Brian Glass, Assistant Fire Chief
June 4, 2024
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC ____________________________________ Brian O’Neill ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
From: Suzanne Avila <[email protected]>
Date: Fri, May 24, 2024, 10:05 AM
Subject: 10728 & 10758 Mora Drive
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Cc: Bradley Evanson <[email protected]>, Peter Pirnejad <[email protected]>
Forrest,
I am circling back to your previous inquiry regarding the Town starting environmental review process under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive projects (CDP23-0001 and 002). Although the Town is preparing to solicit an environmental consultant to perform this work, the analysis cannot be started because there are outstanding Fire Department comments which could result in changes to the scope of the project. In the Town’s review of Fire Department comments dated January 31, 2024, it is staff's understanding that in order for the projects to address outstanding comments regarding aerial apparatus and building and facilities access, the development plans will likely need to be modified significantly. Significant modifications to the plans would likely result in substantial changes to the scope of the projects and thereby impact the Town’s ability as the lead agency to prepare a project description and scope of review as required by CEQA.
Additionally, the Town understands that you have submitted a request for Alternate Materials, Methods of Construction (AMMR) to the Santa Clara County Fire Department on March 21, 2024, and that request was rejected by the Fire Department on April 23, 2024. Staff is not aware of any resubmittals for the projects since then.
Thus, until there is certainty that the building footprints and building sizes can proceed as proposed and in compliance with Fire Department requirements, the Town is not able to commence environmental review. Please note that as the applicant, you would be responsible for providing a deposit and payment of fees for the environmental review prior to commencement of analysis and studies.
Additionally, I wanted to take this opportunity to remind you that all requests and applications for the projects must go through the Town as it is the ultimate reviewing body for the development applications. The Town was notified by the Fire Department ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
that you submitted the AMMR request, and you did not include the Town in your submittals. Failure to include the Town on project requests and submittals curtails Town staff's ability to timely review applications and provide comments. If you plan to submit another AMMR request or any additional application materials, please submit to the Town directly or concurrently include the Town on your submittals to the Fire Department.
If you have any questions I can be reached by email or phone.
Thank you,
Suzanne
SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr
Suzanne Avila
hours ago)
to me, Forrest, Jay, Jonathan
Forrest,
The Town intends to proceed with the public hearing tomorrow evening. You were apparently advised of the hearing date at the January 17 meeting with the Town Manager and City Attorney.
You can request a continuance at the meeting, which the Council can then decide whether or not to grant.
Suzanne
SUZANNE AVILA, AICP
Principal Planner
she/her
408-340-5642 X-128 c 408-477-5820
a new design on urban planning
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
-1-
DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA
NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104 DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive I, James Bevan, declare as follows:
1. I make this declaration based on personal knowledge of the following facts, except to those matters stated on information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true. If called as a witness to testify, I could and would competently testify thereto.
2. I worked for Tower Investments LLC throughout 2023 through October 9, 2024.
During that time, I was involved in communications, preparations of plans, attachments and On or about October 9, 2024 I
am no longer employed at Tower Investments LLC
3. On April 18, 2023 I received the comment letter from the Santa Clara County Fire Dept. response from our February 1, 2023 submittal.
4. On April 20, 2023, I spoke with Kenny Ip via telephone for 35 minutes about the above comment letter. We discussed the exceptions to CFC 503.1.1 (item 5) and item 7. Mr. Ip told me the addition of NPFA 13 Fire Sprinklers per 903.3.1.1 would both extend the distance to and the distance from the fire hydrant around the building to 400 feet, resolving both issues.
My preparation notes for that meeting were written in pencil on the letter. A true and correct ITEM 9A, Supplement 31c
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
-2-
DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA
NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104
copy of my notes from the meeting with Mr. Ip is attached as Exhibit A. The notes in various color ink are later additions.
5. On May 8, 2023 I received a comment letter directly from the Fire Dept., dated April 25, 2023, from Caleb Flanagan for 10728 Mora Drive. This letter was the first response from the Fire Dept. we received on our Feb 1, 2023 submission.
6. On or about Tuesday May 2, 2023, I had a phone conversation with our plan reviewer, We discussed
how to respond to the Fire Departments April 25, 2023 comment letter that I had already spoken with Kenny Ip about similar issues. On Comment #4 Building and Facilities Access based on California Fire Code Sec 503.1.1, he told me to add a note stating that the fire sprinklers would comply with Sec. 903.3.1.1 (of the California Fire Code) to extend the 150 foot access exception to 300 feet. He told me this issue was not a big concern as they regularly resolved the 150-foot distance issue in Sec. 503.1.1 with this solution as permitted by code.
7. In the same meeting Mr. Flanagan and I discussed creating a Hydrant Spotting Plan where we would add an additional hydrant by 10758 Mora and show that fire hoses could make it around the both buildings and providing the length of hoses needed to reach around the structures. We also discussed submitting a Hydrant Spotting Plan and he could review it.
8. I used sheet A5.0, dated May 9, 2023, to address all the fire code comments. Per my I also included the Hydrant Spotting Plan and we submitted it directly to the Fire Dept., which approved the plan, Attached as Exhibit B, that showed how a hose could reach all exterior points of the building. We used the same sheet, A5.0 for both projects and it combined both lots with one fire turn-around on one sheet and included the solutions I had discussed with both reviewers for both projects. We included a comment letter with our response directly to the Fire Dept. which is attached as Exhibit C.
9. On July 3, 2023, we also submitted the same sheet A5.0, along with Fire Dept. responses, to the Town of Los Altos Hills along with the rest of our submittal sets for both projects.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
-3-
DECLARATION OF JAMES BEVAN
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
PATTERSON
& O`NEILL, PC 235
MONTGOMERY STREET, SUITE 950 SA
N
F
RA
NCISCO, C
A
LIFO
RNIA 94104 10. On August 28, 2023 I received an email with the Fire Dept., response letters dated August 14, 2023 in response to our 10758 Mora Dr. application, 56 days after our submission on July 3, 2023. Attached as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of the email where I received the responses.
11. On August 28, 2023 I received an email with the Fire Dept., response letters dated August 14, 2023 in response to our 10728 Mora Dr. application, 56 days after our submission on July 3, 2023. Attached as Exhibit E is a true and correct copy of the email where I received the responses.
12. Both Fire Department response letters dated August 24, 2023 had a number of additions and comment that were not included in the previous letters. The Code review standard in the with respect to the fire/building code
Dept. responses stated that review would be by the 2022 CFC codes as adopted by the Town of Los Altos Hills. This addition is not accurate for a Permit Streamlining Act application. Four comments were added that had not been included in previous response letters. The additional comments were # 18, #19, #20, & #21 on page 5 and which cited California Building Code sections rather than California Fire Code sections. True and correct copies of the August 14, 2023 comment letters from the Fire Dept. and the Comments are attached as Exhibit F & G.
13. The new CBC sections in the Fire Dept. letters attached as Exhibit D & E appeared to be carefully coordinated with an entirely new comment letter from the Town of Los Altos Hills titled
2023. A true and correct copy of which is Attached as Exhibit H.
14. Comment 18 from the Fire Dept. letters (Exabits F & G) correspond to bullet 1 on page 2 of the H) regarding stair separation CBC section 1027; comment 19 corresponds to bullet 5 page 2 regarding exit discharge 1CBC section 1028.5; Item 21 corresponds to bullet points 2 and 3 page 1 regarding exterior wall ratings. Neither of these review letters were necessary and they arrived in close proximity to each other. In my ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Tower Investment LLC
Co/James Bevan
785 Castro St. Ste A.
Mountain View, CA 94041
May 9, 2023
RE: 10728 Mora Drive Response to Comment Letter dated April 25, 2023 SSCFD File # 23 1486
LAH File # CDP23-0001
Caleb Flanagan
Santa Clara County Fire Department
14700 Winchester Blvd.
Los Gatos, CA 95032
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
From: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 7:11 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: 10758 email chain with attached comment letter From: Caleb Flanagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:39 PM
To: LAH Plan Check Comments <[email protected]> Cc: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: SCCFD Review - CDP23-0002 10758 Mora Dr PC 23-2595 Good afternoon,
The applicant informed me they have not received the comments for 10728 and 10758 Mora.
Please see attached.
Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
From: [email protected]
To: "LAH Plan Check Comments" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 12:27:09 PM
Subject: SCCFD Review - CDP23-0002 10758 Mora Dr PC 23-2595 Please see attached for subject review comments.
Respectfully,
Kenny Ip
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
16795 Lark Ave | Los Gatos, CA 95030
tel: 408.341.4437 | fax: 408.378.9342 | [email protected] ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
From: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2025 7:10 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: 10728 email chain with attached comment letter From: Caleb Flanagan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2023 2:39 PM
To: LAH Plan Check Comments <[email protected]> Cc: James Bevan <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: SCCFD Review CDP23-0001 - 10728 Mora Dr - PC 23 2718 Good afternoon,
The applicant informed me they have not received the comments for 10728 and 10758 Mora.
Please see attached.
Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
From: [email protected]
To: "LAH Plan Check Comments" <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 14, 2023 11:04:26 AM
Subject: SCCFD Review CDP23-0001 - 10728 Mora Dr - PC 23 2718 Please see attached for subject review comments.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Caleb Flanagan | Deputy Fire Marshal I
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | 408-341-4441
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 September 19, 2023
Preliminary Building Code Review of 10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.
This document is a Preliminary Building Code Review of the plans for the proposed projects at 10728 and 10758 Mora Dr in Los Altos Hills. This review is not intended to be a complete plan review, rather a review to identify significant code issues that may affective overall building design. The order of the code issues listed is in no particular order of importance and addressing one or more issues may well lead to code issues not currently shown.
10728 Mora Dr.
Code Assumptions based on information included on plans:
67,475 Sq Ft
Total Occupant Load per plans is 669
Construction Type
Podium Garage S-2 Type l-A Sprinklered
R-2, R-2.1, A-3 & B Type lll-A Sprinklered
Significant Code Issues
CBC Section 202 defines a High-Rise structure as every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access. Based on this definition this building is considered a high-rise building and shall comply with CBC sections 403.2 through 403.7. Per CBC Table 601, the bearing walls of Type l-A buildings shall have a 3-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type l-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet, shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 601, the exterior walls of Type lll-A buildings shall have a 1-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type lll-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 504.4, A-3 occupancies in buildings of Type lll-A construction may not be more than 4 stories above grade plane. The A-3 Occupancy is shown to be located on the 5th level above grade plane and therefore per CBC Table 504.4 is not allowed.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.
26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 Per CBC Section 1027.5, Exterior exit stairways and ramps shall have a minimum fire-separation distance of 10 feet measured at right angles from the exterior edge of the stairway or ramps, including landings, to adjacent lot lines.
Per CBC Section 1028.3, the minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served. Based on occupant load of 669, the minimum exit discharge width would be 100. (669/2 = 334.5 * 0.3 = 100) exit discharge paths shown on plan are 48 on the north side of the and 36 on the south side of the building. The width of these exit discharge elements is insufficient to meet code. Per CBC 1005.7.1 Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width of the exit discharge by more than 7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half. Exit door from front stairwell and doors from trash enclosure reduce the required exit passageway width by more than 7.
Per CBC Section 1005.4, the minimum width or required capacity of the means of egress required from any story of a building shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way. The convergence of exit discharge paths at the front of the building in an area designated for emergency vehicles will restrict access to the public way, affecting both egress and emergency response.
CBC 1028.5 requires the exit discharge shall provide a direct unobstructed access to the public way, when that cannot be provided, as per the inadequate exit discharge width above, a safe area of dispersal shall be provided where all of the following shall be met:
1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.
2. For other than Group E buildings, the area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress. Rear yard area shown does not show a code compliant area of safe dispersal as it is smaller than required to accommodate 5 sq. ft. per person and cannot be located 50 from the building. 10758 Mora Dr.
Code Assumptions based on information included on plans:
71,034 Sq Ft
Total Occupant Load per plans is 666
Construction Type
Podium Garage S-2 Type l-A Sprinklered
R-2, R-2.1, A-3 & B Type lll-A Sprinklered
Significant Code Issues
CBC Section 202 defines a High-Rise structure as every building of any type of construction or occupancy having floors used for human occupancy located more than 75 feet above the lowest floor level having building access. Based on this definition this building is considered a high-rise building and shall comply with CBC sections 403.2 through 403.7.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Preliminary Building Code Review
10728 & 10758 Mora Dr.
26379 Fremont Road Los Altos Hills California 94022 (650) 941-7222 Fax: 650/941-3160 Per CBC Table 601, the bearing walls of Type l-A buildings shall have a 3-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type l-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet, shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 601, the exterior walls of Type lll-A buildings shall have a 1-hour Fire-Resistive Rating. Per CBC Table 705.5 the Fire-Resistance Rating for the exterior walls of a Type lll-A building, with a Fire Separation Distance of less than 30 feet shall be 1-hour rated. Therefore, the maximum area of exterior wall openings shall comply with CBC Table 705.8. Per CBC Table 504.4, A-3 occupancies in buildings of Type lll-A construction may not be more than 4 stories above grade plane. The A-3 Occupancy is shown to be located on the 5th level above grade plane and therefore per CBC Table 504.4 is not allowed. Per CBC Section 1028.3, the minimum width or required capacity of the exit discharge shall not be less than the minimum width or required capacity of the exits being served. Based on occupant load of 666, the minimum exit discharge width would be 100. (666/2 = 333 * 0.3 = 100) exit discharge paths shown on plan are 48 on the north side of the and 36 on the south side of the building. The width of these exit discharge elements is insufficient to meet code. Per CBC 1005.7.1 Doors, when fully opened, shall not reduce the required width by more than 7 inches. Doors in any position shall not reduce the required width by more than one-half. Exit door from front stairwell and doors from trash enclosure reduce the required exit passageway width by more than 7.
Per CBC Section 1005.4, the minimum width or required capacity of the means of egress required from any story of a building shall not be reduced along the path of egress travel until arrival at the public way. The convergence of exit discharge paths at the front of the building in an area designated for emergency vehicles will restrict access to the public way, affecting both egress and emergency response.
CBC 1028.5 requires the exit discharge shall provide a direct unobstructed access to the public way, when that cannot be provided, as per the inadequate exit discharge width above, a safe area of dispersal shall be provided where all of the following shall be met:
1. The area shall be of a size to accommodate not less than 5 square feet for each person.
2. For other than Group E buildings, the area shall be located on the same lot not less than 50 feet away from the building requiring egress. Rear yard area shown does not show a code compliant area of safe dispersal as it is smaller than required to accommodate 5 sq. ft. per person and cannot be located 50 from the building.
Gregory J McFann
Interim Building Official
Town of Los Alto Hills
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
-----Original Message-----
From: james bevan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, January 27, 2025 3:22 PM
To: Forrest Linebarger <[email protected]>
Subject: Fwd: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Matthew McKenna <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 1:35 PM
Subject: Re: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
To: james bevan <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Good Afternoon James,
Thank you for the email. I appreciate the chance to clear up what appears to be a bit of confusion. I did not say that I did not see any proposed mitigation measures that I felt would be satisfactory for the project to move forward. I said your current proposal did not appear to provide satisfactory mitigation, which is why the plan review comments asked for additional clarification.
I will work with our staff to find a meeting time that works for everyone, and follow up with additional information.
However, we will not be able to make you proposed time for next week work.
Respectfully,
Matthew L. McKenna | Senior Deputy Fire Marshal
Fire Prevention Division
Santa Clara County Fire Department
[email protected] | (408) 341-4420
----- Original Message -----
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
From: "james bevan" <[email protected]>
To: "matthew mckenna" <[email protected]>
Cc: [email protected]
Sent: Friday, April 26, 2024 6:46:07 PM
Subject: Alternative Means And Methods Request (PR# 23 1147) for project at 10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills (PR# 23 4780)
Mathew,
It was good speaking with you yesterday about our Alternative Means and Methods request for the project at 10728 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. I was disappointed to hear that you did not see any proposed mitigation measures that you felt would be satisfactory for the project to move forward.
We would like to set up an in-person meeting to find a solution. Here are a couple of times that could work on our end:
Monday May 6th at 1:00pm
Tuesday May 7th at 11:00am
If either of these times work for you please let us know, otherwise suggest a time that works better for you.
We will have our legal counsel present at the meeting and thought it best if you could have both senior management and SCCFD's outside legal counsel in attendance as well.
We want to work with you to find a solution and feel that having all parties involved in the decision present at the meeting offers the best pathway toward that solution.
James Bevan
(805)405-5654
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
☐ Application / Response(s) to Comments
☐ Accessibility Exemption Form (Commercial)
☐ Arborist Report
☐ Bay Area Air Quality Management J#
☐ CalGreen Checklist
☐ COP (Construction Operation Plan)
☐ Electrical Load Calculations
☐ Energy Code documents (ex: CF1R)
☐ Manufacturer’s Specifications
☐ PCB’s Demo Program Screening
Assessment
☐ Photos of road & path prior to construction
☐ SCC Environmental Health Department
permit and/or approved stamped site plan
☐ Soils/Geotechnical Report
☐ Special Inspection Form
☐ Structural Calculations
☐ Truss Calculations
☐ Truss Diagrams
☐ Utility Shut-Off Letter
☐ Waste Management Plan
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26370 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
Email: [email protected]
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Supplemental Documents Index
Project Information
For initial submittals, include this index after the application. For all resubmittals, include this index at the beginning of the SUP document PDF.
Permit No: __________________________________ File Name: _________________________________ APN: _______________________________________ Date Submitted:_____________________________ Project Address: __________________________________________________________________________ Legal Owner:______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant:_________________________________________________________________________________ Scope of Work: ______________________________________________________________________ Notes: Each time the SUP file is uploaded, the PDF must be complete and include all documents required for permit issuance. Keep all documents in the SUP file in the same order each time.
Supplemental Documents Checkmark all items included in SUP file Additional Documents Please list additional items below
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
4. _____________________________________
5. ___________________________________
6. ___________________________________
7. ___________________________________
8. ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CDP23-0001 CDP23-0001_V7_SUP
APN 331-15-061 February 25, 2025
10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA
Forrest Linebarger
Tower Investments LLC
Supplimental Response to Builder's Remedy Project including Class 32 CEQA Exemption Memo ✔
Feb. 20, 2025 Project Drawing Set
Exhibit 1 Applicant Letter
Exhibit 2 Attorney Letter
Exhibit 3 Class 32 CEQA Exemption
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit 1
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ϭ
&ŽƌƌĞƐƚ>ŝŶĞďĂƌŐĞƌ
ϭϱϭĞƌǀĂŶƚĞƐZĚ͘
WŽƌƚŽůĂsĂůůĞLJ͕ϵϰϬϮϴ
February 25, 2025
Supplemental Submission
Senior Housing Builders Remedy
10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills
File CDP23-0001
Susanne Avila, Consultant Principal Planner
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Ms. Avila,
As you are aware, we submitted a revised builders remedy application to meet the requirements of AB 1893 (2024) on January 30, 2025. We had been working on that submission for about two months but were surprised that staff had scheduled our project for denial at the January 30, 2025 City Council Meeting. We had very little notice of that event and Town staff gave no indication that a denial action would be imminent after refusing to take any action on our application for over a year. Since the Town denied our request to delay the hearing, we were forced to submit the revised plans without all the pieces we intended to provide before the January 30 hearing date. We are now supplementing the previous submittal with additional documents and a revised drawing set.
Despite our numerous requests, the Town refused to complete an Initial Study to determine the necessary level of CEQA review for over a year in violation of state law. This is a substantial revision of the project, with a 25% reduction in density, the addition of the Density Bonus Law, modifications to fire, occupancy, utilities, and enactment of AB 1893 are substantial revisions that will require the Town to make a new CEQA determination. We have provided substantial evidence that the project qualifies for a Class 32 Infill Exemption under CEQA.
This submission is a revision as permitted by AB 1893. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7)(B). The revision is not a new application, and fees and other components carry forward from our February 1, 2023 original builders remedy application. The Geotechnical, Grading and C.3 components on the project have not changed.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Ϯ
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1 Plan Revision dated February 20, 2025 on cover sheet Exhibit 2 AB 1633 Notice of Abuse of Discretion from our Attorneys, Patterson & O’Neill, PC.
Exhibit 3 Class 32 CEQA Exemption Memo by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting
Thank you for your consideration,
Forrest Linebarger,
Applicant and owner
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit 2
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
February 24, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: 10728 Mora Drive (File No. CDP23-0001) Housing Development Application 90-Day Notice Pursuant to AB 1633 (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E)(vi)(I)) Dear Ms. Avila:
Our office represents Forrest Linebarger, owner of 10728 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. Our client submitted a housing development project application for the construction of a multi-unit housing development project on 10728 Mora Drive. The proposed project is a 43-unit, 69,369 square-foot multifamily residential development with a parking garage. The proposed building height to finish grade would be 62 feet 4 inches on the west elevation facing Mora Drive, and 73 feet 2 inches on the east elevation. The garage would provide 27 total spaces and 7 long-term bicycle spaces. The proposed building would include a variety of accessory uses including roof decks, a covered terrace, activity rooms, gift shop, and nursing station. The site is currently vacant.1
Pursuant to AB 1633, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town has committed an abuse of discretion because there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the project qualifies for a Class 32 in-fill development exemption, but the City has failed to determine that the project is exempt from CEQA. The City has 90 days of this written notice to correct this abuse of discretion and if the City fails to do so, this action will constitute an unlawful disapproval of the project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a).)2
1 This paragraph provides the information specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 15062 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 Please be advised that the Town must post this notice on the Town’s website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk within five working days of receiving this notice.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
The Project Site is Located in an Area that is Subject to AB 1633 As demonstrated by the attached memorandum by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting, there is substantial evidence that the housing development project is not located on a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C) or subparagraphs (E) to (K) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. Specifically, the property is not located within the coastal zone; is not prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance; is not wetlands; is not a hazardous waste site; is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone; is not within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway; is not within a land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan; is not habitat for protected species, and is not under a conservation easement. In addition, the project site is not within a very high fire severity zone.
As such, there is substantial evidence that the housing development project is located on a site that is subject to AB 1633. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1).) The Project Site is Located in an Urbanized Area that is Subject to AB 1633 The housing development project is located on a legal parcel within an urbanized area as defined by Public Resources Code § 21071. Specifically, Los Altos Hills is an incorporated city that is contiguous with not more than two incorporated cities (Palo Alto and Los Altos), that have a combined population that exceeds at least 100,000 persons. (See PRC § 21071(a)(2).3 3 According to most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Palo Alto is 68,572
(https://data.census.gov/profile?q=population%20palo%20alto&g=160XX00US0640998), the population of Los Altos is 31,625 (https://data.census.gov/all?q=los%20altos%20population), and the population of Los Altos Hills is 8,489
(https://data.census.gov/all?q=los%20altos%20hills%20population) for a total population of 108,686 persons.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
In addition, parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin three sides of the four-sided parcel.
Specifically, the parcels to the north, east, and west sides of the four-sided project site are developed with residential uses, which meet the definition of a qualified urban use pursuant to Pub. Resources Code § 21072.
As such, the project site is located within an urbanized area that is subject to AB 1633. (See Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2).)
The Project Meets the Minimum Density to Qualify for AB 1633 The density of the housing development project exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. Specifically, the project site is approximately .77 acres in size and proposes 88 units, a density of approximately 114 units per acre. As such, the Project meets the minimum density to qualify for AB 1633. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(3).)
The Project Meets the Criteria for a CEQA Class 32 Exemption Where a project is categorically exempt, the project is not subject to CEQA requirements and “may be implemented without any CEQA compliance whatsoever.” (Working Fams. of Monterey Cnty. v. King City Plan. Comm’n (2024) 106 Cal. App. 5th 833.) Thus, if a project fits within an exemption, a local agency is required to find that the project is exempt from CEQA regardless of any purported environmental impact because such projects are those that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency “have already determined do not, in fact, ‘have a significant effect on the environment.’” (Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1108.) This exemption ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
process carries out the Legislature’s intent that CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines shall not be interpreted “in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.1.)
AB 1633 was enacted to address the fact that “[s]ome local agencies conduct redundant environmental review to avoid CEQA lawsuits from neighbors or interest groups at best, or to delay a project indefinitely in the hopes of shrinking or killing it at worst.” To that end, AB 1633 added provisions to the HAA that broaden the scope of a housing project “disapproval” to include instances where a local government requires more environmental review than legally necessary and provides applicants with a legal process to challenge such actions in court. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1.)
In enacting AB 1633, the Legislature recognized that the “HAA and CEQA take different approaches to housing development. The intersection of these two Acts therefore can result in gray areas or conflict.” The purpose of AB 1633 was to clarify this gray area and put a thumb on the scale in favor of housing by requiring a local government to end environmental review and adopt certain CEQA documents when housing projects are involved.
AB 1633 does more than simply reiterate how CEQA applies to housing projects; it adds an entirely new framework for judicial review of a local government’s CEQA decisions in the specific context of housing. Courts have recognized that when the Legislature enacts an amendment to clarify how two parts of state law interact, such as the interplay between the HAA and CEQA, “it is logical to regard the amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original act — a formal change.” (Carter v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 923.) The Legislature recognized that the HAA “generally puts the burden of proof on the local agency to demonstrate that its decisions meet the HAA’s requirements.” The Legislature has also made clear that if there is any ambiguity in the law, the HAA must “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Thus, in any decision a local government makes involving housing — now including CEQA decisions — the Legislature has directed local governments to err on the side of approving housing or run the risk of severe penalties. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)-(B).) And importantly, courts have confirmed that decisions under the HAA are different, and therefore “it is inappropriate” for courts to defer to local agency decisions. (Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
The Legislature has made clear that any failure to find a qualifying project exempt is an abuse of discretion and constitutes a project disapproval. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a).) AB 1633 states that it is an abuse of discretion if there is “substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is eligible for an exemption sought by the applicant.” (Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(A).) Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384.)
Thus, in the context of AB 1633, the only question is whether there is enough relevant information that a fair argument can be made that this Project qualifies for a Class-32 Exemption regardless of whether there is contrary evidence that a project does not so qualify. (See Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) Nor is the question whether substantial evidence supports whatever conclusion the Town decides to make. The Town has enough relevant information to make a fair argument that the Project qualifies for a Class-32 Exemption and therefore must do so.
The Legislature has limited the protections of AB 1633 to those projects that meet the site criteria of Gov Code § 65913.4 (“SB 35”) – which the Legislature has already determined should be entirely exempt from CEQA. The Legislature has therefore created a higher bar to subject qualifying housing projects to more in-depth CEQA review, including because the Legislature has also recognized the housing crisis “is a critical problem” that “threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5 (a)(1)(A).) The housing crisis is “hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(A). The Legislature has recognized that the environmental cost of not approving housing, particularly high density housing in areas that meet SB 35’s environmental criteria, clearly outweighs any purported impact from approving housing.
There can be no question that the applicant has provided enough relevant information that a fair argument can be made that the project qualifies for a Class 32 In-fill Exemption. In the extensive memorandum prepared by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting, who together have more than 50 years of CEQA compliance experience, the evidence demonstrates that the project meets the five criteria for a Class 32 Exemption.
Moreover, this project now qualifies as a “builder’s remedy” project pursuant to the recently enacted AB 1893 that went into effect January 1, 2025. The explicit purpose of AB 1893 was to “moderniz[e] the builder’s remedy to make it clear, objective, and easily usable.” The bill analysis states that the Legislature’s “message to local jurisdictions is clear — when it comes to housing policy, the days of shirking your responsibility to your neighbors are over.” In short, AB 1893 was intended to ensure that builder’s remedy projects will be constructed. Were there any doubt that a builder’s remedy project can qualify for a Class 32 Exemption, that doubt was laid to rest when the California Department of Housing and Community Development stated emphatically that a builder’s remedy project does qualify for a Class 33 Exemption. (See Exhibit A)
The HAA now explicitly allows an applicant for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025 to revise their application so that the project meets the new ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
definition a builder’s remedy project. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7).) The applicant has chosen to utilize this provision and has submitted revisions to the existing application to qualify as a builder’s remedy project as defined in HAA subd. (h)(11).
The Town had previously indicated that the previous higher-density version of this project did not qualify for an exemption. The Town made this conclusory statement without any analysis, or any evidence, at all. Despite multiple requests by the applicant to begin CEQA review, the Town simply refused to take any steps to begin the CEQA process for over 12 months, arguing that the scope of the project could change based on erroneous interpretations by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District regarding site access. Now the scope of the project has substantially changed due to the revisions the applicant has made to qualify as a builder’s remedy project. The Town’s prior statements do not preclude a later determination that the project is eligible for an exemption following the submission of supplemental environmental information. (Hilltop Grp. v.
Cnty. of San Diego (2024) 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336.)
The Class 32 Exemption is Not Barred by an Exception
For projects that seek a Categorical Exemption, a project must also demonstrate that there is “substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2 of those guidelines.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1.(a)(5)(B).) Again, in the context of AB 1633, the question is not whether there is contrary evidence, nor is the question whether there is substantial evidence to support whatever conclusion an agency’s conclusion. The only question is whether there is substantial evidence that the project is not barred by an exception. The answer to that question is clearly yes.
As explained in the CEQA memorandum, there are no scenic resources, hazardous waste sites, or historical resources in the vicinity of the project. The surrounding area is nearly fully developed or designated as open space, so there is no potential for cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place. Further, there is nothing unusual about the project site that meets all of the site criteria in SB 35, nor is there anything unusual about a project that meets the statutory definition of a builder’s remedy project. The project is similar in scope to other Class 32 exempt projects, and the Town routinely exempts residential development on sites with similar characteristics. In short, there is substantial evidence that the project is not barred by one of the exemption exceptions.
The Project Must Be Approved
As thoroughly explained in our January 30, 2025 letter to the City Council and prior correspondence, the builder’s remedy significantly limits the Town’s ability to disapprove this project. AB 1893 only strengthens the Legislature’s clear intent that local governments must approve builder’s remedy projects.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
Town staff previously erroneously recommended disapproval of the project based on purported public health and safety impacts due to inconsistency with Section 503 of the California Fire Code. As explained below, Section 503 is not an adopted part of the California Fire Code.
Moreover, the local fire code has not been properly adopted, is not in effect, and therefore cannot be used as a basis to disapprove the project.
Section 503 Was Not Adopted as Part of the California Fire Code The State Fire Marshal establishes fire safety rules and regulations for buildings, also known as the California Fire Code, which are published in Part 9 of the California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24). The California Fire Code is based off the International Fire Code, a model code that is published triennially by the International Code Council (“ICC”).
Every three years, the State Fire Marshal reviews the International Fire Code and adopts amendments to the ICC’s model code, which then becomes that California Fire Code. In addition, the State Fire Marshal also adopts minimum standards for the general prevention of fire and the protection of life and property against fire, explosion, and panic that is published in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations.
The California Fire Code is only published by the ICC. The ICC chooses to print the California Fire Code embedded within its own “model code.” In other words, the California Fire Code is not available as a separate stand-alone document. The ICC publishes its International Fire Code with various notations to explain the amendments to model code that were adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Each chapter begins with a “matrix adoption table” that shows users which sections of the model code have been adopted, repealed, amended or added. California amendments to the model code are shown in italics throughout the published document.
Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code provides requirements for buildings and occupancies regarding access roads, building openings, roof, water supply, equipment, and other fire service features. The State Fire Marshal has adopted all sections of Chapter 5, with the exception of Sections 503 and 510.3, as shown is the Chapter 5 matrix adoption attached as Exhibit B.
Section 503 addresses Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
The State Fire Marshal has not adopted this section and instead relies on the requirements for fire department access and egress in Section 3.05(a) of Title 19. This section states:
Roads. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hard-surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street.
EXCEPTION: The enforcing agency may waive or modify this requirement if in his opinion such all-weather hard-surfaced condition is not necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
In short, Section 503 of the ICC model code is not a part of the California Fire Code and the Town’s attempt to disapprove the project on this basis was erroneous The Local Fire Code is Not in Effect
Each fire protection district is provided with the authority to adopt building standards relating to fire and panic safety, so long as the standards are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and contained in the California Building Standards Code.
Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7 provides a process wherein a fire protection district may recommend amendments to the California Fire Code to a city or county, and the city or county may ratify, modify, or deny the amendments proposed by a fire district. Any amendments proposed by a fire district are not effective within a particular jurisdiction unless ratified by the city or county.
In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7 states that when local amendments to the California Fire Code are adopted, a city or county “shall file a copy of the findings of the district, and any findings of the city, county, or city and county, together with the adopted ordinance expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, with the Department of Housing and Community Development.” The Department of Housing and Community Development has made clear through administrative guidance, attached as Exhibit C, that local amendments to the California Fire Code are not effective until the amendments are filed with the Department as required by state law.
During the last California Fire Code update in 2022, the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) recommended local amendments to the Town of Los Altos Hills pursuant to its authority under Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7, ss explained in the Town’s staff report attached as Exhibit D. After SCCFD and the Town agreed on modifications to the local amendments, the Town took an action to adopt local amendments to the California Fire Code.
The local amendments included adoption of Section 503 of the International Fire Code, with further amendments.
However, after further research, the Town has not taken the steps necessary to make the local amendments to the California Fire Code effective. Specifically, the Town has not filed the amendments with the Department of Housing and Community Development. It appears that the Town attempted to file the amendments with the Building Standards Commission in December 2022. In a letter dated April 5, 2023, attached as Exhibit E, the Building Standards Commission specifically informed the Town that fire protection district ordinances must be filed with the Department of Housing and Community Development rather than the Commission.
