3510 ALPINE RD.
157 WESTRIDGE DR.
LOT 21
4B
LOT 20
3B
LOT 19
3B
LOT 17
3B
LOT 16
3B
LOT 15
3B
LOT 12
3B
LOT 11
3B
LOT 8
3B
LOT 4
3B
LOT 2
3B
LOT 1
3B
LOT 26
3B
LOT 24
3B
LOT 18
4B
LOT 13
4B
LOT 14
4B
LOT 7
4B
LOT 3
4B
LOT 27
4B
LOT 25
4B
LOT 22
3B
LOT 9
3B
LOT 5
3B
BMR
C
BMR
B
BMR
A
LEGEND
NOTE: BUILDING TYPE: UNIT COUNT: SHEETS:
3B 3 BEDROOM UNIT 13 A1 SERIES
3D 3 BEDROOM DUET UNITS 6 A3 SERIES
4B 4 BEDROOM UNIT 8 A2 SERIES
BMR BELOW MARKET-RATE UNITS 3 A4 SERIES
ALPINE ROAD
STORMWATER
RETENTION AREAS, SCD
SCREENING TREES ALONG
ALPINE RD., SLD
1 2
6 7
8 16
15 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
EXISTING TRAILS
COMMON OPEN
SPACE & PLAY AREA
S
C
E
N
CI C
O
R
RID
O
R
75' - 0" S
E
T
B
A
C
K
A
T
FENCING,
SLD
3 4
5 9
10 11
14 13
12 LINE TO CLOSEST BUILDING
38' - 10" FROM NOTH PROP.
EMERGENCY
ACCESS LANE
LOT 6
3B
LOT 10
3B
LOT 23
3B
A0.02
7 A0.02
6 10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/32" = 1'-0"
A0.01
11/10/2020 9:13:21 AM
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/32" = 1'-0" 1
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN
0 16 32 64 ft.
N
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
/
/
/
/
/
/ 0
/ '
0 /
/
/
0 0 I
0 8 +
0 0
+
0 0
\ 0
0 ...
... 0
0 0 0
0 ... ...
u c~
0 \
\
I
... 0
/
+
Ui
0 C 0
0 /
0 /
/
\
0 - ,_, --- ---,---, ,--,----
----- ----- ------ ------ -------
-----
\
--- ------ --::::::-::::::::::- -----------:::: :::: - ---- H ~;-c-;:; ::; ,....., :::: :::::: - __, - - - ------- ---- -
0 /
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
0 \
---- ... ,--, ::: :::::: :::: - ----- ----- - ----- - ------ ------ ~ -Jc;;6".~C:C: - - - - - - - - =-= - - - - ------ ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- ...
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
\
\
\
...
/
/
/
/
/
/
/
\
... \
0 - - _ffi -~
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
OARc
cY MA(o
_, C 25636 <" :...\
'--------------_J
74' - 10"
97' - 10 1/2"
87' - 6 1/2"
LOT 1
BMR C
BMR B
BMR A
ALPINE ROAD
COMMON OPEN
SPACE & PLAY AREA
3 BEDRM
LOT 2
3 BEDRM
LOT 3
4 BEDRM
LOT 4
3 BEDRM
LOT 5
3 BEDRM DUET
LOT 6
3 BEDRM DUET
LOT 7
4 BEDRM
LOT 8
3 BEDRM
LOT 26
3 BEDRM
LOT 27
4 BEDRM
(VAN ACCESSIBLE)
12' - 0"
BIKE PARKING
FOR BMR UNITS
(6 SPACES)
GUEST BIKE
PARKING
(6 SPACES)
SCENIC CORRIDO
R
75' - 0" SETBACK A
T
SCREENING TREES ALONG
ALPINE RD., SLD
EXISTING TRAIL
FENCING, SLD
73' - 4 1/2"
57' - 7"
78' - 10"
1 2
6 7
8 16
15 17
18 19
3 4
5 9
10 11
14 13
12 20' - 0" TYP.
5' - 8 1/2"
10' - 7"
12' - 11 1/2"
12' - 0"
10' - 0"
19' - 9"
83' - 7"
104' - 9 1/2"
9' - 11 1/2"
TYP.
10' - 0"
25' - 0" MIN. 18' - 0" TYP.
30' - 0 1/2"
12' - 0"
28' - 0"
13' - 5"
13' - 4"
18' - 0"
13' - 5" 13' - 5" 12' - 0"
27' - 0 1/2"
18' - 0"
18' - 0"
13' - 5"
18' - 0"
13' - 5"
(VAN ACCESSIBLE)
12' - 0"
(VAN ACCESSIBLE)
12' - 0"
26' - 0"
91' - 6 1/2"
90' - 3 1/2"
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/16" = 1'-0"
11 1/ 0/2020 9:13:2
4 A
M
A0.01A
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN -
ENLARGED
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - ENLARGED AREA 1
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
0 0 0 0
0 0
0 0
0 \
\
+
0 0
+
\
\ 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 ~
0 0 0
0 0
0 \
\
0 +
\
+
\
\
0 0 0
0 0
\
\
\
\ 0
\
0 \
0 0
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
0 0
0 0
0 ~=+=====±=-==:j
0 0
BMR A
LOT 7
4 BEDRM
LOT 8
3 BEDRM
87' - 6 1/2"
18' - 0"
COMMON OPEN
SPACE & PLAY AREA
LOT 9
3 BEDRM DUET
LOT 10
3 BEDRM DUET
LOT 11
3 BEDRM
LOT 12
3 BEDRM
LOT 13
4 BEDRM
LOT 14
4 BEDRM
LOT 15
3 BEDRM
LOT 16
3 BEDRM
LOT 17
3 BEDRM
LOT 18
4 BEDRM
LOT 19
3 BEDRM
LOT 20
3 BEDRM
LOT 21
4 BEDRM
LOT 25
4 BEDRM
72' - 4"
18' - 0" TYP.
TYP.
10' - 0"
GUEST BIKE
PARKING
(6 SPACES)
6 7
8 16
15 17
18 19
20 21
22 23
24 25
9 10
14 13
12 20' - 0" TYP.
13' - 5" 13' - 5" 12' - 0"
27' - 0 1/2"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 6 1/8" 12' - 10" 13' - 5" 13' - 5"
13' - 5"
(VAN ACCESSIBLE)
12' - 0"
10' - 0"
9' - 11 1/2"
26' - 0"
8' - 11 1/2"
14' - 0 1/2"
21' - 3 1/2"
13' - 7 1/2"
20' - 7"
8' - 4"
10' - 11" 11' - 2 1/2"
10' - 9 1/2"
9' - 11 1/2"
12' - 0"
EMERGENCY ACCESS LANE
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/16" = 1'-0"
11 1/ 0/2020 9:13:27 A
M
A0.01B
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN -
ENLARGED
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - ENLARGED AREA 2
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
0 0 0
0 0
0 0
\
\
+
+ \
/4
\
\
0 ~
+ \
\
\
\
/
\
0 0
!
I
I I
I
I lo .A. I I
.A.
0 + 0
+
//\
\
\
\
\
\ 0
~ ~
/ "'' ~ /\
'
\
\
\
\
\
0 \
\
\
\
0 \
\
z /
/
\ /
0 /
\ /
0 0
0 /
/
0 \
\ I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I \
\
0 \
\
1/ \
\
/ V
/
+
\
0 0
0 - - I
.A.
/
/ 0
+
COMMON OPEN
SPACE & PLAY AREA
LOT 19
3 BEDRM
LOT 20
3 BEDRM
LOT 21
LOT 25 4 BEDRM
4 BEDRM
72'
- 4"
9' - 11 1/2"
8' - 7"
69'
-
3"
13' - 3 1/2"
LOT 24
3 BEDRM
LOT 23
3 BEDRM DUET
LOT 22
3 BEDRM DUET
SCREENING TREES ALONG
ALPINE RD., SLD
EXISTING TRAIL
FENCING, SLD
STORMWATER
RETENTION AREA, SCD
STORMWATER
RETENTION AREA, SCD
ALPINE ROAD
3510 ALPINE RD.
GUEST BIKE
PARKING
(6 SPACES)
20 21
22 23
24 25
26 27
28 29
18'
- 0"
TYP
. 25'
- 0"
MIN
.
TYP. 10' - 0"
2 0
'
-
0 "
T
Y
P
.
18' - 0"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
13' - 5"
12' - 10"
10' - 9 1/2"
12' - 0"
72'
-
6 1/2"
37'
- 4"
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/16" = 1'-0"
11 1/ 0/2020 9:13:29 AM
A0.01C
ARCHITECTURAL
SITE PLAN -
ENLARGED
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/16" = 1'-0"
1 ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN - ENLARGED AREA 3
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
\
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0 /
/ 0
+
0 L___J
0 +
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- .... -
\
\
0 \
\
0 0
0 0
....
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
---~ --
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ~ -- --- ~ --- --- ~
~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- ~ --
c-7
0 \
\
\
\
0 0\
\
\
\
0 ,___,
--~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
"
--
- ~
~
--
-
- ~
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
\
\
\
\
0 0
0 \
\
\
\
\
\
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~
-
r--c- -
--
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~
-
-
-
--
00 -------
------
---
= -
0 0
\
\
\
\
\
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-~ -
-~
-
\
0 \
\
\
cu -
\
\
\
\
SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
\
\
\
\
\
\
0
FENCING @ PROPERTY LINE, SLD
RETAINING WALL, AS OCCURS, SCD
DUET
(2) 3 BEDROOM HOMES
@
D
U
E
T
H
O
M
E
S)
20'-0"
(19'-0" -23'-0" T
Y
P.
4' - 0" MIN., TYP.
20'-0" M
NI ., T
Y
P.
FENCING @
SIDE YARDS
BMR BUILDING
(4) RENTAL UNITS
RETAINING WALL,
AS OCCURS, SCD
B
M
R
B
UILD
NI G
S)
10'-0"
(15'-0" T
Y
P. @
5'-0" MIN.
10'-0" MIN., TYP.
43'-6" - 55'-0"
FENCING @
PROPERTY LINE, SLD
3 BEDROOM HOME
FENCING @
SIDE YARDS
20'-0" M
NI ., T
Y
P.
SIN
GLE
F
A
MILY
H
O
M
E
S)
20'-0"
(19'-0"-23'-0" T
Y
P. @
8'-0", TYP.
4'-0" MIN., TYP.
FENCING @
PROPERTY LINE, SLD
4 BEDROOM HOME
RETAINING WALL,
AS OCCURS, SCD
20'-0" M
NI ., T
Y
P.
SIN
GLE
F
A
MILY
H
O
M
E
S)
20'-0"
(19'-0" -23'-0" T
Y
P. @
FENCING @
SIDE YARDS
4'-0" MIN., TYP.
8' - 0" TYP.
0 5 10 20 ft.
BACKUP DISTANCE
25' - 0" MIN. 18' - 0" TYP.
10' - 0" T
Y
P.
A
C
C
E
S
S
BI LE
S
P
A
C
E
S
12' - 0" T
Y
P. A
T
VA
N 5' - 0"
BACKUP DISTANCE
25'-0" MIN. 18' - 0" TYP.
10' - 0" T
Y
P.
A
C
C
E
S
SIBLE
S
P
A
C
E
S
10' - 0" T
Y
P. A
T 5' - 0"
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
As indicated
11/10/2020 9:13:31 A
M
A0.02
LOT PLANS &
PARKING
DIAGRAMS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
3/32" = 1'-0" 3
TYPICAL LOT PLAN - DUPLEX
3/32" = 1'-0" 4
TYPICAL LOT PLAN - BMR
3/32" = 1'-0"
1 TYPICAL LOT PLAN - 3-BEDROOM
3/32" = 1'-0"
2 TYPICAL LOT PLAN - 4-BEDROOM
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
1/8" = 1'-0"
6 PARKING DIAGRAM_BMR
1/8" = 1'-0" 7
PARKING DIAGRAM_ON-STREET
t LLLL
@
-
, m .. ·. ig_, .
: ::;' ~;: :'." / .
Ii L ~ 1I [0
'
~
f,-------1 l~mnrrr , rnct:r::r, ]
I I
I
I I I I Ill I
'
I I I I ~ I
rtJ 1 LJ
I~~. n-H
J I
1= I
",
'
I
I
J
I
I
J -
I
I llJ l1
u
'
'
[2:]
V
1 1
1¢
II
I
I
lj
I
I
I
I
I
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
L'
' . ' '
◄
~
I
J
T
'
~ ~ ~
f I
' ~ _L
== " '
~I 111 I ~
' ,{'. I
)'. . ' I
' ~ I
I
,,_ -
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale: As indicated
A0.03
10/19/2020 4:06:24 PM
BUILDING
HEIGHT
DIAGRAMS
17-034 SPVH
10/13/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
10/19/20
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 3 10/19/20
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale: As indicated
11/10/2020 9:13:36 A
M
A0.03
BUILDING
HEIGHT
DIAGRAMS
17-034 SPVH
11/10/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
a)
' g D D
D
8 1
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
LEVEL2
1 0' - 0"
FFE=
341 .00
LEVEL 1
O' - O"
---= 1-1 I --1 -I 1=1 II I I I I I I
@ LOT 25 - 4-BEDROOM HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
i
/\
11 Lot 25 Key Plan - 1/16" = 1'
D
D
D
D
11 I I
'
,_11 11
@) LOT 20- 3-BEDROOM HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION
118" = 1'-0"
11 11
11 '---+
[
I
Lot 20 Key Plan - 1/16" = 1'
}
I
I
I
I
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
>-
I
Q
b LU
' I
f- x N <(
2 LEVEL 2
"' 10' - 0" ' a,
N
FFE=
339.00
i LEVEL 1
O' - O"
>-
I
(9
LU
I
~ 2
....
' a,
N D
D
D
D
-o-
- I - -
= 11=11- = 11=1
I
'
I
' '
' '
,-Ill-
- ---
1=111=1
·.o. PLATE
19' - O"
6 '
fN
LEVEL2
1 0' - 0"
FFE=
I
338.00
II LEVEL 1
11-=1 I - O' - O" -
- I - I -
- 11=11 -
0 LOT 24- 3-BEDROOM HOUSE NORTH ELEVATION
'-.::',,! 1/8" = 1'-0"
-
u . .
;- r
I
- e 7r -
-
I ::-
r==i n
I -
I= 1:• . -1~ :, I , 11 _j
'
I
I
I I \ - ( '1
'I
Lot 24 Key Plan - 1/16" = 1'
b
' fN
1_11
I
I,
I
/
',
I
I
D
' D
D 11
111 I
111_
@ LOT 19- 3-BEDROOM HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
Lot 19 Key Plan - 1/16" = 1'
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
>-
I
(9
LU
I
~ 2 LEVEL 2
"' 10' - 0"
a,
N
FFE=
[ 341.00
VEL 1
01 - O"
>-
I
Q
LU
I 6 x
<( '
f- 2 N
~
-
-- -
'
"'
N
-
~ C_]II -
'
0 I
I I I
;
7< 1-11-1 1-11-i -
-
I
8) LOT 22/23- DUET NORTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
D
D
D
n
11-1 I I 1-- - - 1-
I I I I
[J
D
n '
I I I I I I I - I
I- -I -I
I I I , I I I I -, I
'o
11- 11
I - I
I I I I
T.O. PLATE
19' - 011
11 II I
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
FFE=
335.00
LEVEL 1
O' - O"
\
'i<-
6 '
fN
- I I ' ,.
°f:~j
\/\ '
' \ r .· - ~ 1-I
I '
I
Lot 22 / 23 Key Plan - 1/16" = 1'
-
,-,
-□= "
' ' I ' ' I
-- E
-
i::- II 11
' ' ' -
= ' : ' \
I I \
- ;
~
11 11 I I I I I
\
\
□
'
- ~
+~[
,
'
I
>-
I
- (9
w
I
~ 2
-- 6 - - 11
II Ii~ _ ' a,
N
I
' -
I
' -
I I
' -
' I
/ ' ;
' I
=
I
I •
I I 11 _11
- -
I I I
11 I I I I I
=11=1 - 1=11-1 = 11=1 - I I
= 11=1 - =.I,= I I I I I I I
(D LOT 12 - 3-BEDROOM HOUSE SOUTH ELEVATION
1/8" = 1'-0"
(
I
/
==1---1-1 L
Lot 12 Key Plan - 1/1 6" = 1'
J
'
T. 0. PLATE
19' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
/ FFE=
351 .60
LEVEL 1
O' - 011
-
Project Title:
CX)
>- N
0 I- w s::t"
- 0)
Cf) u <(
0::: <( u
w 0::: >,
> 0::: Q)
- co z w >
:::> I- co
0 <( 0
t
0::: _J 0
0 0..
0 I- - -0 LL 0::: co
z 0
<( 0 0::::
Cl.. Q)
I- C 0
Cf) 0.. N
<( 0
.....
CX)
N
.......
.......
0 =l=t:
z
0..
<(
Design Firm:
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
6201 Doyle Street. Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 1547-8092
FAX 5101547-2604
[email protected]
Consultant:
Stamp:
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale: As indicated
A0.04
10/19/2020 4:06:26 PM
BUILDING
HEIGHT
DIAGRAMS - BMR
17-034 SPVH
10/13/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
10/19/20
No. Description Date PLANNING REV. 3 10/19/20
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale: As indicated
11/10/2020 9:13:39 AM
A0.04
BUILDING
HEIGHT
DIAGRAMS - BMR
17-034 SPVH
11/10/20
Author
Checker
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20
No. Description Date PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
I, I, ,
I '
I
'
'
'
' I
I '
, 0 ,
~ ' "' ' - N \
...
' "' II II ~
"'
' '
-
,
,
r~
71" ' I
I
'
' I 1-1 -
1-11-1
@ BMR A NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" - 1 '-0" -
>-
I
('.)
UJ
I
~ 2
0 ' "' N
~
I ,
,,,.
11 II 'I
L I,
' L
I '
' ' ' ' '
I ' '
- '
-
,
,
' '
'
L L L L L I-
'---
1, ,11
I I I I I I
1-
--
I I
L
- L
- L L
□
I ' ~
' ' ' ' ' '
~ ,,
h
I
' ' ' ' I
L L L L L L L L L,
' '
-- ,_
' \
- ' '
, , II ~~ _ , ""-
I I 11 I I II I I I 11 11 - - - -
-11-
I I ' ' ' I I I I I I
I
r I ,
I ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' L L - L - L L L, I,
D Ill ,
~
-
-
-
-
- I
-
- I
0 , ' ' - , -
' ' , ~ -
/ ' \ L '
- ,
-
' ' '---
-'._-- I
I
I
' I
I' I I I - -1 I 11
{2) BMR B NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1'-0" I . ,
,
0 ' "' N ,, IL '
111, llm,,,,~
'
,f
,
,
' '
' '
,
,
,.
,, . _l, , I
-,
-
11-1
G) BMR C NORTH ELEVATION 1/8" = 1 '-0"
- ,
,
-
'
- ,
' ' I
I I _[ 11
I ,
' '
' ' ' ' '
- L - L L L
'--
C
-
ID!
11 • I I I I I
I
----
1-111 I I I I
' -= ' ' - \
I I I I I I I
11 I I I I
h
I
'
'
'
'
' L L L - L - L L L,
' '
-
- , ' - ' '
--
c i C
IDI
-
'-
_'\ '
--
g
' I I I I I I I
11 11 11 i' I ,- - - - - -
-
11 1-11 I I I I I
I '
'
'
'
'
'
' I ' L L
,
,
' \
,
,
,
' ' '
I
-
'
L
-
'
11 11 I
I I
1- 11 I I
'
'
'
'
'
'
' I '
- L
,
,
' '
,
,
,
' ' ' '
I
~
' ' ' ' ' L L L ' L L L L µ
= ,_
'
I ii " " ' J D I
- , ' , , ' ' , ' , ' , '
i_ l '
' , ' ,
' , ' , l I,; I , I I I
I
11 r1
I I I I I 11
11 -1 - -111--11- 1-1-1
' I ' I '
c
'
' I
'
' I L L L L L L "
-[JI -
= -1'. D -
D
-
I D -c:
D
I I 111 11 I . I
I
11 11 I
c
' ' ' ' ' '
- L L L L L L J
--
- ..
-
;:-ii" " "
.11 "
- , ' , , ' ' , , ' ' , '
- ' ' , ' ,
' , ' , J ' , ' , .. ., '''
I - I
I =I
- 11=11 _[ - -I
I
I
-
' '
111
111
111
I
1_1 111
- _. :, I -, -
I
-----
II II'-''' 1-1
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
LEVEL 2
1 0' - 0"
r
FFE = 346.00
LEVEL 1
O' -011
T. 0. PLATE
19' - O"
. I
LEVEL 2
1 0' - 0"
FFE = 346.00
LEVEL 1
O' - O"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
LEVEL2
1 0' - 0"
r FFE = 347.00
r LEVEL 1
O' - O"
)
I J ' d \ :i
~Ll--1--i i ~
BMR A KEY PLAN -1/16" = 1'
\
'
I
\ - BMR B KEY PLAN - 1
/16" = 1'
-
I
BMR C KEY PLAN -1 /16" = 1'
\ I
\
\\
\,
\ +- '
\ \
Jill
,.._.
I
/
Project Title:
CX)
>- N
0 I- w s::I" - 0)
Cf) u <(
0::: <( 0
w 0::: >,
> 0::: (I) - ro z w >
:::J I- ro
0 <( 0
t::'.
0::: .....J 0
0 Q_
0 I-
- "O LL 0::: ro
z 0
<( 0 0:::
Cl. (I)
I- C 0
Cf) a. N
0 <( .....
CX)
N
t--
t--
0 lt:
z
Q_
<(
Design Firm:
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Arc hite cts
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 5101547-8092
FAX 5101547-2604
[email protected]
Consultant:
Stamp:
UP
DN
A1-3.01 2
A1-3.01
3 4 A1-3.01
A1-3.01 1
2 A1-4.01
516 SF
K/L/D
36 SF
STOR.
33 SF
PWD
R
28 SF
MEC
H
8 SF
C.
46 SF
ENTRY/
DROP
240 SF
GARAGE
12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 20' - 6 3/4"
48' - 9 3/4"
9'-0" CLG
8'-0" CLG
1 A
1 -4.01
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
CONC. PATIO, TYP., SLD
CONC. PATH TO FRONT
PORCH, TYP., SLD
CONDENSING UNIT
WALL
-HUNG BIKE
RACKS FOR (2)
BIKES IN GARAGE
31' - 0"
21' - 0" 8' - 1" 19' - 8 1/2"
2' - 0" 12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2" 3' - 0"
3' - 0"
A0.03
1 A0.03 253
A1-3.01 2
A1-3.01
3 4 A1-3.01
A1-3.01 1
2 A1-4.01
122 SF
BEDRM 2
56 SF
STUDY
68 SF
BAT
H
25 SF
CLO
81 SF
BAT
H
26' - 0"
42' - 9"
1 A
1 -4.01
132 SF
BEDRM 1
189 SF
MASTER
BDRM
25 SF
CLO
41 SF
LAUNDRY
HALL
L
.
9'-0" CLG
2' - 0"
28' - 0"
12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 14' - 6"
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
42' - 9"
A0.03
1 A0.03 253
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:41 AM
A1-2.01
3 BEDROOM
FLOOR PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 3-BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 3-BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 2
024 8 ft.
LEVEL 1: 1,168 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,068 SF
TOTAL: 2,236 SF
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
0 □
0 Q
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
7 I
_J
I
I
I
I f--'-~-~-=-=-=-~-~-~-=-=-~-~-~-=-=-=-~-~-cf=-=-=-~-~-~-=-=-Jc-~-~-=-=-~-~-==l'=rlt ~ 0 I
I
I
I
I
I
.... !
f]
[
[
[
----------------------
$
--TI
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q
~ (J
□ □
CJ
0 L_ -----------------------
0 □
I
,--
'
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- -1- _J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I _______ _J
<'
l'<.:f<,'._~ ~ in !;J
~
SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
x:,O AR
cY MA(o
_, C 25636 <" :...\
A1-3.01
2 A1-3.01 3
4 A1-3.01
A1-3.01
1 2
A1-4.01
1 A1-4.01
2" / 1'-0"
GSM GUTTERS &
DOWNSPOUTS
STANDING-SEAM
MTL ROOF
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALLS BELOW
3" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0"
A0.03 1
A0.03
253
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:42 A
M
A1-2.02
3 BEDROOM
ROOF PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
0 2 4 8 ft.
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 3-BEDROOM HOUSE ROOF PLAN
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
D
0 f-=
I
I
I
--f
I
I
I
I
r
I
I
I
I
~
I
J
Q
'
I
I/
L
L
_,_
/ I
L I
L
,
I
,/
;Yi L I : j_
I :L
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
_J I
---,-, I '
~=~f::~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-=_ =_ =_ =_ =~~~~~~l:~f~0±:=========~~~~;~=====fi=== ':
I
~=tt=•:~fiffff~f~f~f~f:::=;--::::=~
~ -=f~f~f~_J:\li==ti:========;;;;;;;======ft=== " f-c I '
-
I
L
0 7
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
0
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
FIBER CEMENT
SIDING, TYP.
ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD
WINDOWS, TYP.
CLEAR FINISHED
CEDAR ACCENT
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
FIBER CEMENT
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING
PAINTED GSM
GUTTER, TYP.
9' - 0" 10' - 0"
27' - 0"
ALUMINUM
SECTIONAL
DOOR W/
GLAZED PANELS
ATTIC VENT, TYP.
AT GABLE ENDS
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
3" / 1'-0" TYP.
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
2" / 1'-0"
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
2' - 0" , TYP.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
CONDENSING UNIT
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:45 A
M
A1-3.01
3 BEDROOM
ELEVATIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 3-BEDROOM HOUSE FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 3-BEDROOM HOUSE BACK ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 3
3-BEDROOM HOUSE LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 4
3-BEDROOM HOUSE RIGHT ELEVATION
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
r
I
I
I
I
I
I - -
I
I I ••.•
I , I
I
~ -
-
- -- - - --+__j_ - ,_
' ~
' ' / " , \
' / ' - ' /
/ ' /
~ 1-----r-f'-...~=-=~'=/ /Jll_
' ' ' ' /
/
/
/
/
,
/ ,
" '
'
/
' /
' /
/
/ ' /
/ ' /
.
/
/ r, I ' /
' ,.1, I'
r
' ' ' ' ' ' ' I ' ' '
' '
' ~
~r _IJJ_I_I
,,
' ' ' I I
' I I
' I I
' I I
- / I I
,_ / I I
/ - I I ,_
,_ /
/ I I
1 1• ,_
'
'
,_ 1 - 1 ~
I
rr ~
,_ ' I ' ' I ' ' ' ,_, ' ' i--
' I
I I
L
I
I ' I
/ I I
,_ /
/
I ' , '- ,_ / Lr •
~
,_
r II
I 1
I\
\J " '
~
. .. \\ ·
I _I I,
I -
I
- 1,--+'-
I II
/
/
/
/ - . C---- ' ·,
' ' '
r
l
"' -
7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' '
J '
I I I
'-..
