TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY Meetings of the Architectural Site Control Commission (ASCC) Monday, June 11, 2018 7:00 PM – Regular ASCC Meeting Historic Schoolhouse 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 ______
REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
7:00 PM - CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Commissioners Breen, Ross, Wilson, Vice Chair Koch and Chair Sill
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Architectural and Site Control Commission on any subject may do so now. Please note however, that the Architectural and Site Control Commission is not able to undertake extended discussion or action tonight on items not on the agenda.
NEW BUSINESS 1. Architectural Review of Modifications to Previously Approved Signs for Windmill School and Family Education Center, 900 Portola Road, File # PLN_ARCH 10-2018 (Staff: C. Richardson)
2. Architectural Review for an Addition with Above 85% Floor Area in Main House, 185 Cherokee Way, Katz/Hundt Residence, File # PLN_ARCH 5-2018 (Staff: A. Cassidy)
COMMISSION, STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 3. Quarterly Revegetation Monitoring Report for 5050 Alpine Road (Staff: A. Cassidy)
4. News Digest: Planning Issues of the Day
APPROVAL OF MINUTES 5. ASCC Meeting of May 14, 2018
ADJOURNMENT
AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION For more information on the projects to be considered by the ASCC at the Special Field and Regular meetings, as well as the scope of reviews and actions tentatively anticipated, please contact Carol Borck in the Planning Department at Portola Valley Town Hall, 650-851- 1700 ex. 211. Further, the start times for other than the first Special Field meeting are tentative and dependent on the actual time needed for the preceding Special Field meeting.
Any writing or documents provided to a majority of the Town Council or Commissions regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at Town Hall located 765 Portola Road, Portola Valley, CA during normal business hours. Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall.
ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Planning Department at (650) 851-1700. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Architectural and Site Control Commission at, or prior to, the Public Hearing(s).
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY STAFF REPORT
______
TO: ASCC
FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Planner
DATE: June 11, 2018
RE: Architectural Review of Modifications to Previously Approved Signs for Windmill School and Family Education Center, 900 Portola Road, File # PLN_ARCH 10- 2018.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ASCC approve the requested Architectural Review for modifications to two new signs and a new pergola that holds one of the signs, located at 900 Portola Road, subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1.
BACKGROUND
On September 14, 2016, the Town Council by a vote of 5-0 approved the Windmill School project (File #32-2015 and X7D-177). The school has been constructed and classes and operations of the school have begun at the new complex. At the time of the original approval the project included a windmill storage structure that was to be constructed between the Family Lounge and the administrative offices (Attachment 2). This structure contained one sign. A second sign was located above the administrative office entrance. The windmill storage building was never constructed and no permanent signs have been installed at the school, although temporary banners are in place on the front fence and across the walkway. The applicants wish to modify the sign approval to include one sign to be hung from a pergola that will be located between the Family Lounge and the administrative offices. This location is similar to the original location of the windmill storage building. A second smaller sign is proposed at the driveway entrance, which is a new location not previously approved.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
Pursuant to Section 18.40.070 of the Municipal Code, applications for signs are subject to review by the ASCC. In addition, the Conditional Use Permit included Condition 3 which requires conformance to the Plans dated April 11, 2016 and Condition 22, which references the two signs. This proposal modifies the location of the signs. The current sign design exceeds the maximum size allowed by 2.32 square feet. A condition has been included that requires the applicant to reduce the size of the sign to no more than 24 square feet maximum as required by the PVMC Section 18.40.040..
ASCC Review June 11, 2018 Architectural Review for Modification to Signs, 900 Portola Road Page 2
The Design Guidelines, Town Center Plan and the Portola Road Corridor Plan were all used to evaluate the proposed sign modifications.
DISCUSSION
The attached plans (Attachment 3) show the new location of the two signs on sheet A-1.2 and the elevations, details and renderings are shown on sheet A-1.2A. No new lighting is proposed and there are no changes to any other aspects of the project. The applicant has also provided a color example of their logo that will give a better sense of the type/font and colors for the signs (Attachment 4). The applicant plans to use a sandblasted background for both signs.
The sign located at the driveway entrance is located within the public right of way and an encroachment permit is required in the conditions of approval. Discussions with the Town Public Works Director indicate that he is in support of the sign as long as it does not block the new pathway along Portola Road. The sign is consistent with other signs in the Town Center Area.
PUBLIC COMMENT
No neighbor comments have been received by staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt per Section 15311 of the State CEQA Guidelines which includes an exemption for the construction of signs that are accessory to existing institutional facilities.
CONCLUSION
The project was reviewed against the Town’s Design Guidelines, Town Center Area Plan and the Portola Road Corridor Plan and was found to be substantially in conformance based on the following findings.
1. The size, siting and design of buildings, individually and collectively, tend to be subservient to the natural setting and serve to retain and enhance the rural qualities of the town. (Siting and Scale) The proposed signs fit into the architectural style of the existing structure and are made from wood materials that complement the setting.
2. The proposed project will blend in with the natural environment in terms of materials, form and color. (Architectural Design) The proposed materials include wood finishes. The proposed sign/logo colors include orange, blue and green colors that will blend with the environment.
3. The location, design and construction of the development project will minimize disturbances to the natural terrain and scenic vistas. (Grading) No disturbance to the natural terrain will occur with this project. The project is located on the north side of Portola Road and will not interfere with the nearby view sheds.
4. The proposed project utilizes minimal lighting so that the presence of development at night is difficult to determine. (Lighting) No new lighting is proposed with this project. ASCC Review June 11, 2018 Architectural Review for Modification to Signs, 900 Portola Road Page 3
5. The proposed landscape plan will preserve the qualities of the natural environment through the use of native plant materials and provide a blended transition to adjacent open areas. (Landscaping) No new landscaping is proposed with this project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Original approved sign 1 3. Original approved sign 2 4. Architectural Plans dated 4-19-18 5. Colors and materials
Report approved by: Arly Cassidy, Interim Planning Director
Conditions of Approval
Signage
Conditional Use Permit File (32-2015, ARCH 10-2018)
Windmill School and Family Education Center 900 Portola Road
June 11, 2018
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the ASCC, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. This approval shall automatically expire two years from the date of issuance, if within such time period, a Building Permit has not been obtained or the use has not commenced.
3. This approval supersedes condition number 22 (sign approval) in the original conditions of approval dated September 29, 2016, file #32-2015, X7D-177.
4. All sign colors and materials are to be those specified on the Approved Plan Set dated April 19, 2018 and color board including the logo of the school.
5. The maximum total size of the permanent signs shall be no greater than twenty-four square feet combined.
6. An encroachment permit shall be obtained for the sign that is located within the public right of way.
7. No lighting of the signs is permitted.
8. All temporary signage shall be removed prior to new signage installation.
9. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. Attachment 2 Attachment 2 Attachment 3 Attachment 3 Attachment Attachment 4
319 Wyndham Drive 311 Wyndham Drive 303 Wyndham Drive 355 Wyndham Drive APN 076-251-210 APN 076-251-200 APN 076-251-190 APN 076-251-180
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHBISHOP OF SAN FRANCISCO
height of sound wall has been lowered from 8' to 7' from this point to end of fence EX per formal request ISTING BUILDING by neighbors Jin Oh & FOUND OLD 3/4" OPEN Won Choi of 303 Wyndham Drive by email IRO 30" REDWOOD to Architect and To N PIPE AT PROPERTY N 67°40'45" E FOUND OLD 4"X4" wn Planner dated May CORNER SIG 10, 2017. See revised elevation 2/A-1.2. N EXIS FENCE POST 498.68' EXISTING 7' WOOD FENCE WITH ADDED 5' GRAPE-STAKE FENCE x x x TING 5' WOOD FENCE x x x x x x x EXISTING 6' GRAPE-STAKE FENCE EXISTING 6' BOARD FENCE REMOVE (E) ACOUSTIC BOARDS ( E x x x x N x M x x x F S E ) 4 " R 36"& 24" REDWOOD SCREEN PLANTING 12" FIR E ' F L L K 30" OAK
4 I R EDWOOD G d TWIN 36" R
N H le N IR D ' C I E E 78" REDWOOD 36" REDWOOD 48" REDWOOD O G E SURFACE FLOW W E N X H G INLET = L C 24" CEDAR G ID P H A A Y GUIDED INTO INLET CLUSTER 0 A A N T 36" REDWOOD O 1 INV:432.9 E E D T E E L 36"& 30" EQ EQ 4 9 E R 2 " ' D 4 ° L S P O W E REDWOOD 5' WOOD 7 1 OOD A / 24" REDW C S G 1 C 20'-0" K A 24" REDWOOD 40" REDWOOD L 4 V ' 4 FENCE W/ 6' CHILDRENS 1 C J W ARCHITECTURE
E 4 4
E R ' 2 d 4 4 1 le 6 4 G WIDE GATE
4 D FAR SETBACK 4 M TO T 4 ABLE 8
11:24 AM 23T O 5 " L 8 R 4 4 4 ' P - A °
F 3 4 0 LARGE REDW OOD 0 OOD 66" REDW GAR 4 A " P DEN 0 4 x 3 " -0 E ' T x 2 T T 9 2 5 -S TREE CLUSTER x H 2 u 4 ' 130 Portola Road, suite A R r T 0 TWIN 24" S ' n A 105 sf ornamenta W l gard 0
A d K en wall d
n le a R RDWD " V u 22T E REDWOOD 4 structure 8' tall constructed in the Portola Valley, CA 94028
o r 3 O r 4
E x a o F 2 setback of dbl board fencing to E E 3 u O L rn N 9' wide x 18'long 28" RDWD FAMILY HALL
u n GROVE 3 provide acoustic protection for E T C the D d E Parking stall(typ.) FF - 434.25 residential uses A D 8,000sf 36" RDWD E (650) 851-9335 / (Fax) 851-9337
x L E C
W N
d V 21T le 5 R E PG&E EXISTING TO D N
' W Install 40' x 44' A L E TRANSFORMER PAD W G 25 T A 884 Portola
Y 4 4 A BE REMOVED F
R R T 3 '- 20 L QUIET ZONE GARDEN Biotreatment and
x 0 T K (N) large tree to replace I Cottage A T D = 8 " R
V L O 34 5,200sf Water Detention/ m oved, 4 R the one rem E
E 5 i P n F A L 6 26 see Landscape plan x Infiltration Area T A
. 3' HIGH METAL FAMILY 4' WOOD A x L
R ND WIR d E FENC
5 ( le E t O x y GUARDRAIL PP E 2 . p . (See Civil Plans) 3
0 GATE FOR B TERRACE N
. p 4
0 ) ' y PG&E ACCESS 4 4 t 3 ' C
' 5 i w 6
n i c d " lu e L 4 E " d p 19 0 C x in la 1 g
- o 2 n STOR. STOR. G ' Return the 4' grape n " c re KITCHEN 9 c. ur r 4 8 Path light B C b L
L '- stake fence back to u N 3 r I 0 1 b
7 R d = 27 " le typ.
storefront building CO T ty 4 S 20'-0"
9 p 3 for security reasons S 0 . 6 I 18 6
. " ACK X 6 x 28 Accessible L S SETB T le d R 0 E E R Route w/ a P ' B +3' R E ( L 4 M N 17 3' ADA Gate B E L BIG E X le d R
4 R K TREE d R le 3 P O ) U '- CLASSROOM 1 L E I S 6" L V P IL S M W X 29 A M S IT 6 G A E D T 4 B C '- r le d R a A " H 0 x C 16 W A I C x1 B " ve o M 9 ( ' S I N n 2" O l E E R I N c. A A P DMILL
E I WIN 5 E B C R N a 0 These plans are copyrighted and are subject to
N G u D t S ) K G L r h L WOMEN T Covered D W E b DISCOVERY 5 I A . G I ' 30 14 T Terrace 1 (N T G N 2 A S O AD copyright protection as an "architectural work" under
E H ' FARM 3
d le - ) R G 15 R -0 GRAVEL F 2 I COURTYARD L GARDEN ' O 4 4 A VAN " PATIO F .4 S Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. as amended F ' ' P - - Earth 2 6,350sf W H E 31 4 GARDEN 43 T O A - L 3 Mound December 1990 and known as Architectural Works
R ID R S 3 5 Play Yard
d le T R ' . A E S A -0 L 7 V E 5 5,900sf Orchard Copyright Protection Act of 1990. The protection E P K 13 " L Util.