In response to a Public Records Act request, attached as Exhibit F, the Department of Housing and Community Development states that it has no records showing that the Town has filed its local amendments to the California Fire Code with the Department. As a result, the Town’s Local Fire Code is still not in effective within the jurisdiction. The only fire safety standards that ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
☐ Application / Response(s) to Comments
☐ Accessibility Exemption Form (Commercial)
☐ Arborist Report
☐ Bay Area Air Quality Management J#
☐ CalGreen Checklist
☐ COP (Construction Operation Plan)
☐ Electrical Load Calculations
☐ Energy Code documents (ex: CF1R)
☐ Manufacturer’s Specifications
☐ PCB’s Demo Program Screening
Assessment
☐ Photos of road & path prior to construction
☐ SCC Environmental Health Department
permit and/or approved stamped site plan
☐ Soils/Geotechnical Report
☐ Special Inspection Form
☐ Structural Calculations
☐ Truss Calculations
☐ Truss Diagrams
☐ Utility Shut-Off Letter
☐ Waste Management Plan
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS
26370 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Phone: (650) 941-7222
Email: [email protected]
www.losaltoshills.ca.gov
Supplemental Documents Index
Project Information
For initial submittals, include this index after the application. For all resubmittals, include this index at the beginning of the SUP document PDF.
Permit No: __________________________________ File Name: _________________________________ APN: _______________________________________ Date Submitted:_____________________________ Project Address: __________________________________________________________________________ Legal Owner:______________________________________________________________________________ Applicant:_________________________________________________________________________________ Scope of Work: ______________________________________________________________________ Notes: Each time the SUP file is uploaded, the PDF must be complete and include all documents required for permit issuance. Keep all documents in the SUP file in the same order each time.
Supplemental Documents Checkmark all items included in SUP file Additional Documents Please list additional items below
1. _____________________________________
2. _____________________________________
3. _____________________________________
4. _____________________________________
5. ___________________________________
6. ___________________________________
7. ___________________________________
8. ___________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________________________ CDP23-0001 CDP23-0001_V8_SUP
APN 331-15-061 May 29, 2025
10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA
Forrest Linebarger
Tower Investments LLC
Response to Comments for Builder's Remedy Project
✔
May. 29, 2025 Project Drawing Set
ATT 0 Response Letter
ATT 1 Attorney Letter
ATT 2 RCH Group CEQA Response
ATT 3 Building Department Respons
ATT 4 Revisions to Plans
ATT 5 Fire Department AMMR Appr
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
1 Wildland Res Mgt (510) 502-4737
316 California Ave. #68
Reno NV 89509 [email protected]
February 20, 2025
Emailed to:
Dan Sicular
Sicular Consulting
[email protected]
I am writing to summarize our assessment of the CEQA considerations for the proposed projects at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive, which is that the proposed projects mitigate a high fire hazard severity zone; can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services; do not result in substantial adverse physical impacts or impart undue burden on governmental facilities or services; and do not add negatively to a cumulative impact of successive similar projects.
The attached technical memo addresses the following four CEQA considerations:
1) Is the property within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code? 2) Can the site be adequately served by all required utilities and public services (with regard to fire protection services)?
3) Do the projects result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services?
4) All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant.
Please do not hesitate to reach out with questions or requests for additional information.
Sincerely,
Carol Rice
C-17
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
1 CEQA TECHNICAL MEMO
10728 & 10758 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS
Prepared by:
Wildland Res Mgt
316 California Ave. #68
Reno, NV 89509
Prepared for:
Sicular ConsulƟng
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
2 Question 1: Is the property… “[w]ithin a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Government Code Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code”? Required Fire Hazard Severity Zone Mapping
Fire Hazard Severity Zone maps arose from major destructive fires, prompting the recognition of these areas and strategies to reduce wildfire risks. Legislative response led to mandated mapping across California, starting with those areas for which the State has responsibility for wildfire response, known as State Responsibility Area (SRA).
Government Code Section 51178 states:
“The State Fire Marshal shall identify areas in the state as moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones based on consistent statewide criteria and based on the severity of fire hazard that is expected to prevail in those areas. Moderate, high, and very high fire hazard severity zones shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors including areas where winds have been identified by the Office of the State Fire Marshal as a major cause of wildfire spread1.” Public Resources Code 4202 mirrors Section 51178, stating: “The State Fire Marshal shall classify lands within state responsibility areas into fire hazard severity zones. Each zone shall embrace relatively homogeneous lands and shall be based on fuel loading, slope, fire weather, and other relevant factors present, including areas where winds have been identified by the department as a major cause of wildfire spread.” Separately, local jurisdictions, such as Los Altos Hills, must adopt fire hazard severity zones; these areas are known as Local Responsibility Areas (LRA). Section 51178.5 states, “Within 30 days after receiving a transmittal from the State Fire Marshal that identifies fire hazard severity zones pursuant to Section 51178, a local agency shall make the information available for public review and comment. The information shall be presented in a format that is understandable and accessible to the general public, including, but not limited to, maps.2
Area of Interest and VHFHSZ
The two projects encompassed in the Mora Drive development, whose approximate location is shown in Figure 1 below, are located on nearly adjacent parcels in Los Altos Hills, with a small parcel separating the two project parcels. 1hƩps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySecƟon.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&secƟonNum=51178 2 hƩps://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySecƟon.xhtml?lawCode=GOV&secƟonNum=51178.5 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
3 Figure 1. Area of interest showing the project location and two access/egress routes.
The Office of the State Fire Marshal (OSFM) mapping of fire zones in Local Responsibility Areas (2007) can be found here:
https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ Mapping from the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection OSFM confirms that the project site is not within any state or local designated Fire Hazard Severity Zones. Figure 2 below is an excerpt of this map with the sites identified. The yelloworange color covers the SRA surrounding Los Altos Hills, which does not include the project parcels. An update of this map is expected February 24, 2025.
Approximate
project site
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
4 Figure 2. State Fire Marshal map of Fire Hazard Severity Zones indicating both Local Responsibility Areas and State Responsibility Areas3. The two sites are identified with blue circles. The sites are in neither High nor Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.
The Los Altos Hills Community Wildfire Protection Plan notes that “[f]ormal designation of WUI areas within the Town of Los Altos Hills was removed in 2016.”4 Site Specific Wildfire Hazard Site Assessment
A hazard is an event or physical condition (fire) that has the potential to cause fatalities, injuries, property damage, infrastructure damage, agricultural loss, damage to the environment, interruption of business, or other types of harm or loss. Wildfire hazard is calculated as a combination of hazards from fire behavior, ignition sources, owner 3 hƩps://experience.arcgis.com/experience/03beab8511814e79a0e4eabf0d3e7247/ 4 hƩps://www.lahcfd.org/download/november-21-2023-fire-district-commissionmeeƟng/?wpdmdl=5595&refresh=657756dee03541702319838&ind=1700294092894&filename=20231121_LAHCF D_05H_LAHCFD-CWPP-Annex-4.pdf
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
5 intervention, and suppression difficulty. Hazard combines fuel characteristics such as the volume, arrangement, moisture, and sizes of fuels, all of which contribute to how fire will burn. Information about the fuels is combined with physical landscape characteristics such as weather, topography, and the distribution of ignitions across the landscape.
A regionally specific wildfire hazard and risk assessment was conducted for the Los Altos Hills Planning Area to supplement the existing countywide risk assessment (Tukman 2022). This assessment incorporated additional inputs that are believed to represent wildfire hazard specifically for the Los Altos Hills Planning Area. Although the project site is not designated as within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, the hazard and risk assessment provides as assessment based on local conditions.
The wildfire hazard assessment is an informational document that sought to identify areas of concern and priority areas for wildfire risk mitigation efforts. The hazard model relies on eight spatial input datasets, five of which are related to wildfire intensity, and 3 related to wildfire probability. The input datasets were each scaled from 0-3 to reflect the range of influence on wildfire hazard. For example, areas experiencing flame lengths greater than 11 feet would be scaled at 3, whereas non-burnable areas would be scaled at 0. Each input value was then assigned a weighting value of 1-4 to account for the input’s relative influence on wildfire hazard, with some inputs (i.e., flame length) influencing wildfire hazard more than others (i.e., Proximity to WUI Buildings). Overall wildfire hazard was calculated at a 5-meter raster environment. The diagram in Figure 3 below depicts the framework for calculating wildfire hazard.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
6 Figure 3. Wildfire Hazard Index inputs and model.
As shown in the following screen captures from the Santa Clara County CWPP story map of wildfire hazard and risk5, wildfire hazard on the project sites is labeled as High.
There are no areas of Very High (as indicated in red) in the immediate area of the project. The yellow color indicates high hazard, due to the vegetation types such as the highly flammable coyote brush that currently cover the property, The current vegetation is predicted to produce high flame lengths (an indicator of high fire intensity) in the event of ignition. The first map shows the site without the colored hazard designation along with the ratings at that location, and the second map covers the site location with the yellow hazard designation. The opacity of the color reflects the population density, and the Wildfire Risk to Structures.
5 hƩps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff0cd22f286e48faa9ĩ67b8c51d8400 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
0 Figure 4. Screen capture from the Santa Clara County CWPP story map of wildfire hazard and risk6 indicating the Hazard rating at the project site, within the turquoise hexagon.
6 hƩps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff0cd22f286e48faa9ĩ67b8c51d8400 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
1 Figure 5. Screen capture from the Santa Clara County CWPP story map of wildfire hazard and risk7indicating the Hazard rating at the project site.
7 hƩps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff0cd22f286e48faa9ĩ67b8c51d8400 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
2 Although the wildfire hazard on the project sites is currently mapped as High, the project will convert the vacant lots into a built environment and will create defensible space for the entire parcel. By converting these vegetative fuel types, the project would reduce the wildfire hazard on the project sites due to a reduction of predicted flame lengths in event of ignition. Using the same hazard and risk rating methodology, the hazard rating would fall to be moderate.
Wildfire Risk
Risk is the potential for realization of adverse consequences to valued resources or assets. Wildfire risk considers not only the potential for hazardous wildfire, but also the values exposed to hazard. Hence, wildfire hazard can be very high, but if no resources or assets are exposed to the hazard, there is no risk.
Community Risk Assessment: As described in the Los Altos Hills annex to the Santa Clara County CWPP, a community area risk assessment was conducted for Los Altos Hills in 2019. This community hazard and risk assessment includes ratings of community conditions compared to best practices for WUI fire mitigation. Community hazard ratings include consideration of applicable state codes, local ordinances, and recognized best practices guidelines.
The National Fire Protection Association Standard 1144 (NFPA 1144) defines WUI hazards and risks at the community and parcel level. The community risk assessment in the Los Altos Hills annex utilized components of NFPA 1144, as well as California laws and local ordinances to evaluate neighborhood WUI hazard and risk. California PRC 4290 and 4291 sections address WUI community design and defensible space standards.
The community risk assessment reflected average risk to communities for the Los Altos Hills Planning Area. The NFPA 1144 community risk assessment completed for the Los Altos Hills Community assigned the WUI community a risk rating of High with a score of 88 (<40= low, >40 = moderate, >70 = High, >112 = Extreme, shown in Figure 5 below).
Factors that contributed to the risk are illustrated below. Averages are taken across the community for each of these parameters. Note that the elimination of the WUI map by the Town of Los Altos Hills does not change the basis for assessing fire risk and development of subsequent fire mitigation measures.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
3 Figure 6. Community Area Risk Assessment for the Los Altos Hills Planning Area.
Genasys Assessment: To provide a spatial assessment of community wildfire risk, the Los Altos Hills Planning Area was divided into segments based on Genasys Protect boundaries. Genasys Protect is a newly emerging evacuation planning software which defines geographically defined evacuation zone boundaries. Local emergency planners work in partnership with Genasys Protect to establish zones. In times of emergencies, first responders rely on this program to assist them in making crucial decisions regarding the necessity, timing, and specific areas for issuing evacuation orders or warnings.
In total, 24 Genasys Protect Zones comprise the Planning Area. Community wildfire risk for each zone was determined through determining the proportional area of High and Very High hazard areas as pictured in Figure 2 above. It was assumed that zones with greater proportional areas of High and Very High hazard also correspond to higher risk areas due to increased community exposure to wildfire. While this assessment does not include the long list of community risk factors as listed in Figure 5 above, it provides a general representation of community area wildfire risk based on nearby wildfire hazard.
Wildfire risk for each Zone was classified according to the class breaks provided below in Figure 7, and the community area wildfire risk map is presented graphically in Figure
8. ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
4 Figure 7. Community Area Wildfire Risk Rating Classification.
Figure 8. Community Wildfire Risk in the project sites’ vicinity.
The sites are identified with blue circles.
As shown in Figure 8, the project sites fall within the Genasys US-CA-XSC-LAH-E016 Project Zone, which is classified as a High-Risk Zone. The project’s implementation of vegetation conversion and defensible space around the proposed development areas will reduce the relative level of risk on the project sites as well as the level of wildfire hazard.
Areas of Concern: As part of the assessment of hazards to the county, the Santa Clara County CWPP addressed areas of concern, based on the Risk-Hazard Assessment and Advisory Team Sites
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
5 input8. The advisory team included representaƟves of fire departments, offices of emergency services, County staff and community members. There were several areas of concern idenƟfied, but the project sites were not among them.
Project sites are noted by blue dots and are outside the idenƟfied Areas of Concern.
Figure 9. The Santa Clara County CWPP addressed areas of concern, based on the Risk-Hazard Assessment and Advisory Team input9 Project sites are noted by blue dots and are outside the idenƟfied Areas of Concern.
Summary
As demonstrated above, the sites are not within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, as determined by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 51178, nor are they within a high or very high fire hazard severity zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public Resources Code.
8 hƩps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff0cd22f286e48faa9ĩ67b8c51d8400 9 hƩps://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/ff0cd22f286e48faa9ĩ67b8c51d8400 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
6 In addition, the sites are not identified in the Los Altos Hills CWPP as being located in an extreme hazard, as measured by the Wildfire Hazard and Risk to Structures, the community risk assessment, the Genasys Project, or within an Area of Concern.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
7 Question 2: “The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.”
This addresses whether the two project sites can be adequately served by available fire and emergency services including water for fire suppression and emergency vehicles and services.
Los Altos Hills County Fire District contracts its fire suppression, prevention, emergency medical response, apparatus, and equipment from Santa Clara County Fire Department10. The contracted services provide 24/7 coverage by three shifts, each of at least one company of four firefighters and a Battalion Chief. Two additional Santa Clara County Fire Department fire stations are within five miles of the project sites.
Through mutual aid agreements at the federal, state, and local levels allow for the closest forces to respond to an incident as quickly as possible regardless of jurisdiction.
A description of the staffing and facilities follows11.
El Monte Fire StaƟon
12355 El Monte Rd., Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
Ownership: Los Altos Hills County Fire District
(structure) and Foothill/De Anza Community College
District (land)
On Duty Staffing: 5 Personnel, Rescue 74 (4), Truck 74
(Select Call), Engine 374 (Select Call), Batallion 74 (1) Built: 1996 (Original locaƟon: 1963)
Size: 9, 650 sq. Ō., 2-bay double-deep, drive-through
apparatus bay
Los Altos Fire StaƟon
10 Almond Ave., Los Altos, CA 94022
Ownership: City of Los Altos
On Duty Staffing: 3 Personnel, Engine 75 (3), Engine 675 (Select Call), Engine 175 (Reserve), 1929 Model A
(AnƟque)
Built: 1968
Size: 9,350 sq. Ō., 3-bay double-deep, drive-through
apparatus bay
10 hƩps://www.lahcfd.org/download/november-21-2023-fire-district-commissionmeeƟng/?wpdmdl=5595&refresh=657756dee03541702319838&ind=1700294092894&filename=20231121_LAHCF D_05H_LAHCFD-CWPP-Annex-4.pdf
11 hƩps://www.sccfd.org/about-sccfd/faciliƟes-and-fire-staƟons/ ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
8 Loyola Fire StaƟon
765 Fremont Ave., Los Altos CA 94024
Ownership: City of Los Altos
On Duty Staffing: 3 Personnel, Engine 76 (3), Engine 176 (Reserve)
Built: 1953
Size: 2,400 sq. Ō., 2-bay, single-deep, drive-through
apparatus bay
Figure 10. Location, staffing, and facility description of the three nearest fire stations to the project sites.
The response times from these fire stations to the project sites span seven to eleven minutes.
Table 1. Fire department response times and distance from the project site. Response times are based on Google map travel routes and times,
Nearest Fire Station Fire Station Address Distance Estimated Time Loyola Fire Station 765 Fremont Ave, Los Altos 2 miles 7 minutes Los Altos Fire Station 10 Almond Ave, Los Altos 4.5 miles 11 minutes El Monte Fire Station 12355 El Monte Rd, Los Altos 3.5 miles 8 minutes Figure11. The Loyola Fire Station is two miles or seven minutes from the project sites.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
9 Figure 12. The Los Altos Fire Station is 4.5 miles or eleven minutes from the project sites.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
10 Figure 13. The El Monte Fire Station is 3.5 miles or eight minutes from the project sites.
New Fire Turn Around at Mora Drive: The projects meet the California Fire Department Access and Egress requirements per Title 19, as the buildings are proposed to be accessible to a public street (Mora Drive and Sunhills Drive) by an unobstructed allweather hard-surfaced right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. It must be noted that the projects will improve upon the safety of the area by providing a fire turn-around for aerial trucks at the top of Mora Drive, which currently is not served by aerial fire trucks.
Mora Drive was deemed suitable for fire response by the Santa Clara Fire Department in 201212 and verified by Stevens, Ferrone, and Bailey, a Geotechnical Engineering firm.13 The improved fire department access and turn around increases fire safety and represents a benefit for the entire neighborhood.
Water Service
12 LeƩer dated September 20, 2012, from Doug Harding, DFM II to Cynthia Richardson, regarding the consideraƟon of Mora Drive for annexaƟon.
13 LeƩer dated June 9, 2023, from Kenneth Farrone to Forrest Linebarger regarding fire truck access weight bearing.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
11 California Water Service provides water supply to the project sites. Attachment 2 indicates the fire flow is adequate.
Figure 14. Water service provider for project sites is California Water Service14.
New Hydrant on Mora Drive: The Fire Department approved an additional hydrant for the project on Mora Drive, and found flow of water to the hydrant at the top of Mora Drive - and therefore the hydrants below it - suitable for the project. See Attachment 2 for the approved Hydrant Spotting Plan, which also approves the fire flow. This hydrant increases fire safety and represents a benefit for the entire neighborhood.
Two Evacuation Routes: In addition, there are two Town-maintained evacuation routes.
The route down Mora Drive is shown on figure 8 below. The route at Sunhills is shown in Attachment A. Both routes are designated and maintained by the Town. The Notice of Exemption from CEQA for the Interstate 280 Frontage Road Evacuation Routes states, “The treatment area of Sunhills Drive, from the intersection of Mora Drive to the intersection of W. Loyola Drive, is 0.2 miles, 0.4 miles for treatment on both sides of the roadway.”15
The two routes are graphically shown on Figure 1 above. 14 hƩps://valleywater.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=0f05e5c2956b49da940b62b0313ae142 15 Los Altos Hills County Fire District file to the County Clerk Recorder, NoƟce of ExempƟon from CEQA, Interstate 280 Frontage Road EvacuaƟon Routes
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
12 Figure 15. Evacuation Route Fuels Reduction Priority Areas within Los Altos Hills, including Mora Drive. Sites identified by blue circles. This shows the Mora Drive evacuation route.
Public Services
This project is an infill development within the incorporated Town of Los Altos Hills. The population of the Town of Los Altos Hills has been shrinking. According to the US Census Bureau, The Town had a population of 8,513 in 2020 and a population of 8,189 in 2023 for a loss of 324 residents The two sites, if 100% occupied, are expected to add 112 occupants and 13 staff members. The project addition of 125 people will stabilize the population of Los Altos Hills, partially offsetting the loss of residents. Emergency services such as fire and police will therefore not be burdened by an increased ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
13 population. Population shrinkage can also burden emergency services, and this project will offset population loss which will help stabilize the Towns emergency services.
Figure 16. The US Census Bureau shows Los Altos Hills has lost 324 residents between 2020 and 2023
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
14 Project Fits With Los Altos Hill’s Planned Growth: This project is expected to add 88 units with 112 occupants if 100% occupied. In addition there are expected to be 13 staff members.
Housing Elements of a General Plan identify barriers to providing housing, as a way to develop strategies that can remove those limitations and therefore promote adequate housing. The Town’s Housing Element16 has planned for growth of 489 new units in the next 8 years. The projects’ 88 units represent 18% of the total planned growth for the Town, well within the Town’s planned growth.
In the 6th Cycle Los Altos Hills Housing Element,17 completed in mid- 2023, the Town was required by the State of California to evaluate possible constraints to adding 489 new housing units in the next 8 years. These constraints include governmental constraints and infrastructure constraints among others. On pages 195 and 196 of the Housing Element, the Town of Los Altos Hills found the only fire related constraints were the areas of Town identified as Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones. The Town did not find any service-related constraints for emergency responders such as fire and medical responders. The Town also felt that applying WUI construction standards would adequately mitigate fire hazard risks for their new units. The project proposed is only 88 units, 18% of their housing allotment, it is not in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone and it has incorporated WUI construction standards. By the Town’s own Housing Element analysis, this project does not suffer from any infrastructure or service-related constraints.
Summary of the Adequacy of Emergency and Fire Services
Considering the above facts, the project can be adequately served by fire and emergency services.
16 https://www.hcd.ca.gov/housing-elements/docs/los-altos-hills-6th-draft102722.pdf 17 hƩps://losaltoshills.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/6251/General-Plan---5-Housing-Element-PDF ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
15 Question 3: Would the project “[r]esult in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services”?
The Mora Drive projects will not require changes to government facilities and would be served by existing Los Altos Hills County Fire District and Santa Clara County Fire Department fire stations. The physical changes to the Los Altos Hills’ right of way would entail maintenance of the tree branches overhanging the road to facilitate access and egress by aerial trucks. As discussed above, the vegetation along Mora Drive is already identified in the Santa Clara County CWPP as a highest priority project within the Evacuation Route Fuel Reduction Priority Areas (depicted in Figure 8 above). The Town of Los Altos Hills was already maintaining Mora Drive to this standard, involving periodic tree trimming along the roadway. The Santa Clara County FireSafe Council and Los Altos Hills County Fire District have also been performing evacuation route maintenance and flammable vegetation reduction along public streets and have found that such routine maintenance is exempt from CEQA as minor alterations to land and maintenance of existing streets and vegetation.18 Hence, the Mora Drive projects do not require the Town to expend any effort or take any actions that would result in any physical impacts beyond what the Town had already designated toward Mora Drive as a highest priority evacuation route fuel reduction project.
The following letter from Berry & Associates Civil Engineering Services describes the condition of Mora Drive near the project sites, attesting that Mora Drive overall met the requirements for the aerial fire apparatuses, save for a degree of branch incursion from growth between trimmings, as well as some low voltage lines that had fallen from a utility pole:
Berry & Associates Civil Engineering Services
Mora Drive Aerial Truck Survey
PROJECT: 10758 & 10728 Mora Drive
JOB NUMBER: 2923
DATE: November 23, 2023
ROAD HEIGHT: The roadway appears to be being maintained at a height of at least 13’-6” high x 20’ wide. Evidence of branch clearing can be seen.
Some new growth has encroached within the 13’-6’ h. x 20’ w. road clearance. Generally, these encroachments are less than 2” diameter new growth branches. In two places, moderate sized branches of between 3” and 5” diameter encroached modestly (less than 12”) on the required clearance. These locations are identified on the attached maps. 18 hƩps://files.ceqanet.opr.ca.gov/304283-
1/aƩachment/G0q_cyj0JCRF1M_MbPSP8eQix6VNrjPnnTStSb3oT19nVexV2mYs2CZPmedLv2DncwJDRpzw3G0X19b0 0 ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
16 In two locations, the low voltage lines encroach on the required height clearances. See attached maps Sheets 1 through 3 for identification of all encroachments within the 20’wide x 13’6” high road clearance requirements.
In the location identifie[d] by note #4, adjacent to 11001 Mora Drive, the low voltage lines are visibly damaged and hang as low as 8-7’ above the paved road. This damaged area is slated to be repaired by the utility company under work order PM-35070182. Final repaired height per the specification is greater than 13’-6” above the roadway.
In the location identified by note #5, adjacent to 10728 Mora Drive, the low voltage utility wires hang down to 9’10” above the adjacent grade. This location in the required roadway clearance, but is above the aerial truck turn out, and will require 13’-6” height clearance. These low voltage lines are proposed in the current development proposal to be placed underground. Undergrounding these power lines will resolve the clearance issue.
CONCLUSION: Upper Mora Drive is less than 15% grade, has outside turning radius’ at curves in excess of 60’, is greater than 20’ wide, and substantially meets the height requirements except in the locations identified in this report. Minor tree trimming is required, as well as repair of a damaged low voltage overhead line that is already slated for repair. An additional location, adjacent to the proposed construction, requires undergrounding of the overhead lines.
Since the Berry and Associates survey was conducted, the project developers successfully requested that Xfinity and AT&T raise the low-voltage lines to above 14 feet from the roadway. Meanwhile, the Town of Los Altos Hills evacuation route fuels reduction project will continue to maintain the branches on Mora Drive.
Summary
The Mora Drive projects will not require changes to government facilities, or require construction of new or upgraded fire stations. The road width, grade, radius and surface are all compliant with codes and standards, and enable response. The Town already identified vegetation maintenance along the access and evacuation routes; the project does not require additional treatments.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
17 Question 4: “Cumulative Impact – All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time, is significant.”
The Mora Drive projects are not of the same category of development that characterizes the surrounding area. The near vicinity of 10728 and 10758 Mora Drive is zoned singlefamily dwelling uses. Hence, these two parcels are the only multifamily senior housing projects of this type expected to be built in this area. Therefore, no cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place over time is expected beyond these two sites is expected.
Attachments:
Attachment A: Sunhills Evacuation Route
Attachment B: Hydrant Spotting Plan
…….
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
1 Tower Investments LLC
Forrest Linebarger
151 Cervantes Rd.
Portola Valley, CA 94028
May 29, 2025
Response to February 28, 2025 & March 27, 2025 Comment Letters Multifamily Residential Development Project
10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills
File CDP23-0001
Susanne Avila, Consultant Principal Planner
Planning Department
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Ms. Avila,
Thank you for your comments. The following are responses to The Town of Los Altos Hills’ Comment Letters dated February 28, 2025 & March 27, 2025. Your February 28, 2025 comment letter responded to both of our January 30, 2025 submission and our February 25, 2025 submission.
Please note the following changes: 1) The project is no longer utilizing Density Bonus Law, Gov.
Code Sec 65915. 2) Per Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)7)(A), a development proponent with an application that was deemed complete before January 1, 2025 may choose to be subject to “any or all” of the provisions of AB 1893. The original housing development project application was deemed complete before January 1, 2025. As the development proponent for the project, we choose to be subject to the provisions applicable as of January 1, 2025, except for the provision Gov. Code Sec. 65589.5(f)(6)(G)(ii). 3) The R-2.1 occupancy for assisted living has been removed. 4) A list of revisions to the plans that are not related to the comments provided herein has been provided for your convenience as Attachment # 4. We have done our best to identify all notable revisions between the last submittal and this one, but the list may not be all-inclusive. We have also included some that were also discussed in the response letters where the response seemed only partially or tangentially related to the change to make sure the changes are transparent to the reviewers.
RESPONSE TO TOWN’S FEBRUARY 28, 2025 COMMENT LETTER
The numbering sequence below aligns with the sequence of your comment letter for clarity and convenience.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
2 PLANNING COMMENTS
1. Unit sizes are shown on the units themselves on sheets A1.1 and A1.2
2. The measurements you reference on Section A-A of sheet A3.1 and the Elevations on sheet A2.1 have been adjusted so they are now taken from the same absolute location, so they are now consistent with each other. A CBC grade plane has been added to provide a consistent absolute location.
3. Exterior building colors have been modified and light reflectivity values added. The proposed exterior color sample C has been show with an LVR or 40 or lower, see sheet A2.1 and A2.2.
4. The error in the calculation on sheet CO has been corrected. The total number of units has been reduced.
BUILDING COMMENTS
No comments provided.
FIRE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
No comments provided.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
We disagree with your comment that the memorandum provided by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting (RCH) did not provide substantial evidence of an a CEQA class 32 Exemption. Nonetheless, in response to your comment, RCH has provided a separate response to your comment provided as Attachment #2. Please note that this response is supplementary in nature and does not alter the conclusions of RCH Exemption Memo.
RESPONSE TO MARCH 27, 2025 COMMENT LETTER
PLANNING COMMENTS
The four numbered planning comments provided in this letter are identical to the comments provided in your February 28, 2025 letter, so have been addressed above in that section.
BUILDING COMMENTS by CGS CONSULTANTS
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
3 Please see Attachment #3 for the individual comments to CSG Consultants March 24, 2025 letter.
FIRE DEPARTMENT PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS DATED 03/25/25
Sheet A5.0 includes the Supplementary Fire Protection Measure #1 that states that the building has been provided with fire sprinklers per sec 901.3.1.1. It meets the requirements of CFC 503.1.1 exception 1.1. Moreover, CFC 503 was not adopted by the State Fire Marshal, so this item does not apply. Lastly, Los Altos Hills’ fire code modifications were not legally adopted per Health and Safety Code sec. 13869.7 and this project is a Builder’s Remedy project and for both reasons the local CFC amendments to the Fire Code do not apply to this project. The applicability of CFC 503.1.1 has been exhaustively addressed in our attorney’s letter to Los Altos Hills City Council dated January 30, 2025, which was also sent to the Santa Clara County Central Fire District (SCCFD).
A Public Records Act request made to the SCCFD found that both projects that addressed the CFC 503.1.1 through an AMMR process by utilizing a standpipe at the rear of the building were APPROVED by the SCCFD. Comment from the SCCFD approval letters requested that the standpipes be “wet manual standpipe per NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards.” The proposed project includes provision for TWO standpipes at the rear each of the buildings as shown on Sheets A5.0, A2.1 & A2.2 as Supplementary Fire Protection Measure #3. We have modified the language of the notes to add “wet manual standpipe per NFPA-14 and SCCFD standards.”
ATTACHMENTS:
In addition to the revised plan set and this letter, we have provided the following attachements.
1. Attorney Letter from Patterson &
O’Neill, PC, dated March 29, 2028
2. Additional Response from RCH
Group, dated March 29, 2025
3. Response to CSG Building
Department Comments dated
March 29, 2025
4. Revisions to Plans
5. Fire Department AMMR
Approvals on CFC 503.1.1
In addition to the above attachments, revised plans- dated March 29, 2025 on sheet CO- have been provided to the Town.
Per your letter this response may be submitted on the Town’s Portal or in person at Town Hall, or in the event of technical problems with the Town’s portal, they can be emailed to [email protected]. We were unable to schedule a meeting with the Town’s Jay Bradford to resolve the technical issues with our access to the Towns’ Portal, so have sent the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
4 this submittal to [email protected]. We have also included a dropbox link in a separate email in case the file is too large.
Thank you for your consideration,
Forrest Linebarger,
For Tower Investments LLC
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
May 29, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive (File Nos. CDP23-0001, -0002) Builder’s Remedy Housing Development Applications
Dear Ms. Avila:
As you are aware, on January 30, 2025, our client resubmitted applications with revisions to the housing development projects proposed at 10728 Mora Drive and 10758 Mora Drive to meet the new definition a “builder’s remedy” project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7).) In addition, on February 25, 2025, our client also submitted a memorandum detailing why the projects qualify for a California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Class 32 In-fill exemption and a 90-Day Notice pursuant to AB 1633 explaining that the Town’s refusal to issue a CEQA exemption would constitute an abuse of discretion. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1.)
As explained below, the project applications are complete and the project’s must be found consistent with all applicable standards. The applicant has chosen to voluntarily address some of the items contained in the City’s February 28, 2025 comment letter, and make additional adjustments to the project plans, but does so voluntarily without waiving his rights.
The Resubmitted Applications are Complete
The Town sent a letter in response to the submittals on February 28, 2025. We understand the February 28, 2025 letter to be a determination of project consistency and that the applications have been accepted as complete pursuant to the Permit Streamlining Act (“PSA”). Pursuant to the PSA, an agency is required to “provide an applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete” within 30 days of an application submittal, and the exhaustive list of items “shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency's submittal requirement checklist.” (Gov. Code § 65943.) The Town’s February 28, 2025 letters asked for minor corrections or clarifications to the submittals and failed to identify any missing items from the Town’s submittal checklist. In other words, the Town’s requests for clarifications and corrections do not constitute valid items to deem an application incomplete.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
May 29, 2025
The Projects Are Consistent With All Applicable Standards The Town’s February 28, 2025 letter states that the projects continue to be inconsistent with standards, policies, and requirements under the Los Altos Hills General Plan, Zoning Law, and other applicable standards and requirements in the exact same manner as the prior iterations of the Project and simply attached its prior inconsistency determinations to the February 28 letter.
