculus This page was last modified on 13 June 2009 at 14:23. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_califomica 8/6/2009 Page 1 of 3 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Landscape plan for residence at Natoma and La Vida Real From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 12:18 PM To: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net; jarrod@zeterre.com Cc: Nicole Horvitz; Debbie Pedro; archevon@archevon.com Subject: RE: Landscape plan for residence at Natoma and La Vida Real Bob & Linda, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you and discuss this. I am glad that we could come to a reasonable "meeting point" on these trees. I understand whole-heartedly your fears of loosing your beautiful bay views and I feel sure that our clients would never want to take that view away from you! Please let me know if you have any further questions or fears. I will forward you the section and line of sight drawing once we have completed it. Best Regards, Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com From: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net [mailto:diverbobr@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Thursday, July 30, 2009 7:13 PM To: jarrod@zeterre.com 8/6/2009 Page 2 of 3 Cc: nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov; dpedro@losaltoshills.ca.gov 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 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. Bob and Melinda Rowe 12800 Lucero Lane (650) 941-0486 8/6/2009 Page 3 of 3 cc: Nicole Horvitz Debbie Pedro Malavalli 01M. rMST"ILWI From: Jarrod Baumann [zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:04 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: Malavalli Hello Nicole, Welcome back — hope you had a great vacation. Sorry you had to come back to all of the chaos! O Yes, I did speak with David Bulfer on the phone for quite some time. It seems to have settled his concerns, though I still plan to meet with him tomorrow at 10:30 to look further at his view. I have not been contacted by the Rowes. Do you have a contact email or phone number that you might be willing to share so as to possibly get in contact with them? I did send the colored rendering to all 60 addresses... and a letter of explanation for them so as to fairly prep them. Below are a few of the people that I have spoken with: I have spoken with Bill Lanadan 12145 Foothill Lane in regard to the oaks. He was concerned that more oaks might be moved, trimmed or relocated. I swapped emails with Duncan Macmillan. He was mostly concerned with the removal of the original water features and the olive trees that we had originally proposed for within the public right of way along la vida real. I met in person with the Laney Harney on Foothill Lane. She and John had concerns about the cabana structure. I reassured her that this is the area where we are planning to put in a small orchard and though the trees aren't on the screening plan. We do as well plan to install grapevines off of this structure. This seemed to greatly please her. I met in person with the Wagners at 26800 Almaden Court. They were mostly concerned about the Porte Cochere that is sticking out and wondered if there are any trees going in front of it. I assured her that the Japanese Pagoda Trees would soften the porte cochere and if there is anything that we can do in addition to this we will. After looking at her line of sight, I don't think there are any trees tall enough to really add additional screening. They sit very high on the hill. I did speak in person with Sandy Miller @ the end of La Vida Real several weeks ago. She had concerns about how much she would be seeing the house from the street. I assured her that there would be the wall and many trees to soften the front. We did receive a call from her today while I was out at a meeting and she asked for me to call her as she has a few questions. I plan to call her this afternoon as she requested. Thank you for your time and help on this. We are doing everything we can so as avoid any difficulty at the meeting next week! Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner / Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.00m :�P1111ve, Page 1 of 2 Malavalli From: Nicole Horvitz [mailto:nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:02 PM To: Jarrod Baumann Subject: Malavalli Hi Jarrod, Page 2 of 2 How did your meeting with Pope and Bulfer go? Debbie and I met with their neighbors at 12800 Lucero Lane, the Rowe's, and they have the same concerns that the trees are too tall and will block their view. They would like to see 30-40' tall trees installed. Can you please contact them and maybe meet with them to get this resolved? Thank you! Nicole .................................. Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650.941.7222 -Phone 650.941.316o -Fax [•'j 11 • Page 1 of 1 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Screening from the Natoma x La Vida Real Projectq Attachments: View Ord.pdf From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, July 31, 2009 1:24 PM To: eran.wagner@gmail.com Cc: archevon@archevon.com; Nicole Horvitz Subject: Screening from the Natoma x La Vida Real Projectq Eran, Wanted to quickly touch base in regard to the Malavalli Project- After we met that day, a month or so ago, I went out onto the site to see the tall trees that we thought were on the Malavalli lands.... unfortunately the trees that you see from your house are actually on the neighbors property (the cedars and the eucalyptus) I am doing everything I can to screen the porte cochere and side of the house from your view. Currently we have a Japanese Pagoda in front of the Porte Cochere.... as well as two Arbutus Marina Trees. We are coming up against a lot of trouble in putting in any more tall trees. Many of the neighbors do not want any tall trees at all! There is a view ordinance that I am attaching to this email that states that screening trees cannot get any taller than the ridge of the roof. Please take a look at the rendering that we are presenting to the city. You will see that I have put 4 trees in front of the porte cochere which we hope will screen your view. Please download a colored rendering if you would like at: htt s://rc t. olisendit.com/720701074/4c6dcOc3d4cbba6c9l7l4378bbc6842e Please let me know if you have any questions. Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com 8/6/2009 ORDINANCE NO. 427 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS ADDING CHAPTER 9 TO TTILE 5 OF LOS ALTOS HILLS MUNICIPAL CODE REGULATING VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTIONS Whereas, the purposes of this Chapter are to: 1. Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years, prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. 2. Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of such views or sunlight when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the Town of Los Altos Bilis does ORDAIN as follows: L Chapter 9 is hereby added to Title 5 of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code to read as follows: Chapter 9: VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES Section 5-9.01. Purpose and Principles. he rights and the restorative process are based upon the following general'priuciples: 1. The Town recognizes that residents cherish their outward views from the hills, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their. buildings and yards. The Town recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in Los Altos Hills, and promote the general welfare of the entire community. 2. The Town -also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners, and institutions for beautiful and pleatiiul landscaping, including trees. The Town realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight, and that disputes related to view or sunlight obsttuction are inevitable. 3.. Owners and residents should mMntain trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of sunlight and outward views. Before planting trees, owners and residents should consider view and 630591-1 sunlight blockage potential, both currently and at tree maturity. Persons have the right to seek civil remedies when threatened by dangerous tree growth. 4. The Town shall establish a process by which persons may seek to preserve and restore views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, from u xvmonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The Town shall also establish a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to restore views or sunlight. 5. When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation, compromise, and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which are . not resolved through such means shall follow the procedure established herein. 6. It is the intent of the Town that the provisions of this Chapter receive thoughtful and reasonable application. It is not the intent of the Town to encourage clear -cutting or substantial denuding of any property of its trees by overzealous application of provisions of this Chapter. Section 5-9.02} Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows: Arbitrator. A neutral person who will conduct a process similar to a trial, and who will hear testimony, consider evidence, and make a binding decision for the disputing parties. Binding Arbitration: A legal procedure as set forth in Section 1280 et s g. ofthe Code of Civil Procedure. Initiating Party: Any property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing views or sunlight Landscape Screening: A method by which trees and vegetation are planted in order to separate and partially obstruct the view of adjacent and nearby . structures and properties from one another. Landscape screening shall generally not exceed the height of the ridgeline of the primary structure. Mediator. A neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem. 630225-1 2 Person: Any individual, corporation, partnership, firm, or other Iegal entity, excluding the Town of Los Altos Hills. Primary Living Area The portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most osteii by the occupants relative to other -portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis. Protected Tree: Any of the following: HERITAGE TREE, shall mean any tree that due to age, size, location, visibility, historic nature, or other unique attribute, has been deemed by the Town to be a heritage tree and accordingly deserves special consideration for preservation and protection. HERITAGE OAK, shall mean any tree of the genus quercus, including, but not limited to, Valley .Oak (quercus lobata), California Live Oak (quercus agrifoiia), Black Oak (quercus kelloggii) and Blue Oak (quercus douglasii) that has a trunk or multiple tnmk thirty-six (36) inches in circumference (approximately twelve (12) inches in diameter) at a point four (4') feet above the root crown. Removal: The elimination of any tree from its present location. Restorative Action: Any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. Stump Growth: New growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk, the main portion of which has been curt off. Sunlight: The availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence. Thinning. The selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to improve visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural condition. Topujgg: Elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. Tree: Any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including'but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References to "tree" shall include the plural. Tree Claim: The written basis for arbitration or court action under the provisions of this Chapter. 