7 I
J
I
I
'-.....~ .. .... .....
-
r --=======----j
II --- ---- ---
I r 11 -•
'
117
'
' '
'
/
/
/
/
/
I
. - - ~ ---
. -·
-- - ~ ---
-·.
r
ij
- --
--
~ i--+--1 - - - . '
' - .
-,r I •
--
- ,--c'-' -', ... -. _ _J
'{ .
/
' --- -~~~ ~~ .
t ~ \'.----' · .\ ~"~,\ fJ~ ><
1~;;;;;==== LJ~ ~} '
' \
'
' .,.,,,,,_
/
~
.
fJ
'1
/
/
/
0 /
/
/
/
/
/
- - -
r - , __ --
I SIEGEL & STRAIN A rch1tects . I
,-
. . . . .
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
2 A1-4.01
9' - 0" TYP.
9' - 0" TYP.
BEDRM 1
HALL BATH BATH
K/L/D PWDR
GARAGE
REINFORCED SLAB
-ON-GRADE, TYP.
8' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
1 A1-4.01
2"
/
1 '
-
0"
27' - 0
HALL STUDY
"
K/L/D
PRE
-ENGINEERED
ROOF TRUSSES, TYP.
PAINTED GSM GUTTERS, TYP.
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
3 "
/
1 '-
0 "
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:46 AM
A1-4.01
3 BEDROOM
SECTIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 3-BEDROOM HOUSE SECTION 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 3-BEDROOM HOUSE SECTION 2
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
□
□□□□□□□□□
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
OARc
cY MA(o
_, C 25636 <" :...\
UP
DN
2 A2-4.01
A2-3.01 2
A2-3.013
4 A2-3.01
A2-3.01 1
89 SF
ENTRY/
DROP
466 SF
K/L/D
2' - 0" 12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2"
3' - 10 3/8" 40' - 5 5/8" 11' - 8 3/4"
56' - 0 3/4"
1 A
2 -4.01
8'-0" CLG
9'-0" CLG
107 SF
STUDY
47 SF
BAT
H
15 SF
STO
R
19 SF
MEC
H
11 SF
C.
CONC. PATIO, TYP., SLD
CONDENSING UNIT
240 SF
GARAGE
CONC. PATH TO FRONT
PORCH, TYP., SLD
WALL
-HUNG BIKE RACKS
FOR (2) BIKES IN GARAGE
3' - 0"
2' - 0" 12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2" 3' - 0"
9' - 4 1/2" 8' - 1" 38' - 7 1/2"
31' - 0"
A0.03 6
2 A2-4.01
A2-3.01 2
A2-3.013
4 A2-3.01
A2-3.01 1
120 SF
BEDRM 1
120 SF
BEDRM 2
208 SF
M
A
STER
BEDR
M
31 SF
BAT
H
91 SF
BAT
H
66 SF
HAL
L
44' - 4"
61 SF
STUDY
ALCOVE
1 A
2 -4.01
32 SF
LAU
N
9'-0" CLG
21 SF
CLOSET
21 SF
CLOSET
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
2' - 0" 12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2"
28' - 0"
14' - 11" 12' - 11" 12' - 8" 3' - 10 1/2"
44' - 4"
A0.03 6
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:48 AM
A2-2.01
4 BEDROOM
FLOOR PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 4-BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 4-BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 2
024 8 ft.
LEVEL 1: 1,319 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,029 SF
TOTAL: 2,348 SF
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
,-
1 I
L_
0 0
Q
,---
I '
I
I
___ _J
1-- 1.■
□
0 ----7
I
I
I
I
0 ==!+=n-1
I
- _J
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L_
0 0
= '=-'=-'=--=:E = =i= = cl
I I I I
I I I I
I I I I
I I _l_ ..L
I I I I
C
Q
,--
'
··'
I
I
0 SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
OARc
Y MA(o
25636 <" :...1
2 A2-4.01
A2-3.01 2
A2-3.013
4 A2-3.01
A2-3.01 1
1 A2-4.01
2" / 1'-0"
STANDING-SEAM MTL ROOF
GSM GUTTERS &
DOWNSPOUTS
2" / 1'-0"
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALLS BELOW
WD FRAMED TRELLIS,
INTEGRATED W/ PORCH ROOF
3" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
A0.03 6
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:49 AM
A2-2.02
4 BEDROOM
ROOF PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
024 8 ft.
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 4-BEDROOM HOUSE ROOF PLAN
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
I
'
r '
I
' ,--
I I
I
I I
'
I I
I
I I
'
I I
I
I I
'
I I
I
I I
'
I I
I
I I
'
IL_
I
L 0 1
I
I
'
I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I L I
L
I'
I'
-
Q
---,
I
'
r
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I'
_J
7 I
L
0 I
/ I
./ I
I 7
I
I I
I
I I
I
,,
7 I I
I
I I
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I I
I
0 I : ~ I
I I
~ :~
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
3" / 1'-0" TYP.
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
2" / 1'-0"
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
2' - 0" , TYP.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
9' - 0" 10' - 0"
FIBER CEMENT
SIDING, TYP.
ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD
WINDOWS, TYP.
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT,
TYP.
FIBER CEMENT
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING
PAINTED
GSM
GUTTER,
TYP.
ALUMINUM
SECTIONAL DR
W/ GLAZED
PANELS
ATTIC VENT, TYP.
AT GABLE ENDS
WD FRAMED TRELLIS,
INTEGRATED W/
PORCH ROOF
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
27' - 0"
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
CLEAR FINISHED
CEDAR ACCENT
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
AREA FOR PV
PANELS, VARIES
BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL
HOUSE SOLAR
ORIENTATION.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
CONDENSING UNIT
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:53 A
M
A2-3.01
4 BEDROOM
ELEVATIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 4-BEDROOM HOUSE BACK ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 4-BEDROOM HOUSE FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 3
4-BEDROOM HOUSE LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 4
4-BEDROOM HOUSE RIGHT ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
- -
\J - ~
,::.
'
- - - - -
J r - - - - - - - - - 7
I I
I
I I
I I
I I , I I
I - t- - +---- I
I I
I I
I > I
I I
I I
L ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ ~ - ~ ~ - - - w
I
I I , ,
, f--
I ' \ ' ,
I ' , I
I ' ,, I
I ' , I
c- , ' '
~ , , ' ' I
/ ' I
' ' / ' /
' ' c- I ;
' ' ' -
--:::=:= ~ -...... I I
,-- II - - - I - -
I I I I I I I I I
..... !....
'']
'I' I'
' ' , ' ' / ' ' ' / , ' / ' '
' ,
' ,
' ,
,
' /
' I ,
I , /
I
' I
' / / , I,
'
L J
t-f-----H f-----------------,
I t- f-----j-j f-----------------:,, ,
t- f-----j-j f---------------, , ,
' '
,
,
~
' '
I
r
' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' L
,
-
......
- I ,
I
/
,_ \
' \
'
f
-
~ -f-----+++- ~_-_-_-_-_-__ -_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-77j~ =~l+--H- ·L t- f-----H f---------------,,,
,_
t- f-----j L C-----------------.,, ~ ,- t- f---- L f----------------1,, ,_ t- f-----j-j f---------------,,-, - f-----j-j ~--------------,,,, I - ~
-
, -
□ ' / \ ' ... / \ ... \
' ' \ < ~
1 I
/
h: I
I
' I \ /
' I
I I I I I I
-
tt-
.
-~"
I
7 ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' 1- 1- 1- 1- 1 - - - J
/
/
I
/
;
' ' ' ' ' ,...,
' -
,_
I I I
-
~ - -
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
~ - -
--......., -
' '
..... I
I
'
'
~
'
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
- ~
' /
,j,__-J'.-f----------------,-
--------==='---- -
~ , , ,,
---- ---- -- ---...... /
' - ,, ,,
-
'
' -
'
'
'
~-
I~~ ~ ~ I , / ' '
~ ( ·
/ - ~ , ,
..._
/ ~
~f (',,,// '-...· -~
,
\~>- ~
lZJ p - I
, ~
' ,..., '
' e- --
! I ✓ ,,
I' , ~
- -- /
/
I
I
I -
- / I' I~
1 ... .......... I'--.... - - ' - . - ~I - -
',,,, --
~
' --- ' ~ ,,
' - ,_
,
--"~ - - -- ·- --,
,
, -- ____'," -- -
I
A----
"~ I - ' r
I I
.... ~
-
- I
11:: 1.:.1
'
' --
I , ~ '
' ,- I ·, --
~ ' \
L
'F i
- -
-
- -
I- - r! 1. ·F
'
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Arc hi tec t s I
-L: .. , , , , - .'
'
1/ --,.,,---··/
, -
---------------
', --
"
ll
[_JI,_~ -
1-
II
I
.II
II I
II /
~ l
0 I '
I' D I
II D -
/ D . .
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
2 A2-4.01
STUDY
ALCOVE HALL
ENTRY/
DROP
K/L/D
REINFORCED SLAB-ON-GRADE, TYP.
8' - 0" 9' - 0" T
Y
P.
9' - 0" T
Y
P.
BATH
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
1 A2-4.01
27' - 0
LAUN "
HALL BEDRM 2
K/L/D
PRE-ENGINEERED ROOF
TRUSSES, TYP.
PAINTED GSM GUTTERS, TYP.
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
STUDY
3" / 1'-0"
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:54
A
M
A2-4.01
4 BEDROOM
SECTIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
4-BEDROOM HOUSE SECTION 1
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
4-BEDROOM HOUSE SECTION 2
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
□□□□□□□□□ I=
-
J 111 _.I' 1111 1111 m -111 - - I-_-_- ~ -- - - = - 111 lll-lll-lll-111=111=11-11i'II-III llllll11i'II _Ill ill ill 11--ffi -II - 111-111-111-111=1 I 1=1 I 1= I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
UP
UP
A3-3.02 1
A3-3.01
2 2 A3-3.02
A3-3.01 1
C.
2 A3-4.01
538 SF
K/L/D
33 SF
PWD
R
33 SF
PWD
R
17 SF
MEC
H
MECH
8 SF
C.
36 SF
STO
R
36 SF
STO
R
61 SF
ENTRY/
DROP
61 SF
ENTRY/
DROP
240 SF
GARAGE
240 SF
GARAGE
1 A
3 -4.01
9'-0" CLG 8'-0" CLG
8'-0" CLG 9'-0" CLG
4' - 0" 26' - 0" 26' - 0" 4' - 0"
12' - 9 1/2" 29' - 5 1/2" 6' - 6 3/4" 4' - 0"
538 SF
K/L/D
CONC. PATH TO FRONT
PORCH, TYP., SLD
CONC. PATIO, TYP., SLD
CONDENSING UNIT
WALL
-HUNG BIKE RACKS FOR
(2) BIKES IN GARAGE
4' - 0" 0' - 11 1/2" 11' - 6 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2" 13' - 2 1/2" 11' - 6 1/2" 0' - 11 1/2" 4' - 0" 60' - 0"
A0.03 4
4' - 0" 12' - 9 1/2" 29' - 5 1/2" 6' - 7"
52' - 10"
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:56 AM
A3-2.01
DUET FLOOR
PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 DUET LEVEL 1
024 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
LEVEL 1: 1,236 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,100 SF
TOTAL: 2,336 SF
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
____ J
□
------1--
1 I
I
I
L
I
I
I
I
-r-
,
I
I
I
I
I
I
Q
,-----------
I '
I
I
I
I
I
I
___________ J
= == = I ---------=------=---,7
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
I II
II
0 i~----=-----=----=---=----=- I==-
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
II I
CJ
~
r:------------
1 I
I
I
I
I
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I .
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
-,-------
I
I
I
I
I
I
□
----+---
I '
I
I ____ _J
7 0
SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects
x:,O AR
,i.cY MA(o
✓ C 25636 <" ~
DN
DN
A3-3.02
1 A3-3.01 2
2 A3-3.02
A3-3.01
1 144 SF
BEDRM 1
116 SF
BEDRM 2
70 SF
STUDY
58 SF
LAUN
189 SF
MASTER
BEDRM
93 SF
HALL
70 SF
BATH
85 SF
BATH
25 SF
CLO
25 SF
CLO
6 SF
L.
144 SF
BEDRM 1
116 SF
BEDRM 2
70 SF
STUDY
58 SF
LAUN
189 SF
MASTER
BEDRM
92 SF
HALL
70 SF
BATH
85 SF
BATH
25 SF
CLO
25 SF
CLO
6 SF
L.
2 A3-4.01
1 A3-4.01
60' - 0"
46' - 9"
9'-0" CLG
9'-0" CLG
16 SF
CLO
13 SF
CLO
13 SF
CLO
16 SF
CLO
A0.03
4 4' - 0" 12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 14' - 6"
4' - 0" 26' - 0 1/2" 25' - 11 1/2" 4' - 0"
12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 14' - 6" 4' - 0"
4' - 0" 26' - 0" 26' - 0" 4' - 0"
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:57 A
M
A3-2.02
DUET FLOOR
PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
DUET LEVEL 2
0 2 4 8 ft.
LEVEL 1: 1,236 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,100 SF
TOTAL: 2,336 SF
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
C
'
0 ,-
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
_J '
□
L _________ _
I
_J
Q
QQ
'
I
L
----------------------7
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
0 □
A3-3.02
1 A3-3.01 2
2 A3-3.02
A3-3.01
1 2
A3-4.01
1 A3-4.01
GSM GUTTERS &
DOWNSPOUTS
STANDING-SEAM
MTL ROOF
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
1" / 1'-0" 1" / 1'-0"
ROOF CRICKET
AREA FOR PV PANELS, VARIES
BASED ON INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
LINE OF EXTERIOR
WALLS BELOW
3" / 1'-0"
3" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
A0.03
4 10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:13:57 A
M
A3-2.03
DUET ROOF
PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
DUET ROOF PLAN
0 2 4 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
,'
I .
I ,
I
I
I .
I
I '
I ,
I '
I ,
-
Q
V
L
L
L
/
7 E+: I =-=--=-=-=-----=--=----=--~t--1-=-=======-====-==== ---/---11-- \ ____ --r-~ I
J
7 '
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
'
~
C
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
r I
-
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L
7 ~
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I ,/
-I
~ I
~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
a
-
rr
vr
~
0 C 7
I - - _Li I L '
' , I
'
I
' , I
'
I
, I
'
I
- ' , I ~
I
' , I
'
I I '
I I I
I I "
~~I -----~I+---====::::: =i ltl-=--~I __________
Tl i------==========:;:::=- 1,-- I
----"
L
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
0
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
FIBER CEMENT
SIDING, TYP.
ALUMINUM-CLAD
WOOD WINDOWS, TYP.
CLEAR FINISHED
CEDAR ACCENT
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
FIBER CEMENT
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING
GSM GUTTER, TYP.
3" / 1'-0" TYP.
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
9' - 0" 10' - 0"
27' - 0"
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
ATTIC VENT, TYP.
AT GABLE ENDS
ROOF CRICKET
WALL-MOUNT
EXTERIOR LIGHT
WALL-MOUNT EXTERIOR LIGHT
2' - 0" , TYP.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF
CONDENSING UNIT
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:00 A
M
A3-3.01
DUET
ELEVATIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
DUET FRONT ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 ft.
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
DUET LEFT ELEVATION
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
'
I
I
,- - ~
,_ - - ~ -
I ,- ~
I-
,_ , -~
,_ •
' ~
~
·····--···--- - - I
l
, ~
~
• ,- • - ,_ - /
-
,- - / -
,- -
,- - - -
' \ - \
,- - \ -
' ~
,_ ~
• - l
' .
....-- ---- ---- -- ,--- --
I
/
~ ' ' / ~
l / E \
y;; \
I \ \C-<
~ __ :\
,. ,.
''./
.,,.,.......... .r - ' _,.. ~
~
t I I I I 11
0 . .
'
-' -'
'
'
'
>
~ -
-
'
......
~
- - t t t t tt - -- - ' ~ '
'
' I ' -~ ' - '
' I '
'
:
+- +- +- +- +- +- ~ ~ - - ' -- -
II ~-
,
□ /
/
/ ' \ /
/
/
' I
' '
' ' '
-
~ -
11 ~
I II I . - r \ .
/
-u \\
I I
D D
D ' D
D D
'
/
-
I
I
-
- -
- ~ -
I I, -~ -
- I---
,-
-
-
I I I I
" I
/
' I
' /
I
' /
I
' I
/ I
' /
I - ,_ ' /
I
' /
/
' I ' ' /
' ' /
' ' I '
' / ' ' ' I
' ' /
/
~
/ /
ii ./
-
-
-
-
r - - -,
'--
.
'
I/
./
L .
/
/
~
'
'
'
' '
/
/
/
/
I /
/
- /
-
/
./
/ I I
~ -
/ ' - ' '
' -
' ' - ' '
' . '
I
/
I
/
/ - /
/
' /
' I
.. ·
- . · - -
~
0 '
'
.
I
>
r "
.
I' , / , ' '
i I
I
----,
- - -
~
JJ
~ /
~
'
\ ' '
' -
/
/
/
-
- ///
I 1/,, 11/ D - ----L::=::±::::==:::====l±_= =============:±===':::=:::::::::====::::::::::===r::"::::==::::::::::::::::::::::=== ===::::1:f==============:==:== ±::::=:===:=::±:=T- _!
I s rEG EL & STRA I N Arch itec t s
----
----.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
CONDENSING UNIT
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:03 A
M
A3-3.02
DUET
ELEVATIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
DUET RIGHT ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 ft.
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
DUET BACK ELEVATION
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
--- ---
l'-- 111-----
- p....._
'
-
--- - --+----1-- ' +--+-- - _j__J_
I I I I I I
-· P II '
~ - ~
I~
~ I
I
r - IEI '/
~ I / -
y~
-I ~ -,::::
I" ' /
' /
'
'
'
'
'
I .
I
;
,: - -
~ ~"' / D..
' / '
' -
' ' - - ~ ' ' ~
'
I~
~
~
I
--
.
.,....-----+ 111 1 I : I I I I - - - -:I
l - _· _ 1 -I -I -I -I -I ~ /r _1
1l r I"-. - - ~
IT ~
D .
·1' ' ~ ' '
' '
' - - f- -, .. /
/
/
~ /
/ ,. - ~
- '
~
"' ~
-.... ,---,.
'--..
i' - L
I I I I
-
'
/
/ ' ' / ' / '
'
'
'
'
/
/ '
' , ,~
' ' ' /
' ' I II -
'/
----- /
~
::::--
~ ' - " ' /
/
/
I- -
' '
' ,__ - ' ',
I I I I111
-
I ~
I ' ; \
I
' -
' ',
I
I '
' ~ / ',
I
' -
' •,
/
' '--- - , _ ! ',
I \ ~ - ' •,
-
f----
/
/
~ f-- '
'
'
'
-
'-- /
/
/
/
'
'
/
/
' I I '
/
/
/
/
/
--- ---
--- - ---
' 11 e---_J I
f---- ' '
'
' ==~' l'=====~J'---
1-
'
~
/
-----
~ I
r---_
-
~
~ ?-<
I
'
' ' / ' / ' / '
' )
' /
' ' /
' / ',
I.
'
,'
_//1
, _
/
~ g ' I
'
'
'
'
~
/
i " '
'~i
I SIEGEL & STRAI N Archi t e cts
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
2 A3-4.01
9' - 0" TYP.
9' - 0" TYP.
K/L/D
HALL BATH
CLO CLO
GARAGE
PWDR
REINFORCED SLAB
-ON-GRADE, TYP.
8' - 0"
CLO
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
1 A3-4.01
27' - 0"
BATH
BATH HALL HALL LAUN
K/L/D
K/L/D
PWDR STOR STOR PWDR
LAUN
PRE
-ENGINEERED ROOF
TRUSSES, TYP.
PAINTED GSM GUTTERS, TYP.
CRICKET
3"
/
1 '
-0"
3 "
/
1 '-
0 "
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:05 AM
A3-4.01
DUET SECTIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 DUET SECTION 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 DUET SECTION 2
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
D
"
/
'
' '
C
/ ,
II
□
@
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
OARc
cY MA(o
_, C 25636 <" :...\
2 A4-4.01
A4-3.01 2
A4-3.02
1 A4-3.02
2 1 A4-3.01
1 A4-4.01
260 SF
GARAGE
260 SF
GARAGE
55 SF
MECH
28' - 0" 4' - 0"
72' - 8"
57' - 2" 14' - 6" 1' - 0"
19' - 7 5/8" 19' - 7 1/8" 5' - 0" 14' - 2 5/8" 14' - 2 5/8" 17 SF
LAUN
31 SF
CLO
307 SF
K/L
37 SF
E.
80 SF
STORAGE 80 SF
STORAGE
55 SF
BATH
55 SF
BATH
31 SF
CLO
17 SF
LAUN
37 SF
E.
307 SF
K/L
STUDIO 475 SF STUDIO 475 SF
CONDENSING UNITS
CONC. PATIO, TYP., SLD
CONC. PATH TO FRONT
PORCH & STAIR, TYP. SLD
WALL-HUNG BIKE
RACKS FOR (2)
BIKES IN GARAGE
8'-0" CLG 8'-0" CLG
9'-0" CLG 9'-0" CLG
A0.04
2 A0.04
31 32' - 0"
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:06 A
M
A4-2.01
BMR BUILDING
FLOOR PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
BMR BUILDING LEVEL 1 0 2 4 8 ft.
LEVEL 1: 2,093 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,848 SF
TOTAL: 3,941 SF
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
0 L_ _____________ 7
I
I
I
T '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I. .
0 Q
7 --------
--------
-------
0 I
L--------------------------------+-----t-----j-----t-----t---+---t----~-----f-t------f-~-----------------------------------------------------------------------~ □
0 0
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Arch itec ts
OARc
cY MA(o
_, C 25636 <" :...\
2 A4-4.01
A4-3.01
2 A4-3.02 1
A4-3.02 2
1 A4-3.01
1 A4-4.01
496 SF
K/L/Dx
76 SF
6' - 6" 11' - 8 1/8"
BAT
H
155 SF
MASTER
BDRM
155 SF
BDRM 1
302 SF
K/L/D
67 SF
BAT
H 136 SF
MASTER
BDRM
14 SF
C. 16 SF
C.
8 SF
C.
11 SF
LAU
N
29 SF
HAL
L
15' - 4 1/8"
2 BEDROOM 975 SF
1 BEDROOM 600 SF
16 SF
C.
78 SF
DEC
K
76 SF
DEC
K
9 SF
C.
9 SF
LAU
N
9'-0" CLG
8'-0" CLG
8'-0" CLG
9'-0" CLG
12' - 8"
39' - 3" 5' - 0" 28' - 5 1/2"
39' - 3" 5' - 0" 21' - 0 1/2" 7' - 5"
14' - 8 1/2" 13' - 3 1/2"
72' - 8"
28' - 0"
A0.04 2
A0.04 31
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:07 AM
A4-2.02
BMR BUILDING
FLOOR PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BMR BUILDING LEVEL 2
024 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 5/22/20
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
LEVEL 1: 2,093 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,848 SF
TOTAL: 3,941 SF
0 c--
1 I
I
I
- -----------7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
□ □
D
00 L _______________________________ _
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I '~--~ I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
(
0 G
G
Q
0 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
L ____________ _
□ I
I
I
--"
I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
0
2 A4-4.01
A4-3.01 2
A4-3.02
1 A4-3.02
2 1 A4-3.01
1 A4-4.01
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
2" / 1'-0"
GSM GUTTERS &
DOWNSPOUTS
STANDING-SEAM
MTL ROOF
AREA FOR PV PANELS, VARIES
BASED ON INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
OUTLINE OF EXTERIOR
WALLS BELOW
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0"
6" / 1'-0" 6" / 1'-0"
A0.04
2 A0.04
31 10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:07 A
M
A4-2.03
BMR BUILDING
ROOF PLAN
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
BMR BUILDING ROOF PLAN
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
Q
,-------
,-----------------------------
0 L
' - -
L--- --- - L -
0 7
7 I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
J
l
' -
I
I
- - - - - - - -------- - - - 7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
L - I ------------------~ I
-------------------------------------------- ----------~ ./ I SIEGEL & STRAIN Architects I
I
0
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
9' - 0" 10' - 0"
2' - 6" 25' - 6"
FIBER CEMENT
SIDING, TYP.
ALUMINUM-CLAD WOOD
WINDOWS, TYP.
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
FIBER CEMENT
BOARD & BATTEN
SIDING
PAINTED GSM
GUTTER, TYP.
ATTIC VENT, TYP.
AT GABLE ENDS
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
28' - 0"
2' - 0" , TYP.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
CLEAR FINISHED
CEDAR ACCENT
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
6" / 1'-0" TYP.
2" / 1
2" / 1'-0"
'-0"
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:10 A
M
A4-3.01
BMR BUILDING
ELEVATIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BMR FRONT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 BMR BACK ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
~
/ ~
> "" ~" ~ j,
'-..
- ...
"~ " ~ '-.. .......
- ,< ~ ~~NI
...0
""-..._
--------, -- • -
' --, - -- -- I ~
/ , - I"- - ' -
' -
~
- ~ I
- ' - ' -- ' ' ~
·-.. _
ii , Ill I I TI I I I l
- -- -- - ] I
4------- I
,It - -
\ I I~ -l
I
I,¾ ItI - -
-~
I
I -
I
---
I
-
~
- -- -
I-,
.,,., ' \ ~
~
I
-
~
\ / I
- \
\ --
'
, \
I )
- - -- . I
• j .I I'
L__ -
6 0 /
I
'
- l I
I-
•
l I
I
---
'-- L__
I
I SIEGEL & STRAI N A re h1tects '
' -
' ',
'
'
~ - - El -
- ~
--
- - --- > ~ _,,-
- - -- . --
" - - -
-
< ~ -
--- --
-
--
er~ - -
~
-
I
/
,, 1: -
/
- '
-
- ~ - - ., _/ (
-
- 11
--
- C--
'
'
'
'
' . 6- '
' ' \
\'-.
~I
- ,' ' --r---:: _ .,,.__
; JJ a-:w
C: '
__;;__
--
-
-
-
/ - / .
I ,__ / L__
I
/
•
-----' ,- ~I\- 7
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
STANDING SEAM
METAL ROOF
ALUMINUM SECTIONAL
DOOR W/ GLAZED PANELS
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
WALL-MOUNT
LIGHT FIXTURE
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
CUPOLA VENT OVER STAIR
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
WALL-MOUNT LIGHT FIXTURE
CONDENSING UNITS
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
AREA FOR PV PANELS,
VARIES BASED ON
INDIVIDUAL HOUSE
SOLAR ORIENTATION.