As we explained in our March 20, 2025 letter, the projects meet the definition of a “builder’s remedy” project and are therefore subject to the requirements of AB 1893. AB 1893 states that that “a local agency may only require the project to comply with the objective, quantifiable, written development standards, conditions, and policies that would have applied to the project had it been proposed on a site with a general plan designation and zoning classification that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(6)(A).) There are no existing general plan designations and zoning classifications in the Town that allow the density and unit type proposed by the applicant and therefore the Town cannot require compliance with any existing code standards. Further, HAA subparagraph (f)(6)(D) confirms that any project that meets the definition of a builder’s remedy project “shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes. . .”
Our March 20, 2025 letter explained that the Town’s description of these deemed-consistent-bylaw builder’s remedy applications as inconsistent with standards that the Town is statutorily prohibited from applying is a clear violation of the HAA. The Town’s April 4, 2025 response stated that the Town has “not made any determinations on the Project with respect to CEQA or otherwise.” We understand this as an admission that the City has failed to provide a compliance determination within 30 days of the January 30, 2025 submittal. As such, the projects have been deemed complete by operation of law. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2).) If our understanding is incorrect and the Town has made a compliance determination, please clarify the Town’s position.
Subsequent to the February 28, 2025 letter, the Town sent additional comments from the Building Department and Santa Clara County Fire Department identifying more purported inconsistencies. Even if the February 28, 2025 letter was the City’s compliance determination, the comments from the Building and Fire Department were provided beyond the 30-day deadline in Gov. Code § 65589.5(j)(2) to identify any code inconsistencies. As such, the projects have been deemed consistent with any applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, or other similar provision that was not identified in the February 28, 2025 letter.
Response to The Town’s Comments
The Town’s April 4, 2025 stated that the Town has “identified additional items that require correction or needed to be completed” from the January 30, 2025 resubmittal and that staff “is prepared to continue review upon receiving the applicant’s resubmittal.” As explained above, the ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
May 29, 2025
project application is complete and deemed consistent, and therefore no items need to be provided for the Town to process the applications. However, Mr. Linebarger has voluntarily decided to resubmit the project plans to address some of the comments contained in the February 28, 2025 letter. Mr. Linebarger does not waive any rights based on this resubmittal.
Further, the Town made clear in its April 4, 2025 letter that the City was continuing to process our client’s February 25, 2025 90-Day Notice pursuant to AB 1633. Despite stating that the City had made no CEQA determination, the April 4 letter again asserted that the Town has predetermined that the Project cannot be found exempt from CEQA. Our client’s CEQA consultant has provided a response to the City’s various erroneous, unsubstantiated assertions.
Please be advised that the Town is still obligated to make a final determination with respect to the AB 1633 within 90 days of the City’s May 20, 2025 letter of extension of time.
Finally, the City’s April 4 letter states that the applicant still needs to address outstanding comments from the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”). Our understanding is that the Town, not SCCFD, has ultimate authority regarding how to interpret and implement the Town’s fire code through the Los Altos Hills County Fire Districts contract with SCCFD. While the Town’s letter states that SCCFD’s comments must be addressed, the Town is the decisionmaking body that determines fire code consistency.
We understand this comment relates to Local Fire Code § 503.1.1 adopted pursuant to the procedures of Health and Safety Code § 13869.7.1
These procedures require that when local
amendments to the California Fire Code are adopted, a city “shall file a copy of the findings of the district, and any findings of the city, county, or city and county, together with the adopted ordinance expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, with the Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”).” HCD has made clear through administrative guidance that local amendments to the California Fire Code are not effective until the amendments are filed with HCD as required by state law. The Town failed to file its Local Fire Code with HCD, and as a result, Local Fire Code § 503.1.1 has not been adopted and is not in effect. In short, the projects do not need to address any outstanding comments related to Local Fire Code § 503.1.1.
That said, Mr. Linebarger has had many discussions with SCCFD personnel and researched the types of fire protection measures that the Department would typically require to address access issues related to Fire Code § 503.1.1. Projects in Santa Clara County that that utilized the exception to Fire Code § 503.1.1 though installation of section 903.3.1.1 fire sprinklers have been systematically approved. This makes since the objective language of the Fire Code §
5.03.1.1 specifically allows for the 903.1.1.exception. Likewise, in both projects that utilized the AMMR process to satisfy a Fire Code § 503 through the installation of a standpipe, both were approved. (See Exhibit A.) This also makes sense, as Fire Code § 503.1.1 is intended to address 1 Fire Code § 503.1.1 was not adopted by the State Fire Marshal and is not part of the California Fire Code.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
May 29, 2025
maximum hose length to reach all sides of a building and the addition of standpipes will allow hoses to reach areas of a building that would otherwise be unreachable.
Although no modifications are required because the Town failed to properly adopt its local fire code, Mr. Linebarger has nonetheless modified the fire protection measures to add section 903.3.1.1 fire sprinklers and two wet manual standpipes per NPFA 13 and SCCFD standards at the rear of each of the buildings.
Conclusion
As explained above, the applicant understands that the Town has accepted the applications as complete and the projects have been deemed consistent with all applicable standards. We look forward to the City’s completing its CEQA review no later than August 18, 2025, and for the projects to be swiftly approved thereafter. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Very truly yours,
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
__________________________
Brian O’Neill
____________________ _____________
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit $
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Response to Comments
Class 32 CEQA Exemption Memo
for the Silver Oaks Senior Living Community,
10728 & 10758 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, California
Prepared by
Dan Sicular, Sicular Environmental Consulting,
and
Paul Miller, RCH Group
May 29, 2025
This is a response to the two comment letters from the Town of Los Altos Hills (“the Town”) dated February 28, 2025, wherein the Town claims that the Class 32 CEQA exemption memo for the Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Project (“Exemption Memo”) provided by our firms “did not provide substantial evidence to support” a Class 32 infill exemption under CEQA. The Town issued these comments in a response letter just three days after the 490-page Exemption Memo was submitted to the Town on February 25, 2025.
Attached to this response are three exhibits that provide additional substantial evidence to support a Class 32 exemption, and that corroborate the conclusions in the Exemption Memo. Exhibit 1 is the State Fire Marshall's Fire Severity Zones Map of Los Altos Hills (“Fire Map”) which was updated on February 24, 2025, just after the Exemption Memo was prepared. Exhibit 2 is a biological resources evaluation report of the Project site, prepared by Live Oak Associates (May 28, 2025), and Exhibit 3 is the letter from the State Attorney General to the Town of Woodside that is cited in the biological resources evaluation report.
The Town’s two comment letters, which are nearly identical except that one addresses the portion of the Project located at 10728 Mora Drive, and the other 10758 Mora Drive, make the following points with respect to environmental issues, all of which we disagree with, for the reasons detailed below:
Town Comments
Comment 1: The Town cites Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A) and states that the proposed Project is inconsistent with standards, policies, and requirements under the Los Altos Hills General Plan, Zoning Law, and other applicable standards and requirements, specifically:
(1) Zoning Designation for the parcel;
(2) Lot size requirement;
(3) Development standards under Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code; and (4) General Plan standards and policies
(comment letters, page 2).
Comment 2: The Town expects that the Project will have environmental impacts, which may constitute significant impacts, in areas including but not limited to traffic, noise, air quality, utilities and energy, and emergency response services. The Town states that either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report would be required. The Town states that an Initial Study will need to be conducted for the project in order to determine the specific environmental analysis required (comment letters, page 3).
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 2
Comment 3: The Town disagrees with the conclusion in the Exemption Memo that there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 in-fill development exemption, that it meets the criteria for an infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332, and that it is not barred by the “Unusual Circumstances” exception under section 15300.2 (comment letters, page 4).
Comment 4: The Town implies that the Project site is not an infill site, because it is located in a suburban area on a site zoned for residential and agricultural uses (comment letters, page 4).
Comment 5: The Town disagrees that the Exemption Memo provided substantial evidence to support its conclusions (comment letters, page 4).
Responses to Comments
As a general response, the Town does not back any of the claims made in its comments with substantial evidence. All of the points asserted by the Town in these comments are unsubstantiated, speculative, and factually untrue. As detailed in depth in the Exemption Memo, and as supported by substantial evidence provided in the memo and in supporting documents attached to it, the proposed Project (consisting of the proposed developments at both 10758 and 10728 Mora Drive) meets the legal definition of an infill development, would not result in a significant effect on the environment, and meets all of the requirements for a Class 32 exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332. Furthermore, as also supported by substantial evidence provided in the Exemption Memo and in supporting documents attached to it, the Project is not excluded from a Class 32 exemption by any of the applicable criteria stated in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2, nor is it excluded from use of a CEQA categorical exemption for a Builder’s Remedy project by any of the criteria stated in Government Code Sections 65589.5(h)(6)(I)(i) and 65913.4.
Comment 1: The Town cites Government Code section 65589.5(j)(2)(A) and states that the proposed Project is inconsistent with standards, policies, and requirements under the Los Altos Hills General Plan, Zoning Law, and other applicable standards and requirements, specifically:
(1) Zoning Designation for the parcel;
(2) Lot size requirement;
(3) Development standards under Title 10, Chapter 1 of the Municipal Code; and (4) General Plan standards and policies.
Response to Comment 1: As stated in section 3(a) of the Exemption Memo, commencing on page 14, Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(6)(D)(iii), a qualifying Builder’s Remedy project, “…shall be deemed consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan, program, policy, ordinance, standard, requirement, redevelopment plan and implementing instruments, or other similar provision for all purposes, and shall not be considered or treated as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose.”
Pursuant to this section of the Government Code, the Town does not have discretion to find that the Project is inconsistent with General Plan standards and policies, Zoning designation, lot size requirements, or Municipal Code development standards. Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(6)(D)(iii), the Project meets the requirement that a Project must be consistent with General ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 3
Plan designation and policies and with Zoning designation and regulations to qualify for a Class 32 exemption. Furthermore, as discussed in the Exemption Memo commencing on page 15, the Project is consistent with policies contained in the Town’s 6th Cycle Housing Element. In its comments, the Town makes no attempt to refute these findings of consistency and ignores this key provision of the State Housing Accountability Act.
Comment 2: The Town expects that the Project will have environmental impacts, which may constitute significant impacts, in areas including but not limited to traffic, noise, air quality, utilities and energy, and emergency response services. Thus, either a Mitigated Negative Declaration or an Environmental Impact Report would be required.
Response to Comment 2: The Exemption Memo provides extensive discussion, supported by substantial evidence, that the Project would not have a significant impact related to traffic, noise, air quality, utilities, or emergency response services:
Traffic and Emergency Response Services
Exemption Memo section 3(d)(1), commencing on page 21, examines potential impacts of the Project on traffic, and considers each of the four questions pertaining to traffic in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G checklist:
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
c) Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? The Exemption Memo concludes that the Project would not have any of these potential impacts. These conclusions are supported by a traffic study completed for the Project by Hexagon Transportation Consultants (included as Attachment C-13), which constitutes substantial evidence in support of the conclusions of no significant impact.
In addition to consideration of emergency access to the Project site addressed in this section of the Exemption Memo, adequacy of emergency response services, specifically fire protection and police projection, to serve the Project are considered in Exemption Memo section 3(e)(1)(a and b). These discussions find, based on substantial evidence cited in the memo, that existing emergency response services are adequate to serve the Project. The scope of the analysis and the methodologies used meet current standards of practice for CEQA reviews, and are typical of higher-level reviews, such as an Initial Study or EIR. The Town in its comments provides no evidence that the Project would result in a significant impact related to traffic or emergency response services.
Noise (including vibration)
The Exemption Memo, section 3(d)(2), commencing on page 24, examines potential impacts of the Project on noise, including vibration, and considers each of the three questions pertaining to noise and vibration in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G checklist:
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 4
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Would the project result in generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels?
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Based on substantial evidence, including a Noise Technical Report prepared for the Project by RCH Group (and included as Attachment C-10) which itself is based on recent ambient noise monitoring at the Project site and modeling of future construction and operational noise levels, the Exemption Memo concludes that the Project would not have a significant noise impact during Project construction or operation, or from Project-related traffic. The scope of the analysis and the methodologies used meet current standards of practice for CEQA reviews and are typical of higher-level reviews, such as an Initial Study or EIR. The Town in its comments provides no evidence that the Project would result in an impact related to noise.
Air Quality
The Exemption Memo, section 3(d)(3), commencing on page 30, examines potential impacts of the Project on air quality, and considers each of the four questions pertaining to noise and vibration in the CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G checklist:
a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The Air Quality analysis is based on an Air Quality Technical Report prepared by RCH Group, which is attached to the Exemption Memo (Attachment C-9). The Air Quality Technical Report uses air emissions modeling to estimate construction and operational air emissions and compares the results to the Bay Area Air Quality Management District’s recommended thresholds of significance. The Air Quality Technical Report includes a full health risk assessment, which follows guidance from the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and the State Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. For each checklist question, the Exemption Memo concludes, based on substantial evidence, that the Project would not have a significant impact. The scope of the analysis and the methodologies used meet current standards of practice for CEQA reviews, and are typical of higher-level reviews, such as an Initial Study or EIR. The Town in its comments provides no evidence that the Project would result in an impact related to air quality.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 5
Utilities
The Exemption Memo, section 3(e), commencing on page 45, considers whether the Project can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. As stated above, this discussion considers emergency response services, including fire and police protection, and finds that existing services are adequate to serve the Project. The examination of utilities includes a consideration of adequacy of water supply, sanitary sewer, wastewater treatment, storm sewer, gas and electric, telecommunications facilities, and solid waste and recycling services and facilities. Based on substantial evidence cited in the Exemption Memo, the memo concludes that the Project can be adequately served with existing utilities. The scope of the analysis and the methodologies used meet current standards of practice for CEQA reviews, and are typical of higher-level reviews, such as an Initial Study or EIR. The Town in its comments provides no evidence that the Project would result in an impact related to utilities.
Energy
A finding of less than significant for energy impacts is not a qualification for a Class 32 exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, nor are potential energy impacts an exception that would disqualify a Project from use of a categorical exemption pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15300.2.
Furthermore, energy impacts are not among the siting criteria contained in Government Code Sections 65589.5(h)(6)(I)(i) and 65913.4 that must be met for a Builder’s Remedy project to qualify for a categorical exemption. Therefore, energy impacts are not considered in the Exemption Memo.
Nevertheless, the Project would not be expected to have a significant impact on energy, pursuant to the two questions posed in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G pertaining to energy:
a) would the project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
b) would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
The Project will be subject to California Code of Regulations Title 24, the Green Building Code, and so will be required to meet the State’s standards for energy conserving design and construction. Furthermore, multi-story, multi-family residences are inherently more energy efficient than single-family construction.
The Project includes energy-conserving features that will reduce operational energy use, including a shuttle van that will help minimize vehicles miles traveled (see VMT analysis in Exemption Memo section 3(d)(1)(b)); limited parking, which will encourage use of the van service rather than private vehicles; and electric vehicle chargers. The air quality modeling conducted for the Project estimates very low air emissions related to energy use, as shown in Exemption Memo Table 6 on page 32. These points constitute substantial evidence that the Project would not have a significant impact related to energy. The Town has provided no evidence to support their claim to the contrary.
Other Environmental Topics
Comment 2 includes the blanket statement, “…in areas including but not limited to…” to imply that the Project could have significant impacts in areas other than traffic, noise, air quality, utilities, energy, and emergency response services. The Town provides no evidence of the Project’s potential for environmental impacts in other areas. In addition to those discussed above in this response, the Exemption Memo considers the potential for the Project to have significant impacts in the areas of biological resources (section 3(c) commencing on page 18, and sections 5.7, and 5.8 commencing on page 57), water quality (section 3(d)(4), commencing on page 37), cumulative impacts (section 4(b), commencing on page 49), ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 6
impacts on scenic viewsheds (section 4(d), commencing on page 53), seismic hazards (section 5.5, commencing on page 57), hazardous waste sites (section 4(e) on page 54 and section 5.4 on page 57), historical resources (section 4(f) on page 54), impacts on farmland (section 5.2 on page 56), wetlands (section 5.3 on page 57), flood hazards (section 3(d)(4)(d) on page 40 and section 5.6 on page 58), and location within a very high fire hazard severity zone (section 5.10, commencing on page 59).
In all instances, the Exemption Memo, based on substantial evidence cited in the memo, and in some cases included as attachments, concludes that the Project would not have a significant impact in these areas. Conclusions of no significant impact for biological resources and fire hazard are corroborated and further supported by new information contained in Exhibits 1 and 2, attached to this letter.
This covers the majority of the environmental topics included in CEQA Guidelines Appendix G.
Consideration of other topical areas is not required for the Project to qualify for a Class 32 exemption or for any categorical exemption for a Builder’s Remedy project: an initial study is not necessary to confirm that the Project is eligible for a Class 32 exemption.
Comment 3: The Town disagrees with the conclusion in the Exemption Memo that there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the Project qualifies for a Class 32 in-fill development exemption, that it meets the criteria for an infill exemption under CEQA Guidelines section 15332, and that it is not barred by the Unusual Circumstances exception under section 15300.2 (comment letters, page 4).
Response to Comment 3: The purpose of the Exemption Memo is to consider whether the Project meets the criteria for a Class 32 exemption. The Exemption Memo considers each qualifying and disqualifying criterion, and in all instances, based on substantial evidence cited in the memo, and in many cases attached to it, concludes that the Project is in fact eligible for a Class 32 exemption.
With respect to the “Unusual Circumstances” exception contained in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2(c), this topic is thoroughly discussed in Exemption Memo section 4(c), commencing on page 50.
That discussion identifies that the Class 32 exemption has been used for many similar projects in Santa Clara County, as demonstrated in Table 9 on page 51. The discussion also cites a recent letter from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) that states that lead agencies cannot rely on the “Unusual Circumstances” exception to preclude a project that meets the definition of a Builder’s Remedy project from utilizing a Class 32 infill exemption, since, as stated in the letter, “Pursuant to Government Code section 65589.5, subdivision (f)(6)(D)(iii), a qualifying builder’s remedy project shall be deemed ‘consistent, compliant, and in conformity with an applicable plan…for all purposes, and shall not be considered as a nonconforming lot, use, or structure for any purpose [emphases added.]’ It is HCD’s understanding that clause (iii) also applies to CEQA Guidelines section 15332, subdivision (a).”
Based on HCD’s guidance, because this is a Builder’s Remedy project, its location on parcels with Zoning and General Plan land use designations that would not otherwise allow it, does not constitute an unusual circumstance. HCD’s determination that a Builder’s Remedy project is eligible for a Class 32 exemption forecloses any argument that utilizing the Builder’s Remedy triggers the “Unusual circumstances” exception.
The Town, in its comments, does not acknowledge or attempt to respond to these statements, but instead makes the unfounded and unsupportable claim that the Project is not eligible for a Class 32 exemption.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Silver Oaks Senior Living Community Class 32 Exemption Memo Response to Comments / Page 7
Comment 4: The Town implies that the Project site is not an infill site, because it is located in a suburban area on a site zoned for residential and agricultural uses.
Response to Comment 4: To qualify for a Class 32 exemption, a project must be located within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. As discussed in Exemption Memo section 3(b), the Project meets these criteria, and so the Project site is considered an infill site. The Town has provided no substantial evidence to conclude that the Project site does not meet these criteria.
Comment 5: The Town disagrees that the Exemption Memo provided substantial evidence to support its conclusions (comment letters, page 4).
Response to Comment 5: As described in the responses above, the Town provides no substantial evidence to counter or refute any of the conclusions in the Exemption Memo, or to impeach or impugn the validity of any of the substantial evidence used in the memo to reach these conclusions. Instead, the Town relies on blanket, conclusory statements not supported by discussion or by factual, substantial evidence. The Exemption Memo comprehensively considers each criterion for eligibility of the Project for a Class 32 exemption, and, supported by substantial evidence cited in the memo and in many instances attached to it, concludes in each case that it does qualify.
New Information
The State Fire Marshall's Fire Severity Zones Map of Los Altos Hills (“Fire Map”) was updated on February 24, 2025, just after the preparation of the Exemption Memo to the Town. We are providing the updated Fire Map as Exhibit 1. The map shows that the Project site is not in a very high fire hazard severity zone; it is located in a high fire hazard severity zone, which is the same zone as the previous map and therefore does not alter the conclusion reached in Exemption Memo section 5.10. This provides additional substantial evidence that the Project qualifies for a categorical exemption.
A Biological Evaluation of the Project site was prepared by Live Oak Associates, Inc., May 28, 2025, and is attached as Exhibit 2. The Biological Evaluation, which is based on database searches and three site visits to the Project site during the period when native plants are in bloom and bumblebees are active, corroborates and provides additional substantial evidence for the conclusions reached in the Exemption Memo section 3(c) commencing on page 18, and sections 5.3, 5.7, and 5.8 (commencing on page 57), that the Project site does not have value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, is not located in a wetland, and is not on lands identified for conservation.
The Exhibits provide additional substantial evidence in support of a Categorical Exemption in response to the Town’s comment letters.
We appreciate the Town’s comments, and trust that the Town will reconsider its unfounded position regarding the Project’s eligibility for a Class 32 CEQA exemption.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Exhibit 1: New Fire Hazard Severity Zone Map of the Project Site Source: https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/what-we-do/community-wildfire-preparedness-andmitigation/fire-hazard-severity-zones?itid=lk_inline_enhanced-template ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
EXHIBIT 3:
California Attorney General Letter
to Town of Woodside
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ROB BONTA State of California
Attorney General DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
1300 I STREET, SUITE 125
P.O. BOX 944255
SACRAMENTO, CA 94244-2550
Public: (916) 445-9555
Telephone: (916) 210-7246
Facsimile: (916) 327-2319
E-Mail: [email protected]
February 6, 2022
Kevin Bryant
Town Manager
The Town of Woodside
2955 Woodside Road
Woodside, CA 94062
RE: VIOLATIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65852.21 AND 66411.7
AND THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
Dear Mr. Bryant:
It has come to our attention that the Town of Woodside has declared itself categorically exempt from SB 9’s requirement that local agencies provide a ministerial approval process for certain housing developments. We have reviewed the January 27, 2022 memorandum by Jackie Young, the Planning Director for Woodside, that attempts to justify the exemption. Addressed to all Woodside residents as well as permit applicants, the memorandum declares that no parcel in Woodside “is currently eligible for an SB 9 project” because “Woodside – in its entirety – is habitat” for mountain lions. Woodside has also adopted an urgency ordinance that appears designed to blunt the impact of SB 9. These positions are contrary to law.
A. Woodside Cannot Categorically Exempt All of Its Parcels from State Law by Declaring Itself a Habitat for Protected Species
Under SB 9, local agencies must provide a ministerial approval process for any proposed housing development consisting of two residential units within a single-family residential zone, and for any proposed subdivision of an existing parcel within a single-family residential zone into no more than two parcels. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a), 66411.7, subd. (a).) Both of these provisions apply to parcels satisfying certain requirements identified in section 65913.4 of the Government Code. One requirement is that an eligible parcel cannot constitute habitat “for protected species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or species of special status by state or federal agencies.” (Gov. Code, § 65913.4, subd. (a)(6)(J).) Woodside declared itself exempt from SB 9 after adopting an urgency ordinance that is inconsistent with section 65913.4, subdivision (a)(6)(J). While that statute exempts parcels actually serving as a habitat for protected species from SB 9, Woodside’s ordinance exempts “lands identified as habitat for protected species.” (Municipal Code, § 153.983.A.5, italics ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
February 6, 2022
added.) Woodside’s Planning Director then identified the entire Town of Woodside as habitat for a protected species in her January 27 memorandum.
There is no valid basis to claim that the entirety of Woodside is a habitat for mountain lions, a candidate for protection under the California Endangered Species Act. Habitat is land that has the capacity to support that species, including providing food and shelter. Land that is already developed—with, for example a single-family home—is not, by definition, habitat. That mountain lions appear in Woodside from time to time does not make any of its individual parcels mountain lion habitat. Rather, it demonstrates the range of the mountain lion—where the species may be found in its lifetime. In other words, “habitat” is a separate concept from “range.” The enclosed map, by the California Interagency Wildlife Task Group of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, shows that the range of mountain lions includes the vast majority of the San Francisco Bay Area. That breadth does not make nearly every single parcel in the San Francisco Bay Area a habitat for mountain lions, nor could the range of mountain lions, or any endangered species, be used to justify a local government’s attempt to categorically prohibit a class of housing development within its local boundaries.
In addition, any exemption under SB 9 requires examination of the attributes of the individual parcel. (Gov. Code, §§ 65852.21, subd. (a)(2), 66411.7, subd. (a)(3)(C).) If a proposed housing development or a lot split under SB 9 is on a parcel that is indeed a habitat for a protected species, however unlikely that may be, a local agency can support that determination with substantial evidence. Of course, the memorandum cites to no evidence indicating that every individual SB 9-eligible parcel in the Town is habitat for mountain lions.
Beyond SB 9, we note that Woodside’s ordinance and memorandum may implicate and/or violate other state housing production laws. We leave that inquiry to the Department of Housing and Community Development, who may be contacting you shortly.
In summary, Woodside’s attempt to exempt itself from SB 9 appears entirely unjustified.
Passing an ordinance ostensibly in the name of wildlife protection, without more, cannot exempt Woodside from state housing laws.
B. Woodside’s Urgency Ordinance Does Not Bear a Real and Substantial Relationship to the Welfare of Those It Impacts
Under the California Constitution, local restrictions that limit the development of housing must bear a real and substantial relationship to the welfare of those whom they affect. (Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore (1976) 18 Cal.3d 582, 607.) To satisfy this requirement, any locally imposed limitation on growth must confer a net beneficial impact to the entire region affected by the limitation. (City of Del Mar v. City of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App.3d 401, 413.)
By prohibiting project applicants whose properties are not actually mountain lion habitat from supplying more housing, Woodside is deliberately attempting to shutoff the supply of new housing opportunities within its borders. Woodside’s policy is presumed to impact the regional ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
February 6, 2022
supply of housing. (See Evid. Code, § 669.5, subd. (a).) Ironically, by restricting housing production, implementing the policy would increase the likelihood of exurban sprawl that will adversely affect the habitat of mountain lions. This policy does not confer a net beneficial impact on the regional welfare. It can only be assumed that the ordinance is intended to undermine the Legislature’s efforts to combat the crisis-level housing shortage.
As outlined above, we have concluded that Woodside’s policy abrogating the application of SB 9 appears to be in violation of Government Code sections 65852.21, 66411.7, and the California Constitution. We request that you address this matter at the Town Council meeting on February 22, 2022 (if not earlier), amend the urgency ordinance to be consistent with state law, and withdraw the January 27 memorandum.
Sincerely,
MATTHEW T. STRUHAR
Deputy Attorney General
For ROB BONTA
Attorney General
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
1 Tower Investment LLC ATTACHMENT #3
151 Cervantes Rd.
Portola Valley, CA 94028
May 29, 2025
Building Department
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Response to March 24, 2025 Building Department Plan Review Comments by CSG Consultants Multifamily Residential Development Project
10728 Mora Drive, Los Altos Hills, CA 94024
Permit No. CDP23-0001
CSG No. 4502649
Ted Mirzakhanian, PE, CASp,
Thank you for your Plan Review Comments letter dated March 24, 2025. Thank you for clarifying comments and the acceptable solutions you provided in our telephone meeting on May 7, 2025. In this response letter we have addressed each item in your preliminary plan review comments below using the same sections and numbering order of your comment letter and, where applicable, our answers correspond to our telephone discussion. Please note, these responses are voluntary as this review is for planning level approvals, not a building permit application. These responses are only intended to prove feasibility, not to meet all the requirements of the California Building Code.
Building Department Review Comments
1. Electronic Submittal
We have submitted this response electronically including a full set of revised plans and additional submittal documents.
2. Written Responses
Please review the written responses below addressing each plan review comment, including a description of the change, where the correction was implemented, and a specific sheet or detail reference where the revision can be found.
We have also included a summary of changes for additional modifications, see Attachment
4. ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
2 Building Department Review Comments
A1. Commentary, no response necessary.
A2. Building above the podium: Occupancy groups areas have been revised (A-2, B, S-2) to fall within the 10% ‘Accessory Occupancies’ allowances per 2022 CBC Sec 508.2. The main occupancy of the building is now R-2. Please note that all the A2.1 occupancies are eliminated from the building. The building above the podium is now a single occupancy building with unseparated ‘Accessory Occupancies’ with an aggregate area of 10% or less of the building floor area per story.
Below the podium: We are a mixed use building with separated occupancies (S-2 and R-2).
See ‘Floor Area Square Footage Tabulation’ table on sheet CO Cover Sheet, see revised occupancy sizes and locations on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
A3. The dining areas have all been reclassified as A-2 occupancies and relocated to other floors, see sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans and sheet CO Cover Sheet.
A4. A list of occupancy groups above and below the podium has been provided on sheet CO Cover Sheet and sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area.
A5. ‘Wildland Urban Interface Notes’ have been added to sheet A1.2 Floor Plans. The building is in a Wildland Urban Interface Area and shall comply with the requirements of Chapter 7A of the 2022 CBC, see ‘Wildland Urban Interface Notes’ #1. on sheet A1.2 Floor Plans.
The applicable sections of Chapter 7A have been incorporated into the drawing set, see ‘Wildland Urban Interface Notes’ on sheet A1.2.
A6. We revised the ‘Construction Type’ section to show the Mezzanine Level as Type I-A construction and revised the ‘Building Area’ section to show the Mezzanine Level area below the podium, see sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Areas.
The vertical offset in the podium has been removed. The podium is now in a continuous horizontal configuration with the Mezzanine Level entirely below the podium, see sheet A3.1 Sections.
A7. (a.) The podium has been modified to remove the vertical offset. The podium is now a continuous horizontal 3-hour separation with no vertical offset, see sheet A3.1 Sections. (b.) The entire occupied roof deck is now shown as group A occupancy, The occupant load calculations have been revised per Table 1004.5 to reflect this correction. Dining, seating, fire pit, kitchen, etc. have been revised to show an occupant load factor of 15 sf/occupant.
The number of occupants shown at the exits have been revised to reflect the adjusted ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
3 number of occupants exiting. See Level 5 / Roof Plan on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
The 5th level residential units (R-2, Type III-A) are allowed per Table 504.3 Allowable Building Height in Feet Above Grade Plane. Our R-2 occupancy is allowed up to 85’ for R-2 occupancy with sprinklers, Type III-A construction. Table 504.4 Allowable Number of Stories Above Grade Plane allows for 5 stories with sprinklers without an area increase.
The project utilizes special provisions sec. 510.2, therefore the number of stories is measured from the podium, not the grade plane. Therefore, the 5th level residential units are allowable as they are 5 stories above the podium.
The rooftop A occupancies (A-2, A-3) are allowed at 4 stories (per Table 504.4, w/ sprinklers, w/o area increase S=4) measured from the podium (special provisions 510.2) with an allowable height of 85’ (Table 504.3 w/ sprinklers, without area increase, S=85’). 5th level A occupancies are allowable per sec. 508.2.2 Allowable Building Heights which states, “ The allowable height and number of stories of the building containing accessory occupancies shall be in accordance with Section 504 for the main occupancy of the building.” This code section allows for A occupancy (accessory) at the 5th level, since we reduced our aggregate accessory occupancies (per sec 508.2.4) to 10% or less of the floor area of the story in which they are located and did not exceed the tabular values for nonsprinklered buildings for each such occupancy (NS=14,000).
The 5th level occupied roof is allowable per sec 503.1.4 Occupied Roofs, which states, “A roof level or portion thereof shall be permitted to be used as an occupied roof provided the occupancy of the roof is an occupancy that is permitted by Table 504.4 for the story immediately below the roof.” After the Podium modification to a continuous horizontal plane, our 5th level roof deck is now just one level above the allowed A occupancy at the 4th level above the podium.
In addition a new occupied roof deck at the 6th level has been incorporated into the design to offset the loss of area in the lower roof deck. This modification is allowable per sec 503.1.4 exception 1. which states, “The occupancy located on an occupied roof shall not be limited to the occupancies allowed on the story immediately below the roof where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and occupant notification in accordance with Sections 907.5.2.1 and 907.5.2.3 is provided in the area of the occupied roof. Emergency voice/alarm communication system notification per Section 907.5.2.2 shall also be provided in the area of the occupied roof where such system is required elsewhere in the building.” The new roof deck meets all of these requirements. (c.) We added ‘Grade Plane Diagram & Calculation’ showing the calculation of the grade plane elevation and also showed the grade pane elevation line and called out the height, see sheet A3.1 Sections. The grade plane elevation line and height have also been shown on the elevations. We revised the building height dimensions to be shown from this line, see sheet A2.1 & 2.2 Elevations.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
4 A8. We revised the arrow location to show ‘UP’ on the left side of stairway #2, see Podium / Garage Building Plan on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
A9. We provided gridlines with section and elevation references on the floor plans, see sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area.
A10. The Santa Clara County Fire Department has determined the lowest level of Fire Department access is less than 75’ above the lowest level of human occupancy. The Fire Department addressed this issue directly until their ‘High Rise Requirements’ comment was dropped from their comment letter dated 1-31-2024.
A11. The R2.1 occupancy has been removed from the building entirely, see sheet CO Cover Sheet, sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans, and sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area.