A F E CONC. SS
d le Trees L E R includes but is not limited to the overall form as well E V N F WALK D E C E " K " CAR Pretty D E N 32 -0 C 4 Tree G S as the arrangement and composition of spaces and W C ' / r CLASSROOM P A 1 a E 2
E L 0 v
d le 4 0
A GRAVEL R A G e ' W , 5 B le d R T elements of the design. Under such protection, 8 r l O ' Y T - PATIO P av L MEN OD - T ' L E el P A B 0
H T P a N
33 d 4 le
E R D x S a t W A " unauthorized use of these plans, work or home Original h 6 12 " t IR E S See Detail 9/T-0.2 6 h Covered
L L Windmill E FE C C
d
le T R N le d R le d R N 36" OAK for H.C. Parking Terrace AD CE K E represented, can legally result in the cessation of C S 33 F
34 Dimensions. V L L 4 d
E le R E A 11 5 Dx construction or building being seized and /or monetary H N R IC '
L A W BIG A
I d le E R A TREE L R O compensation to CJW Architecture. L B
35 10 K FF - 434.25 Earth N
d le (E) POWER POLE R Mound O
D
d le 6' R SS R x 9 -0 L A R A " O
L
d 36 le DISCOVERY E R CLASSROOM R M L 1 B
E O 1 +3' D N P V 2 6'x4' Ox (N) PG&E 7 LA E 9' WINDMILL ENTRY '- Landscape RECEPTION / GARDEN O
0 C 37 -0 0 BIG GATE W d
UTILITY BOX ( " le TREE ° E E " R Covered 4 '
8'-0" 6 2 ) T SIGN AND WOOD OFFICE T '
6 W 5 P Y 4 Terrace W Play Yard
d le
' ' Y R ' 0 IT G P TRELLIS -9 le d R ' ( 0 H R L T " FF - 434.25 O 5,850sf 5 N " A " O 6 ) W 4 P 0 PROPOSED . 4 ' Hx E '- 38 AD D 6 ' WI O - 8 15 R S 1 L A
D S TA Provide (1) 96 gal. 7 N E E K 39 Teacher's D x P F E Pole light recycling can, (1) A E F Patio S W V N E typ. 96 gal. garbage can, E C N and (1) 32 gal. S IR D E C CO E P E 40 compost can within Grape stake Covered 4 A , L F 3 T fence enclosure. 5' Fence Terrace E 3 H 1 N
Friday,April 20, 2018 3 Level at top TEACHER 5 41 C . E E 4 A
6 x L T RESOURCES Earth C ) x N ' N C n 6T th
E L E D Mound a M F io A 4' WOOD AND WIRE FENCE e F T ( it n P R o DISCOVERY id D A N s ti t e R P IO n c u 1 t R C W c - 5'-6" T i A E T ra e o u ' v D C t 5T C c 9 r O E E n t GARDEN B N y n n e b r s le d R e IR N it a r o s S N W 4 F o e f L APN 076 261 140 WINDMILL STREET SIGN, O v c le h u . e 10'-2" 4'-2" O " 9 C a c s c o c 0 1 .0 L r e il g f c Play Yard D '0 WOOD POST, WOOD CROSS 2 G ip d v n in a R 0 LANDS OF 5 p n 4T i i h 4 +3' A GRPA LLC PROJECT ' 4 a k g t S 3 BAR AND SCHOOL ADDRESS x ' C r a 3 5,850sf O ° - a in 5 Service Path to 0 e p le d R B 8 " e P d 1T 2 DOC. 2007-101172 O.R. PROPOSED S r ra e slope gradually to D o g ic 2T Servic K protect the Roots O S S f v 24 e Path O r T " of the (E) 24" Fir
e C W
0 3T s Tree 4 x ' - A 3 6 ' GAT " 4 E B 4 x 0 0 3 - T 6 ' K 2 GATE L x 9 A L E 9' Wid le d R e L W ' 60" REDWOOD x S ' 1 S 7 NEW 6' B Service (N) DRIVEWAY x 4 4 8 4°11'00 OARD x Path M k ' . " W ON BO G c H 8 ARD F Windmill School E " ENTRANCE a O 3 6 Bike, Helix Bike Rack NCE 2x4" FIR M b R S 48" REDWOOD 4 t S by School Outfitters Inc. / G e E 1 s 4 Driveway Entrance 9 F 62" long x 32 1/2" high 173.38 M W/ Locking Chain Gate e E 0 ' t . - G 900 Portola Road 0 ' a 5 N 36" REDWOOD x 1 1/4" Diam. pipe steel. C 24" REDWOOD 4 g (N ' x W (see detail 8/T-0.5) " ) E " FOU 0 le d R ND 3/4" OPEN A W - 4 0 / ' ' x 4 '0 Portola Valley CA 94028 C 4 0 P 3 4 IRON PIPE AT B 4 0" 2 A 7 1 E 3 0 E V ° R ' I E x 9 PROPERTY ANGLE POINT M 4 T D 1 0 '- P Y ° 7 A S A G 5 .7 T IN 1 H4 APN 076 261 020 W D S 40 3 E L S S 8 IV I 43 N EXISTING BUILDING LAN R U 9 DS OF DOUGLAS D B G 70 G s ra ° /C N trr v 2 DOC. 2006-129007 A I 4 e it 6 Service EXISTING BUILDING T 4 t y '0 IS 1 se flo 0 Yard X FOUND SAN MATEO COUNTY S 4 w w " E 4 er t W BRASS DISK 0 l o WITH PUNCH 4 in 4 e IN HANDHOLE 2 F GENERAL SITE PLAN NOTES IR F E R H SHEET TITLE O Y M D C P R O R A 1. FOR TYPICAL PARKING LOT SECTION O N R P T SEE N E 2 DETAIL (A) ON SHEET C-4 E R 4 BOARD ON BOARD FENCE R T 5 Y ' 2. THE "T" DESIGNATION IS FOR TEACHER S PARKING STALLS (TYP.) 3. THE 8 FOOT TALL SOUND WALL LOCATED AT THE QUIATE ZONE GARDEN SHALL BE -B CONSTRUCTED PRIOR CONSTRUCTION OF AS IS ANY BUILDINGS PER DETAIL 11/A-2.3. Site Plan - Proposed O F S B 4. FOR TYPICAL DRIVEWAY SECTION 74 E °5 AR SEE DETAIL (C) ON SHEET C-3 6' IN 00" G PROVIDE ADDRES S S NUMBERS (900) ON A 4X4 POST E - 5. NEARTHE ENTRY DRIVE THAT ARE PLAINLY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET; NUMBERS SHALL BE 4" HIGH AND COMPLY WITH CBC SECTION 501.2
P 6. INSTALL A KNOX BOX AT THE ENTRY GATE, PER O WOODSIDE FIRE PROPER R TY ACCESS REQUIREMENTS T O REVISIONS L S (E) 48" FIR TREE TO BE REMOVED (X), SEE LANDSCAPE A 7. SHEET (L-101)FOR AREA MITIGATION PLANTING R
009-0500 WINDMILL CD REV-3 plans.pln O A No. Date Notes D 8. PROPOSED SEWER EJECTOR PUMP AND GRAVITY TRNSITION PIPE CONNECTION TO (E) PORTOLA ROAD SEWER LINE 1 04/19/18 OWNER REV.
GRAPE STAKE FENCE 1 (N) Site Plan 1" = 20' N
HORSE FENCE
height of sound wall has been lowered from 8' to 7' from PAINTED WOOD TRIM this point to end of fence per formal request by neighbors Jin Oh & Won Choi of 303 Wyndham Drive by email to Architect and Town Planner dated May 10, 2017 PAINTED HORIZONTAL BD. SIDING - SEE DETAIL CL FIRE PROTECTION A-2.3 Section 304.1.2.A Perimeter Property Line Clearance PAINT COLOR TO MATCH Persons owning, controlling, or leasing structures and or property are required to remove, MAINTENANCE PLAN BUILDING COLOR a minimum of 30 feet from the perimeter of the property line, hazardous vegetation LANDSCAPE CONTRACTOR SHALL specifically, flashy fuels consisting of weeds and annual grasses, as well as dead COMPLETE ALL WORK TO EFFECT THE vegetative material and litter that is capable of being easily ignited and endangering PLAN SHOWN BELOW PRIOR TO FINAL property as determined by the Fire Marshal. INSPECTION.OWNER TO MAINTAIN FIRE JOB: 2009.0500 PROTECTION PLAN EACH SUMMER. DATE: 04/17/2018 2 Farm to Table Garden Elevation 1/8" = 1'-0" SHEET: A-1.2 M:\CJW_Job_Files\2009\2009-0500 Windmill School\Dwg\1 Current\2 WINDMILL LOGO & COLORS 11'-0"
WHITE LETTERS WINDMILL LOGO & COLORS 2'-2" SANDBLASTED BACKGROUND WHITE LETTERS WHITE LETTERS 1" SANDBLASTED 1 1/2" 1
BACKGROUND 1/4" 3 WINDMILL WINDMILL SCHOOL 2'-0" 1 1/2" 2'-2" SCHOOL 3 1/4" 3 LAUREL EDUCATION CENTER 1/2" 2 LAUREL EDUCATION CENTER C J W ARCHITECTURE 4:06 PM 2" 6" 3" 8" 2"
1" 130 Portola Road, suite A 1 1/2" 1
DARK ORANGE LETTERS 1/2"4 3/4" 1'-1 3/4" 7 SMOOTH EDGE Portola Valley, CA 94028 DARK ORANGE LETTERS SMOOTH EDGE (650) 851-9335 / (Fax) 851-9337
REDWOOD BOARD SIGN 4 Sign #2 3/4" = 1'-0" 1 Sign #1 3/4" = 1'-0"
These plans are copyrighted and are subject to copyright protection as an "architectural work" under Sec. 102 of the Copyright Act, 17 U.S.O. as amended December 1990 and known as Architectural Works Copyright Protection Act of 1990. The protection includes but is not limited to the overall form as well as the arrangement and composition of spaces and elements of the design. Under such protection, unauthorized use of these plans, work or home represented, can legally result in the cessation of construction or building being seized and /or monetary compensation to CJW Architecture.