CUPOLA VENT OVER STAIR
10-31-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:13 A
M
A4-3.02
BMR BUILDING
ELEVAITONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0" 1
BMR LEFT ELEVATION
1/4" = 1'-0" 2
BMR RIGHT ELEVATION
0 2 4 8 ft.
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
-
r - - -
L - -
-
_,___,__ II -
I
- ·--- -----------
----------
' I t- ' I I I I I
I
1·1~
.
- - - 7
I J
I __ ·
'
' , IIJ--------,i 11----
-
-
. / ' f------------J . /
/ , ' , ' , ' / / ' / '
. (
' ---- ~ - ..., .!,_ -
- - '\-- - - - - - - / --~ ---- I
' / ' '
' ' . '
- I
i i
f-
/_
r----------------------------- 7
- - - ,_ - - - - -1----L-- -
L.. - - - - - ~
l
··········•. ·-1•-•·········.····.·- .... ____________ _ /
-- t
t======-=-=--=,11;== ,=:=·==;'f ·.·,-._~111-~~ 1c==;r-. - i::::_- --j-,--_-----,--:-- / __ r,== ___ =itp,u- 9'7"1 ,- -
-
f-------~ -'---··~•---11 I -
•
71 -
- '
' '
' ' ' '
-
"
I \
I \
I \
I \ ' I \ 0
I I I
'
I
,- Of---------rll l D lf-----------n D •r-------------nl I-
'
I
I
--I
I
I
c _ - - ---=-- - - - - -
' -
---t
!
/
-- - IOf---------------------------------------_- _- _-_ ---- - --- -~ - ~ -------"' IOf-------------------------------_-. --- -~- ~- --_- _ ·_ ·· ___ _ - ·~----·- ·_· ---~ - -------~ -- --- - ;c--- ~ -
. - . -· . . . -· . -·
D D
.
SIEGEL & STRAI N Arc hi tects
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
2 A4-4.01
DECK K/L/D
K/L
BATH BATH
K/L MECH GARAGE GARAGE
DECK
K/L/D
8' - 0" TYP.
REINFORCED SLAB-
ON
-GRADE, TYP.
8' - 0" TYP.
LEVEL 1
0' - 0"
LEVEL 2
10' - 0"
T.O. PLATE
19' - 0"
1 A
4 -
4.01 MASTER
BDRM
K/L/D
K/L
25' - 6"
PRE
-ENGINEERED ROOF
TRUSSES, TYP.
PAINTED GSM GUTTERS, TYP.
ROUND PIPE
DOWNSPOUT, TYP.
10-31
-21
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Consultant:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
1/4" = 1'-0"
11/10/2020 9:14:13 AM
A4-4.01
BMR BUILDING
SECTIONS
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY
11/10/20
LL
LS
SFH_CENTRAL
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020
1/4" = 1'-0"
1 BMR BUILDING SECTION 1
1/4" = 1'-0"
2 BMR BUILDING SECTION 2
No. Description Date
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
I SIEGEL & STRAIN A re h. 1tects I
- 1--11-,---
Project Number: 217062
Project Name: Portola Valley Housing
Date: 5/15/2020
LOT CUT (CY) FILL (CY) NET (CY)
TOTAL 3169.55 5153.92 1984.37 FILL
LOT CUT (CY) FILL (CY) NET (CY)
1 0.89 28.49 27.60 FILL
2 19.52 11.72 -7.80 CUT
3 24.86 14.48 -10.38 CUT
4 26.71 9.60 -17.11 CUT
5 19.72 14.59 -5.13 CUT
6 5.84 37.74 31.90 FILL
7 14.47 5.50 -8.97 CUT
8 4.10 14.25 10.15 FILL
9 6.25 15.69 9.44 FILL
10 12.24 6.85 -5.39 CUT
11 4.40 18.69 14.29 FILL
12 11.12 29.38 18.26 FILL
13 55.35 1.77 -53.58 CUT
14 7.00 10.37 3.37 FILL
15 5.85 11.56 5.71 FILL
16 2.01 15.58 13.57 FILL
17 4.81 12.84 8.03 FILL
18 5.69 20.29 14.60 FILL
19 1.81 50.15 48.34 FILL
20 0.00 68.58 68.58 FILL
21 0.00 35.53 35.53 FILL
22 0.00 79.47 79.47 FILL
23 0.00 41.98 41.98 FILL
24 0.00 86.01 86.01 FILL
25 0.00 160.15 160.15 FILL
26 5.62 3.11 -2.51 CUT
27 37.32 0.00 -37.32 CUT
BMR A 31.66 99.70 68.04 FILL
BMR B 0.49 185.58 185.09 FILL
BMR C 9.42 92.19 82.77 FILL
TOTAL 317.15 1,181.84 864.69 FILL
TABLE 2: AutoCAD Earthwork considering only Building Pad Calculations TABLE 1: AutoCAD Total Earthwork Calculations
Pad Square Footage 46,650
Pad Excavation
Volume(Assume 8" avg
depth) (CY): 1,118
Pavement Square
Footage 43,453
Pavement Excavation
Volume (Assume 8"
depth) (CY): 1,040
Total Net Cut 2,158
Cut Fill Total
Building Pad 317 1,182 865 FILL
Site Work & Landscape 5,010 3,972 1,038 FILL
Site Total 5,327 5,154 -173 CUT
Site Work Cut (CY) 5010
Site Work Fill (CY) 3972
Building Pad Fill (CY) 1182
CY subject to SDP 10164
ROUNDED EXPORT -173
TABLE 6: TOTAL EARTHWORK CALCULATIONS
TABLE 5: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT CY
TABLE 3: Additional Site Work
TABLE 4: Total Soil Movement (CY)
June 2019
Proposed Grading
(provide on grading or landscape plan)
Total Soil Movement (CY)
Cut Fill Total
Building Pad
Pool
Site Work & Landscaping
Site Total
Off-Haul:
Site Development Permit CY:
Building Pad Fill + Site Work Cut + Site Work Fill = Soil Movement Subject to SDP _____________ + + =
Exterior Lighting Legend
(provide on exterior lighting sheet)
Plan
Symbol
ID
Fixture
Name/
Model
Image Quantity Lumens Dark Sky
Compliant
Also Include Within Plan Sets:
Build It Green Checklist
Water Use Calculations for Landscaping & Irrigation
BAHM2013
PROJECT REPORT
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 2
General Model Information
Project Name: 2020-05-13_Hydromod
Site Name:
Site Address:
City: Portola Valley
Report Date: 5/15/2020
Gage: San Francisco
Data Start: 1959/10/01
Data End: 1997/09/30
Timestep: Hourly
Precip Scale: 1.000
Version Date: 2019/06/06
POC Thresholds
Low Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Percent of the 2 Year
High Flow Threshold for POC1: 10 Year
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 3
Landuse Basin Data
Predeveloped Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Forest,Flat(0-5) 1.186
C D,Forest,Mod(5-10) 2.109
C D,Forest,St(10-20) 0.519
C D,Forest,Very(>20) 0.055
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 2.247
C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%) 0.461
Pervious Total 6.577
Impervious Land Use acre
Impervious Total 0
Basin Total 6.577
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 4
Mitigated Land Use
Basin 1
Bypass: No
GroundWater: No
Pervious Land Use acre
C D,Grass,Mod(5-10%) 1.095
C D,Grass,Flat(0-5%) 1.5
C D,Forest,Flat(0-5) 0.492
C D,Forest,Mod(5-10) 0.955
C D,Forest,St(10-20) 0.216
C D,Forest,Very(>20) 0.052
C D,Grass,Ste(10-20) 0.103
Pervious Total 4.413
Impervious Land Use acre
Roads,Flat(0-5%) 0.411
Roads,Mod(5-10%) 0.082
Roof Area 1.029
Driveways,Flat(0-5%) 0.153
Driveways,Mod(5-10%) 0.228
Sidewalks,Flat(0-5%) 0.139
Parking,Flat(0-5%) 0.122
Impervious Total 2.164
Basin Total 6.577
Element Flows To:
Surface Interflow Groundwater
Trapezoidal Pond 1 Trapezoidal Pond 1
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 5
Routing Elements
Predeveloped Routing
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 6
Mitigated Routing
Bioretention 1
Bottom Length: 53.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 100.00 ft.
Material thickness of first layer: 1.5
Material type for first layer: BAHM 5
Material thickness of second layer: 1.5
Material type for second layer: GRAVEL
Material thickness of third layer: 0
Material type for third layer: GRAVEL
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 0.13
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 21.164
Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 1.141
Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 40.97
Percent Infiltrated: 51.66
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 1.451
Total Evap From Facility: 1.613
Underdrain used
Underdrain Diameter (feet): 0.5
Orifice Diameter (in.): 6
Offset (in.): 12
Flow Through Underdrain (ac-ft.): 18.665
Total Outflow (ac-ft.): 40.97
Percent Through Underdrain: 45.56
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 0.5 ft.
Riser Diameter: 12 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.0000 0.1217 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
0.0440 0.1217 0.0020 0.0000 0.0000
0.0879 0.1217 0.0041 0.0000 0.0000
0.1319 0.1217 0.0061 0.0000 0.0000
0.1758 0.1217 0.0081 0.0000 0.0000
0.2198 0.1217 0.0102 0.0000 0.0000
0.2637 0.1217 0.0122 0.0000 0.0000
0.3077 0.1217 0.0142 0.0000 0.0000
0.3516 0.1217 0.0163 0.0000 0.0000
0.3956 0.1217 0.0183 0.0000 0.0000
0.4396 0.1217 0.0203 0.0000 0.0159
0.4835 0.1217 0.0224 0.0000 0.0159
0.5275 0.1217 0.0244 0.0000 0.0159
0.5714 0.1217 0.0264 0.0000 0.0159
0.6154 0.1217 0.0285 0.0000 0.0159
0.6593 0.1217 0.0305 0.0000 0.0159
0.7033 0.1217 0.0325 0.0000 0.0159
0.7473 0.1217 0.0345 0.0000 0.0159
0.7912 0.1217 0.0366 0.0000 0.0159
0.8352 0.1217 0.0386 0.0000 0.0159
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 7
0.8791 0.1217 0.0406 0.0000 0.0159
0.9231 0.1217 0.0427 0.0000 0.0159
0.9670 0.1217 0.0447 0.0000 0.0159
1.0110 0.1217 0.0467 0.0000 0.0159
1.0549 0.1217 0.0488 0.0000 0.0159
1.0989 0.1217 0.0508 0.0000 0.0159
1.1429 0.1217 0.0528 0.0000 0.0159
1.1868 0.1217 0.0549 0.0000 0.0159
1.2308 0.1217 0.0569 0.0000 0.0159
1.2747 0.1217 0.0589 0.0000 0.0159
1.3187 0.1217 0.0610 0.0000 0.0159
1.3626 0.1217 0.0630 0.0000 0.0159
1.4066 0.1217 0.0650 0.0000 0.0159
1.4505 0.1217 0.0671 0.0000 0.0159
1.4945 0.1217 0.0691 0.0000 0.0159
1.5385 0.1217 0.0713 0.0000 0.0159
1.5824 0.1217 0.0735 0.0000 0.0159
1.6264 0.1217 0.0758 0.0000 0.0159
1.6703 0.1217 0.0780 0.0000 0.0159
1.7143 0.1217 0.0802 0.0000 0.0159
1.7582 0.1217 0.0824 0.0000 0.0159
1.8022 0.1217 0.0846 0.0000 0.0159
1.8462 0.1217 0.0869 0.0000 0.0159
1.8901 0.1217 0.0891 0.0000 0.0159
1.9341 0.1217 0.0913 0.0000 0.0159
1.9780 0.1217 0.0935 0.0000 0.0159
2.0220 0.1217 0.0957 0.0000 0.0159
2.0659 0.1217 0.0980 0.0000 0.0159
2.1099 0.1217 0.1002 0.0000 0.0159
2.1538 0.1217 0.1024 0.0000 0.0159
2.1978 0.1217 0.1046 0.0000 0.0159
2.2418 0.1217 0.1068 0.0000 0.0159
2.2857 0.1217 0.1090 0.0000 0.0159
2.3297 0.1217 0.1113 0.0466 0.0159
2.3736 0.1217 0.1135 0.1528 0.0159
2.4176 0.1217 0.1157 0.2110 0.0159
2.4615 0.1217 0.1179 0.2564 0.0159
2.5055 0.1217 0.1201 0.2948 0.0159
2.5495 0.1217 0.1224 0.3288 0.0159
2.5934 0.1217 0.1246 0.3596 0.0159
2.6374 0.1217 0.1268 0.3880 0.0159
2.6813 0.1217 0.1290 0.4145 0.0159
2.7253 0.1217 0.1312 0.4571 0.0159
2.7692 0.1217 0.1335 0.5015 0.0159
2.8132 0.1217 0.1357 0.5424 0.0159
2.8571 0.1217 0.1379 0.5805 0.0159
2.9011 0.1217 0.1401 0.6166 0.0159
2.9451 0.1217 0.1423 0.6512 0.0159
2.9890 0.1217 0.1446 0.6983 0.0159
3.0000 0.1217 0.1451 0.5876 0.0159
Bioretention Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet)Area(ac.)Volume(ac-ft.)Discharge(cfs)To Amended(cfs)Infilt(cfs)
3.0000 0.1217 0.1451 0.0000 0.6134 0.0000
3.0440 0.1217 0.1505 0.0000 0.6134 0.0000
3.0879 0.1217 0.1558 0.0000 0.6494 0.0000
3.1319 0.1217 0.1612 0.0000 0.6674 0.0000
3.1758 0.1217 0.1665 0.0000 0.6853 0.0000
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 8
3.2198 0.1217 0.1719 0.0000 0.7033 0.0000
3.2637 0.1217 0.1772 0.0000 0.7213 0.0000
3.3077 0.1217 0.1826 0.0000 0.7393 0.0000
3.3516 0.1217 0.1879 0.0000 0.7572 0.0000
3.3956 0.1217 0.1933 0.0000 0.7752 0.0000
3.4396 0.1217 0.1986 0.0000 0.7932 0.0000
3.4835 0.1217 0.2039 0.0000 0.8112 0.0000
3.5275 0.1217 0.2093 0.0483 0.8291 0.0000
3.5714 0.1217 0.2146 0.2020 0.8471 0.0000
3.6154 0.1217 0.2200 0.4122 0.8651 0.0000
3.6593 0.1217 0.2253 0.6597 0.8831 0.0000
3.7033 0.1217 0.2307 0.9282 0.9010 0.0000
3.7473 0.1217 0.2360 1.2008 0.9190 0.0000
3.7912 0.1217 0.2414 1.4606 0.9370 0.0000
3.8352 0.1217 0.2467 1.6924 0.9550 0.0000
3.8791 0.1217 0.2521 1.8845 0.9729 0.0000
3.9231 0.1217 0.2574 2.0318 0.9909 0.0000
3.9670 0.1217 0.2628 2.1391 1.0089 0.0000
4.0000 0.1217 0.2668 2.2515 1.0224 0.0000
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 9
Surface retention 1
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Bioretention 1
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 10
Trapezoidal Pond 1
Bottom Length: 60.00 ft.
Bottom Width: 31.00 ft.
Depth: 3 ft.
Volume at riser head: 0.1692 acre-feet.
Infiltration On
Infiltration rate: 0.13
Infiltration safety factor: 1
Total Volume Infiltrated (ac-ft.): 47.121
Total Volume Through Riser (ac-ft.): 41.109
Total Volume Through Facility (ac-ft.): 88.23
Percent Infiltrated: 53.41
Total Precip Applied to Facility: 2.659
Total Evap From Facility: 1.268
Side slope 1: 3 To 1
Side slope 2: 3 To 1
Side slope 3: 3 To 1
Side slope 4: 3 To 1
Discharge Structure
Riser Height: 2.71 ft.
Riser Diameter: 12 in.
Element Flows To:
Outlet 1 Outlet 2
Surface retention 1
Pond Hydraulic Table
Stage(feet) Area(ac.) Volume(ac-ft.) Discharge(cfs) Infilt(cfs)
0.0000 0.042 0.000 0.000 0.000
0.0333 0.043 0.001 0.000 0.005
0.0667 0.043 0.002 0.000 0.005
0.1000 0.044 0.004 0.000 0.005
0.1333 0.044 0.005 0.000 0.005
0.1667 0.044 0.007 0.000 0.005
0.2000 0.045 0.008 0.000 0.005
0.2333 0.045 0.010 0.000 0.005
0.2667 0.046 0.011 0.000 0.005
0.3000 0.046 0.013 0.000 0.005
0.3333 0.047 0.014 0.000 0.005
0.3667 0.047 0.016 0.000 0.005
0.4000 0.047 0.018 0.000 0.005
0.4333 0.048 0.019 0.000 0.005
0.4667 0.048 0.021 0.000 0.005
0.5000 0.049 0.023 0.000 0.005
0.5333 0.049 0.024 0.000 0.005
0.5667 0.050 0.026 0.000 0.005
0.6000 0.050 0.027 0.000 0.005
0.6333 0.051 0.029 0.000 0.005
0.6667 0.051 0.031 0.000 0.005
0.7000 0.051 0.033 0.000 0.005
0.7333 0.052 0.034 0.000 0.005
0.7667 0.052 0.036 0.000 0.005
0.8000 0.053 0.038 0.000 0.005
0.8333 0.053 0.040 0.000 0.005
0.8667 0.054 0.041 0.000 0.005
0.9000 0.054 0.043 0.000 0.005
0.9333 0.055 0.045 0.000 0.005
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 11
0.9667 0.055 0.047 0.000 0.005
1.0000 0.056 0.049 0.000 0.005
1.0333 0.056 0.051 0.000 0.005
1.0667 0.057 0.053 0.000 0.005
1.1000 0.057 0.054 0.000 0.005
1.1333 0.058 0.056 0.000 0.005
1.1667 0.058 0.058 0.000 0.005
1.2000 0.058 0.060 0.000 0.005
1.2333 0.059 0.062 0.000 0.005
1.2667 0.059 0.064 0.000 0.005
1.3000 0.060 0.066 0.000 0.005
1.3333 0.060 0.068 0.000 0.005
1.3667 0.061 0.070 0.000 0.005
1.4000 0.061 0.072 0.000 0.005
1.4333 0.062 0.074 0.000 0.005
1.4667 0.062 0.077 0.000 0.005
1.5000 0.063 0.079 0.000 0.005
1.5333 0.063 0.081 0.000 0.005
1.5667 0.064 0.083 0.000 0.005
1.6000 0.064 0.085 0.000 0.005
1.6333 0.065 0.087 0.000 0.005
1.6667 0.065 0.089 0.000 0.005
1.7000 0.066 0.092 0.000 0.005
1.7333 0.066 0.094 0.000 0.005
1.7667 0.067 0.096 0.000 0.005
1.8000 0.067 0.098 0.000 0.005
1.8333 0.068 0.101 0.000 0.005
1.8667 0.069 0.103 0.000 0.005
1.9000 0.069 0.105 0.000 0.005
1.9333 0.070 0.108 0.000 0.005
1.9667 0.070 0.110 0.000 0.005
2.0000 0.071 0.112 0.000 0.005
2.0333 0.071 0.115 0.000 0.005
2.0667 0.072 0.117 0.000 0.005
2.1000 0.072 0.119 0.000 0.005
2.1333 0.073 0.122 0.000 0.005
2.1667 0.073 0.124 0.000 0.005
2.2000 0.074 0.127 0.000 0.005
2.2333 0.074 0.129 0.000 0.005
2.2667 0.075 0.132 0.000 0.005
2.3000 0.075 0.134 0.000 0.005
2.3333 0.076 0.137 0.000 0.005
2.3667 0.077 0.139 0.000 0.005
2.4000 0.077 0.142 0.000 0.005
2.4333 0.078 0.145 0.000 0.005
2.4667 0.078 0.147 0.000 0.005
2.5000 0.079 0.150 0.000 0.005
2.5333 0.079 0.152 0.000 0.005
2.5667 0.080 0.155 0.000 0.005
2.6000 0.080 0.158 0.000 0.005
2.6333 0.081 0.160 0.000 0.005
2.6667 0.082 0.163 0.000 0.005
2.7000 0.082 0.166 0.000 0.005
2.7333 0.083 0.169 0.037 0.005
2.7667 0.083 0.171 0.142 0.005
2.8000 0.084 0.174 0.285 0.005
2.8333 0.084 0.177 0.454 0.005
2.8667 0.085 0.180 0.643 0.005
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 12
2.9000 0.086 0.183 0.845 0.005
2.9333 0.086 0.186 1.052 0.005
2.9667 0.087 0.189 1.258 0.005
3.0000 0.087 0.191 1.453 0.005
3.0333 0.088 0.194 1.633 0.005
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:13 AM Page 13
Analysis Results
POC 1
+ Predeveloped x Mitigated
Predeveloped Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 6.577
Total Impervious Area: 0
Mitigated Landuse Totals for POC #1
Total Pervious Area: 4.413
Total Impervious Area: 2.164
Flow Frequency Method: Weibull
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Predeveloped. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.406629
5 year 1.266286
10 year 1.987902
25 year 3.576508
Flow Frequency Return Periods for Mitigated. POC #1
Return Period Flow(cfs)
2 year 0.364578
5 year 0.746134
10 year 1.237459
25 year 2.078246
Annual Peaks
Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1
Year Predeveloped Mitigated
1960 0.176 0.000
1961 0.001 0.042
1962 0.944 0.574
1963 0.063 0.248
1964 0.001 0.000
1965 0.614 0.447
1966 0.201 0.263
1967 1.012 0.610
1968 0.079 0.000
1969 1.402 0.878
1970 0.625 0.583
1971 0.367 0.255
1972 0.001 0.000
1973 1.303 0.734
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 14
1974 0.582 0.379
1975 0.010 0.000
1976 0.000 0.000
1977 0.001 0.123
1978 0.708 0.513
1979 0.338 0.399
1980 0.750 0.480
1981 0.001 0.029
1982 1.985 1.487
1983 5.364 2.962
1984 1.258 0.800
1985 0.448 0.180
1986 2.874 1.731
1987 0.240 0.367
1988 1.003 0.526
1989 0.614 0.362
1990 0.002 0.000
1991 0.022 0.000
1992 2.025 0.624
1993 1.475 1.179
1994 0.193 0.024
1995 1.183 1.217
1996 0.011 0.000
1997 0.836 0.593
Ranked Annual Peaks
Ranked Annual Peaks for Predeveloped and Mitigated. POC #1 Rank Predeveloped Mitigated 1 5.3641 2.9621 2 2.8743 1.7310 3 2.0249 1.4866 4 1.9848 1.2167 5 1.4748 1.1794 6 1.4021 0.8776 7 1.3033 0.8003 8 1.2582 0.7343 9 1.1826 0.6235 10 1.0122 0.6104
11 1.0028 0.5935
12 0.9436 0.5833
13 0.8363 0.5739
14 0.7500 0.5256
15 0.7082 0.5132
16 0.6247 0.4800
17 0.6142 0.4473
18 0.6139 0.3993
19 0.5823 0.3789
20 0.4485 0.3675
21 0.3669 0.3618
22 0.3380 0.2631
23 0.2402 0.2552
24 0.2008 0.2480
25 0.1926 0.1805
26 0.1760 0.1228
27 0.0794 0.0423
28 0.0633 0.0287
29 0.0215 0.0244
30 0.0113 0.0000
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 15
31 0.0105 0.0000
32 0.0022 0.0000
33 0.0012 0.0000
34 0.0012 0.0000
35 0.0011 0.0000
36 0.0011 0.0000
37 0.0011 0.0000
38 0.0002 0.0000
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 16
Duration Flows
The Facility PASSED
Flow(cfs) Predev Mit Percentage Pass/Fail
0.0407 1077 960 89 Pass
0.0603 868 852 98 Pass
0.0800 753 758 100 Pass
0.0997 660 672 101 Pass
0.1193 594 609 102 Pass
0.1390 539 544 100 Pass
0.1587 483 493 102 Pass
0.1783 438 450 102 Pass
0.1980 402 402 100 Pass
0.2177 368 366 99 Pass
0.2374 334 331 99 Pass
0.2570 307 300 97 Pass
0.2767 285 278 97 Pass
0.2964 269 264 98 Pass
0.3160 247 248 100 Pass
0.3357 224 224 100 Pass
0.3554 204 210 102 Pass
0.3750 195 191 97 Pass
0.3947 185 175 94 Pass
0.4144 171 158 92 Pass
0.4340 159 139 87 Pass
0.4537 144 127 88 Pass
0.4734 138 119 86 Pass
0.4931 126 108 85 Pass
0.5127 122 103 84 Pass
0.5324 112 90 80 Pass
0.5521 103 82 79 Pass
0.5717 98 73 74 Pass
0.5914 87 66 75 Pass
0.6111 83 59 71 Pass
0.6307 75 48 64 Pass
0.6504 71 39 54 Pass
0.6701 66 28 42 Pass
0.6897 62 27 43 Pass
0.7094 56 26 46 Pass
0.7291 54 25 46 Pass
0.7487 51 24 47 Pass
0.7684 50 23 46 Pass
0.7881 49 21 42 Pass
0.8078 47 20 42 Pass
0.8274 43 17 39 Pass
0.8471 42 16 38 Pass
0.8668 39 16 41 Pass
0.8864 37 15 40 Pass
0.9061 34 15 44 Pass
0.9258 33 15 45 Pass
0.9454 30 14 46 Pass
0.9651 29 13 44 Pass
0.9848 28 12 42 Pass
1.0044 27 12 44 Pass
1.0241 26 12 46 Pass
1.0438 24 12 50 Pass
1.0635 23 12 52 Pass
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 17
1.0831 22 12 54 Pass
1.1028 21 12 57 Pass
1.1225 21 11 52 Pass
1.1421 19 11 57 Pass
1.1618 19 10 52 Pass
1.1815 19 7 36 Pass
1.2011 17 6 35 Pass
1.2208 17 5 29 Pass
1.2405 16 5 31 Pass
1.2601 15 5 33 Pass
1.2798 12 5 41 Pass
1.2995 11 5 45 Pass
1.3192 10 5 50 Pass
1.3388 10 5 50 Pass
1.3585 10 5 50 Pass
1.3782 10 5 50 Pass
1.3978 10 5 50 Pass
1.4175 9 5 55 Pass
1.4372 8 5 62 Pass
1.4568 8 5 62 Pass
1.4765 7 4 57 Pass
1.4962 7 3 42 Pass
1.5158 7 3 42 Pass
1.5355 7 3 42 Pass
1.5552 7 3 42 Pass
1.5749 7 3 42 Pass
1.5945 7 3 42 Pass
1.6142 7 3 42 Pass
1.6339 6 3 50 Pass
1.6535 6 2 33 Pass
1.6732 6 2 33 Pass
1.6929 6 2 33 Pass
1.7125 6 2 33 Pass
1.7322 6 1 16 Pass
1.7519 6 1 16 Pass
1.7715 6 1 16 Pass
1.7912 6 1 16 Pass
1.8109 5 1 20 Pass
1.8305 5 1 20 Pass
1.8502 5 1 20 Pass
1.8699 5 1 20 Pass
1.8896 5 1 20 Pass
1.9092 5 1 20 Pass
1.9289 5 1 20 Pass
1.9486 5 1 20 Pass
1.9682 5 1 20 Pass
1.9879 4 1 25 Pass
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 18
Water Quality
Drawdown Time Results
Pond: Bioretention 1
Days Stage(feet) Percent of Total Run Time
1 0.000 N/A
2 0.000 N/A
3 0.000 N/A
4 0.000 N/A
5 0.000 N/A
Maximum Stage: 3.160 Drawdown Time: 00 11:06:40
Pond: Surface retention 1
Days Stage(feet) Percent of Total Run Time
1 0.914 0.0003
2 0.914 0.0003
3 0.914 0.0003
4 0.914 0.0003
5 0.914 0.0003
Maximum Stage: 0.914 Drawdown Time: Less than 1 day
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 19
Model Default Modifications
Total of 0 changes have been made.