A12. (a.) We removed the vertical fire separation wall between buildings A & B, so we now only have one building above the podium and one building below the podium, see ‘Code Analysis’ and ‘Floor Areas’ on sheet A5.2. We removed the coverings over the A-2/A-3 occupancies on the 5th level above podium roof deck. We reconfigured the podium to be continuously horizontal, thus 4th level A-2/A-3 occupancies are allowed at this level with a covered roof (now 4 stories above podium). Since A-2/A-3 occupancies are allowed at the 4th level above podium, they are allowed (uncovered) on the 5th level occupied roof per sec. 503.1.4 which states, “A roof level or portion thereof shall be permitted to be used as an occupied roof provided the occupancy of the roof is an occupancy that is permitted by Table 504.4 for the story immediately below the roof.” This allows the 5th level uncovered occupied roof deck.
A small area of covered A-2/A-3 occupancy has been added at the 5th level, which is allowable per sec 503.1.4 exception 1. “The occupancy located on an occupied roof shall not be limited to the occupancies allowed on the story immediately below the roof where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and occupant notification in accordance with Sections 907.5.2.1 and 907.5.2.3 is provided in the area of the occupied roof. Emergency voice/alarm communication system notification per Section 907.5.2.2 shall also be provided in the area of the occupied roof where such system is required elsewhere in the building.” The 5th level covered A-2/A-3 occupancy meets all these requirements as well as the 10% aggregate accessory occupancies per floor requirements of sec. 508.2.3.
The new 6th level roof deck (uncovered) is allowed due to the accessory occupancy classification (10% or less aggregate accessory occupancies) per sec 508.2.2 which states, “ The allowable height and number of stories of the building containing accessory occupancies shall be in accordance with Section 504 for the main occupancy of the building.” Furthermore, sec 503.1.4 exception 1. states, “The occupancy located on an occupied roof shall not be limited to the occupancies allowed on the story immediately below the roof where the building is equipped throughout with an automatic sprinkler ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
5 system in accordance with Section 903.3.1.1 or 903.3.1.2 and occupant notification in accordance with Sections 907.5.2.1 and 907.5.2.3 is provided in the area of the occupied roof. Emergency voice/alarm communication system notification per Section 907.5.2.2 shall also be provided in the area of the occupied roof where such system is required elsewhere in the building.” The 6th level occupied roof deck meets all these requirements.
See sheet A3.1 for podium revision and locations of occupied roof decks. See sheet A5.2 ‘Proposed Occupancy’ for uses by level.
(b.) We revised the notes and callout to clarify that stairway and elevator shafts are included in the CBC floor area. Vent shafts that were excluded from CBC floor area are labeled. We revised the building area calculations to include the area of all enclosed shafts.
See sheet A5.2 Allowable Area & Code Analysis.
(c.) The Type III-A building above the podium has been revived to a single occupancy building with no more than 10% accessory occupancies per floor. Per sec. 508.2.3 “The allowable area of the building shall be based on the applicable provisions of Section 506 for the main occupancy of the building. Aggregate accessory occupancies shall not occupy more than 10 percent of the floor area of the story in which they are located and shall not exceed the tabular values for non sprinklered buildings in Table 506.2 for each such accessory occupancy.” The allowable area of the building is calculated using the building’s main occupancy of R-2, which yields a tabular value of SM=24,000 with height increase.
We determined that Equation 5-2 was the correct formula for our single occupancy building (10% max aggregate accessory occupancies per floor), with sprinklers per 903.3.1.1, and being more than 3 stories above grade plane. The Sa value for equation 5-2 is 2 due to the building containing A and R occupancies. Additionally, we determined that Equation 5-1 shall be used for the maximum allowable area for any single story. The calculations have been revised and the equation types clearly indicated, see ‘Allowable Building Area Per Floor (Type III-A)’ and ‘Total Allowable Building Area (Type III-A)’ on sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Areas.
(d) R2.1 occupancy has been eliminated from the building entirely, see sheet CO Cover Sheet and sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans. R-2 has been shown as the most restrictive occupancy group, see ‘Code Analysis’ sections ‘Proposed Occupancy’ and ‘Allowable Building Area per Floor (Type I-A)’ on sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Areas.
A13. We added a note stating, “Note: fire-retardant-treated wood is required for wood framing and sheathing in exterior walls per sec 602.3 and in accordance with sec. 2303.2 for type III-A construction.” See details 1/ A4.1 and detail 6/A4.1 A14. We removed the firewall between buildings A & B and no longer have separate buildings above the podium, see sheets A3.1 Sections and A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
6 A15. Balconies and eaves are labeled and dimensioned on sheet C1 Site Plan. The “Identifiers” boxed #2 calls-out typical roof overhangs and eaves and the boxed #4 calls-out typical deck projections. These projections are dimensioned at 1’-8” while the building is dimensioned at 5’-0” from the property line. This leaves 3’-4” (40”) from the property line to the deck/eave projections. Table 705.2 Minimum Distance of Projection with a Fire Separation Distance of ‘5 or greater’ allows for 40” minimum distance from line used to determine FSD, which allows these projections.
Table 705.8, with a Fire Separation Distance of ‘5 to less than 10’, and a degree of opening protection of ‘Unprotected, Sprinklered (UP,S), yields a maximum allowable area of exterior openings of 25%. Our openings cover 23% of a typical story, with 2,390 sf of entire surface area and a combined opening area of 550 sf. Our calculation yields: 550 sf / 2,390 sf = 23%
We added a 3’-4” dimension from the deck projection to the property line on the middle North and South side of the building to better illustrate the 40” distance from the deck / projection to the line used to determine the Fire Separation Distance (Property Line), see sheet C1 Site Plan.
A16. (a.) We revised the occupant load factors for the rooms and spaces per Table 1004.5, see sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
(b.) We removed the corridor doors, horizontal exits, and firewall separation. The building above the building above the podium is now a single occupancy building with less than 10% aggregate accessory occupancies per floor, see sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans, sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area, and sheets A1.1 & A1.2 Floor Plans. (c.) The rooms and spaces that had 50+ occupants have been reduced in size to allow for a single exit with less than 50 occupants, see sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans. (d.) We added ‘Convergence @ Stairway #2’ calculation showing the increased stair and other component widths required based on convergence, see ‘Convergence @ Stairway #2’ calculation on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
(e.) We provided a generator for the elevator, see Upper Roof Plan on sheet A1.2 Building Floor Plans & Roof Plans.
(f.) Horizontal exits have been removed and the building has been classified as a single occupancy building above the podium (with 10% max aggregate accessory occupancies per floor). See sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans, sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area, and sheets A1.1 & A1.2 Floor Plans.
(g.) An Exterior Area of Assisted Rescue has been added at the exit discharge just North of the rear interior exit stairway #2, see ‘Basement Building Plan’ on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans and sheet A1.1 Floor Plans.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
7 (h.) The ramp was removed from the hallway leading to the laundry room and utility room, see Mezzanine level on sheet A3.1 Sections and ‘Mezzanine Building Plan’ on sheet A1.1 Floor Plans.
(i.) The central exit access aisles per sec 1018 are not fire rated corridors, and have been relabeled to reflect that fact. There are no open intermediate rooms, although some spaces are open at the end of the exit access aisles, which are allowable. The Lobby meets the requirements of sec. 1020.7, exception 1, see sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans. (j.) Window openings less than 10’ above the walking surface along the North side along the egress court have been eliminated. A note has been added to the trash room double doors indicating doors are to have a minimum ¾ hour fire protection rating, see North Elevation on sheet A2.2 Elevations.
The remaining exterior walkways from the North side rear exit stairway around the East and South side of the building are not part of the exit discharge or egress court, they are provided for fire department access and building maintenance. (k.) All R2.1 occupancies have been removed from the building. see sheet CO Cover Sheet, sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans, and sheet A5.2 Code Analysis & Allowable Area.
A17. We have verified the elevator can accommodate a stretcher 84” long x 24” wide with a maximum of 5” radiused corners, see dashed outline of stretcher on sheets A1.1 & A1.2 Floor Plans.
Disabled Access Plan Review Comments
DA1. We added a note stating, “No public funding is granted for the construction of the residential units”, see ‘Disabled access notes #1 on sheet CO Cover Sheet. We removed all of the R2.1 occupancy assisted living from the project. All of our residential units and associated common areas will comply with chp. 11A.
DA2. We added an Exterior Area of Assisted Rescue at the exit discharge just North of the rear interior exit stairway #2, see ‘Basement Building Plan’ on sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans and sheet A1.1 Floor Plans. We did revise the location of the ADA parking spaces and our site slopes per the ‘note’ at the end of sec 1110A.1., so we are meeting the requirements of the ‘vehicular route’, see sheet C3 Grading, Drainage & Utility Plan.
There are no common areas, amenities, or exterior facilities accessed by the exterior walkways / stairways around the East and South side of the building. The North side stairways / walkways are for egress only, and have been provided with an Exterior Area of Assisted Rescue discussed above. The West side of the building has an exterior accessible route to the building’s entrance.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
8 DA3. A note has been added stating, “The building is an elevator building, thus all units are covered multifamily dwellings. All units shall be adaptable”, see ‘Disabled access notes #2 on sheet CO Cover Sheet. We have designed all of the dwelling units to be adaptable, see sheets A1.3 & A1.4 Unit Plans.
DA4. The location and configuration of the ADA parking spaces have been revised to comply with the requirements of sec 1109A.7, see sheet C3 Grading, Drainage, & Utility Plan and/or sheet A1.1 Building Floor Plans (level Garage/Podium).
DA5. A note was added stating, “Parking accessibility for EV spaces shall be in accordance with the Green Building Code. See exception of sec 4.106.4.2.2 for parking lifts.”, see ‘Disabled access notes #3 on sheet CO Cover Sheet.
DA6. All common use amenities from all levels without elevator access have been eliminated..
The sub basement level is now part of a multi-story dwelling unit with an interior stairway contained inside the unit, see sheets A1.2 Floor Plans and sheet A5.1 Occupancy & Egress Plans.
DA7. We added a note stating, “All common use facilities shall be accessible. (CBC 1127A)”, see ‘Disabled access notes #4 on sheet CO Cover Sheet. All common use facilities will be accessible, see revised sheets A1.1 & A1.2 Floor Plans. Please note the laundry room on the Mezzanine level is for staff use only, laundry facilities are provided inside the units.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
Revisions to Plans
Not Noted in Comment Responses
1. The Podium has been raised at the rear of the structure to be continuous on one level. See Section AA on sheet A3.1.
2. On the upper two levels the floor heights have been slightly raised to accommodate roof drains. See section AA on sheet A3.1.
3. The density has been reduced, and the units and accessory spaces have been adjusted in size and relocated within the building, primarily due to building code comments. See sheets A1.1 & A1.2. Data has been updated throughout to reflect alterations. Note: The footprint of the structure and its position on the lot have not been changed.
4. Window sizes and locations, deck sizes and locations, colors and other minor changes on the elevations A2.1 & A2.2 have been adjusted to match the floor plan changes discussed in item #3 above.
5. The roof features on sheet C1 have been removed so as not to be duplicative or inconsistent with those features as shown on roof plans shown on sheet A1.2. A occupied roof has been added to the upper roof due to reduction in size of the roof terrace on the level below.
6. The location of the electrical and MPOE lateral utilities and mains have been adjusted on INT-1
7. A storage room has been added at the Basement level under the Garage. See sheets A1.1 and C1
8. Note 14 on sheet C3 has been adjusted to 44” to match other dimensions on the plans.
9. The roof over the typical 6-foot-deep decks has been removed and replaced by an open trellis. See Sheet A1.2 roof plans.
10. The rendering on the Cover Sheet CO have been updated. Note: The renderings are for artistic purposes only and not intended to be architecturally accurate. Utilize the elevations on sheet A2.1 and A2.2 for the most technically accurate representation of the exterior of the building.
Attachment # 4
to the May 29, 2025
Plan Submittal
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8
PATTERSON & O’NEILL, PC
235 Montgomery Street, Suite 950
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 907-9110
Facsimile: (415) 907-7704
www.pattersononeill.com
February 24, 2025
VIA E-MAIL AND U.S. MAIL
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
26379 Fremont Road
Los Altos Hills, CA 94022
Re: 10728 Mora Drive (File No. CDP23-0001) Housing Development Application 90-Day Notice Pursuant to AB 1633 (Gov. Code § 65589.5(h)(6)(E)(vi)(I)) Dear Ms. Avila:
Our office represents Forrest Linebarger, owner of 10728 Mora Drive in Los Altos Hills. Our client submitted a housing development project application for the construction of a multi-unit housing development project on 10728 Mora Drive. The proposed project is a 43-unit, 69,369 square-foot multifamily residential development with a parking garage. The proposed building height to finish grade would be 62 feet 4 inches on the west elevation facing Mora Drive, and 73 feet 2 inches on the east elevation. The garage would provide 27 total spaces and 7 long-term bicycle spaces. The proposed building would include a variety of accessory uses including roof decks, a covered terrace, activity rooms, gift shop, and nursing station. The site is currently vacant.1
Pursuant to AB 1633, PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that the Town has committed an abuse of discretion because there is substantial evidence in the record to demonstrate that the project qualifies for a Class 32 in-fill development exemption, but the City has failed to determine that the project is exempt from CEQA. The City has 90 days of this written notice to correct this abuse of discretion and if the City fails to do so, this action will constitute an unlawful disapproval of the project pursuant to the Housing Accountability Act (“HAA”). (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a).)2
1 This paragraph provides the information specified in paragraphs (1), (2), (5), and (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 15062 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 2 Please be advised that the Town must post this notice on the Town’s website, provide a copy of the notice to any person who has made a written request for notices pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 21167 of the Public Resources Code, and file the notice with the county clerk within five working days of receiving this notice.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
The Project Site is Located in an Area that is Subject to AB 1633 As demonstrated by the attached memorandum by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting, there is substantial evidence that the housing development project is not located on a site specified in subparagraphs (A) to (C) or subparagraphs (E) to (K) of paragraph (6) of subdivision (a) of Section 65913.4. Specifically, the property is not located within the coastal zone; is not prime farmland or farmland of statewide significance; is not wetlands; is not a hazardous waste site; is not within a delineated earthquake fault zone; is not within a special flood hazard area or regulatory floodway; is not within a land identified for conservation in an adopted natural community conservation plan; is not habitat for protected species, and is not under a conservation easement. In addition, the project site is not within a very high fire severity zone.
As such, there is substantial evidence that the housing development project is located on a site that is subject to AB 1633. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(1).) The Project Site is Located in an Urbanized Area that is Subject to AB 1633 The housing development project is located on a legal parcel within an urbanized area as defined by Public Resources Code § 21071. Specifically, Los Altos Hills is an incorporated city that is contiguous with not more than two incorporated cities (Palo Alto and Los Altos), that have a combined population that exceeds at least 100,000 persons. (See PRC § 21071(a)(2).3 3 According to most recent data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the population of Palo Alto is 68,572
(https://data.census.gov/profile?q=population%20palo%20alto&g=160XX00US0640998), the population of Los Altos is 31,625 (https://data.census.gov/all?q=los%20altos%20population), and the population of Los Altos Hills is 8,489
(https://data.census.gov/all?q=los%20altos%20hills%20population) for a total population of 108,686 persons.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
In addition, parcels that are developed with urban uses adjoin three sides of the four-sided parcel.
Specifically, the parcels to the north, east, and west sides of the four-sided project site are developed with residential uses, which meet the definition of a qualified urban use pursuant to Pub. Resources Code § 21072.
As such, the project site is located within an urbanized area that is subject to AB 1633. (See Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1(a)(2).)
The Project Meets the Minimum Density to Qualify for AB 1633 The density of the housing development project exceeds 15 dwelling units per acre. Specifically, the project site is approximately .77 acres in size and proposes 88 units, a density of approximately 114 units per acre. As such, the Project meets the minimum density to qualify for AB 1633. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a)(3).)
The Project Meets the Criteria for a CEQA Class 32 Exemption Where a project is categorically exempt, the project is not subject to CEQA requirements and “may be implemented without any CEQA compliance whatsoever.” (Working Fams. of Monterey Cnty. v. King City Plan. Comm’n (2024) 106 Cal. App. 5th 833.) Thus, if a project fits within an exemption, a local agency is required to find that the project is exempt from CEQA regardless of any purported environmental impact because such projects are those that the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research and the Secretary of the Natural Resources Agency “have already determined do not, in fact, ‘have a significant effect on the environment.’” (Berkeley Hillside Pres. v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal. 4th 1086, 1108.) This exemption ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
process carries out the Legislature’s intent that CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines shall not be interpreted “in a manner which imposes procedural or substantive requirements beyond those explicitly stated.” (Pub. Res. Code § 21083.1.)
AB 1633 was enacted to address the fact that “[s]ome local agencies conduct redundant environmental review to avoid CEQA lawsuits from neighbors or interest groups at best, or to delay a project indefinitely in the hopes of shrinking or killing it at worst.” To that end, AB 1633 added provisions to the HAA that broaden the scope of a housing project “disapproval” to include instances where a local government requires more environmental review than legally necessary and provides applicants with a legal process to challenge such actions in court. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1.)
In enacting AB 1633, the Legislature recognized that the “HAA and CEQA take different approaches to housing development. The intersection of these two Acts therefore can result in gray areas or conflict.” The purpose of AB 1633 was to clarify this gray area and put a thumb on the scale in favor of housing by requiring a local government to end environmental review and adopt certain CEQA documents when housing projects are involved.
AB 1633 does more than simply reiterate how CEQA applies to housing projects; it adds an entirely new framework for judicial review of a local government’s CEQA decisions in the specific context of housing. Courts have recognized that when the Legislature enacts an amendment to clarify how two parts of state law interact, such as the interplay between the HAA and CEQA, “it is logical to regard the amendment as a legislative interpretation of the original act — a formal change.” (Carter v. Department of Veterans Affairs (2006) 38 Cal.4th 914, 923.) The Legislature recognized that the HAA “generally puts the burden of proof on the local agency to demonstrate that its decisions meet the HAA’s requirements.” The Legislature has also made clear that if there is any ambiguity in the law, the HAA must “be interpreted and implemented in a manner to afford the fullest possible weight to the interest of, and the approval and provision of, housing.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(L).) Thus, in any decision a local government makes involving housing — now including CEQA decisions — the Legislature has directed local governments to err on the side of approving housing or run the risk of severe penalties. (See Gov. Code § 65589.5(k)(1)(A)-(B).) And importantly, courts have confirmed that decisions under the HAA are different, and therefore “it is inappropriate” for courts to defer to local agency decisions. (Cal. Renters Legal Advocacy & Educ. Fund v. City of San Mateo (2021) 68 Cal.App.5th 820, 844 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021)
The Legislature has made clear that any failure to find a qualifying project exempt is an abuse of discretion and constitutes a project disapproval. (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1(a).) AB 1633 states that it is an abuse of discretion if there is “substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the housing development project is eligible for an exemption sought by the applicant.” (Gov.
Code § 65589.5.1(a)(4)(A).) Substantial evidence is defined as “enough relevant information and reasonable inferences from this information that a fair argument can be made to support a ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
conclusion, even though other conclusions might also be reached.” (Cal. Code Regs. tit. 14 § 15384.)
Thus, in the context of AB 1633, the only question is whether there is enough relevant information that a fair argument can be made that this Project qualifies for a Class-32 Exemption regardless of whether there is contrary evidence that a project does not so qualify. (See Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 927.) Nor is the question whether substantial evidence supports whatever conclusion the Town decides to make. The Town has enough relevant information to make a fair argument that the Project qualifies for a Class-32 Exemption and therefore must do so.
The Legislature has limited the protections of AB 1633 to those projects that meet the site criteria of Gov Code § 65913.4 (“SB 35”) – which the Legislature has already determined should be entirely exempt from CEQA. The Legislature has therefore created a higher bar to subject qualifying housing projects to more in-depth CEQA review, including because the Legislature has also recognized the housing crisis “is a critical problem” that “threatens the economic, environmental, and social quality of life in California.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5 (a)(1)(A).) The housing crisis is “hurting millions of Californians, robbing future generations of the chance to call California home, stifling economic opportunities for workers and businesses, worsening poverty and homelessness, and undermining the state’s environmental and climate objectives.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5(a)(2)(A). The Legislature has recognized that the environmental cost of not approving housing, particularly high density housing in areas that meet SB 35’s environmental criteria, clearly outweighs any purported impact from approving housing.
There can be no question that the applicant has provided enough relevant information that a fair argument can be made that the project qualifies for a Class 32 In-fill Exemption. In the extensive memorandum prepared by RCH Group and Sicular Environmental Consulting, who together have more than 50 years of CEQA compliance experience, the evidence demonstrates that the project meets the five criteria for a Class 32 Exemption.
Moreover, this project now qualifies as a “builder’s remedy” project pursuant to the recently enacted AB 1893 that went into effect January 1, 2025. The explicit purpose of AB 1893 was to “moderniz[e] the builder’s remedy to make it clear, objective, and easily usable.” The bill analysis states that the Legislature’s “message to local jurisdictions is clear — when it comes to housing policy, the days of shirking your responsibility to your neighbors are over.” In short, AB 1893 was intended to ensure that builder’s remedy projects will be constructed. Were there any doubt that a builder’s remedy project can qualify for a Class 32 Exemption, that doubt was laid to rest when the California Department of Housing and Community Development stated emphatically that a builder’s remedy project does qualify for a Class 33 Exemption. (See Exhibit A)
The HAA now explicitly allows an applicant for a housing development project deemed complete before January 1, 2025 to revise their application so that the project meets the new ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
definition a builder’s remedy project. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(f)(7).) The applicant has chosen to utilize this provision and has submitted revisions to the existing application to qualify as a builder’s remedy project as defined in HAA subd. (h)(11).
The Town had previously indicated that the previous higher-density version of this project did not qualify for an exemption. The Town made this conclusory statement without any analysis, or any evidence, at all. Despite multiple requests by the applicant to begin CEQA review, the Town simply refused to take any steps to begin the CEQA process for over 12 months, arguing that the scope of the project could change based on erroneous interpretations by the Los Altos Hills County Fire District regarding site access. Now the scope of the project has substantially changed due to the revisions the applicant has made to qualify as a builder’s remedy project. The Town’s prior statements do not preclude a later determination that the project is eligible for an exemption following the submission of supplemental environmental information. (Hilltop Grp. v.
Cnty. of San Diego (2024) 318 Cal. Rptr. 3d 336.)
The Class 32 Exemption is Not Barred by an Exception
For projects that seek a Categorical Exemption, a project must also demonstrate that there is “substantial evidence in the record before the local agency that the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Section 15300.2 of those guidelines.” (Gov. Code § 65589.5.1.(a)(5)(B).) Again, in the context of AB 1633, the question is not whether there is contrary evidence, nor is the question whether there is substantial evidence to support whatever conclusion an agency’s conclusion. The only question is whether there is substantial evidence that the project is not barred by an exception. The answer to that question is clearly yes.
As explained in the CEQA memorandum, there are no scenic resources, hazardous waste sites, or historical resources in the vicinity of the project. The surrounding area is nearly fully developed or designated as open space, so there is no potential for cumulative impacts of successive projects of the same type in the same place. Further, there is nothing unusual about the project site that meets all of the site criteria in SB 35, nor is there anything unusual about a project that meets the statutory definition of a builder’s remedy project. The project is similar in scope to other Class 32 exempt projects, and the Town routinely exempts residential development on sites with similar characteristics. In short, there is substantial evidence that the project is not barred by one of the exemption exceptions.
The Project Must Be Approved
As thoroughly explained in our January 30, 2025 letter to the City Council and prior correspondence, the builder’s remedy significantly limits the Town’s ability to disapprove this project. AB 1893 only strengthens the Legislature’s clear intent that local governments must approve builder’s remedy projects.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
Town staff previously erroneously recommended disapproval of the project based on purported public health and safety impacts due to inconsistency with Section 503 of the California Fire Code. As explained below, Section 503 is not an adopted part of the California Fire Code.
Moreover, the local fire code has not been properly adopted, is not in effect, and therefore cannot be used as a basis to disapprove the project.
Section 503 Was Not Adopted as Part of the California Fire Code The State Fire Marshal establishes fire safety rules and regulations for buildings, also known as the California Fire Code, which are published in Part 9 of the California Building Standards Code (Cal. Code Regs., Title 24). The California Fire Code is based off the International Fire Code, a model code that is published triennially by the International Code Council (“ICC”).
Every three years, the State Fire Marshal reviews the International Fire Code and adopts amendments to the ICC’s model code, which then becomes that California Fire Code. In addition, the State Fire Marshal also adopts minimum standards for the general prevention of fire and the protection of life and property against fire, explosion, and panic that is published in Title 19 of the California Code of Regulations.
The California Fire Code is only published by the ICC. The ICC chooses to print the California Fire Code embedded within its own “model code.” In other words, the California Fire Code is not available as a separate stand-alone document. The ICC publishes its International Fire Code with various notations to explain the amendments to model code that were adopted by the State Fire Marshal. Each chapter begins with a “matrix adoption table” that shows users which sections of the model code have been adopted, repealed, amended or added. California amendments to the model code are shown in italics throughout the published document.
Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code provides requirements for buildings and occupancies regarding access roads, building openings, roof, water supply, equipment, and other fire service features. The State Fire Marshal has adopted all sections of Chapter 5, with the exception of Sections 503 and 510.3, as shown is the Chapter 5 matrix adoption attached as Exhibit B.
Section 503 addresses Fire Apparatus Access Roads.
The State Fire Marshal has not adopted this section and instead relies on the requirements for fire department access and egress in Section 3.05(a) of Title 19. This section states:
Roads. Required access roads from every building to a public street shall be all-weather hard-surfaced (suitable for use by fire apparatus) right-of-way not less than 20 feet in width. Such right-of-way shall be unobstructed and maintained only as access to the public street.
EXCEPTION: The enforcing agency may waive or modify this requirement if in his opinion such all-weather hard-surfaced condition is not necessary in the interest of public safety and welfare.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Suzanne Avila
Town of Los Altos Hills
February 24, 2025
In short, Section 503 of the ICC model code is not a part of the California Fire Code and the Town’s attempt to disapprove the project on this basis was erroneous The Local Fire Code is Not in Effect
Each fire protection district is provided with the authority to adopt building standards relating to fire and panic safety, so long as the standards are more stringent than those building standards adopted by the State Fire Marshal and contained in the California Building Standards Code.
Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7 provides a process wherein a fire protection district may recommend amendments to the California Fire Code to a city or county, and the city or county may ratify, modify, or deny the amendments proposed by a fire district. Any amendments proposed by a fire district are not effective within a particular jurisdiction unless ratified by the city or county.
In addition, Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7 states that when local amendments to the California Fire Code are adopted, a city or county “shall file a copy of the findings of the district, and any findings of the city, county, or city and county, together with the adopted ordinance expressly marked and identified to which each finding refers, with the Department of Housing and Community Development.” The Department of Housing and Community Development has made clear through administrative guidance, attached as Exhibit C, that local amendments to the California Fire Code are not effective until the amendments are filed with the Department as required by state law.
During the last California Fire Code update in 2022, the Santa Clara County Fire Department (“SCCFD”) recommended local amendments to the Town of Los Altos Hills pursuant to its authority under Health and Safety Code Section 13869.7, ss explained in the Town’s staff report attached as Exhibit D. After SCCFD and the Town agreed on modifications to the local amendments, the Town took an action to adopt local amendments to the California Fire Code.
The local amendments included adoption of Section 503 of the International Fire Code, with further amendments.
However, after further research, the Town has not taken the steps necessary to make the local amendments to the California Fire Code effective. Specifically, the Town has not filed the amendments with the Department of Housing and Community Development. It appears that the Town attempted to file the amendments with the Building Standards Commission in December 2022. In a letter dated April 5, 2023, attached as Exhibit E, the Building Standards Commission specifically informed the Town that fire protection district ordinances must be filed with the Department of Housing and Community Development rather than the Commission.
In response to a Public Records Act request, attached as Exhibit F, the Department of Housing and Community Development states that it has no records showing that the Town has filed its local amendments to the California Fire Code with the Department. As a result, the Town’s Local Fire Code is still not in effective within the jurisdiction. The only fire safety standards that ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CALIFORNIA
SILVER OAKS
PROJECT TEAM SITE MAP
CIVIL ENGINEER & DESIGNER
BERRY & ASSOCIATES
2149 AVY AVE.
MENLO PARK, CA 94025
1 (650) 400-9003
ARBORIST
KIELTY ARBORIST SERVICES, LLC
P.O. BOX 6187.
SAN MATEO, CA 94403
1 (650) 532-4418
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER
STEVENS, FERRONE & BAILEY ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC.
P.O. BOX 815
CONCORD, CA 94522-0815
PROJECT INFORMATION
ADDRESS: 10728 MORA DRIVE
ZONING: R-A
APN: 331-15-061
LOT AREA: 16,308 SF .374 ACRE
FLOOR AREA RATIO: 4.25 69,369 SF*(TOTAL BUILDING SQ. F.T) 280
EASTBROOK
MORA DR. SUNHILLS
DR.
THIS IS A "BUILDER'S REMEDY " PROJECT PER GOV. CODE
65589.5(h)(11)(C). THE LOCAL AGENCY'S DEVELOPMENT
STANDARDS CANNOT BE USED TO DISAPPROVE OR RENDER
INFEASIBLE THIS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH 10%
OF UNITS ARE RESERVED FOR EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME
HOUSEHOLDS BEFORE THE ADDITION OF DENSITY BONUS LAW
GOV.CODE §65915.
BUILDER'S REMEDY NOTE:
A2.2 ELEVATIONS
C0 COVER SHEET
C1 SITE PLAN
DRAWING INDEX
R-2
PRIMARY OCCUPANCY CLASSIFICATION:
RESIDENTIAL
A-3
S-2 PARKING GARAGE
GARAGE
TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION:
I-A
RESIDENTIAL TYPE III-A
NFPA 13 SPRINKERS
LEVEL
SUB BASEMENT
R-2.1 A-3 S-2
MEZZANINE
LEVEL 1
LEVEL 2
LEVEL 5/ROOF
ACCESSORY TOTALS PER FLOOR
TOTALS
5,215
2,569 11,060
879 5,227
2,569 2001 7,590 1,005 69,369
SUB BASEMENT, BASEMENT, PODIUM / GARAGE, MEZZANINE
LEVEL 1-5
(5 STORIES)
CBC 510.2 PODIUM LEVEL TERMINATES AT TOP OF
PODIUM/GARAGE AND MEZZANINE
C2 EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
C3 GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN
C4 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS
A1.1 BUILDING FLOOR PLANS
UNIT FLOOR PLANS
A3.1 SECTIONS
A4.1 DETAILS
B
8,857
B EXERCISE, MEDIA, LAUNDRY, MAIL, DINING, LOBBY, TRASH, SUPPLY ROOM, MUSIC ROOM,
UTILITY ROOM, GIFT SHOP, YOGA ROOM
PROPOSED
PARKING:
VEHICLES:
BIKES:
LONG TERM 7
SHORT TERM 0
REGULAR SPACES 24 (.55/UNIT)
ACCESSIBLE SPACES 2
BASEMENT 2,438
LEVEL 3
LEVEL 4 10,718
11,060
11,060
1,547
ROOF DECKS, COVERED TERRACE, MULTI PURPOSE ROOM, CRAFT ROOM, ART ROOM 551
2,177
636
A2.1 ELEVATIONS
ACCESSORY OCCUPANCY USES:
PM-1 PARCEL MAP PAGE 1
PM-2 PARCEL MAP PAGE 2
SCOPE OF WORK
(N) 43 UNIT MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH PARKING GARAGE. THIS DRAWING SET TO INCLUDE
APPLICATION FOR AND APPROVAL OF THE FOLLOWING PERMITS
FOR THE WORK OUTLINED BELOW. SEE NOTES ON SHEETS C1 SITE PLAN & C3 GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN.
1. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WORK IN THE RIGHT OF
WAY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO:
A. (N)DRIVEWAY & (N) APRON
UTILITY CONNECTIONS, EXCAVATION, &
BACKFILL.
FIRE ENGINE TURNAROUND ON MORA
DRIVE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION PARKING
B.
C.
D.
E.
2. ALL REQUIRED LANDSCAPING PERMITS INCLUDING BUT
NOT LIMITED TO:
TREE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT, INCLUDING
HERITAGE TREES
A.
B. (N) LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION
(N) LANDSCAPE IRRIGATION SYSTEM
AND CONNECTION TO WATER MAIN
C.
3. INSTALLATION OF (N) 6' TALL SOLID REDWOOD
FENCE ALONG SITE PERIMETER AS SHOWN ON
SITE PLAN SHEET C1
4. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PERMITS
VISITOR SPACES 1
TOTAL SPACES 27 (.62/UNIT)
A5.1 OCCUPANCY & EGRESS PLANS
A5.2 CODE ANALYSIS & ALLOWABLE AREA
A1.2 BUILDING FLOOR PLANS & ROOF PLAN
UNIT FLOOR PLANS
126
598
R-2.1 RESIDENTIAL ASSISTED LIVING, NURSING STATION
NO. OF UNITS
RESIDENTIAL
PROPOSED LAND USES:
SQUARE FOOTAGE 69,369
43 NON RESIDENTIAL
0 0
ALL DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY
1,821
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
DEVELOPMENT AREA: 14,379 SF* 88.2 % OF LOT AREA
PODIUM / GAR. 11,044
180
817
ALL PARKING TO BE "UNBUNDLED" FROM UNITS & PROVIDED
INDEPENDENTLY EXCEPT ACCESSIBLE SPACES WHICH WILL MEET ALL STATE & FEDERAL LAWS.