8'-5" ABOVE GRADE Monday, May 14, 2018 14, May Monday,
7'-7" ABOVE GRADE PROJECT
Windmill School 900 Portola Road Portola Valley CA 94028
SHEET TITLE
Sign Details
2X6 UPPER MEMBERS
2X6 UPPER TRELLIS MEMBERS 8x8 WD COLUMNS REVISIONS
No. Date Notes 7 1/4" 1 04/27/18 OWNER REV. 5'-0" 2'-0" 5 1/2"
11'-6" 7 1/4" ABOVE 6X12 WOOD BEAM - 6X12 WOOD BEAM GRADE 3/4" THRU BOLT TO WOOD COLUMNS
8x8 WD COLUMNS
1'-0" 24" SQ CONCRETE BASE, 36" DEEP; ANCHOR POSTS TO CONCRETE USING SIMPSON STEEL POST BASE
JOB: 2009.0500 3 Trellis Detail 3/4" = 1'-0" 2 Trellis Plan Detail 3/4" = 1'-0" DATE: 04/17/2018
SHEET: A-1.2A M:\CJW_Job_Files\2009\2009-0500 Windmill School\Dwg\1 Current\2009-0500 WINDMILL CD REV-3 plans.pln Attachment 5
223, 108, 75 0, 103, 149 138, 154, 54 TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
STAFF REPORT
______
TO: ASCC
FROM: Arly Cassidy, Interim Planning Director
DATE: June 11, 2018
RE: Architectural Review for an Addition with Above 85% Floor Area in Main House, 185 Cherokee Way, Katz/Hundt Residence, File # PLN_ARCH 5-2018
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the ASCC approve the proposed addition, subject to the Conditions of Approval (Attachment 1).
PROJECT DATA
Lot Size 1.0 acres Average Slope 16.9% Code Existing Proposed Remaining Requirements Max Floor Area 5,049 4,928 5,048 1
85% of MFA 4,292 4,928 5,048 -
Max Impervious Surface 7,383 5,391 5,391 1,992 Height 28’/34 22’6”/24’6” 22’6”/24’6” - Front Setback 50’ 40’ 40’ - Side Setbacks 20’/20’ 25’/34’ 25’/34’ - Rear Setback 20’ 78’ 78’ - 2 covered 3 covered 3 covered Parking Spaces - 2 guest 2 guest 2 guest 185 Cherokee Way June 11, 2018 Architectural Review Page 2
BACKGROUND
This proposal is for a 120 square foot addition and small remodel to an existing home on a 1.0 acre property located at 185 Cherokee Way (See Vicinity Map, Attachment 2). The original 4,928 square foot home was built in 1998 within the small Sausal Visata subdivision; the lot is located in the R-E/1A/SD-1a zoning district. The property sits on the north side of Cherokee Way where the land slopes steeply down from east to west. The property is surrounded by single family homes.
The site currently contains an existing one-story home. All living space is on a single floor, with an attached three-car garage toward the street and the house behind. The driveway enters on the east side, with a large retaining wall against the east property line. The house sits at the center of the property, which also slopes down to the rear (north). The rear yard is terraced and developed closer to the house, and is natural oak woodland further to the rear. A pool sits to the west. A majority of the property has been developed or landscaped.
The proposal is to add a small pop out on the front of the house, which will allow for an enlarged master bathroom. Normally additions under 400 square feet do not require ASCC review. However, in this case, the existing house is already over the 85% floor area concentration for the main house. This floor plan was part of the original review and approval by the ASCC, which was able to make the findings for exceeding the 85% rule at that time (August 24, 1998 Staff Report and Minutes, Attachments 3 & 4). Any further increase in floor area requires that the ASCC make these findings again.
No new landscaping, grading or lighting are associated with the project. The proposal is further described in the set of architectural plans received on April 19, 2018. In addition to the plans, the project submittal includes the information listed below (Attachments 5-7):
• Project Narrative, received 4/19/18 • Build It Green Checklist, received 4/19/18 • Color Photograph of Existing House, received 4/19/18.
CODE REQUIREMENTS
As required by section 18.64.010.A.1 (architectural review) and 18.48.020 (maximum floor area allowances) of the Municipal Code, this application has been forwarded to the ASCC for review. In addition to the Municipal Code, the Design Guidelines were used to evaluate the project.
DISCUSSION
The proposed project is a small addition and remodel to an existing home. The majority of the house will be untouched and the project is shielded from view from off-site by the sloping land and existing trees. At the master bathroom, the house’s outer wall will be extended outward by 7’8” to create a 16’6” long pop out. The roof will be altered to build a gabled above the addition, with a height of 16’2”, in keeping with the adjacent roof lines. The existing bathroom will be reconfigured and expanded into the pop out, and a new master closet will be created. The addition will match all existing materials and colors.
In addition to the bathroom construction, the applicant is also proposing two new garage doors. The house currently has three single car garage doors, all of which would be replaced with a 185 Cherokee Way June 11, 2018 Architectural Review Page 3
new style of door which has one row of windows along the top. The two doors further into the property would also be replaced with a single door of double width.
Compliance with floor area, impervious surface, height, and setback standards As shown in the table on page one of this staff report, some measurable aspects of the project are at or below the allowed maximums, including impervious surface, height, and parking. The garage protrudes into the front 50 foot setback by 10 feet, which falls within the 20% allowed by the setback averaging provision at PVMC Section 18.52.050.
The floor area for the main house does not currently conform to the requirement that no more than 85% of allowed floor area be concentrated in the main house. The proposal, which further increases this concentration to capture the remaining floor area allowance for the property, requires ASCC approval. Staff believes the findings for this approval can be made; they can be found at the end of this staff report.
Design Guidelines Review- Siting, Mass/Bulk, Scale, Exterior Materials The project was reviewed against the Town’s Design Guidelines and found to be in conformance. The proposed materials for the house match the existing, with wood shingle siding, composite shingle roof, and wood framed window frames painted green. All colors meet the reflectivity guidelines.
Two new skylights are proposed on the roof of the new bathroom. The each measure 2’ x 2’ and face east. Existing trees will prevent light spill from leaving the property. Staff has included a condition of approval (Condition 3) requiring that no lights be placed in or shine out of the skylights.
Sustainability Aspects of Project The applicant has provided the Build-It-Green checklist targeting 49 points for the project. The proposed addition qualifies as a “Small Addition or Remodel” project of under 400 square feet, and therefore requires only that the applicant submit a completed checklist.
Public Comments No neighbor comments have been received by staff.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt per Section 15301, Class 1 of the State CEQA Guidelines which includes an exemption for minor alteration of existing public or private structures.
CONCLUSION
The proposed project should be permitted to mass more than 85% of its floor area in the main residence based on the following findings:
1. The larger building will result in a superior design for the property in terms of grading, tree removal and use of the property than would be possible without the requested increase. The floor area concentration of the main structure will increase from 97.6% to 99.9%. The proposed addition/renovation will utilize the flat landscaped area around the existing building pad. A future detached structure would be constrained by the 185 Cherokee Way June 11, 2018 Architectural Review Page 4
site’s steep slopes and existing oak woodland in the rear and would likely require increased site disturbance and tree removal.
2. The building will not impact significant views enjoyed by neighboring properties to any greater extent than would a design for the project without the increased floor area. The existing home is single story and the addition is lower than the existing roof line. The addition is screened from view by the hill slope and existing landscaping, and will not block anyone’s view of the larger landscape.
3. The building will not in any substantial way negatively affect neighboring properties to any greater extent than would a design for the project without the increased floor area. The addition will utilize the existing building pad and will expand into areas of existing landscaping. The building design will not cause any substantial negatives effects.
4. The building will be in keeping with the character and quality of the neighborhood. The proposed addition will match the materials of the existing house and character of the neighborhood.
The required findings for the project have been made, and the proposed addition and remodel complies with the General Plan, the municipal code, and the Design Guidelines. Staff therefore recommends approval of the project.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Conditions of Approval 2. Vicinity Map 3. ASCC Staff Report, August 24, 1998 4. ASCC Field & Regular Meeting Minutes, August 24, 1998 5. Project Narrative, received 4/19/18 6. Build It Green Checklist, received 4/19/18 7. Color Photograph of Existing House, received 4/19/18 8. Project plans, received on 4/19/18 (ASCC only) Attachment 1
Conditions of Approval
for an Addition/Remodel,
185 Cherokee Way, Katz/Hundt Residence, File # PLN_ARCH 5-2018
A. PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. No other modifications to the approved plans are allowed except as otherwise first reviewed and approved by the Planning Director or the ASCC, depending on the scope of the changes.
2. Upon building permit submittal, plans shall include a note that no lights shall be placed in or shine out of skylights.
3. This approval shall automatically expire two years from the date of issuance, if within such time period, a Building Permit has not been obtained or the use has not commenced.
4. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice.
The permit(s) granted by this approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 15 days of the date of approval. The building permit cannot be issued until the appeal period has lapsed. The applicant may submit construction plans to the Building Department provided the applicant has completed all conditions of approval required prior to acceptance of plans for building plan check. Attachment 2
3 0 4
0
6 5
0
8 3 7
3
3 3 ad 4 s Ro 9 nte 3 20 rva 5 Ce 5 3
6
5
375 1
2 7 3
0 5 5 0 9
6 5 90 135 4 5
7 0 2 5 130 5 145 0 C h e r o 3 5 k 0 0 e 2 e 0 14 D 5 r 5 1
65 1 5
9
1 0 5
15 8 5 1 5 5
7
1 0 16 200
1 9 0
1 90 7 0 0 5 1 166
1 8 0 20 1 91 0 2 15
2 0 25
3 1 0 5
2 5 40 3 1 Vicinity Map
050 100 200 300 400 ¹ Feet 185 Cherokee Drive Attachment 3
Att 4
John Barksdale architect Attachment 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR AN ADDITION TO THE KATZ/HUNDT RESIDENCE AT 185 CHEROKEE WAY, PORTOLA VALLEY, CALIFORNIA
THE PROJECT
The proposed Project is a single-story addition of 120 square feet and remodeling of the Master Bath and Dressing Room to an existing 4,928 square foot single-story residence built in 1998. The original design included a detached two-story guest house with a garage. After deliberations with the ASCC and adjacent neighbors, the design evolved to the current configuration of a single building sited more uphill on the property and lowered in the existing topography by four feet. The revisions satisfied the neighbors’ concerns and the ASCC had made the finding, as required by Section 18.48.020 of the zoning ordinance, to allow this revised design, although it had more than 85% of the permitted floor area in the main residence, to have 98% of the floor area in the main building. This finding was based on “site conditions, including slope, shape and unique swale on the north side, as well as the experience with the originally proposed design with detached guest unit, made concentrating the allowed floor area appropriate”.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION
The proposed addition is planned to alleviate a problem with elements in the existing Master Bath that are too small and claustrophobic to the owners. Correcting this problem required adding the 120 square feet on the level ground adjacent to the Master Bath. The design solution includes the addition of a new gable roof architectural element similar to those prominent throughout the building and to construct the addition with the same materials, colors and details as the existing structure. The applicant believes that the original findings would also apply to this addition since attempting to solve this problem with a detached structure would not be practical and would be counter to the previous ASCC’s findings that the footprint of this residence should be concentrated into one structure. This proposal would not require any grading and drainage changes nor involve any new landscaping other than to eliminate any landscaping in the footprint of the proposed addition.