PERLND Changes
No PERLND changes have been made.
IMPLND Changes
No IMPLND changes have been made.
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:23 AM Page 20
Appendix
Predeveloped Schematic
2020-05-13_Hydromod 5/15/2020 10:35:24 AM Page 21
Mitigated Schematic
PROJECT NAME: STANFORD UNIVERSITY PORTOLA VALLEY FACULTY HOUSING PROJECT NUMBER: 217029
REVISION DATE: 14-Jul-20
75.4 S= 25.15 % S (Average ground slope in percent) = 0.00229*I*L/A Ano unit reduction=* 70.13 acres A (Area of parcel in acres) I = 2 feet I ( Interval of measured contours in feet)
L= 385,114 feet L (Combined length of contours in feet) *Separate based on 18.50.060
S= 37.26 % S (Average ground slope in percent) = 0.00229*I*L/A Aunit reduction=* 5.27 acres A (Area of parcel in acres) I = 2 feet I ( Interval of measured contours in feet)
L= 42,903 feet L (Combined length of contours in feet)
*Separate based on 18.50.060
SD-2
25.15%
3.52 3.25
19.922416
SD-2
37.26%
5.00 4.69
0.105462
20.027878
*Reduction based on 18.50.060
SF* %
No Unit Reduction Sun 378,368 11.5%
No Unit Reduction Sbr 2,323,256 70.7%
No Unit Reduction Ps 353,104 10.8%
3,054,728 93.0%
Unit Reduction Ms 54,192 1.6%
Unit Reduction Pd 138,096 4.2%
Unit Reduction Md 37,408 1.1%
229,696 7.0%
*Based on areas from Ground Movement Potential Map
Category
Total No Unit Reduction Area:
Total Unit Reduction Area:
Calculations are based on the Town of Portola Valley Topographic survey, accounts for ground movement reduction, uses no unit reduction/unit reduction area slope calculation.
Slope:
Gross Area Acres Per Dwelling Unit
Required Minimum Parcel Area in Acres
Unit Reduction Area Units Allowed (10%)*
Total Units Allowed
Ground Movement Areas
Slope:
Gross Area Acres Per Dwelling Unit
Required Minimum Parcel Area in Acres
No Unit Reduction Area Units Allowed
Planned Unit Developments (18.50.050) - Unit Reduction
Town District:
Town District:
Total Project Area (acres):
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY UNIT CALCULATIONS
No Unit Reduction Area Slope Calculation (18.50.041) - Based on Portola Valley Topographic Survey Unit Reduction Area Slope Calculation (18.50.041) - Based on Portola Valley Topographic Survey Planned Unit Developments (18.50.050) - No Unit Reduction
B CC A B B C C A AB A A A B B A A A A 8
27 21
26 9 4 2
15 18 COMMON OPEN
SPACE 3
12 BMR 3
11 20
16 10
17 7
19 13 5 6
14 25
24 23
22 BMR 2 BMR 1 A CC B A A B A1
ALPINE ROAD
Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE STANFORD UNIVERSITY
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/18/19 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date
adjust to date plotted
ASCC Resubmittal 11/15/19
C-5.0
GRADING AND
DRAINAGE PLAN
1"=40'
B C C A B B C C A AB A B A A B A A A A 8 27 21 26 9 4 2 15 18 COMMON OPEN SPACE 3 12 BMR 3 11 16 20 10 17 7 19 13 5 6 14 25 24 23 22 BMR 2 BMR 1 A C C B A A B A1 ALPINE ROAD MINOCA ROAD B C C A B B C C A AB A B A A B A A A A 8 27 21 26 9 4 2 15 18 COMMON OPEN SPACE 3 12 BMR 3 11 16 20 10 17 7 19 13 5 6 14 25 24 23 22 BMR 2 BMR 1 A C C B A A B A1 Project ID:
Plot Date:
Drawn by:
Checked by:
Project Title:
Design Firm:
Stamp:
Issue Note:
Sheet No.:
Sheet Title:
File Name:
Scale:
6201 Doyle Street, Suite B
Emeryville, CA 94608
TEL 510 / 547-8092
FAX 510 / 547-2604
[email protected]
17-034 SPVH PORTOLA TERRACE STANFORD UNIVERSITY
ASCC
SUBMITTAL
11/10/20 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028 APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date
9/24/24
EX-1A
SECTIONS
1"=100'
REAL ESTATE
Real Estate
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 May 26, 2020
Howard Young, Public Works Director
Town of Portola Valley
Portola Valley Town Hall
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
RE: Proposed Trails; Portola Terrace
Dear Mr. Young,
In the time that we have been developing the Portola Terrace project, Stanford University has come to understand how integral trails and paths are to the community of Portola Valley. Stanford has spent considerable time in reviewing the Trails and Paths Element of the Town’s General Plan, which is “a general guide for the development of a comprehensive system of trails and paths for the town.” At the same time, Stanford has also been analyzing our 75 acres carefully to determine the best way to provide trail routes as identified in the General Plan. It is also important to note that there are other factors, such as current environmental laws and the potential for wildfire, which must be taken into consideration when planning trails in heavily vegetated areas and near waterways.
In this letter, we identify and discuss our proposed trail routings. In making these routings, we have closely adhered to the objectives and principles laid out in the Trails and Paths Element. Most notably, the proposed trails on Stanford’s property would implement the following provisions of the Trails and Paths Element:
3201
The trails and paths element includes objectives, principles, and standards; a description; and plan diagrams. The trails and paths element provides a guide to establishing a free and unimpeded network that will allow and promote trail and path use. 3203
The trails and paths shown on the trails and paths plan diagrams (located in a pocket at the end of this general plan) include those presently developed and those proposed on public rights-ofway or easements, together with new trails in locations where no right-of-way or easement exists at present. Some trail and path routes are indicated as being on or adjacent to public streets or easements or following property lines, and such locations are intended to be controlling. Where proposed trails or paths traverse unsubdivided lands, routes are intended to indicate general location and could be secured even with considerable variation in location and alignment.
3210
1.g. Routing, construction and use of trails and paths should be done with great care so that they:
1. are designed to adapt to the existing conditions to the extent possible while still adhering to the intent, if not the detail, of engineering standards;
2. disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation as little as possible;
3. provide a variety of experiences for users;
4. provide convenient, safe passage;
5. minimize intrusion on privacy in residential areas;
6. encourage use without incurring excessive maintenance costs.
1.j. Through trails, paths and bicycle routes should connect to those in adjoining jurisdictions, and within the town special care should be taken to minimize intrusion into residential areas.
1.p. Trails shall be designed and constructed so as to minimize changes in the natural flow of water across the land.
As requested by Town of Portola Valley staff, Stanford has proposed trail routes totaling approximately 1.2 miles in length consistent with or equivalent to the potential routes shown on Diagram A of the General Plan’s Trails and Paths Element. The trail routes are:
• Alpine Road Trail
• Portola Terrace Looped Trail
In developing our proposed trail routes, Stanford overlaid the conceptual routes shown in Diagram A onto a more detailed topographic map of the Stanford property. Stanford then analyzed this exhibit, and made some alterations to the routes to avoid extreme slopes. These variations are consistent with Principle 3210.1.g of the Trails and Paths Element, which states that trails and paths should “disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation as little as possible.” Stanford then made further alterations to the routes to avoid features like potential wetlands and potential riparian corridors, in accordance with State and Federal environmental laws. These variations also are consistent with both Objective 3209.1.i of the Trails and Paths Element, which states that newly created trails should “ensure that such facilities are designed and used so as to avoid habitat degradation,” as well as Principle 3210.1.p, which calls for designing trails “so as to minimize changes in the natural flow of water across the land.”
Alpine Road Trail
As part of the Portola Terrace project, Stanford will commit to improving the existing trail route along our project frontage (appropriately 2,700 feet) as shown on the attached exhibit. The Alpine Road trail presently exists as a worn dirt equestrian path, and runs primarily within the Alpine Road rightof-way. As previously pointed out by the Town of Portola Valley, there are some portions of the existing trail that leave the Alpine Road right-of-way and meander onto the Stanford property. With approval of the project, Stanford will agree to dedicate those portions on Stanford property to the Town of Portola Valley in the form of a permanent access easement.
The Alpine Road trail runs parallel to the Dwight Crowder Path, a multiuse trial constructed with funds provided by Stanford in 2011 and located on the east side of Alpine Road. It is important to note that there are significant topographic and geological challenges that force the Alpine Road trail back onto Alpine Road where the trail meets the southern boundary of the Stanford property.
Because of these topographic and geological challenges, it is anticipated that the Alpine Road trail would remain an equestrian trail, and pedestrians would utilize the Dwight Crowder Path on the other side of Alpine Road.
Portola Terrace Looped Trail
Stanford also proposes a new looped trail route of appropriately 3,650 feet in length that offers the following benefits to the community:
• The trail connects to the Alpine Road trail at two separate locations, making it accessible from either the north or south.
• The trail provides a looped route and does not dead end within the Stanford property. • The trail route is equivalent to the routes shown on the General Plan Trails and Paths Element.
• The proposed route is environmentally sensitive by avoiding existing drainage courses that could potentially be considered wetlands or riparian corridors. • The upper section of the Portola Terrace loop does not extend into the extremely steep hillside as conceptually shown on the Trails and Paths Element of the Town’s General Plan (Diagram A). Placing a trail in this area would adversely affect existing drainage courses and require disturbances on the hillside that significantly would disturb the natural conditions of terrain and vegetation, and would not provide for a looping back to the lower Portola Terrace trail segment.
• The Portola Terrace Looped Trail can provide future connections in the event the Town chooses to implement a “Canyon Trail” segment through adjacent properties. This would provide a connection equivalent to other trail segments shown on Diagram A of the Trails and Paths Element of the Town’s General Plan.
Stanford will continue to coordinate with the Town of Portola Valley Public Works and Planning Department staffs on the final details of the trail alignments and specific types of trails in accordance with the Town’s Trail Standards. Stanford will construct these trails concurrent with the development of the Portola Terrace residential project. Proposed trails will be shown on the project’s vesting tentative map.
Since the advent of the Portola Terrace project, there has been much discussion related to a potential trail segment near the northern property line of the Stanford property, referred to by some as the “Canyon Trail.” We understand that, over a decade ago, members of the private Woodside Trails Club used a trail within a riparian corridor on properties adjacent to Stanford’s property to the north, but outside Stanford land. We believe the Woodside Trails Club has not actively used that trail since 2008. While Stanford has multiple license agreements with the Woodside Trails Club in other areas on Stanford lands, no such license agreement has ever existed for this trail segment, and there is no record of a dedicated public trail in that location on Stanford land.
It should be pointed out that the “Canyon Trail” does not follow the route of the trail segment shown on Diagram A of the Trails and Paths Element of the Town’s General Plan. Diagram A shows a suggested trail segment in the vicinity of Stanford’s northern property line. Careful examination of Diagram A reveals that this trail segment starts at Alpine Road, but initially is NOT shown on Stanford property. It is, in reality, shown on the adjacent property until the trail segment intersects with the Stanford property line approximately 800 feet from Alpine Road. From that point, the trail segment appears to run along the property boundary between Stanford’s property and the adjacent neighboring properties.
If the Town wishes to reinstitute the Canyon Trail in its preexisting alignment, Stanford’s proposed Portola Terrace Looped Trail provides for a future connection to that trail.
It should be noted that the creation of new trail segments within canyons and creeks would be considered as disturbances to riparian corridors, which could be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. For this reason, Stanford is not proposing a new trail segment along our northern property line, as we believe doing so would violate the objectives of the Trails and Paths Element. Objective 3209.1.i. states that newly created trails should “ensure that such facilities are designed and used so as to avoid habitat degradation”. It is our opinion that the creation of new trail segments within riparian corridors such as what exists along our northern property line would be considered as disturbances to riparian corridors and would potentially be considered a significant adverse environmental impact. Construction of this trail segment is inconsistent with Stanford’s desire to minimize environmental impacts related to our Portola Terrace project.
In lieu of proposing this northern trail segment, Stanford proposes consolidating trail use on the property in the Alpine Road Trail and the Portola Terrace Looped Trail. This approach is consistent with General Plan Principle 3210.1.f, which provides that “where use is moderate and other conditions allow, facilities may be combined.” The new Portola Terrace Looped Trail would not connect to other development or trails, aside from the Alpine Road Trail, and, therefore, seems unlikely to have more than moderate usage.
There have been some previous discussions about the potential for proposing trail locations in other areas of the property not shown on Diagram A of the Trails and Paths Element of the Town’s General Plan. Stanford opposes these suggestions beyond the routes proposed here, as these additional trails could increase the risk of wildfires on the property. Stanford and its team of consultants have been working diligently with the Woodside Fire Protection District to develop a Vegetation Management Plan geared to reducing the potential for wildfires on the property. Providing new public access into the more remote portions of our property could undermine our collective goal to reduce wildfire risk.
Stanford looks forward to continuing the discussion on this topic and your review of this proposal.
Thank you for your time and consideration.
Sincerely,
John Donahoe
John D. Donahoe
Director, Planning and Entitlement
Stanford University
Stanford Real Estate
Attachments:
Diagram A of the Trails and Path Element of the Town’s General Plan Blow up of a section of the Diagram A of the Trails and Path Element of the Town’s General Plan Portola Terrace Proposed Trail Routes
cc: Laura Russell, Director, Town of Portola Valley
Jeremy Dennis, Town Manager, Town of Portola Valley
Portion of Diagram A
Trails and Paths Element
Town of Portola Valley General Plan
PROPERTY LINE
Stanford
Property
Project ID: Plot Date: Drawn by: Checked by: Project Title: Design Firm: Stamp: Issue Note: Sheet No.: Sheet Title: File Name: Scale: 6201 Doyle Street, Suite B Emeryville, CA 94608 TEL 510 / 547-8092 FAX 510 / 547-2604 [email protected] SPVH
PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY ASCC SUBMITTAL 11/18/19
Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date adjust to date plotted ASCC Resubmittal 11/15/19 EX-1 PORTOLA VALLEY GENERAL PLAN TRAIL EXHIBIT1"=100' Trail segments as represented on Diagram A of the Town of Portola Valley General Plan Trails and Paths Element Vegetation Management Maintenance road (Not open to the public) Dwight Crowder Path (Existing)
Project ID: Plot Date: Drawn by: Checked by: Project Title: Design Firm: Stamp: Issue Note: Sheet No.: Sheet Title: File Name: Scale: 6201 Doyle Street, Suite B Emeryville, CA 94608 TEL 510 / 547-8092 FAX 510 / 547-2604 [email protected] SPVH
PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY ASCC SUBMITTAL 11/18/19
Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date adjust to date plotted ASCC Resubmittal 11/15/19 EX-2 PORTOLA VALLEY GENERAL PLAN TRAIL EXHIBIT1"=100' Trail proposed by Stanford University consistent with Diagram A of the Town of Portola Valley Trails and Paths Element of the General Plan Vegetation Management Maintenance road (Not open to the public)
Project ID: Plot Date: Drawn by: Checked by: Project Title: Design Firm: Stamp: Issue Note: Sheet No.: Sheet Title: File Name: Scale: 6201 Doyle Street, Suite B Emeryville, CA 94608 TEL 510 / 547-8092 FAX 510 / 547-2604 [email protected] SPVH
PORTOLA TERRACE
STANFORD UNIVERSITY ASCC SUBMITTAL 11/18/19
Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date adjust to date plotted ASCC Resubmittal 11/15/19 EX-3 PORTOLA VALLEY GENERAL PLAN TRAIL EXHIBIT1"=100' The Stanford proposed trails overlaid onto the potential trails per Diagram A of the Town of Portola Valley General Plan Trails and Paths Element Vegetation Management Maintenance road (Not open to the public) Dwight Crowder Path (Existing)
Alpine
Rd
Minoca
Rd
Figure 3. Habitats Map
Stanford Wedge Project Biological Resources Report (4321-01) $XJXVW 2020
N:\Projects4300\4321-01\Reports\Fig 3 Habitats Map V2.mxd Legend
Residential Development (6.74 ac)
Project Site (76.14 ac)
Permanent Access Road (0.96 ac)
Hiking/Equestrian Trail (0.49 ac)
35-ft Riparian Buffer
Habitat
Coast Live Oak Woodland (48.36 ac)
Blue Oak Woodland (16.19 ac)
Rural - Residential (5.18 ac)
Chamise Chaparral (4.69 ac)
Mixed Riparian Forest (1.72 ac)
Stream Centerline
Edge of Off-Site Riparian Canopy
350 175 0 350
Feet
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902
REAL ESTATE
PROPOSAL TO USE STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING LAW
Portola Terrace Project
Town of Portola Valley
Submitted by Stanford University
November 2019
(revised July 2020)
Through this proposal, Stanford University is respectfully applying the State Density Bonus Law, Government Code section 65915, to proposed residential development at the 75.4-acre “Stanford Wedge” property in the Town of Portola Valley (the “Property”). The Town Council has requested that Stanford consider developing residences on the Property to help address the Town’s and the region’s shortage of affordable housing. In response and after careful consideration and outreach, Stanford has developed a plan we believe is beneficial to the community and the University. By relying on state affordable housing law, the project will be able to provide residences for Stanford faculty and for those in need of affordable housing, while also respecting the Property’s features and its surroundings.
I. Summary of Relevant Project Characteristics
Stanford’s proposed project is described in detail in the “Project Description” document submitted with our November 2019 application package, as supplemented since then by additional submissions, and is referred to in this proposal as the “Project.” To briefly summarize, as relevant here, Stanford proposes a planned unit development of 27 single-family residences for Stanford faculty and 12 affordable housing units. Each single-family home will be on its own lot. While most of these homes will be separated from each other, 6 will be configured into 3 duets. All the affordable housing units will be located in multifamily buildings clustered on 3 lots. Single-family residences will have 3 or 4 bedrooms, while affordable units will be studios, 1-bedrooms, and 2-bedrooms. Restricted ground leases for all single-family lots will be sold to occupants, while all affordable units will be rented to their occupants.
The Project will cluster development on approximately 6 acres of the flattest and most readily developable area of the Property (or approximately 8 percent of total land area). Single-family lot sizes will range from approximately 3,000 to 5,200 square feet, while the 3 lots for affordable housing each will range from approximately 6,900 to 8,200 square feet.
By limiting parcel sizes and clustering homes on a small portion of the Property, the Project will ensure that development remains subservient to the natural landscape. This arrangement of parcels and homes will enable preserving most of the Property as undeveloped land and, as discussed below, will result in cost reductions that provide for the Project to include affordable housing.
II. Proposal and Request
The State Density Bonus Law is one of the main ways in which state law encourages affordable housing development.
The Legislature enacted the statute to make it possible for developers to address California’s “severe shortage of affordable housing” by including affordable units in their projects. The Legislature stated that the Density Bonus Law is intended to “contribute significantly to the economic feasibility of lower income housing in proposed housing developments.”
The law allows project applicants that provide sufficient affordable housing to receive, in return, an increase over the otherwise maximum allowable residential density (a “density bonus”), as well as other benefits. The Density Bonus Law enables eligible applicants to receive (1) a density bonus, (2) incentives and concessions, (3) waivers and reductions of development standards, and (4) reduced parking requirements.
The following sections detail Stanford’s proposal for each of these items. Please note that the requests made and analysis provided in this proposal may change during the entitlement process. We look forward to discussing our proposal with Town officials and community members
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 2 A. Density Bonus
Stanford requests a density bonus under Government Code section 65915(b)(1)(A) for agreeing to construct units for low-income households.
Prior to the award of any density bonus, the maximum “base” density for a residential planned unit development on the Property is governed by Portola Valley Municipal Code sections 18.50.040 and 18.50.050(A). Stanford’s application includes a document prepared by civil engineers that calculates the maximum base number of developable lots on the Property as 20.03 lots. Under Government Code section 65915(q), this figure is rounded up to the next whole number of 21 base lots.
Under the Town’s inclusionary lot requirements, 15 percent of these 21 base lots must be developed as affordable housing. An in-lieu fee may be paid for a fractional lot, and the fee may be waived if the subdivider agrees to build affordable units in a quantity acceptable to the Town. See Portola Valley Muni. Code §§ 17.20.215, 18.04.055. Up to 4 affordable units may be placed on each lot provided under the inclusionary housing program. Muni. Code § 18.44.060(H). These provisions of local law require reserving for affordable housing at least 3 parcels on the Property, and they allow, therefore, for a maximum base density under this configuration of 18 single-family units and 12 multifamily affordable units on the Property (or 30 total base units).
The proposed “base” project on the Property meets these requirements by setting aside 3 lots for affordable housing development and by including 18 single-family residences and 12 units restricted to affordable rents, for a total of 30 base units. While not mandated by the Town’s inclusionary lot requirement, Stanford agrees to construct and operate all affordable units on the Property.
At least 6 of the 12 affordable units will be set aside for low-income households. By restricting 6 units for low- income households out of 30 total base units, Stanford will be providing 20 percent of base units to low-income households. (Note that an additional 6 base units (20 percent) also will be made available at affordable rents, but the Project does not rely on these additional affordable units for a density bonus.) Under Government Code section 65915(f)(1), providing 20 percent of base units for low-income households entitles the Project to a 35 percent density bonus.
This 35 percent density bonus allows the Project up to 10.5 (rounded to 11) additional market-rate units. Stanford only requests an additional 9 market-rate units. In total, therefore, the Project consists of 27 market-rate units and 12 affordable units on a total of 30 developable lots. Total Project density, including density bonus and affordable units, is approximately 0.52 units per acre or, stated differently, approximately 0.40 developable lots per acre.
B. Incentives and Concessions
“Incentives or concessions” are available to qualifying projects under the State Density Bonus Law on a sliding scale based on the percentage of affordable units provided and their level of affordability. The Project is eligible for two incentives or concessions, because at least 20 percent of pre-bonus units are for low-income households. Gov’t Code § 65915(d)(2)(B).
A city must grant up to the allowable number of requested incentives or concessions unless the city makes one of the following findings, based on substantial evidence:
• The incentive or concession does not result in identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents.
• The incentive or concession would have a specific, adverse impact on public health and safety, the physical environment, or any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historical Resources, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the impact without rendering the development unaffordable to low-income and moderate-income households. • The incentive or concession would be contrary to state or federal law.
Gov’t Code § 65915(d)(1).
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 3 Stanford respectfully applies for both incentives/concessions for which the Project qualifies. The requested incentives/concessions are as follows:
• The first requested incentive/concession is to reduce minimum parcel sizes from 20,000 square feet, the minimum allowable under Municipal Code section 18.50.050(B)(1), to the parcel sizes shown in Table 1, below (approximately 3,000 to 8,200 square feet for residential lots). • The second requested incentive/concession is to eliminate application to the Project of General Plan paragraph 2105.4 regarding clustering to the extent that provision could be read to apply.
The findings of Government Code section 65915(d)(1) that would allow for denial of these requested incentives/concessions cannot be made for either item.
1. Minimum Parcel Sizes
First, Stanford asks for an incentive/concession to reduce minimum parcel sizes from 20,000 square feet, the minimum allowable under Municipal Code section 18.50.050(B)(1), to the parcel sizes shown in Table 1, below (approximately 3,000 to 8,200 square feet for residential lots). This incentive/concession allows the Project to cluster residences on a small portion of the site. Reducing minimum parcel sizes will help ensure that the developed area remains subservient to the natural landscape and will enable preserving most of the Property as undeveloped land.
Table 1: Project Parcel Sizes
Parcel
Parcel Area
(square feet)
1 4,092
2 4,407
3 4,349
4 4,274
5 3,372
6 3,580
7 3,922
8 3,679
9 3,035
10 2,981
11 3,756
12 4,777
13 4,569
14 5,122
15 5,217
16 4,044
17 4,014
18 4,020
19 4,024
20 4,029
21 4,197
22 4,237
23 4,859
24 4,464
25 4,496
26 3,840
27 4,168
A 7,386
B 6,938
C 8,188
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 4 Where individual parcels or building sites are to be sold or leased within any planned unit development in Portola Valley, the Planning Commission is authorized to reduce their area to 20,000 square feet (approximately 0.45 acres) under specified circumstances. Muni. Code § 18.50.050(B)(1); see also Muni. Code § 18.44.060(E) (“The area of any individual building site [in a residential planned unit development] shall not be less than permitted by subsection B of Section 18.50.050.”). The Project includes parcels smaller than 20,000 square feet; therefore, an incentive/concession for reduced minimum parcel sizes is requested under the State Density Bonus Law.
Enclosed with this application as Exhibit A is a report entitled “Cost Reductions Resulting from Incentives/Concessions.” This report demonstrates that identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing rents will result from the requested reduction in minimum parcel sizes from 20,000 square feet to the sizes shown in Table 1, above. As the report describes in greater detail, this incentive/concession will yield an approximately 25.7 percent reduction in Project construction costs, due primarily to the Project’s clustering of development in a smaller area. Such a configuration enables the Project to avoid developing up a steep hill on the Property. The report describes how these cost reductions allow for rents for the Project’s low-income units to be set at affordable levels.
2. Clustering Provision
Second, Stanford requests an incentive/concession to eliminate application to the Project of General Plan paragraph 2105.4 to the extent this provision could be read to apply here. Paragraph 2105.4 of the General Plan’s Land Use Element provides:
When residences are grouped or clustered in areas where intensity standards require one acre or more per dwelling unit:
a. Each residence should have substantial direct frontage on a common open space of sufficient size to convey a feeling [of] being on the edge of a large and significant open space.
b. Clusters should generally consist of a small number of detached residences, and each cluster should be well-separated from adjacent clusters rather than interconnected in a linear form.
The Town appropriately may determine that the Project need not comply with this provision.1 Nevertheless, Stanford also seeks an incentive/concession to eliminate any potential application of General Plan paragraph 2105.4 to the Project. This incentive/concession allows the Project to cluster residences on a small portion of the site. Doing so will help ensure that the development remains subservient to the natural landscape and will enable preserving most of the Property as undeveloped land.