FEMA FLOOD ZONE: D
FLOOR AREA SQUARE FOOTAGE TABULATION:
NOTE: ALL USES ARE RESIDENTIAL OR ACCESSORY TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USE R-2
4,617
6,314
47,347
9,902
10,243
2,312
2,720
C5 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
A5.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN
CO
COVER SHEET
7,590
2,527
C6 SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN &
CONSTRUCTION OPERATION PLAN
ARTISTIC RENDERING. SEE SHEETS A2.1 & A2.2 FOR PROPOSED ELEVATIONS 996
OWNER
FORREST LINEBARGER
151 CERVANTES ROAD
PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94041
1 (650) 324-0688
DENSITY CALCULATIONS :
DENSITY CALCULATION PER GOV. CODE 6589.5 (h)(11)(C)
(h)(11)(C)(i)(I) 65583.2(c)(3)(B)(iv) 30 Units/Acre +50% = 45 Units/ Acre (h)(11)(C)(ii) 45 Units/Acre + 35 Units/Acre 80 Units/ Acre 10728 MORA x 80 Units/ Acre = 30 Base Units
Bonus Density Law Gov. Code 65915(f)(2)
10% Ext.-Low Inc. Units (42.50% Bonus) 30 Base Units x 10% = 3 Bonus Units 30 x 42.50% =
Total Units 30 + 13 =
Total Market Rate Units
43 43
0.374 Acre
13 Total Extremely-Low Income Units 3
THE EXISTING PARCEL IS BARE LAND WITH NO CURRENT USAGE. THE
PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SENIOR LIVING COMMUNITY PROVIDING HOUSING
FOR PEOPLE OF RETIREMENT AGE WHO WANT TO ENJOY THE REDUCED
MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP AVAILABLE, AND ENJOY A COMMUNITY OF PEOPLE OF SIMILAR AGE. d,/^WZK:
dD
d^d,
&/E/d/KEK&͞h/>
ZΖ^
Z
D
z͟WZK:
dhE
Zd,
,Kh^/E'KhEd/>/dzd(GOV. CODE
§65589.5(h)(11)(C). RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT THAT HAS AT LEAST 10% OF ITS UNITS RESERVED FOR EXT-LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF 43 UNITS OF HOUSING WITH 3 UNITS (10%) RESERVED FOR EXTREMELY-LOW INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. THE PROJECT PROPOSES 27 PARKING SPACES. THIS PROJECT UTILIZES BONUS DENSITY LAW §65915.
FIRE PROTECTION CONSULTANT
WILDLAND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
316 CALIFORNIA AVE #68
RENO, NV 89509
1 (510) 502-4737
INT-1 JOINT TRENCH
10,243 817
734
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
564 572 566 568 566 564 570 562 560 558 556 576 574 576 578 580 ℄ ℄ 562 560 558 556 568 570 574 572 554 554 552 550 552 550 544 548 548 546 546 544 542 540 542 540 538 536 534 536 538 538 536 534 532 532 576 578 574
572
566
564
562
560
576
558
556
554
552
550
548
546
542
572
570
568
566
564
560
554 542 544
548
556
574
558 546
550
552 544
568
570
562
Property Line
Concrete Pavers
Footprint of Structure
Not In Use
Setback Line
Geological Zone
Footprint of
Structure
TREE TO BE REMOVED, SEE 'TREE INVENTORY'
ON THIS SHEET. NO TREE REPLACEMENT ARE
PROVIDED. HOWEVER, SCREEN TREES ARE BE
PROVIDED AS ALLOWABLE. SEE NOTE 4
DRIVEWAY APPROACH TO BE A MAXIMUM OF
20' WIDE . THE SURFACE SHALL BE ASPHALT
FROM EDGE OF MORA DRIVE FOR A MINIMUM
OF 5' DEEP.
48" H BOLLARD LIGHTS
AC UNITS ON ROOF, TYP.
3'-11" WIDE STABILIZED DECOMPOSED
GRANITE PATH, TYP.
RETAINING WALL, TYP
INSTALL CONCRETE PAVERS FOR PATIOS AND
WALKWAYS PER GEO TECHNICAL
REQUIREMENTS.
13 1
2 2
CONCRETE CURB
(#1) (#2)
(#3)
Asphalt
SPECIES STATUS
TREE TO BE REMOVED
UPPER FLOOR BUILDING OUTLINE
BUILDING ENVELOPE
ROOF OVERHANG ,EAVES & TRELLIS
1 2
3 4
6 7
9 10
11 12
13 METAL SILVER OAKS SIGN 72"W x 48"H ON 2'
HIGH POSTS (72"H TOTAL). SIGN TEXT TO
INCLUDE "SILVER OAKS 10725 MORA DRIVE,
LOS ALTOS HILLS" W/ ADDRESS LETTERS AT
LEAST 4" HIGH. TO BE ILLUMINATED BY TWO
GROUND MOUNTED LIGHTS. NUMBERS SHALL
BE IN BRONZE, ALPHABETICAL OR ARABIC.
NUMBERS SHALL BE A MIN. OF 4" HIGH WITH
A MIN. STROKE WIDTH OF 0.5". CFC SEC 505.1
CONCRETE LANDING, 36" MIN. DEPTH, SLOPE
MIN. 1/4" AWAY FROM BUILDING
14 DRIVEWAY
MORA DRIVE 25' ROW TO CENTERLINE
PROPERTY LINE 59.01'
PROPERTY LINE 68.00'
1 2
3 4
5 #
(#8)
(#5)
MORA DRIVE
(E) PRIVATE RD.
15 VISITOR PARKING, 10' x 20'
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
DEVELOPMENT CALCULATIONS - LOT 1
2. MFA:
3. MDA:
PROPOSED
FLOOR AREA: 67,162 sq.ft.
67,162 sq.ft.
GROSS LOT AREA: .374 ARCES
+ 7,500 sq.ft.
TOTAL MDA: 7,500 sq.ft.
PROPOSED
SQUARE FOOTAGE:
4. SQ. FT. OF CONSTRUCTION: 69,369 sq.ft.
SUB BASEMENT: 1,547 sq.ft.
BASEMENT: 2,438 sq.ft.
(MAX FLOOR AREA)
(MAX DEVELOPMENT AREA)
5. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA (MDA):
DRIVEWAY & PARKING : 737 sq.ft.
PATIO & WALKWAYS: 2,598 sq.ft.
737 sq.ft.
2,598 sq.ft.
1. LOT SIZE:
DECK: 5,197 sq.ft.
RESIDENTIAL BUILDING & DECKS*: 11,044 sq.ft. 11,044 sq.ft. 16,308 sq.ft.
5,000 sq.ft.*
7,500 sq.ft.*
GROSS CREDIT NET
14,379 sq.ft.
ZONING CATEGORY
PRIMARY DWELLING
PRIMARY DWELLING
ACCESSORY USE
(PER SECTION 10-1.502(c))
6. NEW LANDSCAPE AREA: 1,929 sq.ft.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA: 14,379 sq.ft.
* = MEASURED ON HORIZONTAL PLANE PER SECTION 10-1.503(c) LEGEND
IDENTIFIERS
WORK NOTES
TREE INVENTORY
SEE SHEET C3 FOR SITE PLAN
FEATURES "THAT" RELATE
TO GRADING & DRAINAGE,
INCLUDING GRADING
SPECIFICATIONS &
DRAINAGE STRUCTURES.
SITE PLAN
10'0' 20' 40' SCALE:
1"=20'
NORTH
PREPARED ON: 9/10/2024
280
EASTBROOK
MORA DR. SUNHILLS
DR.
VICINITY MAP
LOCATION OF
PROPERTY
CONTOUR INTERVALS: 2'
NET LOT AREA: .374 ARCES 16,308 sq.ft.
Registered Civil Engineer
Berry & Associates
John C. Berry
151 Cervantes Road
Portola Valley, CA 94041
Phone: (650) 324-0688
(E) 8" SANITARY
SEWER MAIN
1. THERE ARE NO FEMA FLOOD PLAINS OR FLOOD HAZARD
AREAS ON THIS SITE.
SITE PLAN NOTES
(E) IRON PIN
(E) IRON PIN
(E) IRON PIN
(PER SECTION 10-1.503(c))
MORA DRIVE
PROPOSED DEVEVELOPMENT AREA LEGEND
Decomposed
Granite
EXISTING STREET
2. CURRENT USE CONTAINS NO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT
AREA.
& AIR CONDITIONING LOCATION PLAN
Eave & Roof Overhang
Sanitary Sewer
Fence
16 14
BEARING AND DISTANCES DETERMINED BY
PLAT & LEGAL DESCRIPTION DATED 8-12-06,
SEE SHEET PM-2
17 LEGEND
4A
5A
5B
5C
NEW LANDSCAPE
AREA
LEGEND
FLOOR AREA
COUNTED FOR MFA
APPROXIMATE LOCATION & DISTANCE OF
SANITARY SEWER LATERAL 18
18 E.P.
Araucaria araucana
Cedrus deodara
Pinus radiata
2 R=28'-0"
(N) APARTMENT
BUILDING
APN 331-15-061
TYP
(#14)
(#12)
(#15)
(#16)
13 14
15 TYP
RESIDENTIAL FIRE
TURNAROUND PER SANTA
CLARA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT, SEE SHEET
A5.0 FIRE ACCESS PLAN 30'-0"30'-0"21'-4"
60'-0" 6'-9"
1 A3.1
1 A3.1
ELEV
STAIRS
ELEV
STAIRS
11 25'-0"
2 2
2 10 10
10 10
15 17
PROPERTY LINE 255.12' PROPERTY LINE 260.52'
17 TYP
1 A2.1
3 A2.2
4 A2.2
2 A2.1
E.P.
5'-0"
5'-0"
12 8
X
X
X
X
X
X
TYP
PRMY.DWELLING/GARAGE PODIUM /GARAGE: 11,044 sq.ft.
PRIMARY DWELLING LEVEL 4: 10,718
PRIMARY DWELLING LEVEL 1: 11,060
PRIMARY DWELLING MEZZANINE: 5,215
PRIMARY DWELLING LEVEL 3: 11,060
PRIMARY DWELLING LEVEL 2: 11,060
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
2,291 sq.ft.
10,812 sq.ft.
10,291
10,770
5,068
10,770
10,770
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
sq.ft.
FLOOR AREA
4B
4D
4E
4F
4G
4C
4A
4B
4C4D
4E4F 4G
3 NOT IN USE
NOT IN USE
6 9 16'-8" 20'-5"
1'-8"
1'-8"
6 9
DECK PROJECTION
10 20'-0"
9'-6"
5'-0"
5'-1"
5'-0"
5'-0"
5G
5G
5G
5G
TYP.
5G TYP.
THIS IS A "BUILDER'S REMEDY" PROJECT PER GOV. CODE 65589.5(d). THE
LOCAL AGENCY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CANNOT BE USED TO
DISAPPROVE OR RENDER INFEASIBLE THIS HOUSING DEVELOPMENT PROJECT WITH 20% OF UNITS ARE RESERVED FOR LOW-INCOME HOUSEHOLDS. *BUILDER'S REMEDY NOTE:
ROOF 5,227 sq.ft.
PUMP
SERVICE
AREA
Concrete
FLOW THROUGH
PLANTER
1. SCOPE OF WORK TO INCLUDE TREE REMOVAL, TREE
REPLACEMENT, LANDSCAPE INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEM
INSTALLATION, IRRIGATION SYSTEM CONNECTION TO WATER
MAIN.
LANDSCAPE NOTES
2. LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS LANDSCAPE DESIGN GUIDELINES PER ARTICLE 8 OF THE SITE DEVELOPMENT ORDINANCE WHERE APPLICABLE.
3. LANDSCAPING TO BE INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE TO TOWN OF
LOS ALTOS HILLS EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE (WELO)
WHERE APPLICABLE.
4. ALL TREES TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACEMENT TREES ARE
SHOWN ON THIS PLAN.
1. TRAFIC CONTROL SHALL CONFORM TO CALTRANS AND TOWN
STANDARDS WHERE APPLICABLE.
TRAFIC CONTROL NOTES
2. THE PLANS SHALL BE GENERALLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
ILLUSTRATION INCLUDED IN THE MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROL.
1. ALL WORK AND MATERIAL SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING:
a) APPLICABLE SECTIONS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS, LATEST EDITION, HEREIN REFERRED TO AS ‘CALTRANS’.
b) TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS AND COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA STANDARD
SPECIFICATIONS AND DETAILS FOR PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION WHERE APPLICABLE.
c) STANDARDS OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ADMINISTRATION, OFFICE OF
STANDARDS AND RULES OF THE STATE OF THE STATE DIVISION OF INDUSTRIAL SAFETY.
3. A DETAILED TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN SHALL BE PREPARED BY A
CALIFORNIA LICENSED TRAFFIC ENGINEER OR CIVIL ENGINEER WITH
ADEQUATE EXPERIENCES AND SUBMITTED TO THE ENGINEER FOR
REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION.
SEE SHEET C3 FOR
INFORMATION ON
ENCROACHMENT PERMITS
AND WORK BEING DONE IN
THE RIGHT-OF-WAY
SEE SHEET C3 FOR
INFORMATION ON TRAFFIC
CONTROL, TEMPORARY
CONSTRUCTION FENCING,
STAGING, & PARKING
2. SEE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES WHERE APPLICABLE FOR GENERAL NOTES NOT SHOWN.
4. SEE TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS AND NOTES FOR TRAFFIC CONTROL NOTES WHERE APPLICABLE.
AIR CONDITIONING UNIT
LOCATION, TYP.
DECK PROJECTION, TYP.
DECK PROJECTION, TYP.
1. INSTALL (N) 6' TALL SOLID REDWOOD FENCING AS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, SEE DETAIL 2/A4.1
FENCING NOTES
2. SEE SHEET C3 FOR INFORMATION ON TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING.
6' TALL SOLID
REDWOOD FENCING,
SEE DETAIL 2/A4.1
9 9
9 9
9 9
9 9
4,947 sq.ft. 4H
4H
1,443
5C
5A
5B
5C 5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
5C
X 30'-0"
C1
SITE PLAN
LEVEL 5 / ROOF TERRACE:
Owner
Forrest Linebarger
151 Cervantes Road
Portola Valley, CA 94041
Phone: (650) 324-0688
Developer same as Owner
VENT
10 NOISE
CONSTRUCTION NOISE: 1. DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, THE PROJECT APPLICANT OR CONTRACTOR SHALL DESIGNATE A “DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR” WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR
RESPONDING TO ANY LOCAL COMPLAINTS ABOUT CONSTRUCTION
NOISE. THE CONSTRUCTION NOISE COORDINATOR SHALL DETERMINE
THE CAUSE OF THE COMPLAINT AND SHALL REQUIRE THAT
REASONABLE MEASURES WARRANTED TO CORRECT THE PROBLEM BE IMPLEMENTED. THE TELEPHONE NUMBER FOR THE CONSTRUCTION
NOISE COORDINATOR SHALL BE CONSPICUOUSLY POSTED AT THE
CONSTRUCTION SITE.
2. LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY TO THE HOURS LISTED IN THE CITY NOISE ORDINANCE. (8:00 AM TO 5:30 PM MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, WITH NO CONSTRUCTION ALLOWED ON SUNDAYS AND PUBLIC HOLIDAYS). EXCEPTIONS TO THESE HOURS MAY BE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL THOUGH THE STANDARD CITY PROCESS.
a) EQUIP INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINE-DRIVEN EQUIPMENT WITH
ORIGINAL FACTORY (OR EQUIVALENT) INTAKE AND EXHAUST
MUFFLERS WHICH ARE MAINTAINED IN GOOD CONDITION. b) PROHIBIT AND POST SIGNS PROHIBITING UNNECESSARY IDLING OF INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES. c) LOCATE ALL STATIONARY NOISE-GENERATING EQUIPMENT SUCH AS
AIR COMPRESSORS AND PORTABLE GENERATORS AS FAR AS
PRACTICABLE FROM NOISE-SENSITIVE LAND USES. d) UTILIZE “QUIET” AIR COMPRESSORS AND OTHER STATIONARY EQUIPMENT WHERE FEASIBLE AND AVAILABLE.
CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION:
1. THE DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR SHALL REGISTER AND
INVESTIGATE CLAIMS OF EXCESSIVE VIBRATION. THE CONTACT
INFORMATION OF SUCH PERSON SHALL BE CLEARLY POSTED ON THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
2. WHENEVER POSSIBLE, CONSTRUCTION OR EQUIPMENT ACTIVITY
GENERATING RELATIVELY HIGH LEVELS OF VIBRATION MUST NOT
OCCUR AT THE SAME TIME AND SHALL BE SPACED AS FAR APART IN TIME AS POSSIBLE FROM ONE ANOTHER. IN GENERAL, THE MOST
SEVERE ACTIVITIES MUST BE RESERVED FOR THE MIDDLE OF THE DAY (NOON). IF ACTIVITIES MUST OCCUR SIMULTANEOUSLY, THEY
SHALL BE PERFORMED AS FAR AWAY FROM ONE-ANOTHER AS
POSSIBLE WITHIN THE CONSTRUCTION ZONE.
3. ALL DELIVERIES OF MATERIAL AND EQUIPMENT MUST OCCUR
DURING DAYTIME HOURS, INCLUDING QUEUEING OF CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES OUTSIDE THE SITE. VEHICLES DELIVERING MATERIALS AND
EQUIPMENT MUST BE OPERATED IN STRICT CONFORMANCE WITH
REGULATIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND ALL STATE AND LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
ALL MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT MUST BE STORED ON-SITE AND
WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE CONSTRUCTION BARRICADES.
2022 CALGREEN DEFINITIONS
EV CAPABLE SPACE: A VEHICLE SPACE WITH ELECTRICAL PANEL
SPACE AND LOAD CAPACITY TO SUPPORT A BRANCH CIRCUIT AND
NECESSARY RECEWAYS, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND/OR SURFACE
MOUNTED, TO SUPPORT EV CHARGING.
EV READY SPACE: A VEHICLE SPACE WHICH IS PROVIDED WITH A BRANCH CIRCUIT; ANY NECESSARY RACEWAYS, BOTH UNDERGROUND AND/OR SURFACE MOUNTED; TO ACCOMMODATE EV CHARGING,
TERMINATING IN A RECEPTACLE OR A CHARGER. AN EV READY CIRCUIT CAN BE A STANDARD 120 VOLT RECEPTACLE FOR PLUG-IN BY A
CHARGER TYPICALLY PROVIDED BY THE VEHICLE MANUFACTURER.
THIS CHARGERS MUCH SLOWER THAN A LEVEL 2 EVSE CHARGING
CIRCUIT WHICH RUNS AT 208/240 VOLT.
LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING RECEPTACLE: A 208/240 VOLT 20-AMPERE MINIMUM BRANCH CIRCUIT AND A RECEPTACLE FOR USE
BY AN EV DRIVER TO CHARGE THEIR ELECTRIC VEHICLE OR HYBRID ELECTRIC VEHICLE.
LEVEL 2 EV SUPPLY EQUIPMENT (EVSE): HE 208/240 VOLT 40-AMPERE
BRANCH CIRCUIT, AND THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING
CONNECTORS, ATTACHMENT PLUGS, AND ALL OTHER FITTINGS,
DEVICES, POWER OUTLETS, OR APPARATUS INSTALLED SPECIFICALLY
FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFERRING ENERGY BETWEEN THE
PREMISES AND THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE. NOTE THAT THERE ARE
MULTIPLE TYPES OF 240 VOLT RECEPTACLES, DEPENDING ON THE RATED AMPERAGE. THE 40 AMP RATED RECEPTACLE REQUIRED BY THE CALGREEN CODE IS A NEMA 14-50R. THIS RECEPTACLE LOOKS LIKE THIS:
DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGERS (DCFC): DIRECT CURRENT FAST CHARGING PROVIDES DC POWER STRAIGHT TO YOUR EV'S BATTERY.
THE AC-TO-DC CONVERSION HAPPENS IN THE CHARGING STATION BEFORE THE ELECTRONS ENTER YOUR VEHICLE. THAT'S WHY DC FAST
CHARGING IS ABLE TO PROVIDE A MUCH FASTER CHARGE THAN LEVEL 1 OR LEVEL 2 CHARGING. A DCFC CHARGER PROVIDES UP TO 10 TIMES FASTER CHARGING THAN A LEVEL 2 EVSE CHARGER. A TESLA
SUPERCHARGER IS AN EXAMPLE OF A DCFC.
2022 CALGREEN CODE RESIDENTIAL TIER 1&2
EV CHARGING REQUIREMENTS
CG A4.106.8.2.2.TIER 2 EV READY
FORTY (40) PERCENT OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH LOW POWER LEVEL 2 EV CHARGING
RECEPTACLES. FOR MULTIFAMILY PARKING FACILITIES, NO MORE THAN
ONE RECEPTACLE IS REQUIRED PER DWELLING UNIT WHEN MORE
THAN ONE PARKING SPACE IS PROVIDED FOR USE BY A SINGLE
DWELLING UNIT.
EV CHARGERS FOR PROJECTS WITH 20 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS, SLEEPING UNITS OR GUEST ROOMS. FIFTEEN (15) PERCENT OF THE
TOTAL NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES SHALL BE EQUIPPED WITH LEVEL 2 EVSE. WHERE COMMON USE PARKING IS PROVIDED, AT LEAST ONE
EV CHARGER SHALL BE LOCATED IN THE COMMON USE PARKING AREA AND SHALL BE AVAILABLE FOR USE BY ALL RESIDENTS OR GUESTS.
WILDFIRE
STANDARD FIRE HAZARDS: 1. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MUNICIPAL/REGIONAL STORM WATER
PERMIT, NO FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DRAIN SHALL DISCHARGE INTO ANY STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. THE SYSTEM SHALL DISCHARGE TO
EITHER A LANDSCAPE AREA LARGE ENOUGH TO CONTAIN THE
OUTFLOW, OR TO THE SANITARY SEWER BY MEANS OF AN INDIRECT CONNECTION. INDICATE THE LOCATION OF THE FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM DRAIN ON PLANS SUBMITTED FOR A BUILDING PERMIT.
2. ADDRESS IDENTIFICATION. NEW AND EXISTING BUILDINGS SHALL
HAVE APPROVED ADDRESS NUMBERS, BUILDING NUMBERS OR
APPROVED BUILDING IDENTIFICATION PLACED IN A POSITION THAT IS
PLAINLY LEGIBLE AND VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR ROAD FRONTING THE PROPERTY. THESE NUMBERS SHALL CONTRAST WITH THEIR
BACKGROUND. ADDRESS NUMBERS SHALL BE ARABIC NUMERALS OR ALPHABET LETTERS. SAID NUMBERS SHALL BE EITHER INTERNALLY OR EXTERNALLY ILLUMINATED IN ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION.
THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE
PROJECT OR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
1. ADDRESS NUMBERS. THE APPLICANT SHALL POST TEMPORARY
ADDRESS NUMBERS ON EACH BUILDING AT THE PROJECT SITE THAT MUST BE EASILY VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR FIRE ACCESS ROAD.
2. DEMOLITION. THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH THE CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE CHAPTER 33 DURING ALL PHASES OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT.
3. FIRE FLOW. THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE FIRE FLOW
INFORMATION TO THE FIRE PLAN CHECKER, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE FIRE MARSHAL OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE.
4. CODE CONFORMANCE. THE APPLICANT SHALL INDICATE ON ALL
BUILDING PERMIT PLANS THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL MEET
APPLICABLE CODE STANDARDS.
5. FIRE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTALS. THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT ALL
PLANS INVOLVING FIRE SYSTEMS (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO
FIRE SPRINKLERS, FIRE HYDRANTS, AND FIRE ALARMS) IN
CONJUNCTION WITH THE SUPERSTRUCTURE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. THE PLANS ARE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE FIRE MARSHAL OR HIS/HER DESIGNEE. 6. FIRE HYDRANTS. THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL THE APPROVED
NUMBER OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE FIRE HYDRANT(S) AS SHOWN ON SHEET A5.0
GENERAL NOTES
Quercus agrifolia
Pinus halipersis
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus agrifolia
(#13)
2 (#4)
2 REMAIN
X
X
DBH
31.2 20.3
12.1 38.3
25.6 30.2
18.7 18.1
18.2 24.1
(#20)(N)
16 Quercus agrifolia 15.1 X
SPECIES STATUS
20 21
23 #
Quercus agrifolia New
SIZE
24 box
PROPOSED TREES
Quercus agrifolia
Quercus douglasii
24 box
New
New
2 22 Quercus agrifolia 24 box New
(#21)(N)
(#22)(N)
(#23)(N)
NOT IN USE
Pinus halipersis
Pinus halipersis
24 box
11 Quercus agrifolia 13.1 REMAIN
(#11)
5. 150' SIGHT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE: PLANTS & OBSTRUCTIONS 3'
MAX TALL, BOTTOM OF TREE CANOPIES TO BE MAINTAINED AT
14' MIN.
sq.ft. 20'-4"
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
SS SS SS SS SS SS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
(50' ROW)
℄
℄
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G 580.9 550.9 552.0 554.0 558.3 557.1560.0 567.3 563.0 567.3 571.1 573.9 576.2 574.1 579.1 577.1 571.24 w N 00° 41' 00" E 68.00'
S 06° 24' 40" W 59.00'
S 89° 19' 00" E 260.52'
S 88° 36' 00" W 255.12'
TOPOGRAPHY
MORA DRIVE, LOS ALTOS HILLS,
CA.
APN# 331-15-061
Sanitary sewer
manhole
Sewer line
(E) Overhead
electric line
utility pole
Water line
Underground
Fire hydrant electric line
Property Line
Setback Line
Easment Line
Fence Line
Footprint of Structure
Legend
(E) Contour line
GEOLOGICAL ZONE
toe of slope
Spot Elevation xxx.x
LOT 1
APN# 331-15-061
SCALE: 1"=20'
TOWN BENCHMARK USED FOR THIS MAP DATUM
8-ELEVATION 571.02 (NAVD88)
TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS BENCH MARK LOCATED AT THE NORTHWESTERLY
CORNER OF THE CONCRETE STORM DRAINAGE STRUCTURE THREE FEET FROM
THE SOUTHERLY EDGE OF PAVING OF MAGDALENA AVENUE TWENTY FEET
WESTERLY OF THE EDGE OF PAVING OF CAMINO HERMOSA
CONTOURS SHOWN ARE 2' INTERVALS
ALL TREE DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE DIAMETER INCHES,
4' ABOVE GROUND
(E)8" SS
LATERAL
RIM 579.00'±
INV 573.00'±
(E) SSMH
RIM 582.10'±
INV 522.10'±
(E) SSMH
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) UTILITY POLE
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: Feb 10, 2022
NO. DATE REVISION
11/29/2021
2/10/2022
1 2 Revision 1
C2
EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
W W
FIRE
HYD.
ASPHALT
(E) GARAGE
564
572
566
568 566
564
570
562 560 558
556
ASPHALT
(E) GARAGE
576
574 576
580 578 PINE 30" 20" MONKEY PUZZLE
P
S MORA DRIVE (50' ROW)
℄
℄
P SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
G
574 572 570 568 562 560 558 556
SS SS
SS SS
SS SS N 00° 41' 00" E
59.00' 68.00'
S 06° 24' 40" W
S 89° 19' 00" E
260.52'
S 88° 36' 00" W
255.12'
554
554 552 550
552 550
544
548
548
546
546
544 542540
542
540
538 536 534
538
536
538
536
534
532
532
5.0%
580.0'
576
579.0'
571.85' 571.0' 564.0'
579.5'
5.0% 20.0% 2.0% 8.0% 5.0%
577.5'
5.0%
571.85'
571.85' 586.8'
3.0%
579.7'
579.4' 579.1'
579.7' WM
W W W W W
W W W
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS CO
CO CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
578
AD
578.5'
577.5'
577.4' 576 574 572 566 564 562 560
3.1% 5.1% 558556 554 552 550 548 546 542
6.1%
541.8'
566.0'
564.2'
6.0% 572570 568 566
6.1% 564 560554
542
5.0%
586.0'
15' RAMP 8% 8' RAMP 8%
15' RAMP
8%
584.8'
20' RAMP
8% 583.6' 582.0'
581.8'
VAN
LOADING
1 2 EV 3,4 5,6 7,8
26 25 24
EV 9,10 11,12 13,14 EV
EV EV EV
15 16 EV 18 19 20,21
EV
23 17
3Y 3Y 3Y 3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE P C T
544
542.0' 548 556
27 574
538.0'
534.0' 19" PINE PINE 24" PINE 24" 16"OAK 14"OAK OAK 23" 18"OAK
8.0% 558
573.9'
568.9' 568.3'
561.6' 559.3' 557.5' 554.6'
553.0'
547.2'
8.0%
8.0% 8.0%
8.0%
5.0%
RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL
RL RL RL RL
RL
RL
RL
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
AD AD AD
T.O.S.
541.9'
T.O.S.
553.1'
T.O.S.
541.9'
546
541.7'
578.3' 550552
542.3' 541.8'
5.0% 544
567.6' 565.3' 564.0' 561.1' 557.1' 542.8' 568568.75' 570 557.1' 562
22 G G G G G SWITCHGEAR MPOE
S
P
(N) Storage perf
pipe
(N) Rock out fall
(see detail)
(N) retaining wall
Property Line
Setback Line
Easement Line
Fence Line
Footprint of Structure
Sewer line
(E) Overhead
electric line
UTILITY POLE
(E) Grade to be altered
Altered Finished grade
Water line
Underground
electric line
FH,Fire hydrant
Solid storm drain line
(4"Ø PVC SDR-35) TYP.U.O.N. Perforated subdrain
(4"Ø PVC SDR-35) 2% SLOPE TYP. U.N.O.
Perforated Collector
(E) Contour line
Trench drain (linear drain)
RL, ROOF LEADER
CONNECTION
SUB-SURFACE C/O
CONCRETE
PAVERS
STABILIZED
DECOMPOSED GRANITE
12" Ø WEEP HOLE IN
RETAINING WALL
GEOLOGICAL ZONE
GAS LINE
AD, AREA DRAIN/Clean JOINT TRENCH
out w/inlet protection.
(N) CATCH BASIN
NEW GAS METER
NEW 2" WATER
METER
NEW 200 AMP
ELECTRICAL METER
(N) SANITARY SEWER
LIFT STATION
CO, Clean out
w/inlet protection.
(N) SUMP PUMP
LIGHTWELL
WEEP HOLE
NEW SUBDRAIN
SM, Sanitary
sewer manhole
Direction of surface flow
ASPHALT
TOP OF GRADE
INVERT
LEGEND
SCALE: NOTE: CONTOUR INTERVAL IS 2'-0"
GRADING DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN 5'-0"
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
(N) SUB-SURFACE
TRANSFORMER, SEE
SHEET INT-1
(N) 4" SCH 40 PVC DOMESTIC
(N) 4" SCH 40 PVC FIRE
EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
(E) 8" S.S.
MAIN LINE
8 UT-2
C4
TYP.
6 C4
6 C4
1 C5
4" S.S. FORCE MAIN
4" FM
ELEV STAIRS
TRASH ROOM
(N) ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY
PARKING
GARAGE PARKING
GARAGE
11 TYP.
11 TYP.
4 C4
UP
UP UP
UP
UP
1 1
1 1
1 4
C4
TRENCH
DRAIN
TRENCH
DRAIN
4 TREE TO
REMAIN
TREE TO
REMAIN
10 C4
(E) UTILITY POLE,
SEE SHEET INT-1
9 C4
5 C4
(E) SSMH
RIM 582.1'±
INV 576.1'±
SSCO
TG/RIM 578.7'
INV 574.7'
TW 538.8'
BW 536.0'
12 TW 577.5'
BW 575.0'
TW 579.7'
BW 575.0'
ELEC
ROOM
UP UP UP 10
10 5
5 7 2
13 6
UP UP 5'-0"
EARTHWORK CALCS
TOTALS
TRENCHING
BUILDING
PAD
DRIVEWAY,
ACCESS ROAD
MAX. DEPTH
CUT(FT.) FILL(FT) FILL
(CUBIC YARDS)
AMOUNT
CUT
(CUBIC YARDS)
TYPE OF USE
6 1033
14'-0"
2'-0"
1,081
IMPORT
EXPORT 1,081
0 0
TOTAL
EARTHWORK
1,081
0 0
TW 586.8'
BW 579.8'
TW 583.6'
BW 579.4' TW 582.8'
BW 581.3'
TW 565.2'
BW 564.3'
TW 561.5'
BW 560.9'
TW 554.5'
BW 555.2'
TW 557.3'
BW 557.1'
TW 553.1'
BW 553.0'
TW 548.0'
BW 547.2'
TW 542.8'
BW 542.0'
GAS METER, SEE
SHEET INT-1
TW 542.8'
BW 540.0'
3 C4
TW 542.8'
BW 542.0'
TW 541.7'
BW 536.1'
TW 534.8'
BW 531.8'
TW 534.8'
BW 533.0'
TEMP. CONST.
FENCING
CONSTRUCTION
STAGING AREA
CONSTRUCTION
STAGING AREA
Provide Traffic
Control
FIRE SPRINKLER PROTECTION SYSTEM TO
BE PROVIDED PER CALIFORNIA STATE
STANDARD DETAILS & SPECIFICATIONS
PROVIDED BY SANTA CLARA COUNTY FIRE
DEPARTMENT
Fire Protection Requirements
4" FM
TW 546.0'
BW 542.0'
TW 541.7'
BW 538.0'
TW 534.8'
BW 534.0' ROCK OUTFALL
INV 532.6'
UT-1
C4
TYP.