630225- 3 Tree Owner: Any person owning real property in Los Altos Hills upon whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by an Initiating Party to cause an unreasonable obstruction. Trimmina: The selective removal of portions of branches firm a tree so as to modify the tree(s) shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance.' View: A scene from the primary living area of a residence. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include but are not limited to skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges, and bodies of water. Some additional examples are: San Francisco Bay, neighboring Silicon Valley Communities, Lands of Stanford, Lands of NdPeninsula Open Space District, The City's of San Francisco and San Jose, East Bay Hills, Bay Bridge, San Mateo Bridge, Dumbarton Bridge. V-mdowinw. A form of thinning by which openings or "windows" are created to restore views and or sunlight Section 5-9.03. Rights Established. Persons shall have the right to preserve views or sunlight, which existed at any time since they purchased their property or not more than 15 years prior to adoption of this'ordinance whichever option results'in less time, when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area and have subsequently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees. In order to establish such rights pursuant to this Chapter, the person must follow the process. established in this Chapter. In addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees, All persons are advised that the alteration, removal; and planting of certain trees requires a permit under Title 12, Article 3, Sections 12-2202,12-2.302, 12-2.403 of the Town of Los Altos Dills Municipal Code (Parks and Recreation). The applicability of Title 12 should be determined prior to any action on trees. Section 5-9.04. Unreasonable Obstruction Prohibited. (a) No person shall plant, maintain, or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area of any other parcel of property within the Town of Los Altos Hills. 630225-1 4 (b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the general welfine of the entire Town, any unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area shall also constitute a public nuisance. Section 5-9.05. Criteria for Deterffiining Unreasonable Obstruction. The following criteria are to be considered (but are' 'not exclusive) in determining wheter h unreasonable obstruction has occurred: (a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area of the Initiating Party, both currently and at tree maturity. (b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vistas, or other unique features. (c) The extent to which the tree's interfere with efficient operation of an Initiating Party's pre-existing solar energy systems. (d) The extent to which the Initiating Party's view and/or sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than tree growth. Section 5-9.06. Criteria for Determining Appropriate Restorative Action. When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the following unweighted factors shall be considered in determining appropriate restorative action: (a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structrlres on the property of the Initiating Party including, but not limited to, fire danger and the danger of falling limbs or trees. (b) The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements. (c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size; growth, form and vigor. (d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design, or use of the Tree Owner's property. (e) Soil stability provided -by the tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system. (f) Privacy (visual and auditory), wind and landscape screening provided by the tree(s) to the Tree Owner and to neighbors. (g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the tree(s). 630225-1 5 (h) Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s). (i) Whether trees are "Protected Trees", as defined herein. Section 5-9.07. Types of Restorative Action. Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following: trimming — thinning or windowing — topping removal with replacement plantings — removal without replacement plantings In all cases, the documentable extent of view. or sunlight existing at any time since they purchased the property or up to 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever is less, is the maximum limit of Restorative Action which may be required. In cases where trimming, windowing, or other Restorative Action may affect the health of a tree that is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the international Society of Arboriculture for use in the State of California. Section 5-9.08. Town Guidelines Concerning Restorative Action. The Town of Lo3.Altos Hills provides the following general guidelines concerning restorative actions: tndesirable Trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth, dense foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability, or invasiveness; certain types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the Town, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Monterey Pine, Monterey Cypress trees, When considering restorative action for. "undesirable" trees, aggressive action is preferred. ' Redwood Trees. Redwood trees are desirable for their scenic qualities and fire resistance. However, Redwood trees must be sited with care in order to avoid potential view obstructions. Protected Trees. The Town of Los Altos Hills has designated certain trees to be "protected trees", defined in Section 10-2.8.1.02. Any alteration or 630225-1 6 removal of protected trees shall require a permit from the Town pursuant to the Town Municipal Code. Stump Growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard of weak limbs, and its protection is not desirable. When considering- restorative action for stump growth, aggressive action is preferred. Restorative action which will result in future stump growth should be avoided. Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical restorative action.. This option is recommended when minor unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that ongoing maintenance is guaranteed. Thinning or Windowine. When simple trimming will not resolve the unreasonable obstruction, thinning or windowing may be necessary. These should be supervised by a certified arborist Topping. Topping as a restorative action should be used with caution. Topping can have deleterious effects on a tree's health, • appearance, and cost of maintenance. Topping frequently results in stump growth Tree removal, with replacement plantings, may be a preferable alternative. Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is essential to preserve pre-existing views or sunlight. While normally considered a drastic measure, tree removal can be the preferred solution iia many circumstances. ' Disturbance to Nesting Topping and Tree removal should take place between the end of August and the beginning of January to avoid disturbance of nesting birds protected under the Federal Mgratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) and California Department of Fish and Game Code Section 3500 et seq unless a nesting bird survey is first conducted and there is a determination that there are no active nests within the tree. Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requirements are strongly recommended as part of Restorative Action in order to achieve lasting preservation of pre-existing views or sunlight, Section 5-9.09. Process for Resolution of Obstruction TDb&tes. The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties: 1. Initial Reconciliation: An Initiating Party who believes that tree growth on the property of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area shall notify the Tree Owner in writing of such concerns. 630225 7 The notification should, if pgssible, be accampanied by personal discussions to enable the Initiating Party and Tree Owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with the' resolution of the obstruction dispute. For trees located on Town -owned property, see Section 10-2.8.1.16. 2. Mediation: If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the Initiating Party shall propose mediation'as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute. Acceptance of mediation by the Tree Owner shall be voluntary, but the Tree Owner shall have no more than 30 days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a Mediator within 10 days. It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed. The Los Altos Mediation Program (L.A.KP) is an example of such a service. The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. The Mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this Chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The Mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for Restorative Action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to eliminate the need for binding arbitration or litigation. Section 5-9.10. Tree Claim Preparation. In the event that the Initial Reconciliation process- fails, and mediation either is declined by the Tree Owner or fails, the Initiating Party must prepare a Tree Claim, and provide a copy to the Tree Owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitration or litigation under the authority established by this Chapter: A Tree Claim shall consist of all of the following: (a) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent and corroborating -physical evidence. Evidence may include, but is not limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the obstruction at any time since they purchased their property or not more than 15 years prior to adoption of this ordinance whichever option results in less time. (b) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address. 630225-1 8 (c) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, to resolve the dispute. The Initiating Party must provide physical evidence that written _ attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence, (d) Evidence that mediation, as described in Section 10-2.8.1.09, has been attempted and has failed, or has been declined by the Tree Owxier. (e) Specific restorative actions proposed by the Initiating Party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. Section 5-9.31. Binding Arbitration. In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails and where mediation is declined by the Tree Owner or has failed, the Initiating Party must offer in writing to submit the dispute to binding arbitration, and the Tree Owner may elect binding arbitration. The Tree Owner shall have 30 days from service of notice to accept or reject binding arbitration. If accepted, the parties shall agree on a specific Arbitrator within 21 days, and shall indicate such agreement in. writing. The Arbitrator shall use the provisions of this Chapter to reach a fair resolution of the Tree Claim and shall submit a complete written report to the Initiating Party and the Tree Owner. This report shall include the Arbitrator's findings with respect to Sections 5-9.05 and Section 5-9.06 of this Chapter, a pertinent list of all mandated Restorative Actions with any appropriate conditions concerning such actions, and a schedule by which the mandates must be completed. A copy of the Arbitrator's report shall be filed with the Town Attorney upon completion. Any decision of the Arbitrator shall be enforceable pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1280 et sea. Section 5-9.12. Litigation. In those cases where binding arbitration is declined by the Tree Owner, then civil action may be pursued by the Initiating Party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this Chapter. The litigant must state in the lawsuit that arbitration was offered and not accepted, and that a copy of the lawsuit was filed with the Town Attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be Sled with the Town Attorney. Section 5-9.13. Apportionment of Costs. Cost of Mediation and Arbitration: The Initiating Party and Tree Owner shall each pay 50%- of Mediation or Arbitration fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the Mediator or Arbitrator discretion for allocating costs. 