The enclosed report entitled “Cost Reductions Resulting from Incentives/Concessions” demonstrates that identifiable and actual cost reductions to provide for affordable housing rents will result from eliminating application of the clustering provision quoted above, as requested. As the report describes in greater detail, this incentive/concession will result in an approximately 22.4 percent reduction in Project construction costs, due primarily to the Project’s clustering of development in a smaller area. Such a configuration enables the Project to avoid developing up a steep hill on the Property. The report describes how these cost reductions allow for rents for the Project’s low-income units to be set at affordable levels.
1 The Project need not comply with General Plan paragraph 2105.4 for at least two reasons. First, the opening line of the provision expressly limits its application to situations where residences are clustered “in areas where intensity standards require one acre or more per dwelling unit.” Yet under local law, parcel sizes on the Property can be reduced beneath an acre (to 20,000 square feet) absent any density bonus. Second, even if General Plan paragraph 2015.4 were deemed to apply here, the provision is not “mandatory.” Conformance, therefore, is not required given that the Project advances numerous other General Plan policies.
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 5 C. Waivers and Reductions of Development Standards
State Density Bonus Law applicants may apply for an unlimited number of waivers or reductions of any “development standards that will have the effect of physically precluding the construction” of a development that qualifies for a bonus at the densities or with the concessions or incentives permitted by the Density Bonus Law. Gov’t Code § 65915(e)(1).
A city must grant requested waivers or reductions unless the city determines:
• The waiver or reduction would have a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, or the physical environment, and there is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific adverse impact. • The waiver or reduction would have an adverse impact on any real property that is listed in the California Register of Historic Resources.
• The waiver or reduction would be contrary to state or federal law.
Gov’t Code § 65915(e)(1).
Stanford respectfully applies for three waivers of development standards. The requested waivers are as follows:
• The first requested waiver is of Municipal Code section 18.44.050(C), a Town development standard requiring specified spacing between main buildings in a residential planned unit development. • The second requested waiver is of Municipal Code section 18.48.010, a Town development standard establishing maximum floor area requirements.
• The third requested waiver is of a Town ordinance, Municipal Code section 18.17.070, that claims to require similarity between market-rate and affordable units in density bonus projects, to the extent this provision could be read to apply here.
The findings of Government Code section 65915(e)(1) that would allow for denial of these requested waivers cannot be made for any of them.
1. Building Spacing
Stanford requests a waiver of Municipal Code section 18.44.050(C), the Town’s development standard requiring specified spacing between main buildings in a residential planned unit development. Section 18.44.050(C) provides, in relevant part, that in a planned unit development:
The arrangement of buildings on the site shall be such as to provide standards of . . . privacy at least equivalent to the standards required under this title for lots developed individually. The spacing between main buildings shall be at least equivalent to the spacing which would be required between buildings similarly developed under the terms of this title on separate parcels, due consideration being given to building height and to the openness normally afforded by intervening streets.
Under the Municipal Code, “the spacing which would be required between buildings similarly developed under the terms of this title on separate parcels” is based on code requirements for yard sizes and street widths. Spacing for buildings developed on separate parcels is regulated primarily by requirements for 50-foot front yards, 25-foot side yards, and 25-foot rear yards. Muni. Code §§ 18.48.010, 18.72.050. Additionally, intervening residential streets ordinarily must be at least 20 feet wide. Muni. Code § 17.40.100(B)(1).
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 6 Accordingly, under section 18.44.050(C), the Project would be required to provide spacing between main buildings of at least 120 feet where buildings face each other across a street and of at least 50 feet where buildings are located side-to-side or where the rear of one building faces another building’s side.
The Project, including the requested incentives/concessions to reduce minimum parcel sizes to the specified sizes and to eliminate any application of General Plan paragraph 2105.4 regarding clustering, must place residences too close to each other to meet the spacing requirement quoted above. Table 2, below, compares the spacing between main buildings proposed under the Project to the spacing that would be required under Municipal Code section
18.44.050(C).
Table 2: Project Spacing Between Main Buildings
Location of Main
Buildings
Spacing Between
Main Buildings
Parcel Parcel
Required Spacing
(feet)
Proposed Spacing
(feet)
1 2 50 5.70
1 27 120 104.79
2 3 50 10.57
2 27 120 83.58
3 4 50 12.98
3 27 120 57.57
4 5 50 12.02
4 27 120 73.38
5 6 50 0.00
5 26 120 74.84
6 7 50 10.00
6 26 120 78.84
7 8 50 9.98
7 C 120 90.29
8 9 50 25.98
8 B 120 97.89
9 10 50 0.00
9 A 120 87.53
10 11 50 8.98
10 A 120 91.53
11 12 50 14.05
12 13 50 21.30
13 14 50 13.63
14 15 50 20.57
15 16 50 8.31
16 17 50 10.92
17 18 50 11.22
18 19 50 10.78
19 20 50 9.96
19 25 120 72.34
20 21 50 12.02
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 7 Location of Main
Buildings
Spacing Between
Main Buildings
Parcel Parcel
Required Spacing
(feet)
Proposed Spacing
(feet)
20 24 120 72.54
21 23 120 69.23
22 23 50 0.00
23 24 50 13.29
24 25 50 8.58
25 A 50 37.35
26 27 50 19.76
26 C 50 30.02
A B 50 28.00
B C 50 11.98
The enclosed Exhibit B depicts the Project’s spacing between main buildings and identifies the relevant measurements. As shown on Exhibit B, the Project, with the requested incentives/concessions applied, cannot conform to the spacing requirements identified above. With the incentives/concessions, the Project’s parcels simply are not configured to allow for spacing between main buildings in accordance with Municipal Code section
18.44.050(C).
These same spacing requirements ordinarily would preclude development on the Property of “duet” units, or two attached single-family homes. Because each duet unit, by definition, is attached to another single-family residence, no spacing is provided between these two main buildings. The Project proposes three sets of duet units—on Parcels 5 and 6, Parcels 9 and 10, and Parcels 22 and 23. As Table 2 shows, these duet units have no spacing between main buildings.
As discussed above, under Municipal Code section 18.44.050(C), the Project would be required to provide spacing between main buildings of at least 50 feet where buildings are located side-to-side. Duet units, therefore, could not be developed on the Property absent a waiver of the Municipal Code’s building spacing requirement.
For the reasons discussed above and as shown in Exhibit B, application of the building spacing requirement of Municipal Code section 18.44.050(C) physically would preclude construction of a qualifying development under the Density Bonus Law, and this development standard, therefore, must be waived.
2. Maximum Floor Area
Stanford requests a waiver of Municipal Code section 18.48.010, the Town’s development standard establishing maximum floor area requirements. Municipal Code section 18.48.010 establishes a lengthy formula that governs the maximum floor area permitted on a residential parcel, including the maximum permitted area for any single building on a parcel. The formula enables calculation of maximum floor area requirements where minimum parcel areas are between 7,500 and 326,700 square feet. However, the formula in the Municipal Code does not account for minimum parcel areas beneath 7,500 square feet, likely because the Town’s development standards do not provide for smaller parcels.2 Here, in contrast, the requested incentive/concession to reduce minimum parcel sizes would allow for parcels of such smaller sizes, and, aside from Parcel C, all proposed residential parcels are less than 7,500 square feet. 2 Table 1A of Municipal Code section 18.48.010 establishes calculations of the “Adjusted Maximum Floor Area” figure that governs allowable floor area on a parcel. As relevant here, Adjusted Maximum Floor Area must be determined either (1) directly from figures provided in Table 1 of section 18.48.010 for certain specified minimum parcel areas (for example, 7,500; 20,000; and 87,120 square feet), or (2) “by interpolation from Table No. 1.” See Muni. Code §
18.48.010, tbl. 1A, § 6(a). Except for Parcel C, all proposed residential parcels are less than 7,500 square feet.
Interpolation entails estimating values between two known values. Here, the desired estimates for the Project’s
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 8 Accordingly, section 18.48.010 does not allow for a determination of maximum floor area for any proposed parcels, except Parcel C.3For all parcels aside from Parcel C, therefore, this development standard is not an applicable, objective standard. Regardless, Stanford requests a waiver of Municipal Code section 18.48.010 for all parcels to ensure the provision cannot be read to apply to the Project.
While values for maximum floor area cannot be calculated for the reasons described above, note that the Project’s proposed floor areas for single-family homes appear consistent with the intent of the Town’s regulations. Enclosed with this document as Exhibit C is a graph that indicates as much. The graph plots the curve of minimum parcel size against maximum floor area specified in the Municipal Code for parcels between 7,500 and 20,000 square feet. The graph also plots all the Project’s proposed residential parcels by parcel size and floor area. As Exhibit C shows, aside from the affordable housing structures, the Project’s proposed residences would fall comfortably within allowable floor areas under the code if the curve were extended further (beneath a minimum parcel size of 7,500 square feet).
Nevertheless, if section 18.48.010 were read to apply to all parcels in the Project, the Project could not be constructed to the extent that allowable maximum floor areas could not be calculated. Additionally, the portion of the Project on Parcel C could not be constructed, as the residential square footage for affordable units proposed on that parcel exceeds the allowable maximum floor area. The application of Municipal Code section 18.48.010, therefore, physically would preclude construction of a qualifying development under the Density Bonus Law, and this development standard must be waived.
3. Unit Design Standard
Stanford requests a waiver of a Town ordinance that claims to require similarity between market-rate and affordable units in density bonus projects, to the extent this provision could be read to apply to the Project. Municipal Code section 18.17.070 provides:
Affordable units shall be of equal design and quality as the market rate units.
Exteriors, including architecture and elevations, and floor plans of the affordable units shall be similar to the market rate units. . . . The number of bedrooms in the affordable units shall be consistent with the mix of market rate units.
As described in Section II.A, above, separate provisions in the Town’s Zoning Ordinance allow development on the Property of both (1) single-family market-rate homes and (2) multifamily affordable units on the 15 percent of lots that must be developed as inclusionary housing. See Muni. Code §§ 18.12.020(B), 18.12.030(E), 18.44.060(H). Under these regulations, Stanford’s “base” project before any density bonus is awarded may contain as many as 18 singlefamily, market-rate houses and 12 affordable units on 3 lots.
The provision of Municipal Code section 18.17.070 quoted above regarding similarity between market-rate and affordable units does not apply to the Project.4 Even so, Stanford also seeks a waiver of the quoted portion of this development standard to eliminate any application of the provision to the Project. Its application would have the effect of physically precluding construction of the Project, a qualifying development under the Density Bonus Law.
Consistent with Town zoning regulations, Stanford is seeking a density bonus above a “base” project of 18 singlefamily, market-rate houses and 12 multifamily affordable units, with requested incentives/concessions to reduce proposed parcels do not fall between two known values, since all (but one) of the parcels are smaller than the smallest minimum parcel area value included in Table 1. Accordingly, the Town’s formula for calculating Adjusted Maximum Floor Area yields no values for any residential parcels, except Parcel C. 3 Proposed floor area on Parcel C is approximately 3,941 square feet, relative to an allowable Adjusted Maximum Floor Area under Town regulations of approximately 3,296 square feet. 4 The requirement in Municipal Code section 18.17.070 for similar exteriors, floor plans, and bedroom counts between market-rate and affordable units cannot be read to apply here, where a project proposes development that relies on zoning expressly allowing single-family market-rate units and multifamily affordable units. Rather, this requirement only should be read to apply within comparable unit types (e.g., any single-family affordable units would need to have similar floor plans to single-family market-rate units). If section 18.17.070 were interpreted to apply to the Project, it would be preempted by the State Density Bonus Law.
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Redwood City, CA 94063 T 650.723.8902 9 minimum parcel sizes to specified sizes beneath 20,000 square feet and to eliminate any application of General Plan paragraph 2105.4 regarding clustering. To physically accommodate this qualifying development, the Project’s multifamily affordable units must be designed differently from its single-family, market-rate units and must have distinct exteriors and floor plans, including providing fewer bedrooms relative to the bedroom count in “the mix of market rate units.”
With parcel sizes reduced to the sizes identified in this document and with the elimination of General Plan paragraph 2105.4, the Project physically lacks space to accommodate its 12 multifamily affordable units in similar fashion as its 18 single-family, market-rate houses. Exhibit B shows the tight physical constraints that apply to the Project, with the requested incentives/concessions. Application, therefore, of the provision of Municipal Code section 18.17.070 regarding similarity between market-rate and affordable units would have the effect of physically precluding construction of the Project, and this provision must be waived.
4. Future Modifications
As consistent with state law, Stanford reserves the right to request, at a later date, additional waivers or reductions of development standards and to modify the requests made and the analysis provided in this proposal.
D. Parking Standards
The Project will provide parking consistent with the requirements of the State Density Bonus Law. Adequate parking is important to Stanford, and Stanford is confident the amount of parking proposed in our application will accommodate all residents and guests.
Stanford requests that the Town not require a vehicular parking ratio, inclusive of handicapped and guest parking, that exceeds the ratios identified in Government Code section 65915(p)(1). Stanford also requests that, to the extent relevant, all other provisions of Government Code section 65915(p) apply to the Project.
E. Fees
Finally, as required by Town ordinance, Stanford agrees to pay all necessary fees and actual costs associated with the Town’s review of this application under the State Density Bonus Law.
III. Conclusion
Stanford’s proposal to use state affordable housing law detailed here responds directly to the Town Council’s request that we consider developing affordable housing at the Property. We hope this proposal helps show how state law can facilitate development of the Project, including its affordable housing component. Stanford looks forward to working with the Town Council, staff, and residents to make our contribution toward meeting the need for affordable housing in Portola Valley.
Enclosures
EXHIBIT B
7.5M
15M
20M
-
500
1,000
1,500
2,000
2,500
3,000
3,500
4,000
4,500
- 5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000
Maximum Floor Area (sf)
Parcel Size (sf)
PARCEL SIZE VS. MFA
Municipal Code Requirements Stanford Faculty Homes Affordable Rental Housing
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Implementation Plan ● August 2020 1 IMPLEMENTATION
PLAN
for the Stanford Wedge Property
Development Vegetation
Management Plan
August 2020
Introduction
Stanford University (Stanford) has proposed a subdivision of 39 residential units on a 75.4-acre parcel located at 3530 Alpine Road in the Town of Portola Valley (Town). Approximately 6 acres of the project site would be developed for residential units and the remainder of the 75.4- acre parcel would be undeveloped (the Undeveloped Area).
The Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD), in review of the application and site plans, required preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP) to address existing fire hazards across the parcel through fire behavior modeling and to define mitigations to reduce the hazards identified during modeling.
This Implementation Plan has been prepared to identify the methods and approaches to the initial treatment of vegetation described in the VMP. Chapter 6 of the VMP addresses vegetation treatment methods that will be used; treatment activities or “prescriptions;” logistics associated with the work including access, material collection, and removal; and environmental protection measures.
The VMP identifies the need for a new, permanent access road to be constructed in order to haul out cut vegetative material from the Undeveloped Area. While the VMP assumes that initial treatments would commence after completion of a new, permanent access road so that all materials can be removed, it is not necessary for this permanent road to be constructed to perform initial work. This Implementation Plan identifies the activities that can be undertaken,
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE VMP
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Implementation Plan for the VMP ● August 2020 2 and the general prioritization of initial treatments that can occur, prior to construction of the permanent access road and other ground-disturbing activities.
The prescriptions presented in Chapter 6.2 of the VMP identify activities to be carried out by vegetation cover type and in many cases, note that material can either be removed or rearranged (masticated) on site. Both scenarios (where vegetation is removed versus where it is masticated and left onsite) are identified as acceptable methods in Chapter 6.2.8 of the VMP.
Prior to construction of the permanent access road, initial treatments remain feasible and would commence, provided certain conditions defined in this Implementation Plan are met to avoid impacts to any sensitive environmental resources such as special-status plants that may be present in the Undeveloped Area.
Phasing of Initial Treatments
Priorities
The initial treatment described in the VMP can commence prior to construction of the permanent access road. The prioritization and focus of initial treatments prior to construction of the road would be as follows:
1. Oak woodland canopy and oak woodlands vegetation treatments within approximately 200 feet of Alpine Road, where access and material removal are easily accomplished. This work would help to protect the parcel from potential ignitions from the existing overhead transmission line and road.
2. Creation of defensible space and chaparral treatments along the western boundary of the parcel with removal of material, provided access via Minoca Road is provided by adjacent landowners. These treatments would add a layer of protection between the parcel and the closest homes and structures.
3. Creation of defensible space around the existing stables and the area of future housing development, including removal of cut vegetative materials. Defensible space treatments would protect the existing stables and future housing from the spread of fire emanating from the southwest or mitigate the spread of a fire that originated at the stables, the future housing, or Alpine Road.
4. Treatments throughout the remainder of the parcel (and Priority 2 areas if access by adjacent landowners is not provided) by rearranging cut materials on the surface through mastication and/or chipping. These treatments should still reduce flame lengths, if a wildfire occurs during 97th percentile weather, to an acceptable level that would allow for direct attack of the fire.
These priority areas are shown in Figure 1. Initial treatments in priority areas 1 through 3 can be completed optimally, without the installation of the permanent access road. All initial treatments can meet the treatment objectives defined in Section 6.2 of the VMP.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE VMP
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Implementation Plan for the VMP ● August 2020 3 Figure 1 Priority Treatment Areas for Initial Treatments Commencing Prior to Construction of the Permanent Access Road
Conditions to Limit Impacts of Initial Treatments that are Implemented Prior to Construction of the Permanent Access Road
To limit impacts of initial treatments that commence prior to the construction of the permanent access road, the following additional conditions would need to be implemented:
• Tree removal would occur through hand methods (leaving cut stumps at about 6 inches in height so as not to disturb the ground surface). Material would be carried when possible and when dragging could not be avoided, dragging lengths would be less than 250 feet. Removed trees would be under 11 inches in diameter unless considered a hazard to workers or infrastructure.
• Heavy equipment use, including a chipper or masticator, would minimize soil disturbance through limiting machine configurations to PSI’s that do not exceed pressures of 10 pounds per square inch (psi) on the ground, a treatment design that reduces rutting from machine turns. Maximum soil moisture thresholds would be enforced to moderate any compaction.
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE VMP
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Implementation Plan for the VMP ● August 2020 4 • Material masticated or chipped and spread on the surface would not exceed 1 inch in depth so as not to hinder growth or establishment of sensitive plants. Removal or further manual spreading would be required to ensure that this standard is met.
Treatments after Completion of the Permanent Access Road Once the permanent access road is completed, any initial treatments that were not completed would be accomplished using the “removal” method for cut material described for each prescription in the VMP. The removal of vegetation would optimize fire hazard reduction as compared with mastication or chipping which rearranges material on site.
On-going maintenance would utilize the permanent access road to remove cut vegetative materials, further improving the effectiveness of the treatments as the work continues. As stated in Section 6.2.6 of the VMP, each area of the undeveloped parcel will be treated approximately every 5 years with work staged such that 1/5 of the site is treated each year.
Conclusion
This Implementation Plan allows for initiation of the initial treatments defined in the VMP prior to construction of the permanent access road described in the VMP. The VMP fully supports this approach through allowing for mastication or removal of cut vegetative material. While less effective than full removal of all material cut, the VMP demonstrated through modeling that mastication of materials still resulted in an acceptable reduction of fire hazards across the site.
The VMP implementation will be a continuous process. Any work performed will serve to improve upon existing conditions and hazards. Continuous maintenance ensures that the objectives of the VMP will be met on a long-term basis.
Stanford University
Stanford Wedge Property Development
Vegetation Management Plan
May 2020
Stanford University
Stanford Wedge Property Development
Vegetation Management Plan
May 2020
Prepared for:
John Donahoe, Director, Planning and Entitlement
Stanford University
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Mail Code 8873
Redwood City, CA 94063
650.724.4913
Prepared by:
Scott Conway; Jason Moghaddas, RPF
Spatial Informatics Group
2529 Yolanda Ct.
Pleasanton, CA 94566
Phil Dye
Prometheus Fire Consulting
PO Box 41187
San Jose, CA 95160
Tania Treis
Panorama Environmental, Inc.
717 Market Street, Suite 650
San Francisco, CA 94103
650-373-1200
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 i
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary....................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Background ..................................................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.2 Existing Conditions of the Site..................................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Fire Behavior Modeling................................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.4 Vegetation Management Plan..................................................................................................................... 1-6
1.5 Post-Treatment Fire Behavior Modeling................................................................................................... 1-9 2 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.1 Proposed Housing Development Project.................................................................................................. 2-1
2.2 Purpose and Need for a Vegetation Management Plan ........................................................................ 2-1 3 Description of Property and Existing Conditions ................................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Property Location........................................................................................................................................... 3-1
3.2 Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................... 3-1 4 Regulations and Requirements that Relate to Vegetation Management on the Parcel ................ 4-1
4.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................................................... 4-1
4.2 Defensible Space Requirements Per Public Resources Code.............................................................. 4-1
4.3 Ordinance No. 12 of the Woodside Fire Protection District .................................................................. 4-4 5 Fire Behavior Modeling of Baseline Conditions .................................................................................... 5-1
5.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................................................... 5-1
5.2 Results .............................................................................................................................................................. 5-6 6 Vegetation Management Plan .................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Treatment Methods ....................................................................................................................................... 6-1
6.2 Treatments by Area/Cover Type ................................................................................................................. 6-9 7 References ...................................................................................................................................................... 7-1 Appendices ................................................................................................................................................................ 7-1 Appendix A: Conway Resumes
Appendix B: Modeling Outputs
• IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Current Condition Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 ii
• IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Scenario 1 Post Treatment Report • IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Scenario 2 Post Treatment Report • Detailed Treatment Methodology Report
• October 2008 Fuel Hazard Assessment Study – Town of Portola Valley List of Tables
Table 1 Typical Vegetation Treatments................................................................................................. 1-7 Table 2 Treatment Areas and Objectives ............................................................................................. 1-8 Table 3 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Current Conditions....... 5-9 Table 4 Treatment Activities.................................................................................................................... 6-3 Table 5 Significant Trees per Portola Valley Municipal Code.......................................................... 6-7 Table 6 Vegetation Maintenance Plan Schedule.............................................................................. 6-16 Table 7 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Post-Treatment Conditions Scenario 2............................................................................................................... 6-19 Table 8 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Post-Treatment Conditions .................................................................................................................................. 6-23 List of Figures
Figure 1 Site Location................................................................................................................................. 1-2 Figure 2 Fire Behavior Modeling Protocol ............................................................................................. 1-4 Figure 3 Modeled Integrated Hazard for the Project Parcel under Existing Conditions............... 1-6 Figure 4 Vegetation Treatment Areas by Cover Type.......................................................................... 1-8 Figure 5 Modeled Integrated Hazards for the Project Parcel – Most Material Removed ......... 1-11 Figure 6 Site Location................................................................................................................................. 2-2 Figure 7 Lot and Parcel Plan..................................................................................................................... 2-3 Figure 8 Site Topography .......................................................................................................................... 3-2 Figure 9 Existing Vegetation Types ......................................................................................................... 3-4 Figure 10 Surface Fuels ............................................................................................................................... 3-5 Figure 11 Canopy Cover............................................................................................................................... 3-6 Figure 12 Canopy Base Heights ................................................................................................................. 3-7 Figure 13 Canopy Bulk Density................................................................................................................... 3-8 Figure 14 Distances from Parcel to Nearest Structures....................................................................... 3-9 Figure 15 Modeling Protocol....................................................................................................................... 5-1 Figure 16 Surface Fire Behavior Fire Characteristics Chart................................................................. 5-5 Figure 17 Integrated Hazard Classification Chart................................................................................... 5-6 Figure 18 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Current Conditions .............................. 5-7 Figure 19 Spatial Distribution of Flame Length Classes – Current Conditions .................................. 5-8 Figure 20 Modeled Integrated Hazard for the Project Parcel – Current Condition ......................... 5-9 Figure 21 Vegetation Treatment Areas by Type...................................................................................... 6-2 Figure 22 Areas of the Project Parcel with Slopes Greater than 30 Percent.................................... 6-5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 iii
Figure 23 Landing/Staging Area and Access Road for Material Storage and Removal................. 6-6 Figure 24 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment with All Material that is Cut Removed.................................................................................................. 6-18 Figure 25 Spatial Distribution of Flame Length Classes – Post-Treatment Scenario................... 6-19 Figure 26 Modeled Integrated Hazards for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment ......................... 6-20 Figure 27 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment Using Mastication in Some Oak Woodland Areas......................................................................... 6-22
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-1
1 Executive Summary
1.1 Background
Stanford University (Stanford) has proposed a subdivision of 39 residential units on a 75.4-acre parcel located at 3530 Alpine Road in the Town of Portola Valley (Town), as shown in Figure 1.
Approximately 6 acres of the project site would be developed for residential units and the remainder of the 75.4-acre parcel would be undeveloped.
The Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD), in review of the application and site plans, required preparation of a Vegetation Management Plan (VMP or plan) to address existing fire hazards across the parcel through fire behavior modeling and to define mitigations to reduce the hazards identified during modeling.
1.2 Existing Conditions of the Site
The site is currently largely undeveloped with some disturbance and development at Alpine Road in the area of the proposed housing development, where horse stables are currently located. The project parcel is surrounded by single family residential development to the north, west, and south. Elevations within the project site range from approximately 323 feet to 678 feet above sea level. The area of proposed development is on the flattest portion of the site encompassing approximately 6 acres. This flat area is surrounded by steep hillsides of up to an over 30 percent slope in some places. The slope has a northeast aspect. The dominant vegetation types across the larger property include chaparral and oak woodland. Dense understory is found through much of the parcel.
1.3 Fire Behavior Modeling
1.3.1 Overview of Modeling
Wildfire modeling is a field of computational science that uses numerical simulations to predict fire behavior. Wildfire modeling attempts to reproduce fire behavior characteristics like how quickly a fire can spread, in which directions it may spread, and how much heat it may generate given the conditions of the fuels, land, and predicted weather. Fire behavior modeling also looks at whether a fire would transition from the ground surface to tree crowns, which is
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-2
Figure 1 Site Location
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-3
much more dangerous. Once fire behavior is estimated through modeling, an assessment of fire hazards to surrounding life and property can be made and modifications can be made to the vegetation to reduce the exposure of important human values to that hazard, known as vegetation treatments or prescriptions.
The factors that influence fire behavior serve as the key inputs in modeling efforts. These factors include:
• Landscape: Topography factors influence wildfires. Orientation toward the sun, which influences the amount of energy received from the sun, and the slope (fire spreads faster uphill) influence fire behavior. Fire can accelerate in narrow canyons and it can be slowed down or stopped by barriers such as creeks and roads • Fuels: Fuels include anything that can burn. In wildland areas, fuels are primarily comprised of vegetation. Dead trees with low moisture ignite more easily and burn faster than live trees with higher moisture. Leaf litter and dried twigs and branches also ignite easier and burn faster.