TW 558.9'
TW 568.5' BW 555.6'
BW 568.2' TW 577.4'
BW 573.0'
TW 573.0'
BW 569.0' TW 564.6'
BW 563.6'
EXTEND PAVEMENT AS REQUIRED FOR FIRE
ACCESS ROAD, SEE C1 SITE PLAN FOR
DIMENSIONS. INSTALL PER TOWN OF LOS
ALTOS HILLS STANDARD DETAIL UT-1/C4
INSTALL NEW UTILITY
CONNECTIONS, TYP.
INSTALL PER TOWN OF
LOS ALTOS HILLS
STANDARD DETAILS, TYP.
S.S. LIFT
STATION
S=2.0% 20' MIN. 24' MIN.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
GRADING & DRAINAGE WORK NOTES
(E) UTILITY POLE
ROOF LEADERS & DRAINS TO EMPTY INTO FLOW THROUGH
PLANTERS, TYP.
TWO (N) 1.5" WATER METER, PROVIDE SCHED 40 PVC 2"Ø PIPE TO NEW WATER MAIN AS SHOWN. PROVIDE (N) 2"Ø SCHED 40 PIPE
TO BUILDING AS SHOWN.
INSTALL (N) ELECT. CONDUIT PER PG&E STANDARDS & TELEPHONE CONDUIT LINES. INSTALL IN JOINT TRENCH AS SHOWN. INSTALL (N)
GAS LINE FOR SPACE HEATING, WATER HEATING, FIRE PLACE, & FIRE PIT.
LANDING, MIN 36" d. SLOPE 2% AWAY FROM BUILDING.
NEW ASPHALT FOR FIRE ACCESS ROAD & DRIVEWAY APPROACH
IN MORA DRIVE RIGHT OF WAY.
MAINTAIN 3' MIN. CLEARANCE BETWEEN UTILITY TRENCHES FOR WATER, SEWER, AND JOINT TRENCH.
CLEANOUT FOR FORCE MAIN TRANSITION TO GRAVITY SEWER
LATERAL, SEE DETAIL 3/C4, FOR LEVELS 1, PODIUM & BASEMENT.
GRAVITY SANITARY SEWER LATERAL FOR LEVELS 2 AND ABOVE.
4" FORCED MAIN SANITARY SEWER, PROVIDE MIN. 3' CLEAR
BETWEEN SEWER LINES AND WATER LINES.
4" PERF PIPE SUBDRAIN PER GEOTECH REPORT
FIGURE 2, TYP.
11 PARKING LIFT, SEE FIGURE 1.
12 GARBAGE STAGING AREA, 4" DECOMPOSED GRANITE
13 FIRE TURNAROUND PER SANTA CLARA COUNTY STANDARDS
30 ENCROACHMENT PERMIT NOTES
INSTALL RESIDENTIAL FIRE TURNAROUND PER SANTA CLARA
COUNTY FIRE DEPARTMENT, AC TO BE MIN. 4" THICK W/ MIN. 8" THICK CL 2 A.B. BASE.
0 0
41 0 N/A N/A
UT-1
C4
30 31
INSTALL UTILITY CONNECTIONS FOR GAS, WATER, SEWER,
TELEPHONE, CABLE, ELECTRIC LINES & CONDUIT, AND PAD
MOUNTED TRANSFORMERS. SAW CUT ROADWAY FOR
UTILITY CONNECTIONS, BACKFILL & REINSTALL ROADWAY
PAVING PER TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS STANDARD
DETAIL UT-1/C4 TYP. REGRADE AS NECESSARY TO
CONFORM TO EXISTING AC
INSTALL ACCESSIBLE RAMP
& GALV. STEEL RAILINGS TO
PER CBC SEC 1114A
32 INSTALL 6' TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION FENCING &
CONSTRUCTION STAGING AREA FOR THE DURATION OF
CONSTRUCTION.
31 31
32 32
32 33 REROUTE PEDESTRIAN & BICYCLE TRAFFIC. PEDESTRIAN
PROTECTION TO BE PROVIDED PER CBC SEC. 3306
34 REROUTE VEHICULAR TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC CONTROL TO BE
PROVIDED PER CALIFORNIA MANUAL ON UNIFORM TRAFFIC
CONTROL DEVICES (CA MUTCD) - CHAPTER 6
34 33
14 CONCRETE WALKWAY, TYP. WALK TO BE A MIN. OF 36" WIDE EXCEPT AT FIRE EGRESS, WHERE IT IS TO BE A MIN 48" WIDE, TYP. 15 CONCRETE STAIRS: ALL STAIRS TO HAVE HANDRAIL OR
GAURDRAIL & MAX RISE & RUN TO MEET CBC RQMNT'S, TYP.
15'-5 3/4" 6'-0" 31'-6" 8'-9" 10'-10"
11'-4"
10'-5"
TW 555.6'
BW 552.1'
16 16 PLANTER BOX
14 48" MIN.
15 14 48" MIN.
15 TW 553.1'
BW 541.9'
TW 564.2'
BW 553.1'
RETAINING WALL BELOW W/
BACKDRAIN, SEE SECTION
A3.1 & DETAIL 4/C4
RETAINING WALL BELOW W/
BACKDRAIN, SEE SECTION
A3.1 & DETAIL 4/C4
TG 579.3'
INV 578.3'
UP
UP
RIM/TG 541.7'
INV IN 540.0'
INV OUT 535.4'
TW 542.8'
BW 538.0'
TW 538.8'
BW 534.0'
UP
TW 568.9'
BW 569.7'
E.P.
14 14
FDC PIV
TW 555.1'
BW 553.1'
TW 553.9'
BW 541.9'
TW 547.9'
BW 541.9'
TW 553.1'
BW 541.9'
TW 564.2'
BW 553.1'
TW 557.1'
BW 553.1' TW 554.9'
BW 541.9'
TW 553.9'
BW 541.9'
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
C3
GRADING, DRAINAGE & UTILITY PLAN
14 TW 557.1'
BW 553.1'
GEOLOGY AND SOILS
GEOTECHNICAL: THE PROJECT APPLICANT SHALL BE REQUIRED
TO IMPLEMENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS, INCLUDING THOSE
PERTAINING TO SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING, SPREAD
FOOTINGS, DRILLED PIERS, RETAINING WALL DESIGN, FLOOR
SLAB DESIGN, 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE SITE CLASS AND
SEISMIC DESIGN CRITERIA, EXCAVATION AND SHORING, ASPHALT PAVEMENTS, CONCRETE PAVEMENTS AND EXTERIOR
SLABS, UTILITIES, SITE DRAINAGE, AND CONSTRUCTION
MONITORING, OF THE CURRENT, APPROVED VERSION OF THE
PROJECT-SPECIFIC GEOTECHNICAL REPORT, AND ANY
SUBSEQUENT DETAILED GEOTECHNICAL PLANS, AVAILABLE
UPON ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMIT(S). GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL:
1. PRIOR TO ANY GRADING OR CLEARING BEING PERFORMED
ON-SITE, THE OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A GRADING
PLAN PREPARED BY A CALIFORNIA-REGISTERED CIVIL
ENGINEER IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY GRADING ORDINANCE,
CHAPTER 9, SECTION 3 OF THE CITY CODE, WITH A GRADING
PERMIT APPLICATION, FOR APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS AND BUILDING DIVISION. THE PLAN MUST
INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING RESTRICTIONS:
a) ALL SOILS STOCKPILED ON THE SITE DURING CONSTRUCTION
MUST BE COVERED OR OTHERWISE PROTECTED FROM WIND
AND WATER EROSION. b) DURING CONSTRUCTION, EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION
CONTROL PLANS MUST BE IMPLEMENTED TO RETAIN
SEDIMENTS ON-SITE DURING THE RAINY SEASONS.
c) SITE GRADING AND FINISHED CONSTRUCTION MUST BE
DESIGNED AND EXECUTED IN SUCH A MANNER AS TO
AVOID DIVERTING RUNOFF ONTO OTHER PROPERTIES. d) RESTRICTIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE GEOLOGIC AND SOILS REPORT.
TRANSPORTATION
CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC: PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING
OR GRADING PERMIT, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREPARE A
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN (CMP) FOR REVIEW AND
APPROVAL BY THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IN
CONSULTATION WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT AND POLICE DEPARTMENT. FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED AT OR IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE CITY BORDERS, THE PLAN SHALL BE ROUTED TO ADJACENT JURISDICTIONS. THE
CMP SHALL INCLUDE A RESPONSE TO CONSTRUCTION-RELATED
CONDITIONS AND REQUIREMENTS IDENTIFIED BY REVIEWING
CITY DEPARTMENTS, AND OUTSIDE AGENCIES FOR INCLUSION IN THE PLAN. THE PLAN SHALL INCLUDE AT LEAST THE FOLLOWING ITEMS:
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN: ROUTES FOR
CONSTRUCTION-RELATED TRAFFIC (HAULING, DELIVERIES, WORKS, ETC.) SHALL BE IDENTIFIED. GRADING, HAULING, AND
CONSTRUCTION DELIVERY TRAFFIC SHALL BE TIMED TO AVOID
PEAK HOUR SCHOOL AND WORK COMMUTE TRAFFIC. TRAFFIC
CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE IDENTIFIED, INCLUDING: ANY
REQUIRED DETOUR SIGNAGE, LANE CLOSURES, AND SIDEWALK
CLOSURES.
TRAINED FLAG PERSONS SHALL BE POSITIONED AT BOTH
ENDS OF BLOCKED TRAFFIC LANES TO ENSURE SAFE
MOVEMENT OF VEHICLES, AND PEDESTRIANS. THE PROPOSED
TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN MAY REQUIRE REVIEW BY A TRAFFIC
ENGINEER, TO ENSURE AN ADEQUATE
INTERSECTION/DRIVEWAY TURNING RADIUS WOULD BE
PROVIDED FOR LARGE VEHICLES, AND/OR WHEN OTHER
LARGE PROJECTS ARE IN CONSTRUCTION AT THE SAME TIME. EMERGENCY ACCESS:
1.STREET WIDENING, IMPROVEMENTS, AND DEDICATIONS
SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS.
2. STREETS, SIDEWALKS AND CURBS IN NEED OF REPAIR DUE
TO CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WITHIN AND BORDERING THE
PROJECT SHALL BE REPAIRED AND/OR REMOVED AND
REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
PUBLIC WORKS APPROVED STANDARDS.
GENERAL NOTES
SWITCH BOARD
31 (E) SS
RIM 579.7'±
INV 573.7'± (N) 6" ABS S.S. S=4.7%
SEE SHEET INT-1
FOR JOINT
TRENCH INFO
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
4" WIDE TRENCH DRAIN SET IN CONCRETE
(DRAIN SHALL BE KLASSIKDRAIN
K100S/KS100S WITH PERFORATED BRASS
GRATE WITH CUSTOM FINISH. COORDINATE
FINISH WITH GENERAL CONTRACTOR
4"
12" MIN. WIDTH LEADER WHERE OCCURES RETAINING WALL HEIGHT PER PLANS VARIES
SEE STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS FOR
CONC. RETAINING WALL & REBAR 4" MIN
4" BELOW BOTTOM
OF SLABS
4" MIN.
PERFORATIONS
4" DIAMETER
PERFORATED PIPE
W/ PERFORATIONS
FACING DOWN. 1%
SLOPE MIN.
BOTTOM OF SLAB
3/4" OPEN GRADED
CLEAN CRUSHED
ROCK WRAPPED
W/ FILTER
WP SEAL
FILTER FABRIC
DRAIN BOARD
12" DEEP ON-SITE
SOIL COMPACTED
TO SEAL SURFACE
OR SLAB WHERE
OCCURES
4" MIN
WATERPROOF
MEMBRANE
Pump
No. Type GPM TDH RPM HP V PH Hz
P-1 NON CLOG 60
P-2 NON CLOG 60
Electrical
STATION OPERATION LEVEL
RISIING LEVEL CYCLE
WATER LEVEL
ELEVATION ACTION PUMPS IN OPERATION
LEAD PUMP TURNS "ON", FS-2 LEAD PUMP "ON"
LAG PUMP TURNS "ON", FS-3 LEAD & LAG PUMPS "ON"
PUMPS "OFF" LEVEL, FS-4 PUMPS "OFF" GRAVITY FLOW
HIGH WATER IN DITCH, FS-4 ALL PUMPS "OFF"
FALLING LEVEL CYCLE
PUMPS "ON" LEVEL, FS-4 PUMPS "ON" PUMPED DISCHARGE
DITCH FLOAT HIGH WATER. FS-5 ALL PUMPS "ON"
PUMPS "OFF" LEVEL, FS-1 ALL PUMPS "OFF" LAG PUMP
SWITCHES TO LEAD PUMP
KEYED NOTES
MARK QTY DESCRIPTION
1 2 LIBERTY PUMP M/N LE41M-2
2 2 2" BASE ELBOWS
3 2 STAINLESS STEEL LIFTING CHAIN
4 1 DUPLEX CONTROL PANEL NEMA 4X (MOUNTED
& WIRED BY CONTRACTOR)
5 4 FLOAT SWITCH
6 1 SS FLOAT HANGER
7 1 48" DIA x 12' DEEP CONCRETE WET WELL
8 1 FIBERGLASS TOP
9 1 24" DIA HATCHWAY (300 PSF)
11 1 4" GALVANIZED VENT
12 2 2" SCH 80 PVC PIPE
13 2 2" SCH 80 PVC 90° ELBOW
14 2 SS UPPER GUIDE BRACKETS
15 BALL CHECK VALVE
16 TRUE UNION BALL VALVE
17 2 36" SQ GALV STEEL BAR GRATE
18 4 SS GUIDE RAILS
19 2 3" CONDUIT
20 - REBAR AS REQ'D
22 1
36" x 36" x 3'-6" DEEP PRECAST CONCRETE
DISCHARGE STRUCTURE
23 1 6" THK DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LID
24 2 RESILIENT RUBBER BOOT
25 - ALL JOINTS MADE WATER-TIGHT w/ PLASTIC
FLEXIBLE GASKET (RAM-NEX)
26 1
NAMEPLATE INDICATING: MFG:
SMITHPUMP 254-776-0377
WWW.SMITHPUMP.COM
MODEL: LE41M-2 DATE
MANUFACTURED
27 1 REMOTE MOUNT DITCH FLOAT (MOUNTED &
WIRED BY OTHERS)
28 1
STORM INLET PIPING SEAL w/ NON-SHRINK
GROUT (BY OTHERS)
29 1 2" ELECTRICAL COUPLING
1 1
230
230
2 2
2900
2900
30 1 2" SCH 40 PVC POOL DRAIN LINE
GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS
STABILIZED OUTFALL DETAIL
SCALE:1/2"=1'-0"
TRENCH DRAIN
NTS 6
STORM DRAIN &
SUBDRAIN CLEANOUT
NTS 5
JOINT TRENCH DETAIL
NTS 9
ALLEN BLOCK WALL
N.T.S. 10
CONC. BLOCK
UNIT
OPTIONAL
CAPSTONE
GRATE
RETAINING WALL DRAINAGE 4
NTS
SANITARY SEWER LIFT STATION DETAIL 3
SCALE: NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. EFFLUENT FROM PODIUM 2 & BELOW TO DISCHARGE
INTO LIFT STATION.EFFLUENT FROM FLOORS ABOVE TO
GRAVITY FLOW TO STREET.
2. PROVIDE A BACKUP POWER SUPPLY CAPABLE OF
RUNNING EXPECTED FLOW OF 3 DAYS OF USE.
3. EACH PUMP IS SIZED TO HANDLE ALL DISCHARGE &
CONNECTED SO THAT FAILURE OF ONE PUMP WILL NOT
CAUSE SYSTEM FAILURE.
4. THE TANK IS SIZED TO PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL 3 DAY
OF BACKUP. AN ALARM WILL SOUND IF THERE IS PUMP
FAILURE OR TANK HIGH WATER MARK.
5. A PLAN WILL IN PLACE ON-SITE THAT SHOULD ALL
THREE SAFETY BACKUP METERS FAIL, THE EIGHT
BATHROOMS & ALL OTHER DRAINS BELOW THE TOP
PODIUM WILL BE CLOSED UNTIL SERVICE IS RETURNED.
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
C4
7 GRADING & DRAINAGE DETAILS
EXPOSED SUBGRADE TO BE LINED W/
WOVEN GEOTEXTILE MIRAFI FW700
4" PERF 'T' OUTLET PIPE WITH
ENDS CAPPED AT EACH SIDE
LOCATED APROX. MID DEPTH
DIRECTION OF
SURFACE FLOW
3" DIA. MIN. ROCK COBBLES 6'-0" 1'-0" 1'-0"
6'-0"
DISCHARGE
PIPE, PER PLAN
3" DIA. MIN.
ROCK COBBLES
ROCK EXTENDS 1' MIN
BEYOND OUTLET PIPE,
EA. SIDE
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
W W (E) GARAGE
P
SS SS
SS SS
SS SS N 00° 41' 00" E
59.00' 68.00'
S 06° 24' 40" W
S 89° 19' 00" E
260.52'
S 88° 36' 00" W
255.12'
5.0%
580.0'
579.0'
571.85' 571.0' 564.0'
579.5'
5.0% 20.0% 2.0% 8.0% 5.0%
577.5'
5.0%
571.85'
571.85' 586.8'
3.0%
579.7'
579.4' 579.1'
579.7' WM
W W W W W
W W W
SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS SS CO
CO CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
AD
578.5'
577.5'
577.4'
3.1% 5.1% 6.1%
541.8'
566.0'
564.2'
6.0%
6.1%
5.0%
586.0'
15' RAMP 8% 8' RAMP 8%
15' RAMP
8%
584.8'
20' RAMP
8% 583.6' 582.0'
581.8'
VAN
LOADING
1 2 EV 3,4 5,6 7,8
26 25 24
EV 9,10 11,12 13,14 EV
EV EV EV
15 16 EV 18 19 20,21
EV
23 17
3Y 3Y 3Y 3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE P C T
542.0'
27 538.0'
534.0'
8.0%
573.9'
568.9' 568.3'
561.6' 559.3' 557.5' 554.6'
553.0'
547.2'
8.0%
8.0% 8.0%
8.0%
5.0%
RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL RL
RL RL RL RL
RL
RL
RL
AD
AD
AD
AD
AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD AD
AD AD AD
T.O.S.
541.9'
T.O.S.
553.1'
T.O.S.
541.9'
541.7'
578.3'
542.3' 541.8'
5.0%
568.75' 567.6' 565.3' 564.0' 561.1' 557.1' 542.8'
557.1'
22 G G SWITCHGEAR MPOE
SCALE:
STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT PLAN
JUNCTION BOX /
CLEAN OUT W/ LID
LEGEND
STORM DRAIN
CLEAN OUT
SDCO
SD STORM DRAIN LINE
JB
AD AREA DRAIN
SDBB STORM DRAIN
BUBLER BOX
STORM DRAIN LINE
OFD OVER FLOW DRAIN
CB CATCH BASIN
DRAINAGE
MANAGEMENT
AREA
DMA XX
TREATMENT
CONTROL
AREA
TCM XX
DS DOWN SPOUT
1A FLOW THROUGH PLANTER DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
THE EXISTING SITE SOILS CONSIST OF CLAY (TYPED) SOILS.
STORMWATER CONTROL NOTES
THE SITE STORM DRAIN RUNOFF WILL BE FILTERED BY FLOW THROUGH PLANTER AREAS OR BIO RETENTION AREAS. ALL STORM WATER DRAINS TO FLOW THROUGH PLANTERS, BIO RETENTION AREAS, OR SELF RETAINING AREAS.
2. POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS INCLUDE MOTOR VEHICLE LUBRICANTS , COOLANTS , DISC BRAKE DUST , LITTER AND DEBRIS . POLLUTANT SOURCE AREAS INCLUDE THE ASPHALT CONCRETE
PARKING LOT AND DRIVE AISLES ,THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING AND THE SITE STORM DRAIN INLETS. ALL INLETS WILL BE MARKED "NO DUMPING-DRAINS TO BAY '. THE PARKING LOT SHALL BE SWEPT REGULARLY TO PREVENT HE ACCUMULATION OF LITTER AND DEBRIS.
3. BIO TREATMENT AREAS SHOWN ARE SCHEMATIC AND WILL BE ADJUSTED DURING FINAL DESIGN.
4. BIOTREATMENT SIZING IS BASED ON THE FLOW BASED METHOD PER SCVURPPP HANDBOOK CHAPTER 5. FINAL SIZING MAY BE BASED ON EITHER THE FLOW BASED OR COMBINATION FLOW/VOLUME BASED METHOD ALLOWED IN CHAPTER 5.
5. DOWNSPOUTS WILL BE DISCONNECTED AND DISCHARGE TO FLOW THROUGH PLANTERS AT REAR OF BUILDING AS MAIN SOURCE OF TREATMENT FOR ROOF AREAS.
6. SD -10: SITE DESIGN & LANDSCAPE PLANNING
SOURCE CONTROL MEASURES IMPLEMENTED
MAXIMIZED TREES AND PLANTING WITHIN HARDSCAPE AND LANDSCAPE AREAS.
VEGETATED SLOPES FOR ALL LANDSCAPE SLOPES LESS THAN 1:5 SLOPE
1. SD -11: EFFICIENT IRRIGATION
RAIN-TRIGGERED SHUTOFF DEVICES TO PREVENT IRRIGATION AFTER PRECIPITATION.
SYSTEM DESIGNED TO SITE-SPECIFIC WATER DEMANDS AND PLANTING REQUIREMENT.
SD -13: STORM DRAIN SIGNAGE
ALL CATCH BASINS TO BE STENCILED WITH PROHIBITIVE LANGUAGE PER CITY STANDARDS.
TREATMENT CONTROL MEASURE SUMMARY
TRERATMENT TYPE DRAINAGE AREA
(SQ.FT.)
5,780
IMPERVIOUS AREA
(SQ.FT.)
PERVIOUS AREA BIO RETENSION AREA
(SQ.FT.)
361
REQUIRED (SQ.FT.) PROVIDED (SQ.FT.)
217 239
AREA
DMA 2
AREA
TCM 2
LID OR
NON LID
LID
SIZING METHOD
2c. FLOW BASED
SELF RETAINING LANDSCAPE AREA
REQUIRED (SQ.FT.) PROVIDED (SQ.FT.)
N/A N/A
OVERFLOW RISER HEIGHT
/ DEPTH OF PONDING (IN.)
6 DMA 3 TCM 3 UNLINED BIO RETENTION LID 5,802 211 232
DMA 4 TCM 4 FLOW THROUGH PLANTER LID 941 33 58
2c. FLOW BASED
2c. FLOW BASED
5,419
5,278
829
524
112
N/A N/A
N/A N/A
OFF SITE TOTALS:
6 6
DMA 1 Mora Drive
TCM 3
11'-4" 57'-1"
15'-5 3/4" 6'-0"
10'-5"
1B
---
DMA 4
DMA 1 TCM 1 LID 2c. FLOW BASED 4,726 3,755 971 150 165 N/A N/A 6 TCM 4 TCM 2
TCM 1
DMA 2
DMA 3
1B UNLINED BIO RETENTION DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
1A
---
16'-0"
2'-10 1/4" 10'-10" 8'-9" 31'-6"
UNLINED BIO RETENTION
UNLINED BIO RETENTION
1A
DETAIL 1B
DETAIL 1B
DETAIL 1B
DETAIL 1A
ON SITE TOTALS: 16,308 14,452 1,856
941 829 112
ON SITE AREA
ON SITE AREA
ON SITE AREA
OFF SITE AREA
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
C5
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN
2 BUBBLER DETAIL
SCALE: 1"=1'-0"
SEAL AROUND 20
MIL IMPERMEABLE
LINER 3"
PLACE 4" DIA. MIN.
APPROVED COBBLES 8"
AROUND BUBBLER &
UNDERLAY WITH FILTER
FABRIC.
BIOTREATMENT
SOIL MIX
3" COMPOSTED MULCH
ON SURFACE OF
BIOTREATMENT SOIL
PER PLAN RUNOFF ENTERS
TREATMENT MEASURE
THROUGH DRAIN PIPE
PER PLAN
POP-UP BUBBLER 1'-0" MIN.
EMITER
2 ---
2 ---
2 --- TYP
TYP
MINIMUM IMPACT STREET OR PARKING LOT DESIGN (PARKING LOCATED UNDER BUILDING).
SITE DESIGN MEASURES IMPLEMENTED
CLUSTER STRUCTURE / PAVEMENT.
OVERFLOW
RIM 534.5'
OVERFLOW
RIM 538.5'
OVERFLOW
RIM 578.9'
OVERFLOW
RIM 542.5'
4" DIA. PERFORATED
UNDERDRAIN WITH
HOLES FACING
DOWN 1'-0" 18"
20 MIL
IMPERMEABLE
LINER
12" CLASS II
PERMEABLE ROCK
PER CAL TRANS
SPEC'S
6" CMU BLOCK W/
#4 REBAR @ 16" 9" 6"
WALL CAP
6" PONDING
PLANTS PER SCVURPPP
C.3 STORMWATER
HANDBOOK, APENDIX D
CLEAN OUT W/
CAP AT FINISH
GRADE
PLACE 4" DIA. MIN.
APPROVED
COBBLES 2"
BELOW
DOWNSPOUTS FOR
2' AND UNDERLAY
WITH FILTER
FABRIC.
TOP OF WALL 6"
ABOVE ADJACENT
SIDEWALK
PER PLAN
BLD'G AS
OCCURS
18" BIOTREATMENT SOIL
MIX PER SCVURPPP C3
STORMWATER
HANDBOOK, APPENDIX C
3" COMPOSTED MULCH
ON SURFACE OF
BIOTREATMENT SOIL
OVERFLOW DRAIN 6" ABOVE
BIOTREATMENT SOIL ELEVATION,
SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS &
ELEVATIONS
PER PLAN
4" DIA. PERFORATED
UNDERDRAIN WITH
HOLES FACING
DOWN 1'-0"
12" CLASS II
PERMEABLE ROCK
PER CAL TRANS
SPEC'S
6" CMU BLOCK W/
#4 REBAR @ 16" 9"
WALL CAP
6" PONDING
CLEAN OUT W/
CAP AT FINISH
GRADE
PLACE 4" DIA. MIN.
APPROVED
COBBLES 2"
BELOW
DOWNSPOUTS FOR
2' AND UNDERLAY
WITH FILTER
FABRIC.
TOP OF WALL 6"
ABOVE ADJACENT
SIDEWALK
PER PLAN
BLD'G AS
OCCURS
NATIVE SOIL, DO
NOT COMPACT 6"
18" BIOTREATMENT SOIL
MIX PER SCVURPPP C3
STORMWATER
HANDBOOK, APPENDIX C
3" COMPOSTED MULCH
ON SURFACE OF
BIOTREATMENT SOIL
OVERFLOW DRAIN 6" ABOVE
BIOTREATMENT SOIL ELEVATION,
SEE PLAN FOR LOCATIONS &
ELEVATIONS
PER PLAN
PLANTS PER SCVURPPP
C.3 STORMWATER
HANDBOOK, APENDIX D
SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION OR ACCESSIBLE CLEANOUT FOR POOL/SPA/FOUNTAIN.
OPERATIONAL BMPs:
1. ALL PLANS SHALL CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY NPDES STORMWATER DISCHARGE PERMIT AND THE SANTA CLARA COUNTY PPP. THE PROJECT PLANS SHALL INCLUDE PERMANENT STORM WATER QUALITY PROTECTION MEASURES. THE PROJECT PLANS SHALL
IDENTIFY BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPS) APPROPRIATE TO THE USES TO BE
CONDUCTED ON-SITE TO EFFECTIVELY PROHIBIT THE DISCHARGE OF POLLUTANTS WITH STORM WATER RUN-OFF. A MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION AGREEMENT SHALL BE PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT INCORPORATING THE CONDITIONS OF THIS SECTION. 2. A MAINTENANCE PLAN FOR EVERY STORMWATER TREATMENT CONTROL, AND/OR HYDRO
MODIFICATION MEASURE OR APPLICABLE SITE DESIGN MEASURE, INCLUSIVE OF MAINTENANCE
AND INSPECTION CHECKLISTS AND MAINTENANCE INSPECTION REPORT FORMS, SHALL BE
SUBMITTED TO THE CITY FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A GRADING PERMIT. A COPY OF THE FINAL, APPROVED MAINTENANCE PLAN(S) SHALL BE MADE A PART OF THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. A COPY OF THE FINAL, APPROVED MAINTENANCE PLAN(S) SHALL ALSO BE ON FILE WITH THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT.
3. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE TO THE FIRST RESIDENTS/OCCUPANTS/TENANTS
PRACTICAL INFORMATION MATERIALS (AS FURNISHED BY THE CITY) ON GOOD HOUSEKEEPING
FOR HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS, PROPER USE AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS, AND PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PRACTICES. 4. EFFICIENT IRRIGATION SYSTEMS SHALL BE USED THROUGHOUT ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MODEL WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE ORDINANCE.
5. ALL LANDSCAPING SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND SHALL BE DESIGNED WITH EFFICIENT
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS TO REDUCE RUNOFF, PROMOTE SURFACE FILTRATION, AND MINIMIZE THE USE OF FERTILIZERS, HERBICIDES, AND PESTICIDES. 6. THE PROPERTY OWNER/ASSOCIATION SHALL IMPLEMENT A TRASH MANAGEMENT AND
LITTER CONTROL PROGRAM INCLUDING EMPTYING TRASH RECEPTACLES IN COMMON
AREAS, NOTING TRASH DISPOSAL VIOLATIONS BY HOMEOWNERS OR BUSINESS, AND NOTIFYING VIOLATORS. 7. STREETS AND PARKING LOTS MUST BE SWEPT IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO AND ONCE DURING THE STORM SEASON. RECORDS OF STREET CLEANING SHALL BE REPORTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ON AN ANNUAL BASIS ON OR BEFORE JUNE 30 OF EACH YEAR. 8. NO WASTEWATER (INCLUDING EQUIPMENT CLEANING WASH WATER, VEHICLE WASH
WATER, COOLING WATER, AIR CONDITIONER CONDENSATE, AND FLOOR CLEANING WASH WATER) SHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM, THE STREET OR GUTTER.
9. INTERIOR LEVEL PARKING GARAGE FLOOR DRAINS, AND ANY OTHER INTERIOR FLOOR
DRAINS, SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL SANITARY SEWER AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS. 10. SWIMMING POOLS, HOT TUBS, SPAS, AND FOUNTAINS SHALL HAVE A CONNECTION TO
THE SANITARY SEWER, SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL SANITARY SEWER AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS. THIS CONNECTION COULD BE A DRAIN IN THE POOL TO THE SANITARY
SEWER OR A CLEANOUT LOCATED CLOSE ENOUGH TO THE POOL SO THAT A HOSE CAN READILY DIRECT THE POOL DISCHARGE INTO THE SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT.
11. BOILER DRAIN LINES, ROOF TOP EQUIPMENT WITH DRAIN LINES, AND/OR EQUIPMENT
FOR WASHING AND/OR STEAM CLEANING ACTIVITIES SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE
SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL SANITARY SEWER AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS. 12. THE DEVELOPER SHALL PROVIDE TO THE FIRST RESIDENTS/OCCUPANTS/TENANTS
PRACTICAL INFORMATION MATERIALS GOOD HOUSEKEEPING FOR HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS, PROPER USE, AND DISPOSAL OF HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS, AND PROHIBITED DISCHARGE PRACTICES.
13. THE PROPERTY OWNER/ASSOCIATION SHALL IMPLEMENT A TRASH MANAGEMENT AND
LITTER CONTROL PROGRAM INCLUDING EMPTYING TRASH RECEPTACLES IN COMMON
AREAS, NOTING TRASH DISPOSAL VIOLATIONS BY HOMEOWNERS OR BUSINESS, AND NOTIFYING VIOLATORS. 14. OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS FOR OILS, FUELS, SOLVENTS, COOLANTS, AND OTHER
CHEMICALS SHALL BE DESIGNED TO PROVIDE SECONDARY CONTAINMENT SUCH AS BERMS AND ROOF COVERS. PROCESS EQUIPMENT SITED OUTDOORS SHALL BE PLACED ON AN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE AND COVERED. PROPERTY OWNERS/ASSOCIATIONS SHALL IMPLEMENT A REGULAR PROGRAM OF SWEEPING AND LITTER CONTROL AT THESE SITES.
15. FIRE SPRINKLER TEST WATER SHALL DISCHARGE TO ONSITE VEGETATED AREAS, OR,
ALTERNATIVELY SHALL BE DISCHARGED TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL SANITARY SEWER AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS. 16. AIR CONDITIONING CONDENSATE SHALL DRAIN TO LANDSCAPING, OR ALTERNATIVELY
MAY BE CONNECTED TO THE SANITARY SEWER SYSTEM, SUBJECT TO THE LOCAL SANITARY SEWER AGENCY'S AUTHORITY AND STANDARDS.
GENERAL NOTES
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
℄
℄
CO
CO CO
CO
CO CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO VAN
LOADING
1 2 EV 3,4 5,6 7,8
26 25 24
EV 9,10 11,12 13,14 EV
EV EV EV
15 16 EV 18 19 20,21
EV
23 17
3Y 3Y 3Y 3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE
3Y
SPARE P C T
27 22 Mora Dr.