30 joaquin road portola valley california 94028 650.867.4228 [email protected] Attachment 6 GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist A home is only GreenPoint Rated if all features are verified by a Certified GreenPoint Rater through Build It Green. GreenPoint Rated is provided as a public service by Build It Green, a professional non-profit whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource efficient buildings in Enter Label: Elements California. Points Achieved: 49 This checklist is used to track projects seeking a Whole House or Elements Label using the GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Rating System. The minimum requirements for each lable are listed in the project summary at the end of this checklist. Selected measures can be awarded points allocated by 8 2 2 4 the percentage of presence of the measure in the home. The measure or practice must be found in at least 10% of the home to earn points.
Column A is a dropdown menue with the options of "Yes", "No", or "TBD" or a range of percentages to 23 17 20 22 allocate points. Select the appropriate dropdown and the apropriate points will appear in the yellow 9 8 "points acheived" column. 0 2 2 4 9.0 17.0 20.0 23.0 21.5 The criteria for the green building practices listed below are described in the GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Rating Manual, available at www.builditgreen.org/greenpointrated
GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist version 2.1 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water AA. COMMUNITY Possible Points Yes 1. Home is Located within 1/2 Mile of a Major Transit Stop 2 2 2. Compact Development & House Size a. Density of 10 Units per Acre or Greater (Enter units/acre) 2 2 TBD b. Home Size Efficiency (5 points is average, points awarded based on home size) 1--9 3. Pedestrian and Bicycle Access/ Alternative Transportation a. Site has Pedestrian Access Within ½ Mile of neighborhood services: TIER 1: 1) Day Care 2) Community Center 3) Public Park 4) Drug Store 5) Restaurant 6) School 7) Library 8) Farmer's Market 9) After School Programs 10) Convenience Store Where Meat & Produce are Sold
TIER 2: 1) Bank 2) Place of Worship 3) Laundry/Cleaners 4) Hardware 5) Theater/Entertainment 6) Fitness/Gym 7) Post Office 8) Senior Care Facility 9) Medical/Dental 10) Hair Care 11) Commercial Office of Major Employer 12) Full Supermarket No 5 Services Listed Above (Tier 2 Services count as 1/2 Service Value) 1 No 10 Services Listed Above (Tier 2 Services count as 1/2 Service Value) 1 Yes b. Access to A Dedicated Pedestrian Pathway to Places of Recreational Interest within 1/2 Mile 1 1 Yes c. At Least Two of the Following Traffic-Calming Strategies Installed within 1/4 mile: 1 1 Designated Bicycle Lanes are Present on Roadways; Ten-Foot Vehicle Travel Lanes; Street Crossings Closest to Site are Located Less Than 300 Feet Apart; Streets Have Rumble Strips, Bulbouts, Raised Crosswalks or Refuge Islands 4. Safety & Social Gathering Yes a. Front Entrance Has Views from the Inside to Outside Callers 1 1 No b. Front Entrance Can be Seen from the Street and/or from Other Front Doors 1 No c. Porch (min. 100sf) Oriented to Streets and Public Spaces 1 5. Diverse Households No a. Home Has at Least One Zero-Step Entrance (prerequiste for 5b. And 5c.) 1 Yes b. All Main Floor Interior Doors & Passageways Have a Min. 32-Inch Clear Passage Space 1 No c. Home includes at Least a Half-Bath on the Ground Floor with Blocking for Grab Bars 1 No d. Lot Includes Full-Function Independent Rental Unit 1 Total Points Available in Community = 26 5 A. SITE Possible Points Yes 1. Protect Existing Topsoil from Erosion and Reuse after Construction 2 1 1 2. Divert Construction and Demolition Waste a. Divert All Cardboard, Concrete, Asphalt and Metals (Required for both Whole Yes House and Elements, if Applicable) Y R Yes b. Divert 25% C&D Waste Excluding All Cardboard, Concrete, Asphalt and Metals 2 2 No 3. Construction IAQ Management Plan 2
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 1 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water Total Points Available in Site = 6 4 B. FOUNDATION Possible Points 1. Replace Portland Cement in Concrete with Recycled Flyash or Slag No a. Minimum 20% Flyash and/or Slag Content 1 No b. Minimum 30% Flyash and/or Slag Content 1 No 2. Moisture Source Verification and Correction (Required for Whole House) N R R 3. Retrofit Crawl Space to Control Moisture Yes a. Control Ground Moisture with Vapor Barrier 2 2 Yes b. Foundation Drainage System 2 2 Yes 4. Pest Inspection and Correction 1 1 5. Design and Build Structural Pest Controls a. Install Termite Shields & Separate All Exterior Wood-to-Concrete Connections by No 1 Metal or Plastic Fasteners/Dividers Yes b. All New Plants Have Trunk, Base, or Stem Located At Least 36 Inches from Foundation 1 1 No 6. Radon Testing and Correction or Radon Resistant Construction 1 Total Points Available in Foundation = 10 6 C. LANDSCAPE Possible Points Is the landscape area <15% of the total site area? (only 3 points available in this section for No projects with <15% landscape area) 1. Resource-Efficient Landscapes Yes a. No Invasive Species Listed by Cal-IPC Are Planted 1 1 Yes b. No Plant Species Require Shearing 1 1 Yes c. 50% of Plants Are California Natives or Mediterranean Cimate Species 3 3 Yes 2. Fire-Safe Landscaping Techniques 1 1 3. Minimal Turf Areas Yes a. Turf Not Installed on Slopes Exceeding 10% or in Areas Less than 8 Feet Wide 2 2 Yes b. Turf is <25% of Landscaped Area 2 2 Yes c. Turf is <10% of Landscaped Area or eliminated 2 2 Yes 4. Shade Trees Planted 3 1 1 1 TBD 5. Plants Grouped by Water Needs (Hydrozoning) 2 6. High-Efficiency Irrigation Systems Installed Yes a. System Uses Only Low-Flow Drip, Bubblers, or Low-flow Sprinklers 2 2 TBD b. System Has Smart Controllers 3 No 7. Compost and Recycle Garden Trimmings on Site 1 50% 8. Mulch in All Planting Beds to the Greater of 2 Inches or Local Water Ordinance Requirement 1 2
No 9. Use Environmentally Preferable Materials for Non-Plant Landscape Elements and Fencing 1
Yes 10. Light Pollution Reduced by Shielding Fixtures and Directing Light Downward 1 1 11.Rain Water Harvesting System (1 point for ≤ 350 gallons, 2 points for > 350 gallons) No a. Cistern(s) is Less Than 750 Gallons 1 No b. Cistern(s) is 750 to 2,500 Gallons 1 No c. Cistern(s) is Greater Than 2,500 Gallons 1 No 12. Soil Amended with Compost 1 1 Total Points Available in Landscape = 32 19 D. STRUCTURAL FRAME & BUILDING ENVELOPE Possible Points 1. Optimal Value Engineering 50% a. Place Rafters & Studs at 24-Inch On Center Framing 0.5 1 ≥90% b. Size Door & Window Headers for Load 1 1 75% c. Use Only Jack & Cripple Studs Required for Load 0.75 1 2. Use Engineered Lumber 50% a. Engineered Beams & Headers 0.5 1 No b. Insulated Headers 1 No c. Engineered Lumber for Floors 1 ≥90% d. Engineered Lumber for Roof Rafters 1 1 No e. Engineered or Finger-Jointed Studs for Vertical Applications 1 No f. Oriented Strand Board for Sublfoor 1 ≥90% g. Oriented Strand Board Wall and Roof Sheathing 1 1 3. FSC Certified Wood No a. Dimensional Lumber, Studs, and Timber 4 No b. Panel Products 2 4. Solid Wall Systems (includes SIPs, ICFs, & Any Non-Stick Frame Assembly) No a. Floors 2 2 No b. Walls 2 2 No c. Roofs 2 2
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 2 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water 5. Reduce Pollution Entering the Home from the Garage Yes a Tightly Seal the Air Barrier between Garage and Living Area 1 1 No b. Install Garage Exhaust Fan OR Have a Detached Garage 1 6. Energy Heels on Roof Trusses (75% of Attic Insulation Height at Outside Edge of Exterior 1 1 ≥90% Wall) 7. Overhangs and Gutters ≥90% a. Minimum 16-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 1 1 ≥90% b. Minimum 24-Inch Overhangs and Gutters 1 1 8. Retrofit/ Upgrade Structure for Lateral Load Reinforcement for Wind or Seismic Yes a. Partial Lateral Load Reinforcement Upgrades/ Retrofits 1 1 Yes b. Lateral Load Reinforcement Upgrades/ Retrofits for Entire home 2 2 Yes 9. Sound Exterior Assemblies (Required for Whole House) Y R Total Points Available in Structural Frame & Building Envelope = 36 11.75 E. EXTERIOR FINISH Possible Points No 1. Recycled-Content (No Virgin Plastic) or FSC-Certified Wood Decking 2 No 2. Rain Screen Wall System Installed 2 No 3. Durable & Noncombustible Cladding Materials 1 ≥90% 4. Durable & Fire-Resistant Roofing Materials or Assembly 2 2 Total Points Available in Exterior Finish = 7 2 F. INSULATION Possible Points 1. Install Insulation with 30% Post-Consumer Recycled Content No a. Walls and Floors 1 No b. Ceilings 1 2. Install Insulation that is Low-Emitting (Certified CA Residential Section 01350) ≥90% a. Walls and Floors 1 1 ≥90% b. Ceilings 1 1 ≥90% 3. Inspect Quality of Insulation Installation before Applying Drywall 1 1 Total Points Available in Insulation = 5 3 G. PLUMBING Possible Points 1. Distribute Domestic Hot Water Efficiently ≥50% a. Insulate All Accessible Hot Water Pipes (prerequisite for 1b. and 1c.) 2 1 1 No b. Locate Water Heater Within 12' Of All Water Fixtures, as measured in plan 1 1 Yes c. Install On-Demand Circulation Control Pump 2 1 1 25% 2. High-Efficiency Toilets (Dual-Flush or ≤ 1.28 gpf) 0.5 2 3. Water Efficient Fixtures a. All Fixtures Meet Federal Energy Policy Act (Toilets: 1.6 gpf, Sinks: 2.2 gpm, Showers: Yes Y R 2.5 gpm) (Required For Whole House) ≥90% b. High-Efficiency Showerheads Use ≤ 2.0 gpm at 80 psi 3 3 ≥90% c. Bathroom Faucets Use ≤ 1.5 gpm 2 1 1 Yes 4. Plumbing Survey (No Plumbing Leaks) (Required for Whole House and Elements) Y R
Total Points Available in Plumbing = 13 9.5 H. HEATING, VENTILATION & AIR CONDITIONING Possible Points 1. General HVAC Equipment Verification and Correction a. Visual Survey of Installation of HVAC Equipment (Required for Whole Yes Y R House and Elements) No b. Conduct Diagnostic Testing to Evaluate System 2 No c. Conduct Flow Hood Test and Assess Delivery of Air 1 Yes d. Air Conditioning Compressor Operates Properly and Refrigerant Charge is Optimal 1 1 No 2. Design and Install HVAC System to ACCA Manuals J, D and S 4 3. Sealed Combustion Units Yes a. Furnaces 2 2 Yes b.Water heaters 2 2 No 4. Zoned, Hydronic Radiant Heating 1 1 5. High Efficiency Air Conditioning Air conditioning with Environmentally No 1 Responsible Refrigerants 6. Effective Ductwork Installation No a. New Ductwork and HVAC unit Installed Within Conditioned Space 1 No b. Duct Mastic Used on All Ducts, Joints and Seams 1 No c. Ductwork System is Pressure Relieved 1 No 7. High Efficiency HVAC Filter (MERV 6+) 1 No 8. No Fireplace OR Sealed Gas Fireplaces with Efficiency Rating ≥60% using CSA Standards 1 9. Effective Exhaust Systems Installed in Bathrooms and Kitchens ≥90% a. ENERGY STAR Bathroom Fans Vented to the Outside 1 1 ≥90% b. All Bathroom Fans are on Timer or Humidistat 1 1 Yes c. Kitchen Range Hood Vented to the Outside 1 1