• Weather: Weather influences fire through wind and moisture. Wind can increase the spread of fire in the direction of the wind, wind speed can accelerate spread, and higher temperatures can result in a fire burning faster, as can low humidity and low precipitation.
Outputs of fire behavior modeling can include different parameters, but this exercise focused on burn probability and fire intensity. Burn probability is the likelihood that a wildfire will burn a given point or area over a specified period. Flame length can be used as a proxy for fire intensity, where flame length is the height of the flames, with taller flame lengths indicating a higher intensity fire. Generally, if flame lengths are less than 4 feet, then fire can be effectively controlled with professional suppression resources. Flame lengths between 4 and 8 feet require multiple, more specific types and numbers of professionally trained firefighting resources and suppression success goes down. Flame lengths greater than 8 feet generally prevent firefighters and resources from directly attacking the fire front because the fire is too intense. Many times, this scenario results in more land being burned and unfortunate effects on property and even life. Vegetation treatments should be identified to reduce undesirable fire intensities when flame lengths exceed 4 feet, so that fire fighters have the highest probability of safely controlling a wildland fire under most weather conditions.
1.3.2 Models Used for VMP Analysis
Protocol
A wildland fire behavior modeling protocol was developed for this effort and was presented to WFPD Fire Marshal, Don Bullard. The modeling protocol that was used is shown in Figure 2 and explained in the following sections.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-4
Figure 2 Fire Behavior Modeling Protocol
Models Used
Two fire behavior modeling programs were used to understand the existing fire hazard on the project parcel and to compare or cross check the results. Each model is described below:
• Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS) utilizes two imbedded models, FlamMap and Minimum Travel Time. IFTDSS is a web-based application designed to make fuels treatment planning and analysis more efficient and effective. IFTDSS provides access to data and models through one simple user interface.
• BehavePlus is composed of a collection of mathematical models that describe fire behavior and the fire environment. The modeling program simulates flame length, rate of fire spread, spotting distance, scorch height, tree mortality, fuel moisture, as well as other variables; so, it is used to predict fire behavior in multiple situations.
1.3.3 Model Inputs
The Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) was used for the inputs for landscape and fuels, that is, topography and vegetation cover types. LANDFIRE is a shared program between the wildland fire management programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Department of the Interior. The datasets in LANDFIRE for topography and vegetation are based on remote sensing data, which have varied accuracies and must be assessed further. Therefore, field visits to the project parcel were conducted to verify and augment the LANDFIRE remotely sensed datasets through professional judgement and photo interpretation to ensure the existing conditions were being appropriately represented within the model inputs.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-5
The Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) provided the inputs for weather. The Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) system is a network of automated weather stations run by the USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and monitored by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), mainly to observe potential wildfire conditions. The 97th percentile weather conditions were utilized. Percentiles are based on a scale of 0-100 and are used to sort and rank a collection of data collected over a period. For wildfire, when values at the upper end of the scale occur, complex fires are expected, where initial attack may often fail. The 97th percentile is often termed “the most likely worst-case scenario.” These are the days where weather conditions are greatest for wildfire ignition and spread.
1.3.4 Current Condition Modeling Results/Outputs
Overview
The results of the fire behavior modeling programs indicated that nearly all areas in the project parcel will require some form of vegetation treatment to reduce fire hazard.
Flame Length
IFTDSS (with FlamMap)
Approximately 52 percent of the project parcel exhibited flame lengths greater than 4 feet and the entire parcel has a modeled average flame length of 4.8 feet. Under current conditions, as modeled, the project parcel would likely exhibit high intensity fire and put the surrounding homes and infrastructure at risk because suppression resources would have trouble safely directly attacking the fire and, thus, direct suppression effectiveness might be limited.
BehavePlus
Flame lengths were comparable using the BehavePlus model as found with FlamMap (in IFTDSS), with some variations in patterns based on underlying differences in how the models work. The fire intensity measured by flame length modeled by FlamMap was confirmed with the Behave simulation.
1.3.5 Integrated Hazard
The integrated hazard combines intensity (determined by proxy with flame length) and burn probability. Burn probabilities were calculated using Minimum Travel Time in IFTDSS. Figure 3 highlights areas where there is a high fire intensity that overlaps with a high fire probability and thus, a high integrated hazard. Although some areas are considered low hazard, much of the project parcel has an elevated hazard.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-6
Figure 3 Modeled Integrated Hazard for the Project Parcel under Existing Conditions *The integrated hazard is a scale from 0 to 1 where 0 represents low burn probability and small flame length and 1 is the combination highest burn probability and large flame length. The scaling allows for comparisons before and after treatment.
1.4 Vegetation Management Plan
1.4.1 Types of Vegetation Management Treatments or Prescriptions Areas with high fire hazard are mitigated through modifications to the live vegetation and removal of dead fuels onsite to reduce the risks. Fuels is the parameter for which the landowner has control since neither weather nor topography can be altered. The modification of vegetation to reduce a fire’s potential is called a “treatment” or “prescription.” Several treatments or prescriptions are available in vegetation management practice. Table 1 summarizes the treatment types available for the project parcel.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-7
Table 1 Typical Vegetation Treatments
Treatment Activity Description Method of Application
Steep Slope
Mechanical
Treatment with
Manual Support
Use of specialized self-leveling motorized
equipment to cut, uproot, crush/compact, or chop
existing vegetation. On inaccessible terrain:
manual cutting and removal of vegetation to
machine for comprehensive treatment
Used on slopes from 30 to 70 percent only (selfleveling machines up to 50%).
Mastication, chipping, brush raking,
tilling, mowing, roller chopping,
chaining, skidding and removal,
piling; often combined with pile
burning (if allowed)
Mechanical
Treatment
Use of motorized equipment to cut, uproot,
crush/compact, or chop existing vegetation
Used on slopes from 0 to 30 percent only.
Mastication, chipping, brush raking,
tilling, mowing, roller chopping,
chaining, skidding and removal,
piling; often combined with pile
burning (if allowed)
Manual Treatment Use of hand tools and hand-operated power tools to cut, clear, or prune herbaceous or woody
species
Hand pull and grub, thin, prune, hand
pile, hand plant; often combined with
pile burning (if allowed)
Prescribed
Herbivory
Use of domestic livestock to reduce a target plant
population thereby reducing fire fuels or
competition of desired plant species
Grazing or browsing goats
1.4.2 Treatment Areas by Cover Type
The type of treatments to be utilized within the project parcel depend on the vegetation type, cover, and location. The VMP identifies two types of vegetation cover on the project site that can exhibit extreme fire behavior, which are chaparral and oak woodland. Given the existing condition of the vegetation on-site, three treatment areas were developed in the VMP, including 1) defensible space areas around structures, 2) oak woodland, and 3) chaparral. These areas are shown in Figure 4.
1.4.3 Treatments
Table 2 presents the vegetation management objectives and the types of treatments that would be implemented by treatment area. A new permanent road will be constructed from Alpine Road up through to the middle of the property to allow for access and material removal from the higher elevations of the parcel. Temporary roads will be constructed from there to collect and haul as much material as possible to the access road and off the site. Not all material can be hauled off-site. Some material will be rearranged (masticated) and left on-site for decomposition. The access road will allow for Class III or greater fire engine access as well as staging for regular maintenance of the parcel.
Environmental protections are also incorporated into the VMP, including for significant tree removal, nesting birds, protection of San Francisco dusky-footed woodrats, California redlegged frogs, and archaeological resources.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-8
Figure 4 Vegetation Treatment Areas by Cover Type
Table 2 Treatment Areas and Objectives
Treatment
Areas
Objectives Treatment Method
Defensible
Space
1. Meet and maintain all CALFIRE and Woodside Fire Protection requirement for defensible space.
2. Reduce fuel volumes and maintain fuel volumes consistent with very low severity fire
3. Reduce fuel flammability and cultivate plants on the landscape that are fire-resistant
4. Establish and maintain fuel discontinuity
5. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling through tree crown; maintain that separation
6. Select fire resistant landscape plants for any additional landscaping Initial Treatment and
On-Going
Maintenance: Manual
Planting, cutting, and
removal of vegetation
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-9
Oak
Woodland -
Cover
1. Reduce fuel volumes and maintain fuel volumes consistent with low severity fire
2. Reduce volume of flammable fuels and cultivate plants on the landscape that are generally native and fire-resistant
3. Establish and maintain fuel discontinuity
4. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling through tree crown; maintain that separation
5. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fire-resistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an intact fire regime
6. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites Initial Treatment:
Manual cutting and
removal with some
mastication and steep
slope mastication with
manual support
On-Going
Maintenance: Grazing
with manual support
Oak
Woodland -
Canopy
1. Maintain fuel volumes consistent with low severity fire
2. Maintain fuel discontinuity
3. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling through tree crown; maintain that separation
4. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fire-resistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an intact fire regime
5. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites
Initial Treatment:
Manual cutting and
removal with some
mastication and steep
slope mastication with
manual support
On-Going
Maintenance: Grazing
with manual support
Chaparral
Cover
1. Maintain fuel volumes consistent with low severity fire
2. Maintain fuel discontinuity
3. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling through tree crown; maintain that separation
4. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fire-resistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an intact fire regime
5. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites Initial Treatment:
Manual cutting and
removal
On-Going
Maintenance: Grazing
with manual cutting
1.5 Post-Treatment Fire Behavior Modeling
1.5.1 Modeling Inputs
Post treatment fire behavior modeling was performed using FlamMap with Minimum Travel Time and BehavePlus to demonstrate that the treatments adequately reduce fire hazards. In order to effectively model treatment changes to the landscape, each vegetation cover type was adjusted to reflect the expected changes in cover, bulk, vegetation heights, and surface fuels from implementing the detailed treatments defined in the VMP.
1.5.2 Outputs
Flame Lengths
Post-treatment, where most of the material is removed, has predicted flame lengths less than 1 foot across the parcel, coupled with an average flame length of 0.7 feet. Post-treatment, where material is rearranged and left on site in some areas, has predicted flame lengths that never
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-10
exceed 4 feet. With all of these areas showing flame lengths less than 4 feet, the parcel will most likely exhibit lower fire intensities compared to current conditions (less than 8-foot flame lengths in places with 4.8-foot weighted mean flame lengths). Behave runs confirmed both sets of FlamMap modeling runs are within expectations.
Even if mastication is used in some places, as long as the maintenance plan is implemented and current, if a fire occurred within the parcel, suppression resources would more likely to be able to directly attack the fire. Suppression success would increase compared to the current condition.
Integrated Hazards
The modeled post treatment conditions show a dramatic reduction in integrated hazard (probability and intensity) and thus a reduction in fire exposure to surrounding homes and infrastructure. When the majority of material is removed, hazard is reduced by as much as 99 percent, as shown in Figure 5. Thus, if a fire affected the parcel post-treatment, with an intact maintenance plan, the likelihood that the fire would remain on the ground (versus spreading to the canopy) would increase. Direct suppression would be better facilitated, and the exposure to property compared to the current condition would be reduced.
Mastication may be used in some areas where material cannot be removed. This condition was also modeled, as leaving masticated material in some areas of oak woodland would affect fire behavior. The modeling of this condition showed that all flame lengths would remain less than 4 feet and hazard would be significantly reduced. Therefore, conditions would still likely exhibit much lower fire intensities compared to current conditions.
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 1-11
Figure 5 Modeled Integrated Hazards for the Project Parcel – Most Material Removed *The integrated hazard is a scale from 0 to 1 where 0 represents low burn probability and small flame length and 1 is the combination highest burn probability and large flame length. The scaling allows for comparisons before and after treatment.
2 INTRODUCTION
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 2-1
2 Introduction
2.1 Proposed Housing Development Project
Stanford University (Stanford) proposes to develop a portion of university property (often referred to as the “Stanford Wedge”) in the Town of Portola Valley (Town) to create 27 singlefamily residences for Stanford faculty and 12 affordable multifamily housing units.
Approximately 6 acres, or 8 percent of the project site, would be developed, and the remainder of the 75.4-acre site would be undeveloped. Development would be clustered in the small portion of the property that is flattest and closest to existing infrastructure. Figure 6 and Figure 7 show the project area and the lot and parcel plan for the development.
2.2 Purpose and Need for a Vegetation Management Plan
The development requires several approvals from the Town. As part of the entitlement process for the Town, the site plans must be reviewed by the Woodside Fire Protection District (WFPD).
Stanford submitted the site plans for review to the WFPD. The WFPD required preparation of this Vegetation Management Plan (VMP). The plan needs to address the existing fire hazards on the parcel (identified via fire behavior modeling of the site) and the methods to reduce the hazards by identification of vegetation management activities in the open space areas. The VMP must identify the activities to be performed prior to construction of the project to initially reduce the hazards and the activities to maintain the undeveloped portion of the property once the housing is built and occupied. The purpose of the vegetation management activities or “prescriptions” is to reduce fuel loads across the property and, thus, the potential severity of wildfire, should it occur, protecting both the new development and surrounding structures.
All activities identified in this VMP will become part of the project for which Stanford is seeking Town approval and that the Town currently is analyzing under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
2 INTRODUCTION
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 2-2
Figure 6 Site Location
2 INTRODUCTION
Stanford Wedge Property Development●Vegetation Management Plan ●May 2020 2-3 Figure 7 Lot and Parcel Plan
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-1
3 Description of Property and Existing Conditions
3.1 Property Location
The project site is located immediately west of Alpine Road in the northeastern part of the Town (APN 077-281-020). The site is largely undeveloped, but the portion of the site proposed for development is currently occupied by the Alpine Rock Ranch, a horse boarding facility with stables. The Glenoaks Stables are located across Alpine Road at the southeastern boundary of the site. Single-family homes are located to the north, west, and south of the project site on Minoca Road and Westridge Drive.
3.2 Existing Conditions
3.2.1 Topography
Elevations within the project site range from approximately 323 feet to 678 feet above sea level.
The developable portion of the site is limited to a relatively flat portion along Alpine Road (encompassing approximately 6 acres). This flat area is surrounded by steep hillsides with over 30 percent slope in some places. Figure 8 shows the topography of the parcel. The aspect of the parcel is northeast facing.
3.2.2 Vegetation and Fuels
Vegetation Type
The site is currently largely undeveloped and in its natural condition, with some disturbance and development at Alpine Road in the area of the proposed development, where horse stables are currently located. The dominant vegetation types across the larger property present significant opportunities for vegetation management to reduce fire risk. These vegetation types are generally based on descriptions include in A Fuel Hazard Assessment Study Town of Portola Valley (Moritz Arboricultural Consulting, 2008).
• Oak Woodland: Consists of the native oak woodland dominated by a dense canopy of coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii).
The dense understory of this woodland consists of poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and other shrubs that create fairly contiguous ladder fuels from the forest floor to the tree canopy.
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-2
Figure 8 Site Topography
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-3
• Chaparral: Consists of dense evergreen and deciduous shrubs that can reach 10 feet tall and supports a sparse understory of herbaceous plants and litter.
Dominant shrubs in this type include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca, A. tomentosa), California-lilac (Ceanothus cuneatus, C. oliganthus var. sorediatus), redberry (Rhamnus crocea ssp. crocea), scrub oak (Quercus berberidifolia), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and holly-leafed cherry (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. ilicifolia).
A seasonal tributary is located east to west across the northern portion of the property. The vegetation types and corridor are shown in Figure 9.
Fuels
The fuels were identified through data provided in the Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS).
IFTDSS is a web-based application designed to make fuels treatment planning and analysis more efficient and effective. IFTDSS provides access to data and models through one simple user interface. It is available to all interested users, regardless of agency or organizational affiliation. IFTDSS is designed to address the planning needs of users with a variety of skills, backgrounds, and needs. A simple and intuitive interface provides the ability to model fire behavior across an area of interest under a variety of weather conditions and easily generate downloadable maps, graphs, and tables of model results. Additionally, the application provides a step by step process for testing a variety of fuels treatment impacts (thin, clear cut, prescribed burn) on fire behavior and for comparing results to determine the modeled treatment that best achieves desired results in terms of reduced fire behavior potential. It can be used at a variety of scales from local to landscape level (US Department of Interior, 2020).
Current condition fuels, represented by surface fuels (Figure 10), canopy cover (Figure 11) canopy base height (Figure 12), and canopy bulk density (Figure 13), show ubiquitous surface fuels, continuous ladder fuels, and pockets of very high canopy cover with a moderate amount of bulk.
3.2.3 Surrounding Land Uses and Properties
The project parcel is surrounded by single family residential development along Minoca Road, Westridge Drive and between Westridge Drive and Alpine Road to the northeast. Glenoak Stables are located across Alpine road to the east of the parcel. Figure 14 shows the parcel boundaries, and the distances from the parcel boundary to the nearest existing structures.
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-4
Figure 9 Existing Vegetation Types
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-5
Figure 10 Surface Fuels
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-6
Figure 11 Canopy Cover
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-7
Figure 12 Canopy Base Heights
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-8
Figure 13 Canopy Bulk Density
3 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AND EXISTING CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 3-9
Figure 14 Distances from Parcel to Nearest Structures
4 REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 4-1
4 Regulations and Requirements that Relate to Vegetation Management on the Parcel
4.1 Introduction
This section briefly introduces the rules and regulations that could apply to vegetation management on the parcel. Defensible space treatments identified in the VMP would help to meet code requirements, for example. The VMP has also been prepared considering requirements of the WFPD fire protection ordinance (Ordinance 12). While the VMP had been defined to be consistent with these requirements, where relevant, the main goal of treatments defined in the VMP are to reduce the fire hazard based on modeling of existing conditions.
4.2 Defensible Space Requirements Per Public Resources Code
4.2.1 Requirements
Public Resources Code (PRC) 4291 requires
that:
a) A person who owns, leases, controls,
operates, or maintains a building or structure
in, upon, or adjoining a mountainous area,
forest-covered lands, brush-covered lands,
grass-covered lands, or land that is covered
with flammable material, shall at all times do
all of the following:
(1) 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
paragraph (2). The amount of fuel
modification necessary shall take into
account the flammability of the
structure as affected by building
material, building standards, location,
and type of vegetation. Fuels shall be
maintained in a condition so that a wildfire burning under average weather conditions would be unlikely to ignite the structure. This paragraph does not apply to single (Woodside Fire Protection District, 2020)
4 REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 4-2
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 to a structure or from a structure to other nearby vegetation. The intensity of fuels management may vary within the 100-foot perimeter of the structure, the most intense being within the first 30 feet around the structure. Consistent with fuels management objectives, steps should be taken to minimize erosion. For the purposes of this paragraph, “fuel” means any combustible material, including petroleum-based products and wildland fuels.
(2) A greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) may be required by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation. Clearance beyond the property line may only be required if the state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation includes findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. Clearance on adjacent property shall only be conducted following written consent by the adjacent landowner.
(3) An insurance company that insures an occupied dwelling or occupied structure may require a greater distance than that required under paragraph (1) if a fire expert, designated by the director, provides findings that the clearing is necessary to significantly reduce the risk of transmission of flame or heat sufficient to ignite the structure, and there is no other feasible mitigation measure possible to reduce the risk of ignition or spread of wildfire to the structure. The greater distance may not be beyond the property line unless allowed by state law, local ordinance, rule, or regulation. (4) Remove that portion of a tree that extends within 10 feet of the outlet of a chimney or stovepipe.
(5) Maintain a tree, shrub, or other plant adjacent to or overhanging a building free of dead or dying wood.
(6) Maintain the roof of a structure free of leaves, needles, or other vegetative materials. (7) Prior to constructing a new building or structure or rebuilding a building or structure damaged by a fire in an area subject to this section, the construction or rebuilding of which requires a building permit, the owner shall obtain a certification from the local building official that the dwelling or structure, as proposed to be built, complies 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 of the certification, upon request, to the insurer providing course of construction insurance coverage for the building or structure. 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
4 REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 4-3
described in subdivision (b) of Section 51189 of the Government Code, and shall provide a copy of the report, upon request, to the property insurance carrier that insures the dwelling or structure.
(b) A person is not required under this section to manage fuels on land if that person does not have the legal right to manage fuels, nor is a person required to enter upon or to alter property that is owned by any other person without the consent of the owner of the property. (c)(1) Except as provided in Section 18930 of the Health and Safety Code, the director may adopt regulations exempting a structure with an exterior constructed entirely of nonflammable materials, or, conditioned upon the contents and composition of the structure, the director may vary the requirements respecting the removing or clearing away of flammable vegetation or other combustible growth with respect to the area surrounding those structures.
(2) An exemption or variance under paragraph (1) shall not apply unless and until the occupant of the structure, or if there is not an occupant, the owner of the structure, files with the department, in a form as the director shall prescribe, a written consent to the inspection of the interior and contents of the structure to ascertain whether this section and the regulations adopted under this section are complied with at all times. (d) The director may authorize the removal of vegetation that is not consistent with the standards of this section. The director may prescribe a procedure for the removal of that vegetation and make the expense a lien upon the building, structure, or grounds, in the same manner that is applicable to a legislative body under Section 51186 of the Government Code. (e) The department shall develop, periodically update, and post on its Internet Web site a guidance document on fuels management pursuant to this chapter. Guidance shall include, but not be limited to, regionally appropriate vegetation management suggestions that preserve and restore native species that are fire resistant or drought tolerant, or both, minimize erosion, minimize water consumption, and permit trees near homes for shade, aesthetics, and habitat; and suggestions to minimize or eliminate the risk of flammability of nonvegetative sources of combustion such as woodpiles, propane tanks, decks, and outdoor lawn furniture. (f) As used in this section, “person” means a private individual, organization, partnership, limited liability company, or corporation.
(Amended by Stats. 2018, Ch. 641, Sec. 7. (AB 2911) Effective January 1, 2019.)
4.2.2 Applicability to the Project Site
The VMP considers and incorporates the requirements for defensible space listed above and has been prepared in coordination with WFPD and their recommendations. California Government Code Section 51177 provides that “defensible space” means the area adjacent to a structure or dwelling where wildfire prevention or protection practices are implemented to provide defense from an approaching wildfire or to minimize the spread of a structure fire to wildlands or
4 REGULATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 4-4
surrounding areas. Defensible space refers to the area between wildlands and a structure and applies to structures that abut wildlands on at least one side of the structure.
4.3 Ordinance No. 12 of the Woodside Fire Protection District
4.3.1 Requirements
Ordinance No. 12 of the Board of Directors of the WFPD is an ordinance that adopts the 2018 International Fire Code with the 2019 California Amendments, including local amendment and standards. It also establishes a Bureau of Fire Prevention in the WFPD.
Portions of the ordinance related to this Vegetation Management Plan include:
• Section 304.2.A Perimeter Line Clearance, which states that, “Persons owning, controlling, or leasing structures and or property are required to remove, a minimum of 50 feet from the perimeter of the property line and 100 feet from any neighboring structure, specifically; flashy fuels consisting of dead weeds and dry annual grasses, as well as dead vegetative material and litter that is capable of being easily ignited and endangering property as determined by the Fire Marshal.” • Section 304.1.2.B Weed Abatement. Due to heavy growth of fuels, unmaintained lots are a hazard to the surrounding properties and the community. Woodside Fire Protection District shall carry out weed abatement program activities throughout the territory of the Woodside Fire Protection District. Vacant parcels, without any structures, shall be mowed of flashy fuels, consisting of dead weeds and dry annual grasses, in their entirety with the exception of conservation areas, sensitive habitat, marsh land, creek banks and a minimum of 50 feet from any riparian corridor, prior to July 1 of every year.
• Section 304.1.2.D Limited Planting Around Structures. Due to the combustible nature of structures throughout the territory of the Woodside Fire Protection District, the planting of new landscape vegetation within the 0 – 5ft zone, adjacent to wood sided habitable buildings, shall be limited as described in this section.
When a habitable building includes wood siding on the first floor, no new landscape vegetation, except ground cover, shall be allowed within 5ft of the wood siding. New landscape vegetation, except for ground cover, shall not be allowed within 5ft, in any direction, of any first story window or glass door opening. There is no setback requirement for new landscape vegetation adjacent to Noncombustible siding, such as fiber cement board, stone and stucco.
4.3.2 Applicability to the Project Site
The VMP incorporates perimeter line clearances and limited planting around structures. The plan is meant to address reduction of flashy fuels across the parcel.
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-1
5 Fire Behavior Modeling of Baseline Conditions
5.1 Methods
5.1.1 Overview of Modeling Protocol
The WFPD requested that two fire behavior models be utilized to understand the fire hazards on the parcel. The modeling exercise was undertaken by Fire Ecologist, Scott Conway, of Spatial Informatics Group (SIG). Mr. Conway’s resume is included in Appendix A.
The methods chosen to model the fire behavior on the project parcel took advantage of several best in class, comprehensive datasets, modeling technologies, and systems to consistently and appropriately quantify the vegetation and fuels on the parcel. The modeling protocol, custom designed, was presented to the WFPD Fire Marshal, Don Bullard, on February 14th, 2020 to which he concurred with the approach, and is graphically represented in Figure 15.
Figure 15 Modeling Protocol
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-2
5.1.2 Inputs into the Model
LANDFIRE Landscape
Landscape Fire and Resource Management Planning Tools (LANDFIRE) is a shared program between the wildland fire management programs of the U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Department of the Interior, providing landscape scale geo-spatial products to support cross-boundary planning, management, and operations. LANDFIRE fuel products describe the composition and characteristics of surface and canopy fuel. These characteristics provide consistent fuel information to support fire planning, analysis, and budgeting and to support the evaluation of fire management alternatives that supplement strategic and tactical planning for fire operations (LANDFIRE, 2020).
This analysis utilized recently updated 2016 LANDFIRE data, which was generated through remote sensing. In addition, multiple field visits to the project parcel were conducted by Phil Dye of Prometheus Fire Consulting, Sasha Berleman of Poppy Fire Consulting, and Scott Conway of Spatial Informatics Group to verify and augment through profession judgement and photo interpretation the LANDFIRE remotely sensed datasets to ensure actual current conditions were being appropriately represented within the model inputs.
Historical RAWS Weather
The Remote Automatic Weather Stations (RAWS) system is a network of automated weather stations run by the USFS and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and monitored by the National Interagency Fire Center (NIFC), mainly to observe potential wildfire conditions (Desert Research Institute, 2020).
This analysis utilized 97th percentile historical weather (average wind speed, average wind direction, dead and live fuel moistures) to analyze fire behavior. Percentiles are based on a scale of 0-100 and are used to sort and rank a collection of data. For wildfire, when values at the upper end of the scale occur, complex fires are expected, where initial attack may often fail. The 97th percentile is often termed “the worst-case scenario” (US Department of Interior, 2020).