630225•' 9 Cost ofLitigation: To be determined by the Court or through a settlement; Cost of Restorative Action: To be determined by mutual agreement; or through mediation, arbitrati6n, court judgment, or settlement. Section 5-9.14. Liabilities. The issuance of mediation Endings, an arbitration report or a court decision shall not create any liability of the Town with regard to the Restorative Actions to be performed. Failure of the Town to enforce provisions of this Chapter shall not give rise to any civil or criminal liabilities on the part of the Town. Section 5-9.15. Limitations. It is not the intent of the Town in adopting this Chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid pre-existing covenant or agreement. Section 5-9.16. Trees on Town -owned Property or within Conservation Easements. Trees located on Town -owned property or naturally occurring native species within conservation easements are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter. Requests or complaints regarding trees Iocated on Town -owned property should be made in writing to the Superintendent of Public Works for consideration in accordance with policies adopted by the Town. IL Severability. If any part of this ordinance is held to be invalid or inapplicable to any situation by a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the reolainirg portions of this ordinance or the applicability of this ordinance to other situations. III. Effective )Date. Publication. This ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) after adoption. Within fmfteen days after the passage of this ordinance the City Clerk shall cause this ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Los Altos Hills, as required by law. 630225-' 10 INTRODUCED: May 15, 2003 PASSED: ,lune 5, 2003 AYES: Mayor Fenwick, Mayor Pxo Tem Cheng, Councilmember O'Malley Councilmember Kerr and Councilmember Warshawsky NOES: None ABSTENTIONS: None ABSENT: None BY: N&YOr City. Clerk h �j.1• •�V:iJ!! c LY, ' ewr 530225-1 11 Page 1 of 1 Victoria Ortland From: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:46 PM To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Section Attachments: section for Rowes.pdf From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 3:56 PM To: diverbobr@sbcglobal.net Subject: Section Bob & Melinda, I just finished the section that I told you I would send. Please see attached. Notes: Your house sits 55 ft higher than the Malavallis —their house at 570 and yours 625 .... then I added another 6 foot on top to accommodate a very tall persons eye height. According to google earth, your house at your balcony sits 802 feet from the malavallis house. This means that a tree such as the Japanese Pagoda Tree at the front of the house would have to be over 60 foot tall before it would appear higher than the existing oaks. However, please keep in mind that we anticipate those oaks will easily grow another 10 ft, and as they are in the conservation easement we are not allowed to trim them. Therefore, even if we had let those get to 70ft .... in 200 years, they would never overtake your view before the oaks would. — Just a little peace of mind for you! Please let me know if you have any questions about this or any other screening questions. Best Regards, Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com 0 Aup,ust 2, 2009 Nicole. RECEIVED AJJG 0 -J 209 10W% of Los ALTOS HELLS In your email you suggested that we document our view, so here are two photos taken through our windows. We are enclosing eight copies --five for the Planning Commission, and three more for your files or other use. Would you please include these in the packet for Thursday's meeting? Jarrod says the Malavalli house is at an elevation of 570'. We are at 626', just 56' higher, So it doesn't take much math to see that 60' trees would be right at our eve level, completely obstructing our view of the Bay, Moffett Field, the valley lights, etc., most of which are at or _-near sea level. Thanks for your assistance. Bob and Melinda Lowe 12800 L.Licero Lane • 9 Page 1 of 2 Victoria Ortland isFrom: Nicole Horvitz Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2009 4:47 PM �J To: Victoria Ortland Subject: FW: Malavalli pic 1 From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:57 PM To: 'Anne DeGheesY Cc: archevon@archevon.com; Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: malavalli pic 1 I can see your concern. I think we can correct your view issues with shrubs as you need more lower greenery. The oaks seem to be doing a great job up above. This will be part of a later plan. I will keep you posted. In regard to the "orange —rust" colored trees along the slope. These are Aesculus California — also knows as buckeye. This is normal for them this time of year. If you notice around town, there are a lot that look like this. They simply loose their leaves earlier in the summer ... and get their new leaves before anything else in the spring. Just the nature of the tree. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_californica Please let me know if you have further questions or concerns. Thank you Jarrod Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner/Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.1801 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com From: Anne DeGheest [mailto:anne@medstars.