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 3 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water 10. Mechanical Ventilation System for Cooling Installed No a. ENERGY STAR Ceiling Fans & Light Kits in Living Areas & Bedrooms 1 No b. Whole House Fan 1 11. Mechanical Ventilation for Fresh Air Installed a. Compliance with ASHRAE 62.2 Mechanical Ventilation Standards (as No 1 adopted in Title 24 Part 6) b. Advanced Ventilation Practices (Continuous Operation, Sone Limit, Minimum No 1 Efficiency, Minimum Ventilation Rate, Homeowner Instructions) No c. Outdoor Air Ducted to Bedroom and Living Areas of Home 1 1 12. Carbon Monoxide Yes a. Carbon Monoxide Testing and Correction (Required for Whole House) Y R Yes b. Carbon Monoxide Alarm(s) Installed 1 1 No 13. Combustion Safety Backdraft Test (Required for Whole House and Elements) N R Total Points Available in Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning = 30 9 I. RENEWABLE ENERGY Possible Points 1. Offset Energy Consumption with Onsite Renewable Generation (Solar PV, Solar Thermal, Wind) 25 Enter % total energy consumption offset, 1 point per 4% offset Total Points Available in Renewable Energy = 25 J. BUILDING PERFORMANCE Possible Points 1. Energy Survey and Education (Required for Elements or Meet J3) No N R 2. Energy Upgrades (Available for Elements Rating Only, Mutually Exclusive with J3. 2 point minimum and 6 point maximum credit required) TIER 1: Practices in Tier 1 Are Worth Full Value (1 point) Yes a) Attic Insulation up to or Exceeding Current Code 1 1 Yes b) Crawl Space Insulation up to or Exceeding Current Code 1 1 Yes c) Wall Insulation up to or Exceeding Current Code 1 1 TBD d) High Efficiency Furnace (90% AFUE Minimum) 1 No e) Seal Ducts and Duct Leakage is <15% 1 TBD f) 14 SEER, 11.5 EER Air Conditioning Unit (in climate zones 2,4,8-15) 1 No g) House Passes Blower Door Test With ≤0.5 ACH or a 50% Improvement 1 TIER 2: Practices in Tier 2 Are Worth Half Value (0.5 points) Yes h) High Efficiency Water Heater ≥.62EF 0.5 0.5 No i) Radiant Barrier in Attic 0.5 Yes j) Windows Upgraded to Current Code Requirements, Which are Typically Dual Pane 0.5 0.5 Yes k) Duct insulation to Code 0.5 0.5 Yes l) Programmable Thermostat 0.5 0.5 TBD m) 14 SEER, 11.5 EER Air Conditioning unit (in climate zones 1,3,5,6,7,16) 0.5 3. Meet Energy Budget for Home Based on Year (Based GreenPoint Rated Index, Includes 10+ Blower Door Test) (Required for Whole House, Available for Elements) TBD 4. Design and Build Zero Energy Homes 5 TBD 5. Comprehensive Utility Bill Analysis 1 Total Points Available in Building Performance = 16+ 5 K. FINISHES Possible Points Yes 1. Entryways Designed to Reduce Tracked in Contaminants 1 1 2. Low/No-VOC Paint ≥90% a. Low-VOC Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<50 gpl VOCs regardless of sheen) 1 1 No b. Zero-VOC: Interior Wall/Ceiling Paints (<5 gpl VOCs (flat) ) 2 No 3. Coatings Meet SCAQMD Rule 1113 for Low VOCs 2 No 4. Low-VOC Caulks & Construction Adhesives (Meet SCAQMD Rule 1168) 2 No 5. Recycled-Content Paint 1
6. Environmentally Preferable Materials for Interior Finish: A) FSC Certified Wood B) Reclaimed Materials C) Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content E) Finger-Jointed or F) Local No a. Cabinets 1 No b. Interior Trim 1 No c. Shelving 1 No d. Doors 1 No e. Countertops 1 7. For Newly Installed Products, Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish – Meet Current CARB Airborne Toxic Control Measure (ATCM) for Composite Wood Formaldehyde Limits by Yes Y R Mandatory Compliance Dates (Required for Whole Building & Elements) (EPA IAP)
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 4 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water 8. Reduce Formaldehyde in Interior Finish - Exceed Current CARB ATCM for Composite Wood Formaldehyde Limits Prior to Mandatory Compliance Dates ≥90% a. Doors 1 1 ≥90% b. Cabinets and Countertops 2 2 ≥90% c. Interior Trim and Shelving 1 1 No 9. After Installation of Finishes, Test of Indoor Air Shows Formaldehyde Level <27ppb 3 Total Points Available in Finishes = 21 6 L. FLOORING Possible Points
1. Environmentally Preferable Flooring: A) FSC-Certified Wood B) Reclaimed or Refinished C) ≥90% Rapidly Renewable D) Recycled-Content, E) Exposed Concrete F) Local 4 4 Flooring Adhesives Must Have <70 gpl VOCs and sealer must meet SCAQMD Rule 1113.
No 2. Thermal Mass Floors 1 TBD 3. Flooring Meets CA Section 01350 or CRI Green Label Plus Requirements 2 Total Points Available in Flooring = 7 4 M. APPLIANCES AND LIGHTING Possible Points
TBD 1. ENERGY STAR Dishwasher (Must Meet Current Specifications) (Mutually Exclusive with J3) 1 1
2. ENERGY STAR Clothes Washing Machine with Water Factor of 6 or Less TBD a. Meets CEE Tier 2 Requirements (Modified Energy Factor 2.0, Water Factor 6.0) 1 2 TBD b. Meets CEE Tier 3 Requirements (Modified Energy Factor 2.2, Water Factor 4.5) 2 3. ENERGY STAR Refrigerator Installed TBD a. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 25 cu.ft.Capacity (Mutually Exclusive with J3) 1 TBD b. ENERGY STAR Qualified & < 20 cu.ft Capacity (Mutually Exclusive with J3) 1 4. Built-In Recycling & Composting Center Yes a. Built-In Recycling Center 2 2 No b. Built-In Composting Center 1 No 5. Electrical Survey (Required for Whole House) N R No 6. Verification of Entire Electrical System 2 ≥90% 7. Energy Efficient Lighting 1 1 No 8.Low- Mercury Lamps (Linear and Compact Flourescent) 1 ≥90% 9. Lighting Controls Installed 1 1 Total Points Available in Appliances and Lighting = 13+ 4 N. OTHER Possible Points 1. Incorporate GreenPoint Checklist in Blueprints Or Distribute Checklist (Required for Whole Yes Y R House and Elements) No 2. Develop Homeowner Manual of Green Features/Benefits 1 1 3. Hazardous Waste Testing No a. Lead Testing Interior, Exterior and Soil 1 No b. Asbestos Testing and Remediation 1 No 4. Gas Shut Off Valve (motion/ non-motion) 1 1 Total Points Available in Other = 6 P. INNOVATIONS Possible Points AA. Community: No Innovation Measures At This Time A. Site No 1. Cool Site 1 B. Foundation: No Innovation Measures At This Time C. Landscaping No 1. Irrigation System Uses Recycled Wastewater 1 D. Structural Frame and Building Envelope 1. Design, Build and Maintain Structural Pest and Rot Controls No a. Locate All Wood (Siding, Trim, Structure) At Least 12 Inches Above Soil 1 b. All Wood Framing 3 Feet from the Foundation is Treated with Borates (or Use Factory- No 1 Impregnated Materials) OR Walls are Not Made of Wood 2. Use Moisture Resistant Materials and Practices in Wet Areas of Kitchen, Bathrooms, Utility Rooms, Yes 1 1 and Basements 3. Use FSC-Certified Engineered Lumber 50% a. Engineered Beams and Headers 0.5 1 No b. Insulated Engineered Headers 1 No c. Wood I-Joists or Web Trusses for Floors 1 No d. Wood I-Joists for Roof Rafters 1 No e. Engineered or Finger-Jointed Studs for Vertical Applications 1 75% f. Roof Trusses 0.75 1
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 5 A Master Bath Remodel and Addition to the KATZ / HUNDT RESIDENCE Points Achieved Community Energy IAQ/Health Resources Water E. Exterior Finish No 1. Green Roofs (25% or Roof Area Minimum) 2 2 F. Insulation: No Innovation Measures At This Time G. Plumbing No 1. Graywater Pre-Plumbing (Includes Clothes Washer at Minimum) 1 No 2. Graywater System Operational (Includes Clothes Washer at Minimum) 2 No 3. Innovative Wastewater Technology (Constructed Wetland, Sand Filter, Aerobic System) 1 No 4. Composting or Waterless Toilet 1 No 5. Install Drain Water Heat-Recovery System 1 H. Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) No 1. Humidity Control Systems (Only in California Humid/Marine Climate Zones 1,3,5,6,7) 1 I. Renewable Energy: No Innovation Measures At This Time J. Building Performance No 1. Test Total Supply Air Flow Rates 1 No 2. Energy Budget Analysis (J3) Completed By CEPE 1 K. Finishes: No Innovation Measures At This Time. L. Flooring: No Innovation Measures At This Time. M. Appliances: No Innovation Measures At This Time. N. Other No 1. Homebuilder's Management Staff Are Certified Green Building Professionals 1 No 2. Comprehensive Owner's Manual and Homeowner Education Walkthroughs 1 3. Additional Innovations: List innovative measures that meet green building objectives. Points will be assessed by Build It Green and the GreenPoint Rater. TBD a. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD b. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD c. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD d. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD e. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD f. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD g. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P TBD h. Describe Innovation Here and Enter Possible Points in Columns L-P Total Points Available in Innovation = 26+ 2.25 Summary Total Available Points 224+ 25 83 46 76 47 Minimum Points Required (Whole House) 50 20 5 6 8 Minimum Points Required (Elements) 25 8 2 2 4 Total Points Achieved 49 9.0 17.0 20.0 23.0 21.5
© 2011 Build It Green GreenPoint Rated Existing Home Checklist v2.0 6 Attachment 7
FIRST QUARTER 2018 REVEGETATION MONITORING REPORT, YEAR 5
For
Jones Gulch Stabilization Villa Lauriston 5050 Alpine Road Portola Valley CA
Prepared by
Rana Creek Habitat Restoration
April 10, 2018
Rana Creek Habitat Restoration 27875 Berwick Drive, Carmel, California 93923 Tele.(831) 659-3820 Fax.(831) 646-2106
FIRST QUARTER 2018 REVEGETATION MONITORING REPORT – YEAR 5
Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA
April 10, 2018
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION...... 1 1.1 Responsible Party and Funding ...... 1 2.0 RESTORATION TO DATE ...... 2 2.1 Maintenance and Monitoring ...... 2 3.0 OBSERVATIONS ...... 2 3.1 Irrigation System and Browse Fence ...... 3 3.2 Native Plant Cover ...... 3 3.3 Invasive Weeds ...... 4 3.4 Survival ...... 4 4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 5 5.0 REFERENCES ...... 6
Appendices Appendix A – Photo-monitoring Results Appendix B – Plant Species List Appendix C – Performance Criteria
5050 Alpine Road, Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) i 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA 1.0 INTRODUCTION This first quarter 2018 revegetation monitoring report provides a summary of maintenance activities, plant establishment status, and an update on compliance with revegetation performance criteria at the Jones Gulch Stabilization Project (Villa Lauriston), located at 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California. The year 2018 is the fifth and final year of the revegetation establishment, monitoring, and reporting period.