& CONSTRUCTION OPERATION PLAN
10'0' 20' 40' SCALE:
1"=20' NORTH
A
A
SEDIMENT ROLL DETAIL
NTS 1 SILT FENCE DETAILNTS 2
CONCRETE WASHOUT PIT DETAIL
NTS 4
biowattles
tree protection
straw bale barrier
silt fence
concrete washout
TREE PROTECTION FENCE DETAIL
NTS 3
LEGEND VARIES
10'-0"
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL CONFORM TO ABAG STANDARDS, SCC COUNTY STANDARDS AND
APPROVAL OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
1. ALL MATERIALS NECESSARY FOR THE APPROVED EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE ON SITE BY OCTOBER 15TH AND IN PLACE BY NOVEMBER 1ST.
2. 3. EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED THROUGHOUT THE RAINY SEASON.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CHECKING AND REPAIRING EROSION CONTROL SYSTEMS AFTER EACH STORM.
4. PROJECTS MUST HAVE ALL CUT AND FILL SLOPES PROTECTED BY SEEDING AND PUNCHING THE SLOPES WITH STRAW OR HYDROSEEDING.
5. ANY AREAS OF DISTURBED SOIL SHALL BE SEEDED OR REPLANTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE COUNTY ENGINEER PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 1ST, OR FINAL INSPECTION, WHICHEVER IS SOONER.
6. ADDITIONAL EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED AS DETERMINED BY COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR BUILDING OFFICIALS.
7. PROJECT SHALL PREVENT ANY ACCUMULATION OR DEPOSIT OF DIRT, MUD, SAND, ROCKS, GRAVEL OR
DEBRIS ON THE SURFACE OF ANY STREET , ALLEY OR PUBLIC PLACE OR IN ANY PUBLIC STORM DRAIN SYSTEM.
8. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION DURING ALL PHASES OF CONSTRUCTION.
9. WORK AREAS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN STABILIZED PRIOR TO ONSET OF WET SEASON SHALL BE GRADED TOWARD TEMPORARY SETTLEMENT BASINS WITHIN SITE. STORM RUNOFF WATER FROM UN-STABILIZED AREAS SHALL BE DIRECTED THROUGH BIOWATTLES PRIOR TO RELEASE FROM THE SITE.
10. INSTALL SEDIMENT
ROLL, SEE DETAIL 1
INSTALL SILT FENCE,
SEE DETAIL 2
INSTALL TREE
PROTECTION,
SEE DETAIL 3
INSTALL TREE
PROTECTION,
SEE DETAIL 3
CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE,
INSTALL 2" TO 3" CRUSHED
ROCK 4" THICK 12'-0"
4'-0"
CONSTRUCTION FENCING
CONCRETE WASHOUT,
SEE DETAIL 4
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN DUMPSTER STORAGE CONTAINER NOTE: TEMPORARY CRANE INSTALLATION TO BE ERECTED AND OPERATIONAL FOR DURATION CONSTRUCTION. 4.
LOCATION OF TEMPORARY STORAGE CONTAINERS TO ENCROACH ON TO RIGHT-OF-WAY AT MORA DR. NOT ALL LOCATIONS NOT SHOWN FOR CLARITY. 2
LOCATION OF TEMPORARY DEBRIS BOX / DUMPSTER TO BE PRESENT FOR DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 3
1 INSTALL TEMPORARY FENCING TO BE PRESENT FOR DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION. 3 SOIL EROSION & SEDIMENT CONTROL NOTES CONSTRUCTION OPERATION NOTES 2 1
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
C6
SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
& CONSTRUCTION OPERATION PLAN
HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION BMPs:
1. GRADING SHALL BE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CITY GRADING ORDINANCE, CHAPTER 9 OF THE CITY CODE. SOIL OR OTHER
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS SHALL NOT BE STOCKPILED IN THE PUBLIC
RIGHT-OF-WAY UNLESS AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT IS OBTAINED
FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. GRADING SHALL NEITHER BE INITIATED NOR CONTINUED BETWEEN NOVEMBER 15 AND APRIL 15. GRADING SHALL BE DONE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 8:00 A.M. AND 5:00 P.M., MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFICALLY AUTHORIZED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS. THE STORMWATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
(BMPS) FOR CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE IMPLEMENTED TO PROTECT WATER QUALITY. 2.THE OWNER/APPLICANT SHALL ENSURE THAT ALL CONSTRUCTION
PERSONNEL FOLLOW STANDARD BMPS FOR STORMWATER QUALITY
PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION OF PROJECT. THESE INCLUDES, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE FOLLOWING:
a) STORE, HANDLE, AND DISPOSE OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND
WASTES PROPERLY, SO AS TO PREVENT THEIR CONTACT WITH
STORMWATER. b) CONTROL AND PREVENT THE DISCHARGE OF ALL POTENTIAL
POLLUTANTS, INCLUDING SOLID WASTES, PAINTS, CONCRETE,
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, CHEMICALS, WASH WATER OR SEDIMENT,
AND NON- STORMWATER DISCHARGES TO STORM DRAINS AND
WATERCOURSES. c) USE SEDIMENT CONTROLS, FILTRATION, OR SETTLING TO REMOVE SEDIMENT FROM DEWATERING EFFLUENT. d) DO NOT CLEAN, FUEL, OR MAINTAIN VEHICLES ON-SITE, EXCEPT IN
A DESIGNATED AREA IN WHICH RUNOFF IS CONTAINED AND
TREATED. e) DELINEATE CLEARING LIMITS, EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSITIVE
OR CRITICAL AREAS, BUFFER ZONES, TREES, AND DRAINAGE
COURSES WITH FIELD MARKERS OR FENCING. f) PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND UNDISTURBED AREAS FROM
CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS USING VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS, DIKES, MULCHING, OR OTHER MEASURES AS APPROPRIATE. g) PERFORM CLEARING AND EARTH MOVING ACTIVITIES ONLY DURING DRY WEATHER (APRIL 15 THROUGH NOVEMBER 14).
h) LIMIT AND TIME APPLICATIONS OF PESTICIDES AND FERTILIZERS TO PREVENT POLLUTED RUNOFF.
i) LIMIT CONSTRUCTION ACCESS ROUTES AND STABILIZE DESIGNATED ACCESS POINTS.
j) DO NOT TRACK DIRT OR OTHER MATERIALS OFF-SITE; CLEAN OFFSITE PAVED AREAS AND SIDEWALKS USING DRY SWEEPING METHODS. IF CONSTRUCTION IS NOT COMPLETE BY THE START OF THE WET SEASON (NOVEMBER 15 THROUGH APRIL 15), PRIOR TO NOVEMBER 15 THE DEVELOPER SHALL IMPLEMENT A WINTERIZATION PROGRAM TO MINIMIZE THE POTENTIAL FOR EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION. AS
APPROPRIATE TO THE SITE AND STATUS OF CONSTRUCTION, DISTURBED SOILS THROUGH TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT SEEDING,
MULCHING, MATTING, TARPING OR OTHER WINTERIZATION
REQUIREMENTS SHALL INCLUDE
INSPECTING/MAINTAINING/CLEANING ALL SOIL EROSION AND
SEDIMENTATION CONTROLS PRIOR TO, DURING, AND IMMEDIATELY AFTER EACH STORM EVENT; STABILIZING PHYSICAL MEANS;
ROCKING UNPAVED VEHICLE ACCESS TO LIMIT DISPERSION OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAY; COVERING/TARPING STORED
CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS, FUELS, AND OTHER CHEMICALS. PLANS
TO INCLUDE PROPOSED MEASURES TO PREVENT EROSION AND
POLLUTED RUNOFF FROM ALL SITE CONDITIONS. AS SITE
CONDITIONS WARRANT, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS MAY
DIRECT THE DEVELOPER TO IMPLEMENT ADDITIONAL
WINTERIZATION REQUIREMENTS.
GENERAL NOTES
DUST CONTROL: TO REDUCE DUST LEVELS, EXPOSED EARTH
SURFACES SHALL BE WATERED AS NECESSARY. THE APPLICATION
OF WATER MUST BE MONITORED TO PREVENT RUNOFF INTO THE
STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. SPILLAGE RESULTING FROM HAULING
OPERATIONS ALONG OR ACROSS ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE
PROPERTY SHALL BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY.
a) ALL EXPOSED SURFACE (e.g.PARKING AREAS, STAGING AREAS,
SOIL PILES, GRADED AREAS, AND UNPAVED ACCESS ROADS) SHALL BE WATERED TWO TIMES PER DAY.
b) ALL HAUL TRUCKS TRANSPORTING SOIL, SAND, OR OTHER LOOSE MATERIAL OFF-SITE SHALL BE COVERED.
c) ALL VISIBLE MUD OR DIRT TRACKOUT ONTO ADJACENT PUBLIC
ROADS SHALL BE REMOVED USING WET POWER VACUUM STREET
SWEEPERS AT LEAST ONCE PER DAY. THE USE OF DRY POWER
SWEEPING IS PROHIBITED.
d) ALL VEHICLE SPEEDS ON UNPAVED ROADS SHALL BE LIMITED TO 15 mph.
e) ALL ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS TO BE PAVED
SHALL BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUILDING PADS
SHALL BE LAID AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING UNLESS
SEEDING OR SOIL BINDERS ARE USED.
f) ALL EXCAVATION, GRADING, AND/OR DEMOLITION ACTIVITIES SHALL BE SUSPENDED WHEN AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS EXCEED 20 mph.
g) ALL TRUCKS AND EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING THEIR TIRES, SHALL BE WASHED OFF PRIOR TO LEAVING THE SITE.
h) UNPAVED ROADS PROVIDING ACCESS TO SITES LOCATED 100 FEET OR FURTHER FROM A PAVED ROAD SHALL BE TREATED WITH A 6-TO 12-INCH LAYER OF COMPACTED LAYER OF WOOD CHIPS, MULCH,
OR GRAVEL.
i) PUBLICLY VISIBLE SIGNS SHALL BE POSTED WITH THE TELEPHONE
NUMBER AND NAME OF THE PERSON TO CONTACT ON-SITE
DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR REGADING DUST COMPLAINS.
GREENHOUSE GASES: A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE CONSTRUCTION
WASTE GENERATED BY THIS PROJECT TO BE RECYCLED OR SALVAGED FOR USE. DOCUMENTATION TO BE PROVIDED BEFORE THE FINAL
BUILDING PERMIT INSPECTION. SAMPLE FORMS LOCATED AT
WWW.HCD.CA.GOV/CALGREEN.HTML MAY BE USED TO ASSIST IN
DOCUMENTING COMPLIANCE.
TREE PROTECTION: THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE TREE
PROTECTION GUIDELINES IDENTIFIED ON THE PROJECT LANDSCAPE PLANS (DEMOLITION NOTES SHEET L-0.1).
CLEARING & GRUBBING: CLEAR AND GRUB TWO THE LIMITS OF WORK
PER SPECIFICATIONS TAKING CARE TO NOT DISTURB THE ROOT SYSTEM OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN.
EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN: EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN SHALL BE
PRUNED UNDER THE DIRECTION OF A CERTIFIED ARBORIST IN
ACCORDANCE WITH INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY OF ARBORICULTURAL (ISA) GUIDELINES PRIOR TO BEGINNING OF CONSTRUCTION. DURING CONSTRUCTION, FENCING SHALL BE INSTALLED.
AIR QUALITY
CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATIONAL EMISSION: 1.OFF- ROAD
EQUIPMENT GREATER THAN 50 HORSEPOWER(HP) AND OPERATING
FOR MORE THAN 20 TOTAL HOURS PER WEEK SHALL OPERATE ON AN EPA-APPROVED TIER 4 OR NEWER ENGINE.
2.TO REDUCE CONSTRUCTION-RELATED FUGITIVE DUST BY
IMPLEMENTING BAAQMD'S BASIC CONTROL MEASURES AT ALL
CONSTRUCTION AND STAGING AREAS. THE FOLLOWING MEASURES ARE BASED ON BAAQMD'S CURRENT [2017] CEQA GUIDELINES.
a) ALL HAUL TRUCKS TRANSPORTING SOIL, SAND, OR OTHER LOOSE MATERIAL OFFSITE WILL BE COVERED. b) ALL VISIBLE MUD OR DIRT TRACK-OUT ONTO ADJACENT PUBLIC
ROADS WILL BE REMOVED USING WET POWER VACUUM STREET
SWEEPERS. THE USE OF DRY POWER SWEEPING IS PROHIBITED.
c) ALL VEHICLE SPEEDS ON UNPAVED ROADS, DRIVEWAYS, OR DRIVING SURFACES SHALL BE LIMITED TO 15 MPH.
d) ALL ROADWAYS, DRIVEWAYS, AND SIDEWALKS TO BE PAVED WILL BE COMPLETED AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. BUILDING PADS WILL BE LAID AS
SOON AS POSSIBLE AFTER GRADING UNLESS SEEDING OR SOIL
BINDERS ARE USED. e) POST A PUBLICLY VISIBLE SIGN WITH THE TELEPHONE NUMBER AND
THE NAME OF THE PERSON TO CONTACT AT THE ON-SITE
DISTURBANCE COORDINATOR REGARDING DUST COMPLAINTS. THIS PERSON WILL RESPOND AND TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION WITHIN 48 HOURS. THE PHONE NUMBER OF THE DISTRICT WILL ALSO BE VISIBLE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE.
f) IDLING TIMES TO BE MINIMIZED EITHER BY SHUTTING EQUIPMENT
OFF WHEN NOT IN USE OR REDUCING THE MAXIMUM IDLING TIME
TO FIVE MINUTES (AS REQUIRED BY THE CALIFORNIA AIRBORNE TOXICS CONTROL MEASURE TITLE 13, SECTION 2485 OF
CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS). CLEAR SIGNAGE MUST BE
PROVIDED FOR CONSTRUCTION WORKERS AT ALL ACCESS POINTS. g) ALL CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT TO BE MAINTAINED AND
PROPERLY TUNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUFACTURER'S
SPECIFICATIONS.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
VAN
LOADING
1 2 EV
30 29 28
EV EV
EV EV EV
EV EV
31 571.85' 571.0' 20.0% 2.0% 8.0%
577.5'
571.85'
586.85' F.F. ABOVE
579.1' 579.7'
564.0' 5.1%
566.0'
564.2' 6.0% 8' RAMP 8%
586.8'
586
UP DN
564.3'
27 3,4,5 6,7,8 9,10,11 12,13,14 15,16,17 18,19,20 21 22 24 25 26
23 SWITCH BOARD
SWITCH BOARD
553.1' DN
UP
557.1'
541.9' UP
575.6'
12 9 6 3 18 21 24 27 30 33 36
45 48
586.8'
15 586.8'
39 42
598.0'
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
SCALE:
1"=20' NORTH
PODIUM /GARAGE
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
TRASH ROOM
DRIVEWAY
ELEC
MPOE
ACCESSIBLE PATH OF TRAVEL
MECH
FAN
ROOM
18'-5" 10'-4"
11'-7" 9'-0" 20'-2" OVHD GATE
GARAGE 1'-6"
28'-2 1/4" 9" 1'-0"
BASEMENT
SUB BASEMENT
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2 23'-8" 22'-11"
2 1/4" 1'-8"
8'-7"
CAR LIFT CAR LIFT CAR LIFT CAR LIFT CAR LIFT CAR LIFT
PLANTERS
BICYCLE PARKING ROLL-UP DOOR
BUILDING PLAN
BUILDING PLAN
BUILDING PLAN 50'-3"
44" CORRIDOR 49'-3" 17'-2" 52'-6"
34'-10" 99'-6" 30'-6 3/4"
214'-4"
103'-2"
10'-0" 213'-5"
20' 40' 60'
44" CORRIDOR
MEZZANINE
BUILDING PLAN
LEVEL 1
BUILDING PLAN
47'-10" 43'-4 1/4" 1'-6" 9" 1'-0"
47'-7 3/4" 14'-1" 29'-8"1'-8"
2 1/4"
2 1/4" 2 1/4"
102'-10"
102'-5 1/4"
FLOOR PLAN BR
FLOOR PLAN H
FLOOR PLAN AL
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
FLOOR PLAN D
IDF 44" CORRIDOR
IDF
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
IDF
TRASH
DRIVEWAY BELOW
LOBBY
PACKAGE ROOM
MAIL ROOM
FAN CHASE
TO ROOF
21'-9" 29'-4" 11'-8" 11'-6"
14'-7 3/4" 1'-6"
18'-7" 13'-4 1/2" 9" 1'-0"
3'-8"
2 1/4" 44'-10 7/8" 2 1/4" 62'-5 3/8" 47'-7 3/4" 14'-1" 1'-8" 8'-7" 29'-5 1/2"
2 1/4"
31'-1 3/4"
2 1/4" 2 1/4" 2 1/4"
2'-0"
2 1/4" 2 1/4" 52'-6"
214'-4"
213'-5"
POWDER
ROOM
5'-0"
FLOOR PLAN F
FLOOR PLAN C
2 1/4"
IDF
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
IDF
TRASH
21'-9"
22'-11 1/4" 18'-0 3/4" 11'-6"
14'-7 3/4" 1'-6"
60'-8 1/4" 30'-6" 9" 1'-0"
3'-8"
2 1/4" 44'-10 7/8" 2 1/4" 62'-5 3/8" 47'-7 3/4" 14'-1" 29'-8"1'-8" 8'-7"
2 1/4" 2 1/4" 2 1/4" 2 1/4"
2'-0"
2 1/4" 2 1/4"
214'-4"
213'-5"
FLOOR PLAN G
FLOOR PLAN E
FLOOR PLAN D
FLOOR PLAN F
FLOOR PLAN C
2 1/4"
44" CORRIDOR
44" CORRIDOR 52'-6"
LEVEL 2
BUILDING PLAN
DECK DECK DECK DECK
DECK
DECK DECK
JULIET BALCONY
DECK DECK DECK
DECK DECK
DECK
DECK
UP
UP
UP
29'-5 1/2"
W
D
LAUNDRY 23'-8"
31'-10 3/4"
29'-8"
29'-8"
FITNESS
ROOM FLOOR PLAN H FLOOR PLAN J MEDIA
UTILITY ROOM
D
DW
W
UP
48'-10 1/2"
29'-11 3/4"
14'-5" 14'-0" 16'-10 3/4" 13'-1"
10'-10 1/2" 2 1/4"
10'-10 1/2" 2 1/4" SHELVES SHELVES
44" CORRIDOR
31'-5 1/4" 29'-3"
FLOOR PLAN BP
FLOOR PLAN BB
FLOOR PLAN H
FLOOR PLAN HR
JULIET BALCONY
JULIET BALCONY
NURSING STATION
SUPPLY
ROOM
SCOPE OF WORK, PERMITS & AUTHORIZATIONS
IN ORDER TO MANAGE AND RUN THIS SENIOR RESIDENTIAL LIVING FACILITY, CERTAIN INCIDENTAL
SERVICES AND OFFERINGS ARE NECESSARY FOR ITS OPERATION AND TO SERVE ITS RESIDENTS DUE TO THE
LIMITED MOBILITY AND SPECIAL NEEDS OF SENIOR RESIDENTS, INCLUDING LOW-INCOME SENIOR RESIDENTS. THESE SERVICES AND OFFERINGS AND MUST REMAIN INCIDENTAL AND SUPPLEMENTAL TO THE PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USAGE. THESE SERVICES AND OFFERINGS SHALL BE AVAILABLE TO RESIDENTS AND THE FACILITIES GUESTS, BUT SHALL NOT BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC. THESE SERVICES
AND OFFERINGS SHALL BE LICENSED AND PERMITTED IN PERPETUITY FOR THE LIFE OF THE FACILITY AND NOT BE SUBJECT TO CURRENT OR FUTURE LOCAL ORDINANCES AND REQUIREMENTS. NOTWITHSTANDING, ALL SUCH SERVICES AND OFFERINGS SHALL MEET ALL STATE AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.
THESE SERVICES AND OFFERINGS INCLUDE:
1. NAIL & HAIR SALON, MASSAGE, CHIROPRACTIC, TRANSPORTATION, AND SIMILAR NON-MEDICAL SERVICES.
2. MEDICAL TREATMENT TO ITS RESIDENTS AND GUEST THROUGH THIRD PARTY CONTRACTORS FOR TREATMENT ON PREMISES.
3. EVENTS OF UP TO 250 PEOPLE BETWEEN THE HOURS OF 9:00AM AND 10:00PM WITH A MAXIMUM NOISE LEVEL OF 80 DECIBELS MEASURED AT GROUND LEVEL ON THE PROPERTY LINE.
4. USE STREET PARKING, REGARDLESS OF SIGNAGE, ALONG THE MORA DRIVE RIGHT-OF-WAY BUT OUTSIDE THE ROADWAY PATH OF TRAVEL, EXCEPT WHERE PARKING IS OBJECTIVELY UNSAFE:
5. SERVING AND SALE OF HOT AND COLD FOOD, BEER, WINE AND LIQUOR.
6. SELECT AND MANAGE ITS TENANTS, INCLUDING LOW-INCOME TENANTS.
7. SALE GIFTS, INCIDENTALS, AND FOOD ITEMS.
8. MANAGEMENT OF ALL INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR LIGHTING, INCLUDING WATTAGE, ORIENTATION,
HOWEVER LIGHTING SHALL BE ORIENTED TO REDUCE IMPACT ON NEIGHBORING STRUCTURES WHERE FEASIBLE.
9. NON MEDICAL CARE OF RESIDENTS, INCLUDING PHYSICAL THERAPY, RECOVERY FROM MEDICAL USES, AND IN MONITORING, BATHING OR OTHER LIFE ACTIVITIES.
THIS PLAN IS INTENDED TO CONTAIN ALL REQUIRED USE, SITE OFF-SITE AND STREET IMPROVEMENTS PERMITS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT. SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS MAY REQUIRE FURTHER DETAILING TO MEET HEALTH AND SAFETY STANDARDS.
ALLOWABLE AREA NOTES:
FROM THE 2022 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE
BUILDING AREA
GENERAL NOTES
FIRE WALLS
706.5 HORIZONTAL CONTINUITY. FIRE WALLS SHALL BE CONTINUOUS FROM EXTERIOR WALL TO EXTERIOR WALL AND SHALL EXTEND AT LEAST 18" BEYOND THE EXTERIOR SURFACE OF EXTERIOR WALLS.
EXCEPTIONS
1. [NOT USED.]
2. [NOT USED]
3. FIRE WALLS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TERMINATE AT THE INTERIOR SURFACE OF ON
COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SHEATHING WHERE THE BUILDING ON EACH SIDE OF THE FIRE WALL IS
PROTECTED BY AN
AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1 OR 903.3.1.2. 706.5.1 EXTERIOR WALLS. WHERE THE FIRE WALL INTERSECTS EXTERIOR WALLS, THE FIRE-RESISTANCE
RATING AND OPENING PROTECTION OF THE EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL COMPLY WITH ONE OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. [NOT USED]
2. BUILDINGS OR SPACES ON BOTH SIDES OF THE INTERSECTING FIRE WALL SHALL ASSUME TO
HAVE AN IMAGINARY LOT LINE AT THE FIRE WALL AND EXTENDING BEYOND THE EXTERIOR OF THE FIRE WALL.
THE LOCATION OF THE ASSUMED LINE IN RELATION TO THE EXTERIOR WALLS AND THE FIRE WALL SHALL
BE SUCH THAT THE EXTERIOR WALL AND OPENING PROTECTION MEET THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTIONS 705.5 AND 705.8. SUCH PROTECTION IS NOT REQUIRED FOR EXTERIOR WALLS TERMINATING AT FIRE WALLS THAT FORM AN ANGLE EQUAL TO OR GREATER THAN 180 DEGREES. 706.5.2 HORIZONTAL PROJECTING ELEMENTS. FIRE WALLS SHALL
EXTEND TO THE OUTER EDGE OF HORIZONTAL PROJECTING ELEMENTS SUCH AS BALCONIES, ROOF OVERHANGS, CANOPIES, MARQUEES AND SIMILAR PROJECTIONS THAT ARE WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE FIRE WALL.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. HORIZONTAL PROJECTING ELEMENTS WITHOUT CONCEALED SPACES, PROVIDED THAT THE EXTERIOR WALL BEHIND AND BELOW THE PROJECTING ELEMENT HAS NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR
FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATE CONSTRUCTION FOR A DISTANCE NOT LESS THAN THE DEPTH OF THE PROJECTING ELEMENT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FIRE WALL. OPENINGS WITHIN SUCH EXTERIOR WALLS
SHALL BE PROTECTED BY OPENING PROTECTIVES HAVING A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 3/4 HOUR.
2. NONCOMBUSTIBLE HORIZONTAL PROJECTING ELEMENTS WITH
CONCEALED SPACES, PROVIDED THAT A MINIMUM 1-HOUR FIRERESISTANCE- RATED WALL EXTENDS
THROUGH THE CONCEALED THE PROJECTING ELEMENT SHALL BE SEPARATED FROM THE BUILDING BY NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED CONSTRUCTION FOR A DISTANCE ON EACH SIDE OF
THE FIRE WALL
EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE PROJECTING ELEMENT. THE WALL IS NOT REQUIRED TO EXTEND UNDER THE PROJECTING ELEMENT WHERE THE BUILDING EXTERIOR WALL IS NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR
FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED FOR A DISTANCE ON EACH SIDE OF THE FIRE WALL EQUAL TO THE DEPTH OF THE PROJECTING ELEMENT.
OPENINGS WITHIN SUCH EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY OPENING PROTECTIVES HAVING A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 3/4 HOUR.
3. FOR COMBUSTIBLE HORIZONTAL PROJECTING ELEMENTS WITH CONCEALED SPACES, THE FIRE WALL
NEED ONLY EXTEND THROUGH THE CONCEALED SPACE TO THE OUTER EDGES OF THE PROJECTING ELEMENTS. THE EXTERIOR WALL BEHIND AND BELOW THE PROJECTING ELEMENT SHALL BE OF NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE RATED CONSTRUCTION FOR A DISTANCE NOT LESS THAN THE DEPTH OF THE PROJECTING ELEMENTS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FIRE WALL. OPENINGS WITHIN SUCH EXTERIOR
WALLS SHALL BE PROTECTED BY OPENING PROTECTIVES HAVING A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 3/4 HOUR.
706.6 VERTICAL CONTINUITY. FIRE WALLS SHALL EXTEND FROM THE FOUNDATION TO A TERMINATION POINT AT LEAST 30" ABOVE BOTH ADJACENT ROOFS.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. STEPPED BUILDINGS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 706.6.1.
2. TWO-HOUR FIRE-RESISTANCE-RATED WALLS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TERMINATE AT THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF SHEATHING, DECK OR SLAB, PROVIDED THAT:
2.1. THE LOWER ROOF ASSEMBLY WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE WALL HAS NOT LESS THAN A 1-HOUR FIRE
RESISTANCE RATING AND THE ENTIRE LENGTH AND SPAN OF SUPPORTING ELEMENTS FOR THE RATED ROOF ASSEMBLY HAS A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 1 HOUR.
2.2. OPENINGS IN THE ROOF SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE FIRE WALL.
2.3. EACH BUILDING SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN A CLASS B ROOF COVERING.
3. WALLS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TERMINATE AT THE UNDERSIDE OF NONCOMBUSTIBLE ROOF
SHEATHING, DECK OR SLABS WHERE BOTH BUILDINGS ARE PROVIDED WITH NOT LESS THAN A CLASS B ROOF COVERING. OPENINGS IN THE ROOF SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 4 FEET OF THE FIRE WALL.
4. IN BUILDINGS OF TYPE III, IV AND V CONSTRUCTION, WALLS SHALL BE PERMITTED TO TERMINATE
AT THE UNDERSIDE OF COMBUSTIBLE ROOF SHEATHING OR DECKS, PROVIDED THAT ALL OF THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS ARE MET.
4.1 ROOF OPENINGS ARENOT LESS THAN 4 FEET FROM THE FIRE WALL,
4.2 THE ROOF IS COVERED WITH A MINIMUM CLASS B ROOF COVERING.
4.3 THE ROOF SHEATHING OR DECK IS CONSTRUCTED OF FIRERETARDANT- TREATED WOOD FOR A DISTANCE OF 4 FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF THE WALL OR THE ROOF IS PROTECTED WITH 5/8" TYPE X
GYPSUM BOARD DIRECTLY BENEATH THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF SHEATHING OR DECK, SUPPORTED BY NOT LESS THAN 2-INCH NOMINAL LEDGERS ATTACHED TO THE SIDES OF THE ROOF FRAMING MEMBERS FOR A DISTANCE OF NOT LESS THAN 4 FEET ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FIRE WALL.
5. IN BUILDINGS DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 510.2, FIRE WALLS LOCATED ABOVE THE 3-HOUR HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY REQUIRED BY SECTION 510.2, ITEM 1 SHALL BE PERMITTED TO EXTEND FROM THE TOP OF THIS HORIZONTAL ASSEMBLY.
BUILDINGS WITH SLOPED ROOFS IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 706.6.2. 706.6.1 STEPPED BUILDINGS. WHERE A FIRE WALL SERVES AS AN EXTERIOR WALL FOR A BUILDING AND
SEPARATES BUILDINGS HAVING DIFFERENT ROOF LEVELS, SUCH WALL SHALL TERMINATE AT A POINT NOT LESS THAN 30 INCHES (762 MM) ABOVE THE LOWER ROOF LEVEL, PROVIDED THE EXTERIOR WALL FOR A HEIGHT OF 15 FEET (4572 MM) ABOVE THE LOWER ROOF IS NOT LESS THAN 1-HOUR
FIRE-RESISTANCERATED CONSTRUCTION FROM BOTH SIDES WITH OPENINGS PROTECTED BY FIRE ASSEMBLIES HAVING A FIRE PROTECTION RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 3/4 HOUR.
EXCEPTION: WHERE THE FIRE WALL TERMINATES AT THE UNDERSIDE OF THE ROOF SHEATHING, DECK OR SLAB OF THE LOWER ROOF, PROVIDED THAT:
1. THE LOWER ROOF ASSEMBLY WITHIN 10 FEET (3048MM) OF THE WALL HAS NOT LESS THAN A 1-HOUR FIRE RESISTANCE RATING AND THE ENTIRE LENGTH AND SPAN OF SUPPORTING ELEMENTS FOR THE RATED ROOF ASSEMBLY HAS A FIRE-RESISTANCE RATING OF NOT LESS THAN 1 HOUR.
2. OPENINGS IN THE LOWER ROOF SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN 10 FEET (3048 MM) OF THE FIRE WALL.
706.8 OPENINGS. EACH OPENING THROUGH A FIRE WALL SHALL BE PROTECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 716.5 AND SHALL NOT EXCEED 156 SQUARE FEET (15 m2). THE AGGREGATE WIDTH OF OPENINGS AT ANY FLOOR LEVEL SHALL NOT EXCEED 25 PERCENT OF THE LENGTH OF THE WALL.
EXCEPTIONS:
1. OPENINGS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN PARTY WALLS CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 706.1.1.
2. OPENINGS SHALL NOT BE LIMITED TO 156 SQUARE FEET (15 m2) WHERE BOTH BUILDINGS ARE
EQUIPPED THROUGHOUT WITH AN AUTOMATIC SPRINKLER SYSTEM INSTALLED IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 903.3.1.1.
706.9 PENETRATIONS. PENETRATIONS OF FIRE WALLS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 714. 706.10 JOINTS. JOINTS MADE IN OR BETWEEN FIRE WALLS SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 715. 706.11 DUCTS AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS. DUCTS AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS SHALL NOT PENETRATE FIRE WALLS.
EXCEPTION: PENETRATIONS BY DUCTS AND AIR TRANSFER OPENINGS OF FIRE WALLS THAT ARE NOT ON
A LOT LINE SHALL BE ALLOWED PROVIDED THE PENETRATIONS COMPLY WITH SECTION THE SIZE AND AGGREGATE WIDTH OF ALL OPENINGS SHALL NOT EXCEED THE LIMITATIONS OF SECTION 706.8.
FLOOR PLAN H
FLOOR PLAN I FLOOR PLAN J
FLOOR PLAN L
FLOOR PLAN K
FLOOR PLAN N
FLOOR PLAN M
FLOOR PLAN P
FLOOR PLAN O
FLOOR PLAN Q
DENOTES PROPOSED LOCATION OF
BMR UNIT. SUBJECT TO CHANGE.
NOTE:
"BMR"
IDF
DINING
29'-8"
151 CERVANTES ROAD
PORTOLA VALLEY, CA 94041 8'-0"
29'-11 1/4" 49'-3" 49'-3" 23'-2" 26'-1"
11"
17'-4 1/4" 29'-11 3/4"
47'-4" 1'-0"
18'-10 3/4"
2 1/4"
STORAGE
POWDER
ROOM 49'-3" 23'-8" 25'-7" 49'-3" 23'-8" 25'-7" 49'-3" 23'-8" 25'-7" 49'-3" 23'-8" 25'-7" A1.1
BUILDING FLOOR PLANS
FLOOR PLAN HRB
LANDING
19'-9"
49'-7 1/4"
11"
11"
11"
11"
DECK
DECK 1'-8" 1'-8" 1'-8"
DECK 1'-8"
LANDING 4'-0" 4'-0" 4'-0" 22'-5 3/4" 16'-4 3/4" 24'-4 3/4" 11"
JANITOR
TYPE I-A NON BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS:
1-HOUR FIRE-RATED PARTITION WALLS
OPENNINGS: 75% MAX.