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:44 PM To: 'Jarrod Baumann' Subject: RE: malavalli pic 1 Pictures are attached. It looks like around trees 131. 8/6/2009 I will email separately due to size anne Anne DeGheest Tel: (650) 917 9254 Anne@MedStars.com htW://www.MedStars.com/ From: Jarrod Baumann [mailto:zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, August 03, 2009 4:04 PM To: anne@medstars.com Subject: Here you are 8/6/2009 Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner /Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.406.867.6596 Website: www zeterre.com Page 2 of 2 • • • 0 .7 Aesculus californica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Aesculus californica From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Aesculus californica (California Buckeye or California Horse -chestnut) is a species of buckeye endemic to California, and the only buckeye native to the state. It is a large shrub or small tree growing to 4-12 in tall, with gray bark often coated with lichens or mosses. It typically is multi -trunked with a crown as broad as it is high. The leaves are dark green, palmately compound with five (rarely seven) leaflets, each leaflet 6-17 cm long, with a finely toothed margin and (particularly in spring) downy surfaces. The leaves are tender and prone to damage from both spring freezing or snow and summer heat and desiccation. The flowers are sweet -scented, white to pale pink, Page 1 of 2 Aesculus californica produced in erect panicles 15-20 cm long and 5-8 cm broad. The fruit is a fig -shaped capsule 5-8 cm long, containing a large (2-5 cm), round, orange -brown seed; the seeds are poisonous. The California Buckeye has adapted to its native Mediterranean climate by growing during the wet winter and spring months and entering dormancy during dry summer and fall months; it begins the year's growth in early spring and begins dropping leaves by mid -summer. This buckeye is found growing in a wide range of conditions from crowded, moist, semi -shaded canyon bottoms to dry south -facing slopes and hilltops. It is also widely distributed in the state, growing along the central coast, in the foothills and lower elevations of the Sierra Nevada, up to 1700 in altitude and in the Cascade range. In the coastal ranges north of Big Sur it is found growing alone on slopes or intermingled with Valley Oak, Oregon Oak, Coast Live Oak and Bay Laurel. In the foothills of the Sierra Nevada it can be found standing alone in grassland at the lowest elevations, intermingled in Blue Oak woodlands at intermediate elevations, and in mixed evergreen forests of Black Oak, Digger Pine, Ponderosa Pine and Interior Live Oak as it nears the limit of its range. The tree acts as a soil binder, which prevents erosion in hilly regions. It is sometimes used as an ornamental. Local native American tribes, including the Pomo, Yokut, and Luiseno, used the poisonous nuts to stupefy schools of fish in small streams to make them easier to catch. The bark, leaves, and fruits contain the neurotoxic glycoside aesculin, which causes hemolysis of red blood cells. Native groups occasionally used the nuts as a food supply when the acorn supply was sparse; after boiling and leaching the toxin out of the nut meats for several days, they could be ground into a meal similar to that made http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_califomica 8/6/2009 Aesculus californica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Page 2 of 2 from acorns. The nectar of the flowers is also toxic, and it can kill honeybees and other insects. When the shoots are small and leaves are new they are lower in toxins and are grazed by livestock and wildlife. Sources ■ Casebeer, M. (2004). Discover California Shrubs. Sonora, California: Hooker Press. ISBN 0- 9665463-1-8 ■ Bakker, E. (1971). "An Island Called California". Berkeley, California: University of California Press. ISBN 0-520-04948-9 External links Jepson Flora Project: Aesculus californica Photos of California Buckeye Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_californica" Categories: Poisonous plants I Flora of California I Aesculus ■ This page was last modified on 13 June 2009 at 14:23. ■ Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License; additional terms may apply. See Terms of Use for details. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aesculus_califomica 8/6/2009 • • • Malavalli Nicole Horvitz •From: Jarrod Baumann [zeterre@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 3:04 PM To: Nicole Horvitz Subject: RE: Malavalli Hello Nicole, Welcome back — hope you had a great vacation. Sorry you had to come back to all of the chaos! O Yes, I did speak with David Bulfer on the phone for quite some time. It seems to have settled his concerns, though I still plan to meet with him tomorrow at 10:30 to look further at his view. I have not been contacted by the Rowes. Do you have a contact email or phone number that you might be willing to share so as to possibly get in contact with them? I did send the colored rendering to all 60 addresses... and a letter of explanation for them so as to fairly prep them. Below are a few of the people that I have spoken with: I have spoken with Bill Lanadan 12145 Foothill Lane in regard to the oaks. He was concerned that more oaks might be moved, trimmed or relocated. I swapped emails with Duncan Macmillan. He was mostly concerned with the removal of the original water features and the olive trees that we had originally proposed for within the public right of way along la vida real. I met in person with the Laney Harney on Foothill Lane. She and John had concerns about the cabana structure. I reassured her that this is the area where we are planning to put in a small orchard and though the trees aren't on the screening plan. We do as well plan to install grapevines off'of this structure. This seemed to greatly please