Initial revegetation activities associated with the repair of an approximately 0.95-acre area along the bank of Jones Gulch impacted by unauthorized tree and vegetation clearing were completed on May 7, 2014. Initial revegetation activities included seeding, installation of temporary erosion control devices, browse fence installation, drip and spray irrigation system installation, weed control, and container planting in accordance with the approved Supplemental Restoration Plan for Villa Lauriston (Plan) (Rana Creek, 2014). The Plan was approved on March 13, 2014 by the Town of Portola Valley (Town).
As a condition of approval, the Town requires that quarterly monitoring reports be prepared. The following items are summarized herein:
A description of restoration for each period; Maintenance activities; Monitoring activities; Observations; Conclusions and compliance status; Recommendations for adaptive management, as applicable, based on the findings during quarterly inspections; and Photo-documentation from established photo-points.
1.1 Responsible Party and Funding The responsible party for funding the tree replacement and habitat restoration is:
Monte Leon LLC
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 1 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA 2.0 RESTORATION TO DATE In order to prevent bank failure during the winter months immediately following the unauthorized clearing, emergency work was conducted between November 8 and November 21, 2013 to stabilize the slope with a combination of jute netting and straw wattles, as detailed in the Erosion Control Plan developed by BKF Engineers. Hydro-mulching with a bonded fiber matrix and native seed mix occurred in December 2013. The seed mix was a combination of a Town preapproved seed mix supplemented by additional species. The supplemental seed species were approved by the Town prior to hydroseeding.
During May 2014, initial revegetation activities were completed. A temporary spray and drip irrigation system was installed according to the approved Plan. Plant material and the perimeter browse fence were installed according to Plan, with several minor adjustments to the browse fence and plant quantities. These adjustments were a result of field conditions that differed slightly from the original Plan drawings. Plant quantities installed either met or exceeded the requirements of the Plan.
Acorns planted during initial revegetation activities during spring 2014 did not emerge and were replaced with fresh acorns during December 2014. A total of 96 acorn planting sites were replanted with the fresh acorns. At the same time, two replacement sword ferns (Polystichum munitum) and one snowberry (Symphoricarpos albus) were installed. Since the 2014 re-planting event, no additional re-planting or seeding has occurred due to positive survival and vegetation coverage results. 2.1 Maintenance and Monitoring Maintenance of the revegetation area is performed on a regular basis in accordance with the schedule provided in the Revegetation Maintenance Manual and Schedule (Rana Creek, May 5, 2014). The primary focus of maintenance visits at this stage is control of invasive non- native plant species and inspection of the browse fence. Quarterly maintenance visits are timed so that weed control, which is performed by manual methods, succeeds at removing any occurrences of weeds before they are able to flower and produce seed. Quarterly monitoring inspections are performed by a Rana Creek ecologist, often on the same day as maintenance events, and assess the site for vegetation coverage, tree survival, functionality of the browse fence, and presence of invasive weeds.
3.0 OBSERVATIONS Rana Creek performed the first quarter monitoring inspection on April 4, 2018. A maintenance event, which focused on removal of a few small areas of Italian thistle (Carduus pycnocephalus), also occurred on the same day. At the time of the inspection, weather conditions were sunny with a temperature of around 65 degrees. The site was observed to be in good condition and well-vegetated with new spring growth of both annual and perennial species. Coverage and diversity of plant species is similar to the conditions observed during first quarter of the previous year, although the growth of shrubs, vines, and trees continues to increase in height and spread. The vigorous growth of vegetation across the site has made it
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 2 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA difficult to distinguish between container stock installed four years ago and plants that have regrown or recruited naturally. Current photographs of the site collected from established photo-monitoring stations are included as Appendix A. 3.1 Irrigation System and Browse Fence The status of the irrigation system and browse fence is the same as the previous quarter. The drip and spray irrigation system remains in place, but is not currently being used because seeded and planted vegetation has become established. The restoration plantings will not receive any further irrigation so that their established condition can continue to be confirmed. The temporary irrigation system will be removed at the conclusion of the five-year establishment period. The browse fence was intact and no evidence of herbivory on vegetation within the restoration area was noted. 3.2 Native Plant Cover Average absolute percent cover of native vegetation is estimated to be between approximately 90 and 100 percent. There are areas where absolute cover values would exceed 100 percent, if all vegetation strata (herbaceous, shrub, tree) were counted. There are no longer any areas of bare soil and all areas of the site are either covered by vegetation or a layer of duff. No evidence of surface erosion was noted.
The herbaceous layer is dominated by miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata), but is gradually becoming covered by a vine layer dominated by California blackberry (Rubis ursinus) and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum). Other common species in the herbaceous layer include Western soloman’s seal (Smilacina racemosa) and sword fern.
Dominant woody shrubs include sticky monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), coyotebrush (Baccharis pilularis), and poison oak, especially in sunny areas, and snowberry, California lilac (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), and toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia) in more shaded areas. Planted trees including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), continue to exhibit vigorous growth. A list of plant species observed is provided as Appendix B. The photo at left shows a planted California lilac that has reached about ten feet in height.
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 3 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA
Photo 1 – Miner’s lettuce (Claytonia perfoliata) Photo 3 – Healthy native vegetation, just upslope from dominates the herbaceous layer. Jones Gulch.
Photo 2 – View through browse fence at top of slope. Photo 4 – A dense patch of sticky monkey flower (Mimulus aurantiacus). 3.3 Invasive Weeds Italian thistle, an annual species, was present in patches within the central portion of the site. The average cover of this species, prior to removal during the first quarter maintenance event, was estimated at <5%. During the first quarter maintenance event, all Italian thistle, which was not yet in flower, was removed by hand pulling. Perennial species, such as English ivy (Hedera helix), were not present within the restoration area. 3.4 Survival Trees, shrubs, and coast live oak seedlings appeared to be in a healthy and growing condition at the time of the inspection. No dead perennial shrubs or trees installed during restoration activities were noted.
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 4 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA 4.0 CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS The first quarter site inspection found that the site is in compliance with the Year 5 performance criteria set forth in the approved Plan (Appendix C).
Rana Creek recommends the following for the second quarter 2018:
Leave the irrigation system in place, but turned off. Continue weed control during each quarterly maintenance visit. Perform weed control in early to mid-May 2018, targeting Italian thistle. Leave erosion control fabric and other temporary erosion control devices in place.
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 5 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA 5.0 REFERENCES Rana Creek. 2014. Supplemental Restoration Plan for Villa Lauriston, 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California.
Rana Creek. 2014. Revegetation Maintenance Manual and Schedule for Villa Lauriston, 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California.
Rana Creek. 2014. As-Built Planting Plan, Villa Lauriston, 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, 1 sheet.
Rana Creek. 2014. Monthly Revegetation Status Memos (April – November), 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California.
Rana Creek. 2014-2017. Quarterly Revegetation Monitoring Reports, Jones Gulch Stabilization, Villa Lauriston, 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California.
WRECO. 2014. Jones Gulch Stabilization Project, Quarterly Qualitative Assessment – April 2014.
5050 Alpine Road,Villa Lauriston (Jones Gulch) 6 1st Quarter 2018 Report – Year 5 Portola Valley, CA
Appendix A – Photo-monitoring Results
ATTACHMENT A - Photo-Points, Villa Lauriston – Jones Gulch, Portola Valley, California 2018 First Quarter Report
Photo-point 1 (Q1 2014 shown for reference) Photo-point 1 (Q1 2018)
Photo-point 2 (Q1 2014 shown for reference) Photo-point 2 (Q1 2018)
Q1 2018 Revegetation Monitoring Report – Year 5 A-1 ATTACHMENT A - Photo-Points, Villa Lauriston – Jones Gulch, Portola Valley, California 2018 First Quarter Report
Photo-point 3 (Q1 2014 shown for reference) Photo-point 3 (Q1 2018)
Photo-point 4 (Q1 2014 shown for reference). (Different angle from Photo-point 4 (Q1 2018) 2018 photo, but taken from similar location)
Q1 2018 Revegetation Monitoring Report – Year 5 A-2 ATTACHMENT A - Photo-Points, Villa Lauriston – Jones Gulch, Portola Valley, California 2018 First Quarter Report
Photo-point 5 (Q1 2014 shown for reference) Photo-point 5 (Q1 2018)
Note: Photos from the corresponding quarter of 2014 (Year 1) are provided to illustrate the changes that have occurred over the course of the 5- year establishment period.