TYP. AT REAR OF BUILDING BELOW PODIUM
TYPE I-A NON BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS:
REQUIRED: 1-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
PROVIDED: 2-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
OPENNINGS: 25% MAX.
TYP. AT SIDES OF BUILDING BELOW PODIUM
TYPE I-A NON BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS:
REQUIRED: 1-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
PROVIDED: 2-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
OPENNINGS: 25% MAX.
TYP. AT SIDES OF BUILDING BELOW PODIUM
TYPE I-A NON BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS:
REQUIRED: 1-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
PROVIDED: 2-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
OPENNINGS: 25% MAX.
TYP. AT SIDES OF BUILDING BELOW PODIUM
TYPE I-A NON BEARING EXTERIOR WALLS:
REQUIRED: 1-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
PROVIDED: 2-HOUR FIRE-RATED WALLS
OPENNINGS: 25% MAX.
TYP. AT SIDES OF BUILDING BELOW PODIUM
29'-4 1/4"
JULIET BALCONY
DECK DECK
JULIET BALCONY
2 1/4"
FLOOR PLAN I
GIFT SHOP
AESTHETICS
LIGHTING NOTES: ALL EXTERIOR LIGHTING SHALL EMPLOY THE USE OF CUT-OFF FIXTURES TO RESTRICT THE DIRECTION OF THE LIGHT SO AS NOT TO BE DIRECTLY VISIBLE FROM OFF-SITE.
RECREATION COURTS: NO ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING SHALL BE PERMITTED FOR TENNIS AND OTHER RECREATION COURTS.
SWIMMING POOL AND SPAS: ARTIFICIAL LIGHTING OF SWIMMING POOLS AND SPAS SHALL BE PLACED BENEATH THE SURFACE OF THE WATER IN THE POOL OR SPA TO ILLUMINATE THE WATER.
OTHER EXTERIOR LIGHTS USED TO ILLUMINATE THE SURROUNDING AREA USE THE MINIMUM NUMBER AND WATTAGE OF LIGHT WHICH WILL SAFELY ILLUMINATE THE AREA.
HIGH INTENSITY LIGHTING PROHIBITED: HIGH INTENSITY DISCHARGE LIGHTING, SUCH AS MERCURY VAPOR, HIGH- AND LOW-PRESSURE SODIUM, AND METAL HALIDE LIGHTING IS PROHIBITED.
OUTDOOR LIGHTING: OUTDOOR LIGHTING SHOULD USE THE MINIMUM NUMBER AND WATTAGE LIGHTS WHICH WILL SAFELY ILLUMINATE THE AREA. OUTDOOR LIGHT SOURCES SHALL BE SHIELDED SO AS NOT TO BE DIRECTLY VISIBLE FROM OFF-SITE.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
NESTING MIGRATORY BIRDS ARE PROTECTED UNDER THE MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT, AND SECTION 3503 OF THE CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE. SEVERAL SPECIES OF BATS THAT INHABIT THE BAY AREA ARE LISTED AS A CALIFORNIA SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN (CSSC). TREE REMOVAL HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DISTURB NESTING MIGRATORY BIRDS AND BATS. THUS, ALL APPLICATIONS THAT INCLUDE TREE REMOVAL ARE REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE FOLLOWING MEASURES AS STANDARD CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL:
NESTING BIRDS:
1.TO MINIMIZE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON NESTING BIRDS, THE APPLICANT SHALL AVOID CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES (I.E., TREE PRUNING, TREE REMOVAL, TREE PROTECTION WORK, DEMOLITION, GRADING, AND CONSTRUCTION) DURING THE ACTIVE NESTING SEASON (BETWEEN FEBRUARY 1, AND AUGUST 31). IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SCHEDULE CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1 AND JANUARY 31, THEN
PRE-CONSTRUCTION SURVEYS FOR NESTING BIRDS SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY A QUALIFIED
BIOLOGIST TO ENSURE THAT NO NESTS WILL BE DISTURBED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. THESE SURVEYS SHALL BE CONDUCTED NO MORE THAN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES. DURING THIS SURVEY, A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST WILL INSPECT ALL TREES AND OTHER POTENTIAL NESTING HABITATS (E.G., TREES, SHRUBS, AND STRUCTURES) IN AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE IMPACT AREAS FOR NESTS. IF AN
ACTIVE NEST IS FOUND SUFFICIENTLY CLOSE TO WORK AREAS TO BE DISTURBED BY THESE
ACTIVITIES, THE BIOLOGIST WILL DETERMINE THE EXTENT OF A CONSTRUCTION-FREE BUFFER ZONE TO BE ESTABLISHED AROUND THE NEST (TYPICALLY 300 FT FOR RAPTORS AND 100 FT
FOR OTHER SPECIES, TYPICALLY RECOMMENDED BY THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH
AND WILDLIFE), TO ENSURE THAT NO NESTS OF SPECIES PROTECTED BY THE MIGRATORY BIRD
TREATY ACT AND CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE WILL BE DISTURBED DURING PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION. 2. IF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES WILL NOT BE INITIATED UNTIL AFTER THE START OF THE NESTING SEASON, ALL POTENTIAL NESTING SUBSTRATES (E.G., BUSHES, TREES, GRASSES, AND OTHER
VEGETATION) THAT ARE SCHEDULED TO BE REMOVED BY THE PROJECT SHOULD BE REMOVED PRIOR TO THE START OF THE NESTING SEASON (E.G., PRIOR TO FEBRUARY 1). THIS WILL
REDUCE THE INITIATION OF NESTS IN
THE VEGETATION AND REDUCE POTENTIAL DELAYS OF THE PROJECT DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF ACTIVE NESTS WITHIN THESE SUBSTRATES. BATS:
1.A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST SHALL VISUALLY INSPECT TREES TO BE REMOVED FOR BAT ROOSTS WITHIN 7 DAYS PRIOR TO THEIR REMOVAL. THE BIOLOGIST WILL LOOK FOR SIGNS OF BATS
INCLUDING SIGHTINGS OF LIVE OR DEAD BATS, BAT CALLS OR SQUEAKING, THE SMELL OF BATS, BAT DROPPINGS, GREASE STAINS, OR URINE STAINS AROUND OPENINGS IN TREES OR STRUCTURES, OR FLIES AROUND SUCH OPENINGS. TREES WITH MULTIPLE HOLLOWS, CREVICES, FORKED BRANCHES, WOODPECKER HOLES OR LOOSE AND FLAKING BARK HAVE THE HIGHEST CHANCE OF OCCUPATION AND SHALL BE INSPECTED THE MOST CAREFULLY. 2. IF SIGNS OF BATS ARE DETECTED, CDFW SHOULD BE CONTACTED ABOUT HOW TO PROCEED.
ECHO-LOCATION SURVEYS MAY BE NEEDED TO VERIFY THE PRESENCE OF BATS, OR AN
EXCLUSION ZONE AROUND THE OCCUPIED TREE MAY BE RECOMMENDED UNTIL BATS LEAVE THE ROOST. DUE TO RESTRICTIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH DEPARTMENT, DIRECT CONTACT BY WORKERS WITH ANY BAT IS NOT ALLOWED. THE QUALIFIED BAT BIOLOGIST
SHALL BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY IF A BAT ROOST IS DISCOVERED DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
HUMAN REMAINS: IF ANY HUMAN REMAINS ARE DISCOVERED OR RECOGNIZED IN ANY
LOCATION ON A PROJECT SITE, THERE SHALL BE NO FURTHER EXCAVATION OR
DISTURBANCE OF THE SITE OR ANY NEARBY AREA REASONABLY SUSPECTED TO OVERLIE ADJACENT HUMAN REMAINS UNTIL:
THE SAN MATEO COUNTY CORONER/SHERIFF HAS BEEN INFORMED AND HAS DETERMINED THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF THE CAUSE OF DEATH IS REQUIRED; AND IF THE REMAINS ARE OF NATIVE AMERICAN ORIGIN:
a) THE DESCENDANTS OF THE DECEASED NATIVE AMERICANS HAVE MADE A
RECOMMENDATION TO THE LANDOWNER OR THE PERSON RESPONSIBLE FOR THE
EXCAVATION WORK, FOR MEANS OF TREATING OR DISPOSING OF, WITH APPROPRIATE
DIGNITY, THE HUMAN REMAINS AND ANY ASSOCIATED GRAVE GOODS AS PROVIDED IN PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 5097.98; OR
b) THE NATIVE AMERICAN HERITAGE COMMISSION WAS UNABLE TO IDENTIFY A DESCENDANT OR THE DESCENDANT FAILED TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION WITHIN 24 HOURS AFTER BEING NOTIFIED BY THE COMMISSION. DEFENSIBLE SPACE NOTES CFC Sec. 4291: THIS PROJECT SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AND MAINTAINED TO:
(1)(A) MAINTAIN DEFENSIBLE SPACE OF 100 FEET FROM EACH SIDE AND FROM THE FRONT AND
REAR OF THE STRUCTURE, BUT NOT BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE, EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (B). THE AMOUNT OF FUEL MODIFICATION NECESSARY SHALL CONSIDER THE
FLAMMABILITY OF THE STRUCTURE AS AFFECTED BY BUILDING MATERIAL, BUILDING STANDARDS, LOCATION, AND TYPE OF VEGETATION. FUELS SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND SPACED IN A CONDITION
SO THAT A WILDFIRE BURNING UNDER AVERAGE WEATHER CONDITIONS WOULD BE UNLIKELY TO IGNITE THE STRUCTURE. THIS SUBPARAGRAPH DOES NOT APPLY TO SINGLE SPECIMENS OF TREES
OR OTHER VEGETATION THAT ARE WELL-PRUNED AND MAINTAINED SO AS TO EFFECTIVELY
MANAGE FUELS AND NOT FORM A MEANS OF RAPIDLY TRANSMITTING FIRE FROM OTHER NEARBY VEGETATION OR TO INTERRUPT THE ADVANCE OF EMBERS TOWARD A STRUCTURE. THE INTENSITY OF FUELS MANAGEMENT MAY VARY WITHIN THE 100-FOOT PERIMETER OF THE STRUCTURE, WITH MORE INTENSE FUEL REDUCTIONS BEING UTILIZED BETWEEN 5 AND 30 FEET AROUND THE STRUCTURE, AND AN EMBER-RESISTANT ZONE BEING REQUIRED WITHIN 5 FEET OF STRUCTURE,
BASED ON REGULATIONS PROMULGATED BY THE BOARD, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE
DEPARTMENT, TO CONSIDER THE ELIMINATION OF MATERIALS IN THE EMBER-RESISTANT ZONE THAT WOULD LIKELY BE IGNITED BY EMBERS. CONSISTENT WITH FUELS MANAGEMENT
OBJECTIVES, STEPS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO MINIMIZE EROSION, SOIL DISTURBANCE, AND THE SPREAD OF FLAMMABLE NONNATIVE GRASSES AND WEEDS. FOR PURPOSES OF THIS SUBPARAGRAPH, "FUEL" MEANS ANY COMBUSTIBLE MATERIAL, INCLUDING PETROLEUM-BASED PRODUCTS, CULTIVATED LANDSCAPE PLANTS, GRASSES, WEEDS, AND WILDLAND VEGETATION. (2) REMOVE THAT PORTION OF A TREE THAT EXTENDS WITHIN 10 FEET OF THE OUTLET OF A CHIMNEY OR STOVEPIPE.
(3) MAINTAIN A TREE, SHRUB, OR OTHER PLANT ADJACENT TO OR OVERHANGING A BUILDING FREE OF DEAD OR DYING WOOD.
(4) MAINTAIN THE ROOF OF A STRUCTURE FREE OF LEAVES, NEEDLES, OR OTHER VEGETATIVE MATERIALS.
(5) BUILDING SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE BUILDING STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 51189 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. UPON COMPLETION
OF THE CONSTRUCTION OR REBUILDING, THE OWNER SHALL OBTAIN FROM THE LOCAL BUILDING
OFFICIAL, A COPY OF THE FINAL INSPECTION REPORT THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE DWELLING
OR STRUCTURE WAS CONSTRUCTED IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE STATE AND LOCAL BUILDING STANDARDS, INCLUDING THOSE DESCRIBED IN SUBDIVISION (b) OF SECTION 51189 OF
THE GOVERNMENT CODE, AND SHALL PROVIDE A COPY THAT INSURES THE DWELLING OR STRUCTURE.
1. THIS CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT SET IS INCLUSIVE OF THE DRAWING SHEETS LISTED IN THE SHEET INDEX(A0.0) AND THE PROJECT MANUAL.
2. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CHECK AND VERIFY ALL DIMENSIONS AND CONDITIONS FOR BUILDING AND SITE PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH THE WORK.
3. WRITTEN DIMENSIONS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SCALED DIMENSIONS. DO NOT SCALE THE DRAWINGS.
4. ALL DIMENSIONS, WHEN SHOWN IN THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, ARE TO FACE OF STUD, MASONRY, OR CONCRETE, OR CENTERLINE OF COMMON WALL UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED.
5. ALL CHANGES IN FLOOR MATERIAL OCCUR AT THE CENTERLINE OF DOOR OR FRAMED OPENING UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED ON THE DRAWINGS.
6. GLASS SUBJECTED TO HUMAN IMPACT SHALL BE OF SAFETY GLAZING MATERIAL ( LAMINATED, UNLESS OTHERWISE WHERE REQUIRED AND SHALL MEET LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL REQUIREMENTS.
7. ANY SURVEY MONUMENTS WITH IN THE AREA OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PRESERVED OR RESET BY A REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER OR A LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR.
8. PRIOR TO BIDDING, THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR AND ALL SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL VISIT THE SITE AND
BECOME ACQUAINTED WITH ALL CONDITIONS RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND THE EMPLOYMENT OF LABOR THEREON. BIDDERS AND THEIR SUB-CONTRACTORS SHALL REPORT ANY DISCREPANCIES TO THE ARCHITECT.
9. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: IN THE EVENT THAT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE ENCOUNTERED IN THE
PREMISES DURING THE EXECUTION OF THE WORK, NOTIFY THE OWNER IMMEDIATELY AND DO NOT PROCEED UNTIL DIRECTED. FOLLOW ALL CAL OSHA REQUIREMENTS.
10. NOTES ARE AN AID TO THE CONTRACTOR IN UNDERSTANDING THE WORK AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED AS BEING COMPLETE IN EVERY DETAIL. IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR TO
BECOME THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE WORK, AND REPORT ALL DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE DRAWINGS AND THE ACTUAL CONDITIONS TO THE ARCHITECT.
11. THE DRAWINGS INDICATE LOCATION, DIMENSIONS, REFERENCE, AND TYPICAL DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DRAWINGS DO NOT ILLUSTRATE EVERY CONDITION. WORK NOT PARTICULARLY DETAILED SHALL BE OF CONSTRUCTION SIMILAR TO PARTS THAT ARE DETAILED.
12. DO NOT SUBSTITUTE, REVISE, OR CHANGE THE WORK WITHOUT THE WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE ARCHITECT.
13. INSTALL ALL WORK PLUMB, LEVEL SQUARE,TRUE, AND IN PROPER ALIGNMENT.
14. COORDINATE ALL WORK AS REQUIRED BY THE CONTRACT DOCUMENTS WITH THE OWNER, INCLUDING TEMPORARY STORAGE, LOADING, KEYING SYSTEMS, ETC., AND PROVIDE NECESSARY BARRICADES, SIGNS, BARRIERS, AND PROTECTION.
15. CONTRACTOR SHALL PAY SPECIFIC ATTENTION TO THE DIMENSIONS OR IMPLIED PLAN AND SECTIONAL SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS, AND VERIFY ALL AXES AND IMPLIED SYMMETRIES BEFORE BEGINNING WORK.
16. PROVIDE AND COORDINATE LOCATION AND TYPE OF BLOCKING/ BACKING IN PARTITIONS BEHIND ALL WALL MOUNTED ITEMS. REVIEW ALL BLOCKING W/ ARCHITECT IN FIELD PRIOR TO COVERING W/ OTHER MATERIAL.
17. DETAILED AND LARGER SCALE DRAWINGS TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER SMALLER SCALE DRAWINGS.
BMR BMR
BMR
WOODRATS
A QUALIFIED BIOLOGIST SHALL VISUAL INSPECT THE SITE 30 DAYS PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT
TO IDENTIFY ANY SAN FRANCISCO DUSKY-FOOTED WOODRATS (SFDW) HOUSES AND DETERMINE WHETHER THE NESTS ARE ACTIVE OR INACTIVE. IF AN ACTIVE SFDW HOUSE IS FOUND OUTSIDE
OF THE GRADING FOOTPRINT, THE ACTIVE HOUSE SITE WILL BE DESIGNATED AS "ECOLOGICALLY SENSITIVE AREAS" (ESA) AND PROTECTED DURING PROJECT CONSTRUCTION WITH ESTABLISHMENT OF FLAGGING OR A FENCE BARRIER SURROUNDING THE NEST SITE.
IF SFDW HOUSES ARE FOUND WITHIN THE GRADING FOORPRINT AND IMPACTS CANNOT BE AVOIDED, A BIOLOGIST WILL PREPARE AN SFDW HOUSE RELOCATION PLAN. THE PLAN WILL
IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF THE ACTIVE HOUSES, THE NEED FOR RELOCATION, THE NEW LOCATION, AND THE METHODS FOR RELOCATION. THE METHODS MAY INCLUDE CREATING A
NEW NEST BOX, CAPTURING THE RAT(S) OVER UP TO TWO NIGHTS OF TRAPPING WITH EVENING
SET AND EARLY MORNING CHECK, RELOCATING THE NEST CUP AND LARDER TO THE NEW NEST
BOX, REBUILDING THE STICK HOUSE OVER THE NEST BOX, RELEASING THE RAT(S) INTO IT AND ADDING STICKS TO PREVENT THE RATS FROM BOLTING IMMEDIATELY. THE METHODS WILL BE
DETERMINED BY THE BIOLOGIST ACCORDING TO THE LATEST SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION AVAILABLE.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
609.2'
620.4'
620.4'
631.6' 10
8 8
7 7 10 OFF 10
8 8
7 7 10 OFF
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
A1.2
SCALE:
1"=20'
BUILDING PLANS & ROOF PLAN NORTH
20' 40' 60'
IDF
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
IDF
TRASH
21'-9"
22'-11 1/4" 18'-0 3/4" 11'-6"
14'-7 3/4"
30'-6" 25'-7" 1'-6"
60'-8 1/4" 9" 1'-0"
3'-8" 23'-8"
2 1/4" 44'-10 7/8" 2 1/4" 62'-5 3/8" 47'-7 3/4" 14'-1" 29'-8"1'-8" 8'-7"
2 1/4"
47'-10"
2 1/4" 2 1/4" 2 1/4"
2 1/4" 2 1/4"
214'-4"
213'-5" 49'-3"
FLOOR PLAN G
FLOOR PLAN E
FLOOR PLAN D
FLOOR PLAN B
FLOOR PLAN F
FLOOR PLAN C
2 1/4"
44" CORRIDOR 52'-6"
LEVEL 3
BUILDING PLAN
DECK DECK
DECK DECK DECK DECK
IDF
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
IDF
TRASH
21'-9"
22'-11 1/4" 18'-6 3/4" 11'-0"
14'-7 3/4" 25'-7"
60'-8 1/4" 1'-6"9" 1'-0"
3'-8" 23'-8"
2 1/4" 44'-10 7/8" 2 1/4" 62'-5 3/8" 47'-7 3/4" 14'-1"
8'-7" 42'-3 3/4"
2 1/4"
47'-10"
2 1/4" 2 1/4" 2 1/4"
3'-0"
2 1/4" 2 1/4"
214'-4"
213'-5" 49'-3"
FLOOR PLAN E
FLOOR PLAN D
FLOOR PLAN B
FLOOR PLAN A
FLOOR PLAN F
FLOOR PLAN C
2 1/4"
44" CORRIDOR 52'-6"
LEVEL 4
BUILDING PLAN
DECK DECK DECK
DECK DECK DECK
MUSIC ROOM
POWDER
ROOM
DECK
14'-5 1/8"
2'-0"
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
ELEVATOR
#1
EXIT
STAIR #1
12'-3"
14'-4"
18'-1" 25'-8"
28'-6 1/2" 3'-2" 9" 1'-0" 23'-7"
15'-5" 29'-8 1/8" 33'-2 3/4" 33'-0 1/4" 14'-1" 14'-7 3/8" 8'-7" 15'-1 1/4" 90'-5"
214'-4"
213'-5" 49'-3" 52'-6"
LEVEL 5/ ROOF TERRACE
BUILDING PLAN
DECK BELOW
29'-11 3/4"
14'-9 5/8" 29'-11" 15'-2 7/8" 1'-8"
FAN DUCTS TO GARAGE
18" HT. GLASS RAIL 1'-8"
18" HT. GLASS RAIL
48" HT. GLASS RAIL 48" HT. GLASS RAIL
UP
UP
UP
DN
YOGA
ROOM
DOG RUN
POOL
BATTERY BACKUP, TYP.
POWDER
ROOM
102'-10 1/2" 22'-2" 23'-11 3/4"
42'-3 3/4" 31'-8"
POOL EQUIPMENT, TYP.
48"HT.PARAPET WALL
48" HT.PARAPET WALL 48" HT. PARAPET WALL
MECH.ROOM
A.C UNITS, TYP.
EQUIPMENT ROOF
BUILDING PLAN
109'-4 1/2" 40'-0"
118'-8 1/4" 48'-10"
36" HT.PARAPETWALL 36" HT.PARAPETWALL
36" HT.PARAPETWALL 36" HT.PARAPETWALL
FLOOR PLAN A 6" 4'-4"
POWDER
ROOM
ROOF GARDEN
REF ROOM
KITCHEN
PANTRY
FLOOR PLAN GR
30'-6"
DECK
ELEVATOR
#2
EXIT
STAIR #2
VENT
SHAFT
UP
DN
DECK
11" 1'-8"
DECK 11"
11"
15'-2 7/8" 18" HT. GLASS RAIL
18" HT. GLASS RAIL 36" HT. GLASS RAIL
POWDER
ROOM
CANOPY WITH APPROVED COVERING HAVING A
FLAME SPREAD INDEX OF NOT GREATER THAN 25
9'-6"
POWDER
ROOM 11'-6"
TRASH 6'-2"
BAR
DINING
MULTI PURPOSE ROOM
FIRE PIT
OUTDOOR
SEATING
OUTDOOR
SEATING
SHUFFLE BOARD
4'-4" 4'-4"
4'-4"
18" HT. GLASS RAIL 11'-6"
14'-7 3/4"
KITCHEN STORAGE
10" 10"
PREP ROOM
VENT STACK, TYP.
VENT STACK, TYP.
15'-9" 11'-8" 13'-4"
22'-8" 7'-5" 17'-7"
1'-11"
5'-0"
DECK
JULIET BALCONY
JULIET BALCONY
CRAFT ROOM
ART ROOM
2'-0"
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A
South
558.0'
560.0'
562.0'
564.0'
566.0'
568.0'
570.0'
572.0'
574.0'
576.0'
578.0'
580.0' 580.0' EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
556.0'
554.0'
582.0'
584.0'
586.0'
588.0'
590.0'
592.0'
645.8' T.O. PARAPET
594.0'
596.0'
598.0'
600.0'
585.5' B.O. PODIUM
586.8' T.O. PODIUM
602.0'
604.0'
606.0'
608.0'
612.0'
614.0'
616.0'
618.0'
620.0'
622.0'
624.0'
626.0'
628.0'
630.0'
632.0'
634.0'
610.0'
608.0' B.O. JOISTS
609.2' T.O. SHEATHING
596.8' B.O. JOISTS
598.0' T.O. SHEATHING
619.2' B.O. JOISTS
620.4' T.O. SHEATHING
630.4' B.O. JOISTS
631.6' T.O. SHEATHING
574.3' B.O. PODIUM
575.6' T.O. PODIUM
563.1' B.O. JOISTS
564.3' T.O. SHEATHING
552.0'
550.0'
548.0'
546.0'
544.0'
542.0'
540.0'
538.0'
536.0'
534.0'
532.0'
551.9' B.O. JOISTS
553.1' T.O. SHEATHING
540.7' B.O. SLAB
541.9' T.O. SLAB
641.6' B.O. JOISTS
642.8' T.O. SHEATHING
636.0'
638.0'
640.0'
642.0'
644.0'
646.0'
581.8'
573.9'
570.6'
568.3'
565.5'
561.6'
557.5'
554.6'
553.0'
547.2'
559.3'
584.8'
8.0% SLOPE
8.0% SLOPE
8.0% SLOPE
8.0% SLOPE
8.0% SLOPE
570.8' GRADE PLANE
LANDING
557.1'
ELEVATOR SHAFT EXIT STAIRS
VENT STACKVENT STACK
570.0'
572.0'
574.0'
576.0'
578.0'
580.0' 580.0' EDGE OF
PAVEMENT
582.0'
584.0'
586.0'
588.0'
590.0'
592.0'
594.0'
596.0'
598.0'
600.0'
585.5' B.O. PODIUM
586.8' T.O. PODIUM
602.0'
604.0'
606.0'
608.0'
612.0'
614.0'
616.0'
618.0'
620.0'
622.0'
624.0'
626.0'
628.0'
630.0'
632.0'
634.0'
610.0'
608.0' B.O. JOISTS
609.2' T.O. SHEATHING
596.8' B.O. JOISTS
598.0' T.O. SHEATHING
619.2' B.O. JOISTS
620.4' T.O. SHEATHING
630.4' B.O. JOISTS
631.6' T.O. SHEATHING
574.3' B.O. PODIUM
575.6' T.O. PODIUM
579.7'
586.8'
577.5'
PLANTERS
DRIVEWAY
645.8' T.O. PARAPET
641.6' B.O. JOISTS
642.8' T.O. SHEATHING
636.0'
638.0'
640.0'
642.0'
644.0'
646.0'
586.0'
OPEN
TO BEYOND
Berry and Associates
Civil Engineer
Stevens Ferrone & Bailey
Engineering Company, Inc.
10728 MORA DRIVE
LOS ALTOS HILLS, CA 94024
Silver Oaks Senior Community
DATE: FEB 20, 2025
NO. DATE REVISION
2/1/2023
4/10/2023
1 2 Revision 1
3 5/17/2023 Revision 2
4 8/24/2023 Revision 3
5 11/21/2023 Revision 4
6 5/5/2024 Revision 5
7 10/1/2024 Revision 6
8 1/28/2025 Revision 7
9 2/20/2025 Revision 8
SCALE: 5'0' 10' 20'
1"=10' 73'-2" TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT TO FINISH GRADE 78'-6" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-4" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 62'-4" TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT TO FINISH GRADE FINISH LEVEL 66'-2" TOTAL BUILDING HEIGHT TO FINISH GRADE 66'-7" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8" 11'-2 3/8"
SOUTH ELEVATION
1 5'0' 10' 20' SCALE:
1"=10'
WEST ELEVATION
2 COLOR SAMPLES
SW 7666
FLEUR DE SEL
C
F
SW 7020
BLACK FOX
A
SW 6198
SENSIBLE HUE
D
CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING
ARTISAN V-RUSTIC
G
HTYP
ELEVATORS AND STAIRWELLS ARE EXEMPT FROM
HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS PER CBC 504.3.
ALL LIGHT SOURCES AT EXTERIOR SHALL BE FULL
CUT-OFF DARK SKY COMPLIANT. FOR SURFACE
MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE SHEET 3/A4.1. FOR
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHT FIXTURE, SEE SHEET 4/A4.1
Work Notes
1 2
SW 6431
LEAPFROG
LEVEL 1
+ 0'-0"
PODIUM / GARAGE
- 11'-4"
BASEMENT
- 22'-6"
LEVEL 2
+ 11'-2"
LEVEL 3
+ 22'-4"
LEVEL 4
+ 33'-7"
LEVEL 5
+ 44'-9"
+ 56'-0"
SUB BASEMENT
- 33'-8"
LEVEL 1
+ 0'-0"
LEVEL 2
+ 11'-2"
LEVEL 3
+ 22'-4"
LEVEL 4
+ 33'-7"
LEVEL 5
+ 44'-9"
ROOF
+ 56'-0"
NATURAL & FINISH GRADE
A
C F TYP
H TYP
J
A1
TYP
A1
TYP
B
G
TYP
G TYP
G
L
TYP
L
TYP
L
TYP
F TYP
A
C
H
C TYP
J
TYP
TYP G
A
A H
C
F TYP
H
L
TYP
J
TYP
TYP
F
TYP
D
H
TYP
J
TYP 10'-0" 1 10'-2 3/8"
2 TYP.
TYP. 2
2 TYP
APPROXIMATE SQUARE FOOTAGE:
THIS IS ONE BUILDING OF APPROXIMATELY 69,369 SQ.FT. 100% OF THE BUILDING IS RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY USES.
ACCESSORY USE BREAKDOWN:
R-2 (RESIDENTIAL)
A-3
B
S-2
47,347 sq.ft.
2,001 sq.ft.
8,857 sq.ft.
7,590 sq.ft.
ACCESSORY 1,005 sq.ft.
11'-2 3/8"
+ 67'-3" 80'-8" 10'-2 3/8"
+ 67'-3"
11'-2 3/8"
ROOF
F TYP
F TYP
10"
10" 10"
K
R-2.1 (ASSISTED LIVING) 2,569 sq.ft.
B
C
C C
C
C
Materials & Colors
NOTE: SEE COLOR SAMPLES ON THIS SHEET FOR
SAMPLE IMAGES AND COLORS
STONE CLADDING, SILVER TRAVERTINE
STEEL FASCIA , SILLS, & ACCENTS
SW 7020 BLACK FOX A
B
CEMENT PLASTER, STEEL TROWEL SMOOTH FINISH
SW 7666 FLEUR DE SEL C
STEEL ACCENT
SW 6431 LEAPFROG F
CEMENTITIOUS HORIZONTAL SIDING
ARTISAN V-RUSTIC, OVER RAINSCREEN G
42" TALL 12MM CLEAR TEMP GLASS
GUARDRAIL. H
WINDOWS: DOUBLE PANE BLACK ALUMINUM
FRAMED J
DOORS: STEEL DOOR
SW 7020 BLACK FOX K
CEMENT PLASTER, STEEL TROWEL SMOOTH FINISH
SW 7020 BLACK FOX A1
FABRIC AWNING OVER ALUMINUM FRAME, COLOR
TO MATCH L A
METAL GARAGE DOOR
SW 6198 SENSIBLE HUE D
B
A1
TYP C
B 4'-0"
FINISH & NATURAL GRADE BEYOND
NATURAL GRADE
3 CANOPY WITH APPROVED COVERING
HAVING A FLAME SPREAD INDEX OF NOT
GREATER THAN 25
NOTE: CBC BUILDING HEIGHTS MEASURED TO TOP OF ROOF MEMBRANE A2.1
ELEVATIONS
H TYP
4 3 EXIT DISCHARGE PATH, 48" CLEAR WIDTH
4 ROOF MEMBRANE
5 TYP
5 HAND RAIL, TYP.
5 TYP
K
K
General Notes
FINISH GRADE SHALL SLOPE AWAY FROM
FOUNDATIONS AT A 5% MIN. SLOPE FOR A MIN. OF
10' 0" AT SOIL AND A MIN. OF 3' 0" AT CONCRETE.
FINISH GRADE SHOWN AT BUILDING FOR ELEVATIONS
1. 2.
FIRE RESISTANCE RATING FOR EXTERIOR WALLS SHALL
COMPLY WITH CBC TABLE 705.5
3. MAXIMUM AREA OF EXTERIOR WALL OPENINGS SHALL
COMPLY WITH CBC TABLE 705.8
4. 2 TYP.
2 TYP.
TYP. 2
EXTERIOR LIGHT FIXTURE TOTAL - 95
SURFACE MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURE - 94, SEE SHEET 3/A4.1
RECESSED SOFFIT LIGHT FIXTURE - 01, SEE SHEET 4/A4.1
TYP. 2 74'-6" LOWEST BLD'G ACCESS TO ROOF DECK
3/4 HOUR GLASS
1 HOUR GLASS
3/4 HOUR GLASS
SUPPLEMENTAL FIRE
PROTECTION MEASURE #3
STANDPIPE OUTLETS ADDED
AT NORTH & SOUTH
EXTERIOR WALLS
SUPPLEMENTAL FIRE PROTECTION MEASURE #4
INCREASE FIRE RATING OF TYPE 1-A EXTERIOR
NON-BEARING WALLS FROM 1 HOUR (REQ'D) TO
2 HOURS, ALONG SOUTHERN WALL ADJACENT
TO FIREFIGHTER ACCESS PATH.
SUPPLEMENTAL FIRE PROTECTION MEASURE #5
REMOVAL OF GLASS BELOW 10' FROM
FIREFIGHTER'S INGRESS PATH AND INCREASE
FIRE RESISTANCE OF REMAINING GLASS, SEE
ELEVATIONS A2.1 10' MIN. TYP.
NOTE: SEE FIRE ACCESS PLAN A5.0 FOR
MORE INFORMATION ON
SUPPLEMENTAL FIRE PROTECTION
MEASURES
10"
10" 10"
L TYP
MEZZANINE
MEZZANINE
2'-6" PARAPET, TYP.
ITEM 2A ATTACHMENT 8A