her. • 1 met in person with the Wagners at 26800 Almaden Court. They were mostly concerned about the Porte Cochere that is sticking out and wondered if there are any trees going in front of it. I assured her that the Japanese Pagoda Trees would soften the porte cochere and if there is anything that we can do in addition to this we will. After looking at her line of sight, I don't think there are any trees tall enough to really add additional screening. They sit very high on the hill. L I did speak in person with Sandy Miller @ the end of La Vida Real several weeks ago. She had concerns about how much she would be seeing the house from the street. I assured her that there would be the wall and many trees to soften the front. We did receive a call from her today while I was out at a meeting and she asked for me to call her as she has a few questions. I plan to call her this afternoon as she requested. Thank you for your time and help on this. We are doing everything we can so as avoid any difficulty at the meeting next week! Jarrod 8/6/2009- Jarrod Ryan Baumann Owner / Principal of Residential Design Zeterre Landscape Architecture 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite 'E', Saratoga, CA 95070, United States of America Office: +1.408.395.18011 Fax: +1.408.867.6596 Website: www.zeterre.com Page 1 of 2 Malavalli From: Nicole Horvitz [mailto:nhorvitz@losaltoshills.ca.gov] Sent: Tuesday, July 28, 2009 2:02 PM To: Jarrod Baumann Subject: Malavalli Hi Jarrod, Page 2 of 2 How did your meeting with Pope and Bulfer go? Debbie and I met with their neighbors at 12800 Lucero Lane, the Rowe's, and they have the same concerns that the trees are too tall and will block their view. They would like to see 30-40' tall trees installed. Can you please contact them and maybe meet with them to get this resolved? Thank you! Nicole .................................. Nicole Horvitz Assistant Planner Town of Los Altos Hills 26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA 94022 650.941.7222 -Phone 650.941.316o -Fax 8/6/2009 • C7 • 03 .7 RECEIVED TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 6, 2009 Summation of Meetings with Malavalli Neighbors in Regard to the Screening Submittal I have spoken on the phone with Bill Lanadan at 12145 Foothill Lane in regard to the oaks. He was concerned that more oaks might be moved, trimmed or relocated. I assured him that the oaks in question were within the conservation easement and could therefore not be trimmed or relocated. I swapped emails with Duncan Macmillan on Foothill Lane. He was mostly concerned with the removal of the original water features and the olive trees that we had originally proposed for within the public right of way along La Vida Real. I explained the reason for the changes I met in person with the Laney Harney on 12117 Foothill Lane on the 23rd of July. She and John had concerns about the cabana structure. I reassured her that this is the area where we are planning to put in a small orchard- though the trees aren't on the screening plan. We do plan to install table -grapevines off of this structure. This seemed to greatly please her. I met in person with the Wagners at 26800 Almaden Court on June. They were mostly concerned about the Porte Cochere that is sticking out and wondered if there are any trees going in front of it. I assured her that the Japanese Pagoda Trees would soften the porte cochere and if • there is anything that we can do in addition to this we will. After looking at her line of sight, I don't think there are any trees tall enough to really add additional screening. They sit very high on the hill. I did speak in person with Sandy Miller @ the end of La Vida Real several weeks ago. She had concerns about how much she would be seeing the house from the street. I assured her that there would be the wall and many trees to soften the front. We did receive a call from her today while I was out at a meeting and she asked for me to call her as she has a few questions. I plan to call her this afternoon as she requested. Update: Spoke with Sandy several time and moved trees around on the plan to soften her view. She had concerns about the deer fence and whether we might obstruct the agreed upon wildlife corridor. I assured her that we would not. Met in Person with Bob and Melinda Rowe at 12800 Lucero Lane on July 300'. They had concerns about the Pagoda Trees along with the Beech and Birch Trees. After seeing their view, I realized that the Birch Trees could in fact impact their view in the future. I took the Rowes to the site so that they could see the proposed tree locations. It was decided to eliminate the birch and move the Beech Trees down the hill so as to lower their root crown elevation. After discussing the pagoda trees at the front of the house, it was agreed that the pagoda trees should be kept to a maximum height. I told the rowes that I would do a sectional drawing so that they could see a line of sight and verify if ever the trees could be an issue. • Zeterre Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596 IV U Cont- page 2 of 2 Met in Person with David Buffer at 12840 Lucero Lane on July 29`h. along with Kartik Patel of Archevon He had concerns about the Beech, Birch and Pagoda Trees. We reassured him that from his line of sight, the oaks behind the residence would distort his view before any of the other trees. Met in Person with the Rao's at 12835 Lucero Lane on August 4`h. They had concerns about the tree heights and after seeing the site, they understood that it had been decided to eliminate and/or relocate all trees that caused concern. I corresponded with Marc Vernon on 12119 Foothill Lane who was concerned about the proposed Solar Panels. I assured him that the panels were no longer proposed in that area. I spoke with and corresponded with Anne Degheest on Foothill Lane who was concerned about her view of