Q1 2018 Revegetation Monitoring Report – Year 5 A-3
Appendix B – Plant Species List
APPENDIX B Plant Species List Villa Lauriston, Portola Valley, California
Date of survey: April 4, 2018
Botanical Name Common Name Native Status Acer macrophyllum big leaf maple native Aesculus californica California buckeye native Athyrium filix-femina lady fern native Arbutus menziesii Pacific madrone native Baccharis pilularis coyotebrush native Blechnam spicant deer fern native Bromus carinatus California brome native Bromus diandrus ripgut brome non-native Bromus pseudolaevipes woodland brome native Cardamine oligosperma pop weed native Carduus pycnocephalus Italian thistle non-native Ceanothus thyrsiflorus California lilac native Cirsium vulgare bull thistle non-native Claytonia perfoliata miner's lettuce native Clinopodium douglasii yerba buena native Corylus cornuta var. californica California hazelnut native Cynoglossum grande hound's tongue native Dryopteris arguta wood fern native Elymus glaucus blue wildrye native Eschscholzia californica California poppy native Frangula californica California coffeeberry native Galium californicum California bedstraw native Galium sp. bedstraw -- Hedera helix English ivy non-native Hypericum calycinum Aaron's beard non-native Iris douglasiana Douglas iris native Notholithocarpus densiflora tan-bark oak native Lonicera hispidula hairy honeysuckle native Lupinus sp. lupine (unknown) -- Maianthemum racemosum Western soloman's seal native Melica imperfecta Coast Range oniongrass native Mimulus aurantiacus sticky monkey flower native Notholithocarpus densiflorus Tan oak native Osmorhiza brachypoda California sweet cicely native Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup non-native Pittosporum undulatum Victorian box non-native Polypodium californicum California polypody native Polystichum munitum sword fern native Potentilla glandulosa sticky cinquefoil native Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir native Pteridium aquilinum bracken fern native Quercus agrifolia coast live oak native APPENDIX B Plant Species List Villa Lauriston, Portola Valley, California
Date of survey: April 4, 2018
Botanical Name Common Name Native Status Ribes sanguineum pink flowering currant native Rosa californica California wild rose native Rosa gymnocarpa wood rose native Rubus parviflorus thimbleberry native Rubus ursinus California blackberry native Rumex salicifolius willow-leaved dock native Salvia leucophylla purple sage native Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea elderberry native Sanicula crassicaulis Pacific sanicle native Scrophularia californica bee plant native Sequoia sempervirens coast redwood native Smilacina racemosa Western soloman's seal native Sonchus oleraceus common sowthistle non-native Stachys bullata hedge nettle native Symphoricarpos albus common snowberry native Tanacetum parthenium feverfew non-native Thalictrum fendleri meadow rue native Torilis arvensis field hedge parsely non-native Toxicodendron diversilobum poison oak native Trientalis latifolia star flower native Vaccinium ovatum evergreen huckleberry native Vicia sp. vetch --
Appendix C – Performance Criteria
Performance Criteria – Villa Lauriston, 5050 Alpine Road, Portola Valley
Restoration Inspections Performance Potential Adaptive Year Criteria Management Measures < 10% target weed cover (visual estimate), Scheduled <1% Ivy cover, 100% inspections, survival of Year 1 annual inspection replacement during fall trees (containers), 100% survival of shrubs.
< 10% target weed Scheduled cover (visual estimate), Increase weeding frequency, adjust inspections, 100% survival of irrigation, remedial planting, Year 2 annual inspection replacement trees install/replace browse protection. during fall (containers), 90% survival of shrubs.
< 10% target weed Scheduled cover (visual estimate), inspections, 100% survival of Year 3-5 annual inspection replacement trees during fall (containers), 75% survival of shrubs
DRAFT MINUTES
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE CONTROL COMMISSION MAY 14, 2018 Regular Evening Meeting, 765 Portola Road
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
Chair Sill called the regular meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the Town Center Historic School House Meeting Room, 765 Portola Road.
Interim Planning Director Arly Cassidy called roll:
Present: ASCC: Commissioners Danna Breen and Dave Ross; Vice Chair Megan Koch; Chair Al Sill Absent: Commissioner Jane Wilson Planning Commission Liaison: Anne Kopf-Sill Town Council Liaison: Town Staff: Interim Planning Director Arly Cassidy
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Carter Warr, CJW Architecture, Portola Valley. Mr. Warr said the current application process for design review is arduous and expensive. He said he used to be able to bring rough sketches to get feedback on designs, and the ASCC would help guide applicants through the process. Somewhere along the line he said the process became much more formal in an attempt to limit the number of meetings and times the ASCC saw applications. Mr. Warr said he spent 21 years on the ASCC and saw himself being the frog being boiled, as the process became more and more formal. He asked the ASCC to consider going back to a less formal process, letting applicants come in with their scribbles and sketches and have site meetings to discuss what they’re thinking about, so that the collaboration between the applicants, the design team, and the neighbors can work together to arrive at with better solutions.
Commissioner Ross said there is the question of how much influence the ASCC has over the process and suggested it may be a discussion item on a future agenda. Commissioner Breen said that suggestion should be made to the Council under oral communications and ask that they direct the ASCC to discuss it.
NEW BUSINESS
(1) Preliminary Architectural Review for a New Residence, Detached ADU/Garage, Swimming Pool and Landscaping, File # PLN ARCH 23-2017, 9 Buck Meadow, King Residence
Interim Planning Director Cassidy presented the conceptual proposal and plans adjusted in response to staff and ASCC’s comments regarding height and nonconformity to the Blue Oaks PUD, as detailed in the staff report. She explained the applicants would like comments, reactions, and direction before proceeding with developing the civil plans.
Carter Warr, project architect, said the design originally presented was in compliance with the way the buildings were approved. He said they are now sharing the alternate plans to show the difference. He said it improves the function of the interior of the house by reducing the stairs from the children’s floor to the master bedroom, but increases the amount of soil required to be removed. He said the 18 percent average slope on the site precipitates that, and the desire from
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 1 DRAFT MINUTES the PUD and the owners was to keep the building out of the trees; therefore, the footprint of the building gets bigger and spreads up and down the slope. He said if the ASCC’s desire is to comply with the Town’s interpretation of measurement in contrast to the history of many properties in Blue Oaks, the applicant will need the support of the ASCC in pursuing the additional grading required with the Planning Commission.
Interim Planning Director Cassidy requested direction from the Commission regarding the trade- off between complying with the letter of the law about the height requirement and moving a lot of soil.
Chair Sill invited questions for staff. Hearing none, he invited the applicant to comment.
Mr. Warr said it was their impression that the ASCC supported the design of the building, and the changes made were in response to the Planning Commission review and strict interpretation regarding the heights. He asked that the ASCC provide specific direction to comply with how Planning is now interpreting the rules so they can make adjustments to the numbers, bring back the grading, and come back to the ASCC again and then move to the Planning Commission.
Chair Sill invited questions for the applicant.
Vice Chair Koch asked if the previous rendering included views for the master suite. Mr. Warr said it did. He said by lowering the master suite, it creates a more internal experience. He said the front will still have some views up and out, but the ground will be higher in front of them. Vice Chair Koch asked regarding the owner’s preference. Mr. Warr said the owners will be satisfied with either. He said he believes the feeling inside the master suite would be better looking out over the ground rather than looking up out of the hole, which is why, as part of the grading solution, they will be asking for more grading than required because they are trying to make the outdoor spaces adjacent to the floor level rather than just stacking the dirt against the roof.
Commissioner Breen asked about the retaining wall and grading at the swimming pool. Mr. Warr said they are creating an infinity-edge pool, so that when looking across the pool from the patio, the water disappears and the landscape beyond that is still visible. In response to Commissioner Breen’s question, Mr. Warr said the visible part of the retaining wall would be approximately 5 feet. He said the water comes over an infinity edge, coming down over a tile wall to a basin at ground level, which will blend into the environment. He said it will be a harsh line that will sometimes be dry and sometimes wet. Commissioner Breen said the expression of the wall would be mostly visible to people using the Blue Oaks Trail and not necessarily the houses on the back side. Mr. Warr said the houses on the back side are 40 to 50 feet above this site, and they will see the pool more than the wall. He said he is hoping for a natural progression from the grassland near the oak tree where there will not be a lot of landscaping.
Commissioner Ross asked Interim Planning Director Cassidy if the excavation for the footprint of the house is counted in the grading totals. Interim Planning Director Cassidy said the site development permit total for cut is a sum of everything except cut in the building pad. She said fill in the building pad and cut and fill anywhere else is a gross sum, which is the number considered for site development permits. She said because the master suite area is going down, that grading does not count, but the bowl will count against the site development permit number. She said because this could be as much as 2,000 cubic yards, it will require Planning Commission review.
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 2 DRAFT MINUTES
Commissioner Breen asked about communication with the neighbors. Mr. Warr said the neighbors directly behind are supportive of the project. He said the neighbors are hoping for approval of some of the items in the landscape plan to help with the signature for their driveway – a more substantial address wayfinding, perhaps a boulder with numbers, because their property is hard to find. He said for the neighbors near the pond, the lowering of the master suite will be more acceptable although it can’t be made completely invisible. He said the biggest difference is in the landscape plan, with plant material to help with the view from the pond. He said they are continuing to propose more oak trees than the ASCC was previously willing to support. He said they are in a bit of a bind because the homeowners’ association is maturing and this is the last property to be developed. He said there is not much cultural memory for the microhabitats (grassland, rocky crest, woodland) that the Blue Oaks PUD was based on. He said the HOA wants more screening, and the applicant is willing to capitulate to help get approval from them.
With no further questions, Chair Sill invited public comment. Hearing none, Chair Sill brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.
Vice Chair Koch said there is a benefit to lowering the master suite, particularly around light spill. She said the outdoor area should not be lit, creating less light spill for neighbors. She said it will also provide more privacy for the master bedroom from the driveway that dissects the property. She said she does not support planting on the dissected portion of the property. She said she regularly uses the trail that goes by the pool. She said she could be supportive if it looked natural and was graded to landscape and nature, with subdued tile.
Commissioner Breen said the proposal is a better solution, and she was supportive of sinking in the house. She expressed concern about the pool retaining wall. She said this is a grassland designation. She said meadows are at a premium in town, and they need to be preserved, with very few trees. She said it is the Commission’s charge to honor the land.
Commissioner Ross said he was supportive of the new concept. He said aesthetically, and as far as corresponding to the Town’s design guidelines, he preferred the original design and the conformance of the structure to the sloping property. He said he was not aware of the intent behind the drafting of the height requirements in the original PUD, but agreed that the way they’ve been previously interpreted had more to do with the way the properties presented themselves to the street rather than a strict measuring of highest and lowest points. He said in locations designated for single story, there are three-story houses because the street view is only one story. He was not sure if the tightening of the height restrictions was due to a technical review or an attempt to bring them into compliance with the original intent. He said, with regard to outside lighting in the area around the master bedroom, he did not think there would be a lot of gathering time in that area at night and would not require lighting. Mr. Warr said with the revised concept, the master suite opens more to the bowl area outside of it, so there will likely be a daylight patio, but only the required exit lighting.
Chair Sill said the original design was great, and most of the good characteristics are still there. He said he now prefers the modifications because he is supportive of the current interpretations of the height restrictions. He agrees with minimal lighting in the bowl and limited planting beyond the driveway. He said this is a good solution to a tough problem.
Mr. Warr said they will likely cut more than they will have fill. He said in order to balance the grading on site, they will be looking for places to hide the dirt. He discussed two possible options. Mr. Warr pointed out that there would likely be significant pushback from the
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 3 DRAFT MINUTES
homeowner’s association for removal of trees.
Commissioner Ross said the idea of raising the grade behind the pool and bringing it around toward Buck Meadow is attractive. He said at Buck Meadow, the grade could be raised possibly 2 to 3 feet, replanted, and use more modest planting materials for screening, such as shrubs instead of trees. He was less supportive of losing dirt on the other side of the driveway and said it might be more difficult to get permission because of POSE rules. Mr. Warr said that during the subdivision, it was dug up badly in order to find the San Andreas faults and what is there now is not natural. Commissioner Ross said he would be supportive of spreading the soil around the area as long as it was returned to a meadow look with appropriate grasses. He said the other benefit is reduced truck trips.