The data from RAWS that was used for the analysis of the project parcel is as follows:
Calculated 97th Percentile Model Weather Parameters:
• Run Date: Feb 28, 2020 12:18:21 PM
• Wind Type: Gridded Winds
• Wind Speed: 9 mph
• Wind Direction: 45 deg
• Crown Fire Method: Scott/Reinhardt
• Foliar Moisture: 100
• Fuel Conditioning: On - Extreme - South Central California Foothills and Coastal • Days conditioned:
o Conditioning start: 1300, 7/9/2012
o Conditioning end:1600, 7/12/2012
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-3
• Station Name: LOS ALTOS
• Station Observation Start Date: Mar 6, 2005 12:00:00 AM • Station Observation End Date: Oct 4, 2016 12:00:00 AM • Station Elevation: 539
• Station Aspect: 6
• Station Latitude: 37.355
• Station Longitude: 122.1419444
• Fuel Moisture:
− 1 Hour Fuel Moisture: 3%
− 10 Hour Fuel Moisture: 4%
− 100 Hour Moisture: 9%
− Live Herbaceous Moisture: 147%
− Live Woody Moisture: 173%
5.1.3 Fire Models
Overview
The two models that were utilized for the analysis included:
1. FlamMap with embedded Minimum Travel Time through the Interagency Fuels Treatment Decision Support System (IFTDSS), and
2. BehavePlus
Each of the models used is described below.
FlamMap with embedded Minimum Travel Time
FlamMap is a fire analysis desktop application that runs in a 64-bit Windows Operating System environment, or in this case, the IFTDSS system. It can simulate potential fire behavior characteristics (spread rate, flame length, fireline intensity, etc.), fire growth and spread, and conditional burn probabilities under constant environmental conditions (weather and fuel moisture) (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2020b).
BehavePlus
The BehavePlus fire modeling system is a Windows® based computer program that can be used for any fire management application that involves modeling fire behavior and some fire effects.
The system is composed of a collection of mathematical models that describe fire behavior and the fire environment. The program simulates rate of fire spread, spotting distance, scorch height, tree mortality, fuel moisture, wind adjustment factor, as well as other variables; so it is used to predict fire behavior in multiple situations (US Department of Agriculture Forest Service, 2020a).
BehavePlus was used in this analysis to verify and confirm FlamMap fire intensity outputs.
Although both modeling systems draw from the same base algorithms, Behave can perform with a much more limited set of inputs that aren’t assigned to a particular place on the
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-4
landscape where FlamMap requires extensive and spatially explicit inputs. However, comparison between models is still reasonable when the spatial component output of FlamMap is ignored. For example, if both BehavePlus and FlamMap are showing greater than 8-foot flame lengths with the same surface fuel model and weather, then it is understood that fire intensities are incompatible with project goals. Treatment is warranted and further modeling is unnecessary.
5.1.4 Outputs
Fire Intensity
“Frontal fire intensity is a valid measure of forest fire behavior that is solely a physical attribute of the fire itself. It is defined as the energy output rate per unit length of fire front and is directly related to flame size. Numerically, it is equal to the product of net heat of combustion, quantity of fuel consumed in the active combustion zone, and a spreading fire's linear rate of advance.
This concept of fire intensity provides a quantitative basis for fire description useful in evaluating the impact of fire on forest ecosystems” (Alexander, 1982).
Flame length was focused on to quantify fire intensity for this study. “The flame length of a spreading surface fire within the flaming front is measured from midway in the active flaming combustion zone to the average tip of the flames.” Figure 16 shows surface fire behavior fire characteristics (US Department of Interior, 2020). Generally, if flame lengths are less than 4 feet, then fire can be effectively controlled with professional suppression resources. Flame lengths between 4 and 8 feet require multiple, more specific types and numbers of professionally trained firefighting resources; suppression success goes down. Flame lengths greater than 8 feet generally preclude resources from directly attacking the fire front. When flame lengths are modeled to exceed 4 feet, effort should be made to closely examine and prescribe treatment to reduce undesirable fire intensities. The project parcel should also be maintained after development such that, on average, flame lengths remain below 4 feet.
Fire Probability
Fire probability quantifies the relative likelihood of a fire occurring under a fixed set of weather and fuel moisture conditions (US Department of Interior, 2020).
Integrated Hazard
The term “hazard” is used by the wildland fire community to define a variety of conditions or situations where damage to assets by fire is being evaluated. Hazard is quantified and categorized in IFTDSS using the FlamMap and Minimum Travel Time models evaluating (US Department of Interior, 2020):
• The probability of a fire occurring at a specific point under a specified set of conditions (burn probability)
• The intensity at a specific point given a fire occurs (flame length)
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-5
Figure 16 Surface Fire Behavior Fire Characteristics Chart Direct Attack with
Direct
A k
Indirect
A k
Only Protect
Lif &
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-6
“Integrated Hazard” in IFTDSS then combines these two important measures into a single value that can be easily understood and mapped. Figure 17 shows the integrated hazard classification chart, comparing flame length classes to burn probabilities.
Figure 17 Integrated Hazard Classification Chart
(US Department of Interior, 2020)
Although high flame lengths will always be correlated to higher hazard, the relative classification of burn probabilities means there is no absolute set of integrated hazard heuristics.
In fact, the value results are relative to the area analyzed within each modeling run and between each modeling run, when model parameters and some inputs remain constant. For the purposes of this analysis, landscape adjustments (surface fuel model, canopy cover, canopy base height, canopy bulk density) based on treatment scenarios are the only changes between integrated hazard modeling runs. All weather and model parameters remained constant.
Therefore, comparisons can be statistically made through the differences between integrated hazard metrics based solely on fuel treatment changes to the landscape.
5.2 Results
5.2.1 Modeled Current Condition Flame Length
IFTDSS (With FlamMap and Minimum Travel Time)
Figure 18 shows the predicted size and location of flame lengths that could occur within the project parcel under existing conditions. Figure 19 quantifies spatial distribution across a set of flame length classes. Approximately 52% of the project parcel is exhibiting flame lengths greater than 4 feet and the entire parcel has a modeled weighted mean flame length of 4.8 feet.
It is apparent that under current conditions, as modeled, the project parcel would likely exhibit high intensity fire and put the surrounding homes and infrastructure at risk because suppression resources would have trouble safely directly attacking the fire and direct suppression effectiveness might be limited during the first burn period.
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-7
Figure 18 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Current Conditions
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-8
Figure 19 Spatial Distribution of Flame Length Classes – Current Conditions Behave Comparison
Table 3 exhibits the comparison of results between the FlamMap modeling effort and Behave Plus. It is important to note that FlamMap is a spatially explicit model, in this case down to a 30- meter square pixel, that incorporates spatial inputs across the modeled area. This approach creates a mosaic of conditions that can be comprehensively modeled. Behave has no spatial component and is dependent on translating the realities of the site into the model by the modeler. Although it inherently takes out the complexity of the larger area of interest, it does allow for more customization, particularly since different fuel models tend to exist within an area as small as a 30-meter square pixel. In order to make an appropriate comparison, median flame length of all FlamMap pixels within a surface fuel model is compared to the median flame length of the blended fuel models one can achieve with the Behave architecture.
Although there is some variance within areas where fuels and topography overlap, particularly with the high load, dry climate shrub (SH5) mixed with very high load broad leaf litter (TL9) surface fuel models, the pattern of high intensity fire (greater than 8-foot flame lengths) is confirmed in those areas and treatment is warranted across the project parcel.
5.2.2 Modeled Current Condition Integrated Hazard Outputs Current condition integrated hazard inputs were modeled with the same weather as FlamMap and Behave. Figure 20 highlights areas where there is a high fire intensity that overlaps with a high fire probability. Although some areas are considered low hazard, much of the area has elevated hazard numbers, which creates undesirable exposure to the surrounding homes and infrastructure.
5 FIRE BEHAVIOR MODELING OF BASELINE CONDITIONS
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 5-9
Table 3 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Current Conditions Fuel
Model
Definition Behave 6.0 Median
Flame Length
Flammap Basic
Median Flame Length
Variance
TL9/SH5 Very high load broadleaf litter/high load,
dry climate shrub
12.5 ft 9.4 ft -3.1 ft
GS1/TL2 Low load, dry climate shrub/Low load
broad leaf litter
0.9 ft 0.2 ft -0.7 ft
SH5/GS2 High load dry climate shrub/Moderate
load, dry climate grass-shrub
8.65 ft 9.1 ft 0.45 ft
Figure 20 Modeled Integrated Hazard for the Project Parcel – Current Condition *The integrated hazard is a scale from 0 to 1 where 0 represents low burn probability and small flame length and 1 is the combination highest burn probability and large flame length. The scaling allows for comparisons before and after treatment
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-1
6 Vegetation Management Plan
6.1 Treatment Methods
6.1.1 Overview
Given the existing condition of the project parcel, nearly all areas will require some form of vegetation treatment to reduce fire hazard. The type of treatment will depend primarily on the vegetation type, cover, and location. Treatment areas are discussed here as either 1) defensible space areas around structures, 2) in oak woodland cover type, or 3) in chaparral cover type.
Figure 21 shows treatment types by area.
Defensible space within 100 feet of the proposed subdivision structures and the wildland area will need to be created in accordance with law. The treatments in the defensible space areas are described in Section 5.2. The undeveloped areas of the parcel beyond the zone of defensible space will nearly all require vegetation treatment to reduce the fire hazards. The treatments will depend on the cover type and are described in Section 5.3 and Section 5.4. Initial treatments will be more intensive to achieve the desired vegetation conditions. On-going maintenance will need to occur on an annual basis across areas of the parcel but should involve considerably less alteration and effort to maintain the desired conditions.
This plan also includes the methods that should be employed to implement the vegetation treatments, how material should be handled and removed, access needs and equipment, and the environmental protections that should be included in the plan to reduce effects to sensitive species and habitat, as feasible.
6.1.2 Treatments
Treatment Activities
Several treatment methods or “prescriptions” are available in vegetation management practice.
The activities selected for each cover type have been selected to help achieve the desired treatment objectives for the project parcel, given the condition of the vegetation, the topography, costs, and efficiency, and any regulatory or environmental constraints. The treatment activities that would be used are described in Table 4. Also, see Appendix B for indepth descriptions and specific requirements.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-2
Figure 21 Vegetation Treatment Areas by Type
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-3
Table 4 Treatment Activities
Treatment Activity Description Method of Application Initial or Maintenance?
Steep Slope Mechanical
Treatment with Manual
Support
Use of specialized selfleveling motorized
equipment to cut, uproot,
crush/compact, or chop
existing vegetation. On
inaccessible terrain:
manual cutting and
removal of vegetation to
machine for
comprehensive treatment
Used on slopes from 30 to
70 percent only (selfleveling machines up to
50%).
Mastication, chipping,
brush raking, tilling,
mowing, roller chopping,
chaining, skidding and
removal, piling; often
combined with pile burning
(if allowed)
Initial and
Maintenance
Mechanical Treatment Use of motorized
equipment to cut, uproot,
crush/compact, or chop
existing vegetation
Used on slopes from 0 to 30
percent only.
Mastication, chipping,
brush raking, tilling,
mowing, roller chopping,
chaining, skidding and
removal, piling; often
combined with pile burning
(if allowed)
Initial and
Maintenance
Manual Treatment Use of hand tools and
hand-operated power tools
to cut, clear, or prune
herbaceous or woody
species
Hand pull and grub, thin,
prune, hand pile, hand
plant; often combined with
pile burning (if allowed)
Initial and
Maintenance
Prescribed Herbivory Use of domestic livestock
to reduce a target plant
population thereby
reducing fire fuels or
competition of desired
plant species
Grazing or browsing goats Maintenance
Source: (CALFIRE, 2019)
6.1.3 Access, Material Collection, and Removal
The property would need to be accessed from the existing entrance along Alpine Road in order to perform the vegetation management activities. No roads are currently located on the parcel, beyond the driveways and access at the stables off of Alpine Road. Access throughout the open space area to perform the vegetation management will be primarily on foot with some heavy
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-4
equipment in inaccessible areas. Masticators and other heavy equipment can access portions of the site where the slope safely allows. Generally, slopes under 30 percent can be accessed with masticators and other equipment. Slopes between 30 and 50 percent can be accessed with specialized equipment while minimizing disturbance. Areas with greater than 30 percent slope are shown in Figure 22. Skid steer loaders may also be used, which are small, rigid-frame, engine-powered machines with lift arms that can attach to a wide variety of labor-saving tools or attachments. The machine can be used to minimize disturbance and may have a bucket or grapple attachment to move material or a mastication attachment to augment the work of larger machines.
Other equipment that can be used includes handsaws, chainsaws, brushcutters, chippers, and trucks to remove material. The most effective way to remove large amounts of woody debris is through manual cutting and removal. In order to facilitate removal, an access road will be constructed to allow for access to portions of the parcel for off-hauling of materials to a composting site. The access road (that can later be used for fire access and maintenance) would provide access and staging and would serve as central landing areas to collect material for off hauling.
The access and landing areas are shown in Figure 23. The storage areas should be approximately 25 feet by 25 feet in size for daily off-hauling of material during initial treatments and during on-going property maintenance. An estimated 45 cubic yards of material per acre treated is anticipated during initial treatment and 8 cubic yards per acre for on-going maintenance. One haul vehicle can usually hold approximately 10 cubic yards of material.
Although SOD did not seem to be pervasive in the parcel during field inspections, if any material potentially infected with the pathogen phytophthora ramorum that causes sudden oak death is present, it will likely have to remain on-site. It is expected that material left on site due to SOD infection will be minimal and have little effect on fire behavior.
Some areas of vegetation may need to be masticated. Masticated material will be left on site and spread over the ground surface or chipped and spread over the ground site.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-5
Figure 22 Areas of the Project Parcel with Slopes Greater than 30 Percent
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-6
Figure 23 Landing/Staging Area and Access Road for Material Storage and Removal
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-7
6.1.4 Environmental Protection
Significant Trees
Habitats in Portola Valley range from natural oak woodland to moist/riparian areas that support a number of native trees that the Town seeks to protect. One of the types of trees listed in the table below, that meets or exceeds either the circumference or diameter listed, it is considered a “significant tree”, and its removal requires a site development permit (tree removal permit) in accordance with the Portola Valley Municipal Code Section 15.12.070.A.
Circumference or diameter is measured fifty-four (54) inches above natural grade. Significant tree removal may be subject to additional review by the Town of Portola Valley’s Conservation Committee.
Significant trees can generally be avoided in the open space portions of the property. Some may need to be removed in areas of defensible space within 100 feet of structures (as explained further in Section 5.2), and as such, removal would be subject to the requirements of the Town.
Table 5 Significant Trees per Portola Valley Municipal Code Tree Species Circumference (inches) Diameter (inches)
Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) 36 11.5
Black Oak (Quercus kelloggii) 36 11.5
Valley Oak (Quercus lobata) 36 11.5
Blue Oak (Quercus douglasii) 16 5
Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) 54 17.2
Douglas Fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii) 54 17.2
California Bay Laurel (Umbrellularia californica)
(if multiple trunk, measurements pertain to largest trunk) 36 11.5
Big Leaf Maple (Acer macrophyllum) 24 7.6
Madrone (Arbutus menziesii) 24 7.6
Nesting Birds
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), first enacted in 1918, provides for protection of international migratory birds and authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to regulate the taking of migratory birds. The MBTA provides that it shall be unlawful, except as permitted by regulations, to pursue, take, or kill any migratory bird, or any part, nest, or egg of any such bird. The current list of species protected by the MBTA can be found in Title 50 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Section 10.13 (50 CFR 10.13). The list includes nearly all migratory birds native to the United States.
Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3503.5 specifically states that it is
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-8
unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any raptors (e.g., hawks, owls, eagles, and falcons), including their nests or eggs. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code codifies the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act.
Nesting birds are likely common on the project site. A nesting bald eagle pair was also observed nearby (approximately 0.5 miles from the parcel) on the south side of Felt Lake in 2015 and with two young in 2016 (CNDDB 2020). For all activities that could result in potential noise and other land disturbances that could affect nesting birds (e.g., tree removal, mowing during nesting season, mastication, chipping), treatment sites should be surveyed to evaluate the potential for nesting birds. Trees should be removed outside the nesting season of March 15 to August 30 for smaller bird species such as passerines and February 15 to August 30 for raptors. If activities that could disturb nesting birds are performed during the nesting season (generally if work is performed from February 15 to August 30), then preconstruction nesting surveys would be performed and any active nests and a buffer area around the nest avoided until the young have fledged.
San Francisco Dusky-footed Woodrat
Woodrat stick houses are found across the project site. Woodrats build fortress-style “stick houses” around hollow trees, logs, rock piles, and the like. The structures have a central nest chamber, larders for vegetation and nut storage, and multiple tunnels, entrances, exits and latrines. Houses protect them from weather and predators and maintain a consistent habitat for living and long-term food storage. Woodrats sometimes maintain multiple houses and move among them to forage more broadly. Great climbers, they also occasionally build houses up in trees. Woodrats are a keystone species for their houses, which are relied upon by numerous live-in species, including mice, lizards, snakes, salamanders, frogs, crickets, beetles, and millipedes.
The species of woodrat in the Portola Valley is likely the San Francisco dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes annectens). This species is a California Species of Special Concern with a limited range in the Santa Cruz Mountains and foothills. The species is not listed as federally or state threatened, endangered, or candidate, and as such, no federal or state Endangered Species Act permitting is required for impacts to the species. As Species of Special Concern, it will be addressed under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance review for the issuance of permits for the housing project.
A Woodrat Relocation Plan will be prepared prior to any vegetation management work. The plan will describe the process for determining active woodrat houses before dismantling.
Woodrat houses will need to be removed entirely from the defensible space areas shown in Figure 21. In other areas, some houses may need to be dismantled in order to access and remove understory and ladder fuels. Houses will be avoided with a 5-foot buffer, where feasible.
Material from dismantled houses will be left in place for woodrat reconstruction after work is completed. The Vegetation Management Plan will result in considerable additional material being left on the ground, benefitting woodrat house construction, and it is anticipated the
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-9
woodrats will rebuilt at a similar density to current conditions once vegetation management work is complete.
California Red-Legged Frog
California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) is a federally Threatened species and a California Species of Special Concern. The species occurs from sea level to elevations of 1,500 meters (5,200 feet). Breeding occurs in streams, deep pools, backwaters within streams and creeks, ponds, marshes, sag ponds, dune ponds, lagoons, and stock ponds. Breeding adults are often associated with deep (greater than 0.7 meter [2 feet]), still, or slow-moving water and dense, shrubby riparian or emergent vegetation (Hayes & Jennings, 1988). The species also utilizes non-aquatic habitats for refuge and dispersal. The species is known to rest and feed in riparian vegetation and it is believed that the moisture and cover of the riparian zone provides foraging habitat and facilitates dispersal. Dispersal patterns are dependent on habitat availability and environmental conditions (Scott & Rathbun, 1998).
California red-legged frog may have some potential to occur on the project site. A biologist should check areas within 300 feet of the riparian corridor for frogs before work occur in the activity footprint at the time the activity is undertaken. If California red-legged frogs are found, no work shall occur until the frogs have moved on their own from the activity area.
Archaeological Resources
Archaeological resources can be impacted by use of heavy equipment and any activity that results in ground disturbance. A cultural resources survey would likely be required prior to initial implementation of the Vegetation Management Plan, with identification of the appropriate measure to address any resources discovered. Measures would likely include avoidance with an appropriate buffer given the resources or use of hand tools only in the area of the resource.
6.2 Treatments by Area/Cover Type
6.2.1 Overview
This treatment requires the construction of a road to at least the center of the parcel from Alpine road with small adacent landings so the majority of the cut material can be staged and removed.
All material to be removed would need to be within 300 feet of small landings so it can be processed, chipped, and be removed by truck. In order to augment the reach of the constructed road, a temporary road system may need to be designed, constructed, and then deconstructed during initial treatment to effectively reach material the permanent road cannot access.
Temporary roads and landings may be impractical in other places. Mastication or steep slope mastication with manual support might need to be employed in some areas.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-10
This section describes both the initial treatments and the on-going maintenance plan for each cover type within the project parcel. This section also describes the schedule and then presents the post-treatment modeling to demonstrate the reduction in fire hazards after treatments are implemented.
6.2.2 Defensible Space Treatments
Overview
This treatment consists of about 9.2 acres surrounding the proposed faculty housing development as well as
adjacent homes on the southwestern portion of the parcel boundary and is consistent with both CALFIRE and
Woodside Fire Protection District spacing guidelines of 100 feet from structures in accordance with PRC 4291. All initial and maintenance treatment strategies where taken from Moritz Arboricultural Consulting, 2008, and
augmented to meet the needs of this project.
Initial Treatments and Design Criteria
1. Remove all flammable shrubs
2. Remove deadwood from trees
3. Select low-growing shrubs and ground covers as replacement plants
4. Remove/reduce lofty, loosely compacted litter accumulations, especially large debris such as branches and replace with compact, small particle mulch to prevent invasion of noxious weeds and elevate live fuel moisture
5. Mow/trim all grass to below 10 inches when it is 50% cured
6. Possibly replace annual grass with plants that do not cure (dry out), or low or non-flammable landscaping such as boulders, rocks, patios, or gravel, or establish an irrigated landscape in carefully selected areas close to the home
7. Remove deadwood in trees and fire-resistant shrubs
8. Remove diseased, dying and dead shrubs and trees
9. Remove/reduce “ladder” fuels (grass to brush to trees)
10. Where feasible, create shrub/grass mosaics from continuous masses by installing hardscape
11. Remove all shrubs from beneath and around existing and emerging trees
12. Thin thickets of small trees and tree reproduction from large tree understories
13. Create low fuel zone near structural vulnerabilities such as windows, decks, large overhangs
14. Separate overlapping tree and large shrub canopies
15. Thin fire-prone tree canopies, like oak and bay, to an open canopy structure Responsible Party: Stanford Univeristy
Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize manual planting, cutting, and removal.
Defensible Space Treatment Objectives
1. Meet and maintain all CALFIRE and
Woodside Fire Protection requirement for
defensible space.
2. Reduce fuel volumes and maintain fuel
volumes consistent with very low severity
fire
3. Reduce fuel flammability and cultivate
plants on the landscape that are fireresistant
4. Establish and maintain fuel discontinuity
5. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling
through tree crown; maintain that
separation
6. Select fire resistant landscape plants for
any additional landscaping
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-11
16. Prune live and dead ladder fuels to a minimum of 10 feet above ground under any portion of the canopy or to an elevation 10 feet above the highest ground elevation
17. For landscaping; select native tree, shrub, or grass species or if necessary nonnative, non-invasive species with low flammability Maintenance Plan
1. Remove deadwood from trees
2. Select low-growing native or if necessary non-native shrubs and ground covers with low flammability as replacement plants
3. Remove/reduce lofty, loosely compacted litter accumulations, especially large debris such as branches and replace with compact, small particle mulch to prevent invasion of noxious weeds and elevate live fuel moisture
4. Mow/trim all grass each year to below 10 inches when it is 50% cured (typically by June 1st but may vary with amount and timing of winter precipitation)
5. Remove deadwood in trees and fire-resistant shrubs
6. Remove sick, dying and dead shrubs and trees
7. Monitor and remove/reduce if necessary “ladder” fuels (grass to brush to trees)
8. Ensure no shrubs establish beneath and around existing and emerging trees
9. Keep tree and large fire-resistant shrub canopies from overlapping
10. Prune live and dead ladder fuels to a minimum of 10 feet above ground under any portion of the canopy or to an elevation 10 feet above the highest ground elevation
11. For landscaping; select native tree, shrub, or grass species or if necessary nonnative, non-invasive species with low flammability
6.2.3 Oak Woodland Treatment
Overview
This treatment will affect most of the project area which covers of about 55.2 acres. These areas currently consist of native oak woodland dominated by a dense canopy of
coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), California bay
(Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). The dense understory of this woodland consists of poison
oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles
arbutifolia), and other shrubs that create contiguous
ladder fuels from the forest floor to the tree canopy. The combination of dense understory vegetation, ladder
Responsible Party: Faculty Housing Homeowner Association and Stanford Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize manual planting, cutting, and removal.
Oak Woodland Treatment Objectives
1. Reduce fuel volumes and maintain fuel
volumes consistent with low severity fire
2. Reduce volume of flammable fuels and
cultivate plants on the landscape that are
generally native and fire-resistant
3. Establish and maintain fuel discontinuity
4. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling
through tree crown; maintain that
separation
5. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fireresistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an
intact fire regime
6. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-12
fuels, and disease caused by sudden oak death or “SOD” (Phytophthora ramorum) makes this type extremely flammable and prone to crown fires. In order to increase the resiliency of these areas to high severity fire and other density dependent insect infestation and disease, the following treatment and maintenance plan is proposed in order to meet treatment area objectives.
Initial Treatment
1. Thin out with manual cutting or mastication overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor fire resistant species (such as oak rather than bay). Do not thin below an overall canopy cover of 40% across this treatment area.
2. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) all fire prone shrubs. Ex poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)
3. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) all fire-resistant shrubs within the drip line of any tree designated to remain. Separate remaining fire-resistant shrubs by a distance of at least two times their height, crown to crown.
4. Raise tree crowns to a minimum of 8.0 feet above grade. All parts of the canopy less than 3 inches in diameter should be no lower than eight feet vertical distance above grade. The canopy line will be horizontal to slope.
5. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage
6. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) bay and conifer reproduction, if it exists.
7. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) down and dead debris.
8. Remove heavily SOD infested trees.
9. Flag (designated by a wildlife biologist) and avoid active dusky-footed woodrat nest sites. Disassemble and remove deserted nest sites, if they can not be avoided, in accordance with any biological requirements.
Maintenance Plan
1. Annually graze area in late spring/early summer (May – June) but prior to fire season to keep grass heights low while minimizing shrub sprouting and regeneration. If grazing isn’t appropriately applied (time of year and intensity); a follow up mastication and/or mowing with manual support may be required, every 5 years.
2. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage.
Responsible Party: Stanford
Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize manual cutting and removal. Some mastication and steep slope mastication with manual support might need to occur in steep and inaccessible areas.
Responsible Party: Faculty Housing Homeowner Association and Stanford Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize grazing with manual support.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-13
3. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove bay and conifer reproduction.
4. Monitor conditions to ensure the above maintenance plan is maintaining treatment area objectives.
6.2.4 Oak Woodland Canopy Treatment
Overview
This treatment will affect about 3.9 acres. These areas currently consist of native oak woodland dominated by a moderately dense canopy of coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia), California bay (Umbellularia californica), California buckeye (Aesculus californica), and Pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesii). Much of this understory of this woodland has already been treated by a previous mastication contract and although there is some poison oak (Toxicodendron
diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and other shrubs, they are more isolated and less dense than the
surrounding, untreated oak woodlands. Still, the
combination of some understory vegetation, ladder fuels, and disease caused by sudden oak death or “SOD” (Phytophthora ramorum) makes this type flammable and prone to moderate fire behavior. In order to increase the resiliency of these areas to moderately severe fire and other density dependent insect infestation and disease, the following treatment and maintenance plan is proposed to meet treatment area objectives.