the Malavalli Residence through the oak trees on the ridge. I assured her, after seeing the photos, that vines on the deer fence and low shrubbery would block her small view of the side of the malavallis house. She also had concerns about the aesculus Californica (California buckeye) growing on the slope .... that is rust in color. She thought it might be due to a lack of water ...due to our stopping water from rolling down the slope. I assured her that this was • normal for the aesculus this time of year, and sent her online information on Aesculus Californica. • e Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596 Aup-ust 2, 2009 Nicole, RECEIVED AUG Q J 2009 im 0f LOS ALTOS HILLS In your email you suggested that we document our view, so here are two photos taken through our windows. We are enclosing eight copies --five for the Planning Commission, and three more for your files or other use. Would you please include these in the packet for Thursday's meeting? Jarrod says the Malavalli house is at an elevation of 570'. We are at 626', just 56' higher. So it doesn't take much math to see that 60' trees would be right at our eye level, completely obstructing our view of the Bay, Moffett Field, the valley lights, etc., most of which are at or near sea level. Thanks for your assistance. Bob and Melinda Rowe 12800 L„cero Lane 0 • RECEIVED AUG 0 6 200' TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS August 6, 2009 Summation of Meetings with Malavalli Neighbors in Regard to the Screening Submittal I have spoken on the phone with Bill Lanadan at 12145 Foothill Lane in regard to the oaks. He was concerned that more oaks might be moved, trimmed or relocated. I assured him that the oaks in question were within the conservation easement and could therefore not be trimmed or relocated. I swapped emails with Duncan Macmillan on Foothill Lane. He was mostly concerned with the removal of the original water features and the olive trees that we had originally proposed for within the public right of way along La Vida Real. I explained the reason for the changes I met in person with the Laney Harney on 12117 Foothill Lane on the 23rd of July. She and John had concerns about the cabana structure. I reassured her that this is the area where we are planning to put in a small orchard- though the, trees aren't on the screening plan. We do plan to install table -grapevines off of this structure. This seemed to greatly please her. I met in person with the Wagners at 26800 Almaden Court on June. They were mostly concerned about the Porte Cochere that is sticking out and wondered if there are any trees going in front of it. I assured her that the Japanese Pagoda Trees would soften the porte cochere and if there is anything that we can do in addition to this we will. After looking at her line of sight, I don't think there are any trees tall enough to really add additional screening. They sit very high on the hill. I did speak in person with Sandy Miller @ the end of La Vida Real several weeks ago. She had concerns about how much she would be seeing the house from the street. I assured her that there would be the wall and many trees to soften the front. We did receive a call from her today while I was out at a meeting and she asked for me to call her as she has a few questions. I plan to call her this afternoon as she requested. Update: Spoke with Sandy several time and moved trees around on the plan to soften her view. She had concerns about the deer fence and whether we might obstruct the agreed upon wildlife corridor. I assured her that we would not. Met in Person with Bob and Melinda Rowe at 12800 Lucero Lane on July 30th. They had concerns about the Pagoda Trees along with the Beech and Birch Trees. After seeing their view, I realized that the Birch Trees could in fact impact their view in the future. I took the Rowes to the site so that they could see the proposed tree locations. It was decided to eliminate the birch and move the Beech Trees down the hill so as to lower their root crown elevation. After discussing the pagoda trees at the front of the house, it was agreed that the pagoda trees should be kept to a maximum height. I told the rowes that I would do a sectional drawing so that they could see a line of sight and verify if ever the trees could be an issue. • Zeterre Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596 Cont- page 2 of 2 Met in Person with David Bulfer at 12840 Lucero Lane on July 29`x'. along with Kartik Patel of Archevon He had concerns about the Beech, Birch and Pagoda Trees. We reassured him that from his line of sight, the oaks behind the residence would distort his view before any of the other trees. Met in Person with the Rao's at 12835 Lucero Lane on August 0. They had concerns about the tree heights and after seeing the site, they understood that it had been decided to eliminate and/or relocate all trees that caused concern. I corresponded with Marc Vernon on 12119 Foothill Lane who was concerned about the proposed Solar Panels. I assured him that the panels were no longer proposed in that area. I spoke with and corresponded with Anne Degheest on Foothill Lane who was concerned about her view of the Malavalli Residence through the oak trees on the ridge. I assured her, after seeing the photos, that vines on the deer fence and low shrubbery would block her small view of the side of the malavallis house. She also had concerns about the aesculus Californica (California buckeye) growing on the slope .... that is rust in color. She thought it might be due to a lack of water ...due to our stopping water from rolling down the slope. I assured her that this was 1-0 normal for the aesculus this time of year, and sent her online information on Aesculus Californica. Zeterre Landscape Architecture Master Planning 14407 Big Basin Way, Suite E Saratoga, CA 95070 Office: 408.395.1801 Fax: 408.867.6596