Vice Chair Koch asked if the POSE area could be used for construction staging, as they did with 5 Blue Oaks. She said on one hand, she would suggest leaving that area alone, adding soil throughout the site where it’s already disturbed, but not if this is where the staging will occur anyway. She suggested a portion to hide the pool wall and some of the garage, nothing on the side of the entry master wing, and the rest on the already disturbed construction staging site.
Interim Planning Director Cassidy asked Mr. Warr if there was a preliminary construction plan. Mr. Warr said they did not have a plan yet, but agreed it would make the construction more efficient and effective to have access to that area. He said it would be easy to replace and even improved.
Commissioner Breen recommended feathering the grading so that nothing looked bermed and it was all natural. She was not supportive of all the oaks at the front of the property and wants to see meadow. Mr. Warr said if they get the approval for grading, he thinks they can come back to shrubs closer to the building.
Chair Sill was supportive of moving the dirt to soften the pool retaining wall and then bringing it around. He also would prefer none or as few oak trees as possible.
Mr. Warr thanked the Commission for their guidance.
Chair Sill called for a five-minute break.
(2) Preliminary Architectural Review and Site Development Permit for a New Pool Cabana and Undergrounding of an Existing Seasonal Creek, File # PLN ARCH 40- 2017, 199 Mapache Drive, Mainzer Residence
Interim Planning Director Cassidy described the background and details of the project. She explained the property has already been approved for a new residence with an attached three- car garage, a basement, a detached ADU, a carport, and a swimming pool. She requested the Commission offer comments, reactions, and direction to assist the applicant and project architect in making plan adjustments or clarifications to the pool cabana and undergrounding of the existing seasonal creek, as detailed in the staff report.
She said there has been some discussion between the engineers, the Conservation Committee, and staff. She said the staff report attempts to lay out the agreed upon facts. She said the hope is that a solution can be found regarding some of the problems.
Chair Sill invited questions from the Commissioners.
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 4 DRAFT MINUTES
Vice Chair Koch asked about the barn. Mr. Warr said the barn goes away as floor area and is being converted to impervious surface by opening it up into a pavilion. He said the roof structure provides nice screening from the neighbor across the creek in Woodside.
Vice Chair Koch asked if the culvert, as it exists now, at the end of the property line goes into the creek or goes into another culvert. Interim Planning Director Cassidy said the culvert does not join the creek on the subject property.
Vice Chair Koch asked if there was a bridge between the guest house and the main house. Mr. Warr said they did not propose a bridge. Interim Planning Director Cassidy said there is currently a bridge further down the property. She said the current culvert is under a road-width crossing. She said when the structure was a functional barn, there was a dirt road that connected the driveway to the barn.
With no further questions, Chair Sill invited comments from the applicant.
Mr. Warr said filling in the ditch was always a part of their original proposal, and they pulled it when they didn’t feel they had support of the ASCC and because they had not done their research about the history and hydrology in the area. He said the pool house was a new element that came later as the design matured and was going to be an application when the permit was issued. He said the paved area around that is not much bigger, and the pool has been shortened by approximately 20 feet in order to accomplish that. He said the relatively simple building is hidden from offsite views by the massing of the house and the existing mature trees and screening.
Mr. Warr said tonight’s issue is mainly about the ditch. He said the County approved the subdivision and the introduction of the catch basin and culvert. He said the previous owners felt it necessary to do something with the concentration of water this created, so they created the ditch in the early 1960s. He described the current owners’ goal to put back what they imagine was original so there will be a relatively natural swale over the top of the culvert pipe that blends with the existing trees and takes out the incised ditch. He said attempts to simply make the ditch look more natural will end up with a very large ditch which is not desirable. He said they will be able to use excavated material onsite, eliminating the need to cart it away. He said the homeowner’s association is supportive of the ditch project and associated filling. He said they are asking for fairness to help them solve what is a manmade condition and not a natural condition.
In response to Vice Chair Koch’s question, Mr. Warr said there were not any skylights in the roofline of the cabana.
The owner said that there is a serious mosquito problem with the standing water at the ditch. He said San Mateo County Abatement comes out every couple of weeks trying to do something about it. Commissioner Breen said everyone on Mapache has mosquitos and suggested they get bat boxes. The owner said the San Mateo Abatement representative told him if the ditch were encapsulated, the mosquito problem would be reduced, and he would like to try it.
With no further questions, Chair Sill invited public comment. Hearing none, Chair Sill brought the item back to the Commission for discussion.
Commissioner Breen was supportive of the pool house with the staff conditions regarding lighting. She suggested if the applicant wanted matching lights, one could be inoperable. She
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 5 DRAFT MINUTES
suggested the Commission think about a deed restriction for the space in between the two cabanas to make sure that never gets glassed in or doored in.
Regarding the ditch/ephemeral stream, Commissioner Breen said there was resounding response from the Commission the first time around that they did not want to see it encapsulated. She said she would support it being reworked. She said it is habitat and, whether or not it was changed at some point, the water has still moved through that property. She said it could be a lovely feature. She said whatever names are put on the creek – tributary, watershed, gulch – it is an important habitat, and there is opportunity to work with it and improve it without putting it in a pipe.
Commissioner Ross was supportive of the cabana. He said it is well protected, and he could support additional fixtures on the outside if the lumens were relatively low. He said he is moving away from strict fixture counts and considering total lumens more.
Regarding the ditch/ephemeral creek, Commissioner Ross tried to imagine what it would look like if the profile of the land itself were returned to how it had been before the 1970s drainage effort, which both deepened and focused the water flow from what had been more of a watershed down into a narrow channel. He said the previous property owners responded to those improvements, probably because they needed to, by digging out the intense ditch. He said his sense is that it does not get improved by widening it in order to soften what’s there now. He said it would be a net benefit to try to restore the profile of the land to more of the way it was in the 1948 satellite view and deal with the drainage imposition that was placed on the property in the ‘70s by putting that water flow into a culvert, improving the outfall so it is gentler when it hits the black rocky area before flowing into Corte Madera Creek. He said he walked around the area fairly recently, after the construction of the ADU, and he no longer has reservations about putting it in a culvert. He said he now thinks it would be a net positive thing to do. He said it needs to be handled sensitively as far as how the land over the top is restored. He said as far as it being a habitat, perhaps some creatures have adapted to it, but it is mostly a mosquito habitat now. He was supportive of the culvert.
Vice Chair Koch said she could be supportive of the two fixtures if the lumens were not distracting glaring lights causing light pollution. She said the cabana and sauna could not be joined and converted to living space because it would exceed the allowable floor area for the site.
Vice Chair Koch said she loved the idea of open creeks, but also loved the idea of reverting back to what was meant to be. She said, however, given that restoration is not possible, she would prefer to open up the creek and let it have a life. She said some kind of pedestrian bridge could be a unique experience and celebration of this property. She was supportive of keeping the creek open and said putting in a culvert is not restoration.
Chair Sill was supportive of the cabana. He would like to see fewer lights or less lumens.
Chair Sill said he was not in favor of putting the creek in a culvert and burying it. He said he could not find any justification that it would fit within the General Plan or Design Guidelines. He said he would support keeping the open creek, ditch, or drainage swale. He said the discussion should be about improving its appearance, cleaning it up, removing broom, and maybe adding rocks.
Commissioner Breen asked how the Commission felt about requiring a deed restriction.
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 6 DRAFT MINUTES
Commissioner Ross said he would not object to a deed restriction, but pointed out that requiring a deed restriction in order to prevent something that is already prohibited by code seemed to be over the top. Commissioner Breen she has seen a lot of instances where people have glassed in spaces between two spaces. Mr. Warr said there have been many changes throughout the years that make deed restrictions very complex. For example, a lot of homes have deed restrictions limiting guest houses to 750 square feet on properties that are now allowed larger guest houses. He said there is a cost associated with those owners abating those deed restrictions so they can actually do what the Town wants – building larger guest houses for more variety of housing. He said unless there’s a nexus between some visual effect or parking impact, it would be best to leave this be. He said no one at this point, with this approved project, would be legally able to enclose that.
The Commission agreed with Mr. Warr’s point. Commissioner Ross said it would be appropriate to do a deed restriction if there was a reason to do it that went beyond making sure there was compliance with the Zoning requirement. He agreed with Commissioner Breen that there is very little enforcement of violations regardless of if there are deed restrictions.
Bill Mainzer, the owner, said 5 Naranja had a very similar ditch running through the property that was changed to a culvert with the approval of the ASCC. He said his property is split in two by the ditch, and they cannot cross it except at the top or bottom. He said it would look more natural if it was put into a culvert and covered. He said he does not understand how the Commission can tell him what to do on his own property, especially when they’ve approved a similar project a block away from him.
Commissioner Ross related what he recalled about the 5 Naranja property, where there was flooding occurring on properties on Mapache.
Commissioner Breen said every gulch is different. Mr. Mainzer said he is the recipient of the same water that those neighbors were. He said water comes down from both sides of Mapache, and it comes down Zapata, funnels right into the culvert, comes out the other side, and because there was so much water, the previous owner dug the ditch. He said all they’re asking is to restore it to where it was and be able to deal with that water. He said there is standing water that is a problem; it is dangerous, and it is not attractive.
Commissioner Ross said it would require a lot of excavation to smooth out the ditch to make it more like a deep swale and does not think it would be feasible. He said it is not possible to restore it to how it was before the drainage improvements were done in the ‘70s because the water flow has been deepened. He said he agrees that a covered culvert would look more natural, but it raises a dilemma about what principle to violate. He said he originally wanted to leave the ditch alone because it’s a natural feature, but it turns out it is not a natural feature unless it is decided that since it was done 40 years ago, it is now natural.
Vice Chair Koch said what was natural was water running down there, not hidden in a tube underground. She said the owners are blessed to have the exposed water on their site.
Mr. Warr said it would be very difficult to lay the banks back and soften them, particularly on the ADU side, and they would need to remove trees.
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 7 DRAFT MINUTES
COMMISSION, STAFF, COMMITTEE REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Vice Chair Koch reviewed rock work over an exterior fireplace at 20 Shoshone and the landscape and lighting plan, which was acceptable.
Commissioner Breen reviewed the landscape screening at 20 Minoca. She said they came up with a good solution.
Commissioner Ross reviewed an exterior lighting plan at 177 Goya, which was acceptable.
(3) News Digest: Planning Issues of the Day
Interim Planning Director Cassidy shared articles of interest with the Commissioners – “Can Designers Combat Light Pollution by Embracing Darkness?”, “First permitted cob structure in Berkeley could pave way for more green building,” and “The World’s Fifth Largest Economy Is About to Require Solar Panels for All New Homes.”
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
(#) ASCC Meeting of April 9, 2018
Commissioner Breen moved to approve the April 9, 2018, minutes as submitted. Seconded by Commissioner Ross, the motion passed 3-0, with Vice Chair Koch abstaining.
ADJOURNMENT [8:53 p.m.]
ASCC Meeting Minutes – May 14, 2018 Page 8