Initial Treatment
1. Thin out with manual cutting or mastication overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor fire resistant species (such as oak rather than bay). Do not thin below an overall canopy cover of 40% across this treatment area.
2. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) all fire prone shrubs. Ex poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia)
3. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) all fire-resistant shrubs within the drip line of any tree designated to remain. Separate remaining fire-resistant shrubs by a distance of at least two times their height, crown to crown.
4. Raise tree crowns to a minimum of 8.0 feet above grade. All parts of the canopy less than 3 inches in diameter should be no lower than eight feet vertical distance above grade. The canopy line will be horizontal to slope.
5. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage
6. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) bay and conifer reproduction if it exists.
7. Cut and remove or Rearrange (masticate) down and dead debris.
Oak Woodland Canopy Treatment
Objectives
1. Maintain fuel volumes consistent with
low severity fire
2. Maintain fuel discontinuity
3. Reduce the possibility of fire traveling
through tree crown; maintain that
separation
4. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fireresistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an
intact fire regime
5. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites
Responsible Party: Stanford
Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize manual cutting and removal. Some mastication and steep slope mastication with manual support might need to occur in steep and inaccessible areas.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-14
8. Remove heavily SOD infested trees.
9. Flag (designated by a wildlife biologist) and avoid active dusky-footed woodrat nest sites. Disassemble and remove deserted nest sites, if they can not be avoided, in accordance with any biological requirements.
Maintenance Plan
1. Annually graze area in late spring/early summer (May – June) but prior to fire season to keep grass heights low while minimizing shrub sprouting and regeneration. If grazing isn’t appropriately applied (time of year and intensity); a follow up mastication and or mowing with manual support may be required, every 5 years.
2. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove or lop and scatter dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage.
3. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove or lop and scatter bay and conifer reproduction.
4. Monitor conditions to ensure the above maintenance plan is maintaining treatment area objectives.
6.2.5 Chaparral Treatment
Overview
Chaparral occurs on 3.7 acres within the parcel and
consists of dense evergreen and deciduous shrubs that can reach 10 feet tall and supports a sparse understory of
herbaceous plants and litter. Dominant shrubs in this type include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita
(Arctostaphylos glauca, A. tomentosa), California-lilac (Ceanothus cuneatus, C. oliganthus var. sorediatus), redberry (Rhamnus crocea ssp. crocea), scrub oak (Quercus
berberidifolia), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica), and hollyleafed cherry (Prunus ilicifolia ssp. ilicifolia). This type is notorious for exhibiting extreme fire behavior due to the heavy horizontal fuel continuity and abundant fine
material, almost 100% available to a potential fire. Species within the Chaparral type typically have very low fuel
moisture and are therefore more flammable. Also, the densely, twiggy, and foliated species found in this fuel type (i.e., chemise) tends to be more flammable. The expected fire behavior of this type under severe fire weather may be extreme. Fire in this fuel type displays high to extreme rates of spread with high intensities in strong winds. It can generate a blizzard of fire brands and this fuel bed is very receptive to spot fire ignitions.
Responsible Party: Faculty Housing Homeowner Association and Stanford Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize grazing with manual support.
Chaparral Treatment Objectives
1. Reduce fuel volumes and maintain fuel
volumes consistent with low severity fire
2. Reduce volume of flammable fuels and
cultivate plants on the landscape that
are generally native and fire-resistant
3. Establish and maintain fuel discontinuity
4. Maintain healthy, dominant, natural, fireresistant vegetation cover that is consistent with historical densities in an
intact fire regime
5. Maintain active dusky-footed woodrat
(Neotoma fuscipes) nest sites
6.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-15
Initial Treatment
1. Thin out with manual cutting or mastication all chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum)
2. Thin out with manual cutting or mastication brush or brush islands up to 10.0 feet tall to a spacing of 2 X the height, on center. Always favor fire resistant species.
3. Raise (trim up) the crowns by 1/3 the height
4. Remove deadwood subcanopies.
5. Masticate and/or mow all grass, cured herbs, and flammable debris from under the shrub canopies.
6. Cut and remove or rearrange (masticate) dead shrubs.
7. Remove structurally unstable trees
8. Clean up down and dead debris
Maintenance Plan
1. Annually graze area in late spring/early summer (May – June) but prior to fire season to keep grass heights low while minimizing shrub sprouting and regeneration. If grazing is not appropriately applied (time of year and intensity); a follow up mastication and/or mowing with manual support may be required, every 5 years.
2. Ensure all grass, cured herbs and flammable debris does not accumulate under the shrub canopies.
3. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage.
4. Periodically (every 5 years) manually remove bay and conifer reproduction.
5. Monitor conditions to ensure the above maintenance plan is maintaining treatment area objectives.
6.2.6 Schedule and Timing of Treatments
Initial Treatments
Initial treatments would commence prior to construction of the development but after the construction of the permanent and temporary road system. Work would generally occur outside nesting bird season. Work would generally occur after August 15th and before February 15th but could occur during this timeframe if nesting bird surveys are conducted. Work should occur within timeframes established under an approved fire safety plan.
Responsible Party: Stanford
Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize mastication with some manual cutting, and removal.
Responsible Party: Faculty Housing Homeowner Association and Stanford Treatment Method: The majority of this area will utilize grazing with manual cutting.
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-16
The initial clearing of the site is anticipated to take approximately 2 months. Work would only occur during the allowable timeframes set by the Town of Woodside, between 7:30 am and 5:30 pm Monday through Friday and 8:00 am to 1:00 pm on Saturdays. No work would be performed on Sundays and holidays.
Vegetation Maintenance Plan Schedule
The following table summarizes the schedule of ongoing maintenance. Each area should be maintained every 5 years; however, the work can be staggered such that 1/5 of the site is treated each year.
Table 6 Vegetation Maintenance Plan Schedule
Location Scheduled Annual Activities Scheduled Quinquennial Activities Defensible Space Spring: maintain irrigated and
non-irrigated plants
Late Spring/Early Summer:
mow/trim grass while grass is
still > 50% green
N/A
Oak woodland canopy Late Spring/Early Summer:
Graze with goats
Late Spring/Early Summer: Cut and remove
or Rearrange (masticate)
Oak woodland Late Spring/Early Summer:
Graze with goats
Late Spring/Early Summer: Cut and remove
or Rearrange (masticate)
Chaparral Late Spring/Early Summer:
Graze with goats
Late Spring/Early Summer: Cut and remove
or Rearrange (masticate)
6.2.7 Modeling of Fire Behavior After Fuel Treatments
Post-Treatment Modeling
Post-treatment conditions were modeled to demonstrate that the fuel treatments adequately reduce fire hazards. In order to effectively model treatment changes to the landscape, the current condition landscape for each cover type was adjusted to reflect the treatment prescriptions outlined in Section 5.2. It is understood that post treatment and maintained conditions would, on average, be represented by these changed fire model inputs:
• Defensible Space
- Surface Fuel Model: GR1 – short sparse, dry climate grass - Canopy Cover: average 35%
- Canopy Base Height: average 3 meters (10 feet)
- Canopy Bulk Density: 0.03 kg/m3
• Oak Woodland Treatment
- Surface Fuel Model: GS1 – low load, dry climate grass-shrub - Canopy Cover: average 40%
- Canopy Base Height: average 2.5 meters (8 feet)
- Canopy Bulk Density: 0.04 kg/m3
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-17
• Oak Woodland Canopy Treatment
- Surface Fuel Model: GS1 – low load, dry climate grass-shrub - Canopy Cover: average 40%
- Canopy Base Height: average 2.5 meters (8 feet)
- Canopy Bulk Density: 0.04 kg/m3
• Chaparral Treatment
- Surface Fuel Model: SH1 – low load, dry climate shrub - Canopy Cover: average 0%
- Canopy Base Height: average 0 meters (0 feet)
- Canopy Bulk Density: 0.00 kg/m3
There is a possibility that some mastication may need to occur on some inaccessible areas where material removal from the project parcel is impractical. Masticating and leaving some material in place instead of removing all material would alter the changed fire model outputs above and requires a separate modeling effort to estimate fire behavior changes. Section 5.2.8 describes the effects of that potential treatment. The likely scenario will be somewhere between all material removed and the mastication left on-site as described in Section 5.2.8.
Modeled Post Treatment Flame Length
IFTDSS (with FlamMap and Minimum Travel Time)
Figure 24 predicts what flame lengths occur where within the project parcel if the above treatment design was implemented. Figure 25 quantifies spatial distribution across a set of flame length classes. With all of the parcel showing flame lengths less than 1 foot coupled with a weighted mean flame length of 0.7 feet, the parcel would likely exhibit lower fire intensities compared to the current condition post treatment (> 8 foot flame lengths in places with 4.8 foot weighted mean flame lengths) assuming actual fire weather and fuel conditions were similar to those in the modeling environment.
If there was a fire within the project parcel post treatment and the maintenance plan was current, suppression resources would be more likely able to directly attack the fire and suppression success would increase compared to the current condition.
Behave Comparison
Table 7 exhibits the comparison of results between the FlamMap modeling effort and Behave Plus. It is important to note that FlamMap is a spatially explicit model, in this case down to a 30- meter square pixel, that incorporates spatial inputs across the modeled area. This creates a mosaic of conditions that can be comprehensively modeled. Behave has no spatial component and is dependent on translating the realities of the site into the model by the modeler. Although it inherently takes out the complexity of the larger area of interest, it does allow for more customization, particularly since different fuel models tend to exist within an area as small as a 30-meter square pixel. In order to make an appropriate comparison, median flame length of all FlamMap pixels within a surface fuel model is compared to the median flame length of the
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-18
blended fuel models one can achieve with the Behave architecture. There is little variance between the median flame length of the two modeling systems and FlamMap results are confirmed that if there was a fire within the post treatment parcel and the maintenance plan was current, suppression resources would likely to be able to directly attack the fire and suppression success would increase compared to the current condition assuming actual fire weather and fuel conditions were similar to those in the modeling environment.
Figure 24 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment with All Material that is Cut Removed
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-19
Figure 25 Spatial Distribution of Flame Length Classes – Post-Treatment Scenario
Table 7 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Post-Treatment Conditions Scenario 2
Fuel
Model
Definition Behave 6.0 Median
Flame Length
Flammap Basic
Median Flame Length
Variance
GR1/GR2 short sparse, dry climate grass/short
sparse, dry climate gras
0.1 ft 0.1 ft 0 ft
GS1/GR1 Low-load dry climate grassshrub/short sparse, dry climate grass0.2 ft 1 ft 0.8 ft SH1/GR1 Low-load dry climate shrub/short
sparse, dry climate grass
0.3 ft 1 ft 0.7 ft
Modeled Post Treatment Integrated Hazard Outputs
Post treatment integrated hazard inputs were modeled with the same weather as FlamMap and Behave and same model parameters as the current condition modeling. Figure 26 exhibits where there is fire intensity that overlaps with fire probability. The post treatment conditions show a dramatic reduction in hazard and thus exposure to surrounding homes and infrastructure. In fact, hazard is reduced to a mean of .0002 where the current condition integrated hazard was .015 – a reduction of about 99% across the parcel. Further the highest hazard rating of 0.002 in the post treatment results still doesn’t exceed even the first quartile of the current condition integrated hazard results; meaning that the highest 3 quantiles of hazard are predicted to be eliminated if treatment was implemented and the maintenance plan was current.
Considering the significant reduction in hazard, the project parcel will likely exhibit lower fire intensities compared with the current condition assuming actual fire weather and fuel
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-20
conditions were similar to those in the modeling environment. This will reduce exposure to fire to surrounding homes if an ignition did occur within the parcel.
Figure 26 Modeled Integrated Hazards for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment *The integrated hazard is a scale from 0 to 1 where 0 represents low burn probability and small flame length and 1 is the combination highest burn probability and large flame length. The scaling allows for comparisons before and after treatment.
6.2.8 Modeling of Fire Behavior After Mastication
Post-Treatment Modeling
Mastication may be needed as a treatment method where removal of all material is impractical due to inaccessibility, as previously mentioned. Mastication rearranges fuel and leaves the cut material on site. Representative post-treatment conditions were also modeled to show the results if some material must be masticated and left on-site, (as opposed to removing all material as shown in Section 5.2.7) to ensure that project objectives to reduce flame lengths and fire hazard would still be met.
The expected permanent and temporary road system (constructed off the new permanent road) will likely make all but some of the oak woodland treatment areas accessible for manual cut and
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-21
removal. This analysis, therefore, only focuses on the predicted post-treatment masticated conditions in the oak woodland areas where removing material may not be possible.
In order to effectively model treatment changes to the landscape, the current condition landscape for each cover type was adjusted to reflect mastication. It is understood that post treatment and maintained conditions would, on average, be represented by these changed fire model inputs:
• Oak Woodland Treatment
− Surface Fuel Model: SB1 – low load activity fuels (Heinsch, Sikkink, Smith, & Retzlaff, 2018)
− Canopy Cover: average 40%
− Canopy Base Height: average 2.5 meters (8 feet)
− Canopy Bulk Density: 0.04 kg/m3
Modeled Post Treatment Flame Length
IFTDSS (with FlamMap and Minimum Travel Time)
Figure 27 predicts the location and flame length within the project parcel anywhere oak woodland treatment intersected with the potential use of mastication. More areas show on the map as having 1 to 4 foot flame lengths, whereas with removal of all material, nearly all areas are under 1 foot (Figure 24). Conditions will still likely exhibit lower fire intensities compared to the current condition post treatment (where current condition is less than 8-foot flame lengths in places with 4.8-foot weighted mean flame lengths).
If a fire occurred within the project parcel and the maintenance plan was current, suppression resources would likely to be able to directly attack the fire assuming actual fire weather and fuel conditions were similar to those in the modeling environment. Suppression success would increase compared to the current condition.
Behave Comparison
Table 8 exhibits the comparison of results between the FlamMap modeling effort and Behave Plus. It is important to note that FlamMap is a spatially explicit model, in this case down to a 30- meter square pixel, that incorporates spatial inputs across the modeled area. This capability creates a mosaic of conditions that can be comprehensively modeled. Behave has no spatial component and is dependent on translating the realities of the site into the model by the modeler. Although it inherently takes out the complexity of the larger area of interest, it does allow for more customization, particularly since different fuel models tend to exist within an area as small as a 30-meter square pixel. In order to make an appropriate comparison, median flame length of all FlamMap pixels within a surface fuel model is compared to the median flame length of the blended fuel models one can achieve with the Behave architecture.
There is little variance between the median flame length of the two modeling systems and FlamMap results confirm that if there was a fire within the post treatment parcel, even if mastication was implemented on parts of the parcel, and the maintenance plan was current,
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-22
suppression resources would more likely to be able to directly attack the fire and suppression success would likely increase compared to the current condition.
Figure 27 Modeled Flame Lengths for the Project Parcel – Post-Treatment Using Mastication in Some Oak Woodland Areas
6 VEGETATION MANAGEMENT PLAN
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 6-23
Table 8 Comparison of Results Between FlamMap and BehavePlus – Post-Treatment Conditions Fuel
Model
Definition Behave 6.0 Median
Flame Length
Flammap Basic Median
Flame Length
Variance
GR1/GR2 short sparse, dry climate grass/short
sparse, dry climate gras
0.1 ft 0.1 ft 0 ft
GS1/SB1 Low load dry climate grass-shrub/
Low load activity fuel
2.7 ft 1 ft -1.7 ft
SH1/SB1 Low load dry climate shrub/ Low load
activity fuel
2.85 ft 1 ft -1.85 ft
SB1/GR1 short sparse, dry climate grass/short
sparse, dry climate grass
2.7 ft 1.5 ft -1.2 ft
7 REFERENCES
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 7-1
7 References
Alexander, M. (1982). Calculating and interpreting forest fire intensities. Canadian Journal of Botany, 60(4), 349-357. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1139/b82-048 CALFIRE. (2019). Vegetation Treatment Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Sacramento:
CALFIRE.
Desert Research Institute. (2020, March 7). RAWS USA Climate Archive. Retrieved from https://raws.dri.edu/
Hayes, M. P., & Jennings, M. R. (1988). Habitat correlates of distribution of the California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii) and the foothill yellow-legged frog (Rana boylii): Implications for management.
Heinsch, F. A., Sikkink, P. G., Smith, H. Y., & Retzlaff, M. L. (2018). Characterizing fire behavior from laboratory burns of multi-aged, mixed-conifer masticated fuels in the western United States.
Fort Collins: U.S.Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Research Stateion.
LANDFIRE. (2020, March 7). LANDFIRE. Retrieved from www.landfire.gov Moritz Arboricultural Consulting. (2008). Fuel Hazard Assessment Study Town of Portola VAlley.
Portola Valley.
Scott, N. G., & Rathbun, G. (1998). Comments on working draft of California Red-legged Frog Recovery Plan.
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2020a, March 7). BehavePlus Fire Modeling System.
Retrieved from BehavePlus: frames.gov/behaveplus/home
US Department of Agriculture Forest Service. (2020b, March 7). FlamMap. Retrieved from Fire, Fuel, Smoke Science Program Rocky Mountain Research Station:
firelab.org/project/flammap
US Department of Interior. (2020, February 20). Interagency Fuel Treatment Decision Support System. Retrieved from www.iftdss.firenet.gov
Woodside Fire Protection District. (2020, March 7). Woodside Fire Protection District. Retrieved from The Importance of Defensible Space:
https://www.woodsidefire.org/prevention/defensible-space
7 REFERENCES
Stanford Wedge Property Development ● Vegetation Management Plan ● May 2020 Appendices
Appendix A: Conway Resume
Scott Conway
540 McDonald Dr.
Incline Village, NV.
[email protected]
(530) 277-3010
Project Experience Experience
Mr. Conway is a proficient forest
and fire ecologist with extensive
project assessment, analysis,
planning, implementation, and
monitoring experience in the
western United States. He has
also pioneered project level
application of remote sensing
datasets, like LiDAR.
Education
Colorado State University – 1998
BS, Natural Resource Management
with a focus in Remote Sensing and
GIS
Areas of Expertise
• Applied Forest & Fire Ecology
• Remote Sensing
• Modeling & GIS
• Forest Mensuration
• Contract Administration
• Project Planning & Prioritization
Locations of
Experience
2019-Present
2019-Present
2019
2016-2018
2008-2016
2004-2008
2000-2004
1998-2000
1996-1998
1995
1992
Forest Ecologist – Spatial Informatics Group, LLC, Pleasanton, CA Adjunct Forest Ecology Professor – Sierra Nevada College, Incline Village, NV
District Ranger – Tahoe National Forest, Truckee, CA
Spatial Ecologist – USFS Pacific Southwest Region, CA and Pacific Islands
Vegetation Management Officer – Tahoe National Forest, Truckee, CA
Forester and Wildland Fire Fighter – Tahoe National Forest, Sierravile, CA
Harvest Inspector – Tahoe National Forest, Sierravile, CA Lead Forestry Technician – Arapaho-Roosevelt National Forest, Fort Collins, CO
Timber Cruiser – Private Contractor, CO, WY, SD, ID
Nature and Ecology Director – Worth Ranch, Palo Pinto, TX Trail Crew Leader – Philmont Scout Ranch, Cimarron, NM
• Western US
• Baja, MX
• Pacific Islands Publications
“LITIDA: a cost-effective non-parametric imputation approach to estimate LiDARdetected tree diameters over a large heterogeneous area.” 2019 Forestry: An International Journal of Forest Research, Volume 92, Issue 2. “Cover of tall trees best predicts California spotted owl habitat.” 2017. Forest Ecology and Management. 405, 166-178
“Managing Sierra Nevada Forests.” 2012. Pacific Southwest Research Station General Technical Report 237.
Appendix B: Modeling Outputs
• IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Current Condition Report
• IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Scenario 1 Post Treatment Report • IFTDSS SPVP Auto97th Scenario 2 Post Treatment Report
Report: Auto97th
Landfire Version: LANDFIRE 2016
Landscape Name: PV_work_13_2_28_20
Landscape Acres: 470
Area of Interest: pv_aoi_3_3_20
Prepared for: Scott Conway
3/7/2020, 11:58:40 AM
Model Parameters
Run Name: PV_work_13_2_28_20 - Auto97th
Model Type: Landscape Fire Behavior
Run Date: Feb 28, 2020 12:18:21 PM
Wind Type: Gridded Winds
Wind Speed: 9 mph
Wind Direction: 45 deg
Crown Fire Method: Scott/Reinhardt
Foliar Moisture: 100
Conditioning: On - Extreme - South Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains Conditioning start: , NaN/NaN/NaN
Days conditioned:
Conditioning start: 1300, 7/9/2012
Conditioning end:1600, 7/12/2012
Station Name: LOS ALTOS
Station Observation Start Date: Mar 6, 2005 12:00:00 AM Station Observation End Date: Oct 4, 2016 12:00:00 AM
Station Elevation: 539
Station Aspect: 6
Station Latitude: 37.355
Station Longitude: 122.1419444
Fuel
Model
1 Hr
Fuel Moisture
10 Hr
Fuel Moisture
100 Hr
Fuel Moisture
Live Herbaceous
Fuel Moisture
Live Woody
Fuel Moisture
All 3 4 9 147 173
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI GS1 (121) 43 10 13
SH5 (145) 17 4 5
TL6 (186) 6 1 2
TL9 (189) 276 61 81
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover (percent) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 10 2 3
>30 - 40 69 15 20
>40 - 50 132 29 39
>50 - 60 99 22 29
>60 - 70 32 7 9
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height (meters) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 10 2 3
>5 - 12.5 1 0 0
>12.5 - 27.5 97 22 28
>27.5 - 50 234 52 68
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height (meters) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 10 2 3
>0.5 - 1 262 58 77
>1 - 1.5 1 0 0
>1.5 - 2 63 14 18
>4 - 10 6 1 2
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m^3) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 10 2 3
>0 - .05 84 19 25
>.05 - .10 248 55 73
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect (degrees) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 338 - 22 (N) 24 5 7
23 - 67 (NE) 95 21 28
68 - 112 (E) 135 30 39
113 - 157 (SE) 63 14 18
158 - 202 (S) 23 5 7
203 - 247 (SW) 2 0 1
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope (degrees) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI >0 - 5 36 8 11
>5 - 10 99 22 29
>10 - 15 95 21 28
>15 - 20 78 17 23
>20 - 25 30 7 9
>25 - 30 4 1 1
Elevation
Elevation
Elevation
Elevation
Elevation (feet) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 229 - 556 120 27 35
557 - 884 220 49 64
885 - 887 2 0 1
Flame Length
Flame Length
Flame Length
Flame Length
Flame Length (feet) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI Non-burnable 0 0 0
>0 - 1 43 10 13
>1 - 4 120 27 35
>4 - 8 132 29 39
>8 - 11 31 7 9
>11 - 25 16 4 5
>25 0 0 0
Spread Rate
Spread Rate
Spread Rate
Spread Rate
Rate of Spread (chains/hr) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI Non-burnable 0 0 0
>0 - 2 60 13 18
>2 - 5 181 40 53
>5 - 20 91 20 27
>20 - 50 10 2 3
>50 - 150 0 0 0
>150 0 0 0
Intensity
Intensity
Intensity
Intensity
Fireline Intensity (BTU/ft-sec) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI Non-burnable 0 0 0
>0 - 5 43 10 13
>5 - 100 136 30 40
>100 - 500 144 32 42
>500 - 1,000 13 3 4
>1,000 - 6,175 6 1 2
>6,175 0 0 0
Heat/Area
Heat/Area
Heat/Area
Heat/Area
Heat per Unit Area (BTU/ft^2) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI Non-burnable 0 0 0
>0 - 300 43 10 13
>300 - 1,000 6 1 2
>1,000 - 3,000 291 65 85
>3,000 - 6,000 2 0 1
>6,000 - 10,000 0 0 0
>10,000 0 0 0
Crown Fire
Crown Fire
Crown Fire
Crown Fire
Crown Fire Activity Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI Non-burnable 0 0 0
Surface Fire 109 24 32
Passive Fire 233 52 68
Active Fire 0 0 0
Report: Auto97th
Landfire Version: LANDFIRE 2016
Landscape Name: PV_work_post_treat_1_3_5_20
Landscape Acres: 470
Area of Interest: pv_aoi_3_3_20
Prepared for: Scott Conway
3/10/2020, 1:06:17 PM
Model Parameters
Run Name: PV_work_post_treat_1_3_5_20 - Auto97th
Model Type: Landscape Fire Behavior
Run Date: Mar 5, 2020 1:22:07 PM
Wind Type: Gridded Winds
Wind Speed: 9 mph
Wind Direction: 45 deg
Crown Fire Method: Scott/Reinhardt
Foliar Moisture: 100
Conditioning: On - Extreme - South Central California Foothills and Coastal Mountains Conditioning start: , NaN/NaN/NaN
Days conditioned:
Conditioning start: 1300, 7/9/2012
Conditioning end:1600, 7/12/2012
Station Name: LOS ALTOS
Station Observation Start Date: Mar 6, 2005 12:00:00 AM Station Observation End Date: Oct 4, 2016 12:00:00 AM
Station Elevation: 539
Station Aspect: 6
Station Latitude: 37.355
Station Longitude: 122.1419444
Fuel
Model
1 Hr
Fuel Moisture
10 Hr
Fuel Moisture
100 Hr
Fuel Moisture
Live Herbaceous
Fuel Moisture
Live Woody
Fuel Moisture
All 3 4 9 147 173
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model (FBFM)
Fuel Model Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI NB1 (91) 17 4 5
GR1 (101) 29 6 8
GS1 (121) 25 6 7
SH1 (141) 17 4 5
TL6 (186) 1 0 0
TL9 (189) 3 1 1
SB1 (201) 250 56 73
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover
Canopy Cover (percent) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 27 6 8
>30 - 40 309 69 90
>40 - 50 5 1 1
>50 - 60 1 0 0
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height
Stand Height (meters) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 27 6 8
>12.5 - 27.5 84 19 25
>27.5 - 50 231 51 68
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height
Canopy Base Height (meters) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 27 6 8
>0.5 - 1 1 0 0
>1 - 1.5 1 0 0
>1.5 - 2 1 0 0
>2 - 2.5 277 62 81
>2.5 - 3 29 6 8
>4 - 10 6 1 2
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density
Canopy Bulk Density (kg/m^3) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 0 (non-forested) 27 6 8
>0 - .05 313 70 92
>.05 - .10 2 0 1
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect
Aspect (degrees) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI 338 - 22 (N) 24 5 7
23 - 67 (NE) 95 21 28
68 - 112 (E) 135 30 39
113 - 157 (SE) 63 14 18
158 - 202 (S) 23 5 7
203 - 247 (SW) 2 0 1
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope
Slope (degrees) Pixel Count (freq) Acres In AOI Percent In AOI >0 - 5 36 8 11
>5 - 10 99 22 29
>10 - 15 95 21 28
>15 - 20 78 17 23
>20 - 25 30 7 9
>25 - 30 4 1 1