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 17 4 5
>0 - 1 71 16 21
>1 - 4 253 56 74
>4 - 8 1 0 0
>8 - 11 0 0 0
>11 - 25 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 2 154 34 45
>2 - 5 170 38 50
>5 - 20 1 0 0
>20 - 50 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 5 71 16 21
>5 - 100 253 56 74
>100 - 500 1 0 0
>500 - 1,000 0 0 0
>1,000 - 6,175 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 300 71 16 21
>300 - 1,000 251 56 73
>1,000 - 3,000 3 1 1
>3,000 - 6,000 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
Surface Fire 324 72 95
Passive Fire 1 0 0
Active Fire 0 0 0
Report: Auto97th
Landfire Version: LANDFIRE 2016
Landscape Name: PV_work_post_treat_2_6_20
Landscape Acres: 470
Area of Interest: pv_aoi_3_3_20
Prepared for: Scott Conway
3/6/2020, 5:27:40 PM
Model Parameters
Run Name: PV_work_post_treat_2_6_20 - Auto97th
Model Type: Landscape Fire Behavior
Run Date: Mar 6, 2020 8:14:14 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) 275 61 80
SH1 (141) 17 4 5
TL6 (186) 1 0 0
TL9 (189) 3 1 1
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
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 17 4 5
>0 - 1 321 71 94
>1 - 4 3 1 1
>4 - 8 1 0 0
>8 - 11 0 0 0
>11 - 25 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 2 322 72 94
>2 - 5 2 0 1
>5 - 20 1 0 0
>20 - 50 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 5 321 71 94
>5 - 100 3 1 1
>100 - 500 1 0 0
>500 - 1,000 0 0 0
>1,000 - 6,175 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
>0 - 300 321 71 94
>300 - 1,000 1 0 0
>1,000 - 3,000 3 1 1
>3,000 - 6,000 0 0 0
>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 17 4 5
Surface Fire 324 72 95
Passive Fire 1 0 0
Active Fire 0 0 0
Appendix C: Detailed Treatment Methodology Report
Detailed Treatment Methodology Report
Steep Slope Mastication with manual support
Summary: Due to the steepness and inaccessibility of approximately 20 acres within the Stanford-Portola Valley Parcel (SPVP), a self-leveling excavator with a rotor or drum style recirculating and hydraulically powered mastication head may be required to maximize treatment effectiveness. Ground pressure of this machine is low, with manufactures specification noting average ground pressure of 7.5 psi. Machine width maximum shall not exceed 12 feet. The machine must have a boom capable of reaching at least 10 feet from center of machine to perform the work. Within the 20 acres there is an additional 5 acres that even a self-leveling excavator can’t access. In these areas, manual cutting with chainsaws and loppers will cut targeted vegetation and remove cut vegetation to an area the masticator can access for piling and subsequent masticating.
Treatment Specifications:
o Masticate all material within operation limits that is < = 10” on the large end of the designated vegetation or fuel to be treated.
o All rearranged (masticated) material must, on average, be less than 4 inches long and 2 inches wide.
o Ensure masticated material doesn’t exceed an average depth of 4 inches across the treatment unit (dusky-footed woodrat nests – active or deserted – does not count against this requirement).
o Cut all branches and tree stumps within 6 inches of the ground. o See each treatment area design and description for the vegetation species removal hierarchy as well as any canopy cover limitations.
o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Mastication
Summary: Due to the steepness and inaccessibility of the majority of the SPVP, access via permanent or temporary road for fuel removal may be impractical. Therefore, a masticator with a rotor or drum style recirculating and hydraulically powered mastication head is required to maximize treatment effectiveness. Ground pressure of this machine is low, with manufactures specification noting average ground pressure of 7.5 psi. Machine width maximum shall not exceed 12 feet. The machine must have a boom capable of reaching at least 10 feet from center of machine to perform the work. Although a self-leveling excavator isn’t required on these inaccessible but moderately sloped surfaces, it is understood that it may not make sense to bring in two different machines to treat the entire area but may occur depending on a contractor’s capacity.
Treatment Specifications:
o Masticate all material within operation limits that is < = 10” on the large end of the designated vegetation or fuel to be treated.
o All rearranged (masticated) material must, on average, be less than 4 inches long and 2 inches wide.
o Ensure masticated material doesn’t exceed an average depth of 4 inches across the treatment unit (dusky-footed woodrat nests – active or deserted – does not count against this requirement)
o Cut all branches and tree stumps within 6 inches of the ground. o See each treatment area design and description for the vegetation species removal hierarchy as well as any canopy cover limitations.
o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Manual Cutting
Summary: Manual cutting is generally the traditional treatment method when all other treatment methods have been eliminated because of proximity to important resources, access, slope limitations, vegetation, and fuels. Generally, cutting occurs with a chainsaw or a lopper.
The resulting material can either be chipped on site, chipped and hauled offsite, or piled for burning or mastication.
Treatment Specifications:
o Cut all branches and tree stumps within 6 inches of the ground. o Cut any side branches flush with remaining branches or tree bole. o See each treatment area design and description for the vegetation species removal hierarchy as well as any canopy cover limitations.
o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Mowing
Summary: Using traditional landscaping equipment, like lawn mowers and weed eaters, is an appropriate way to manage fine fuels in accessible areas.
Treatment Specifications:
o Ensure the equipment is suited for material to be treated. o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Goat Grazing
Summary: Grazing using goats has several benefits over other treatment methods including impacts, access, and less fire ignitions. However, if there is too much vegetation or the target vegetation is out of reach, they are much less effective at reducing fuels. This makes them best suited as part of a follow up treatment and/or maintenance plan.
Treatment Specifications:
o Sectional fencing may be required in order to focus grazing on problem fuel areas, keep animals on the SPVP, and protect sensitive resources. o Mountain lions are known to be in the area; therefore, predator protection measures might need to be employed.
o Optimal grazing time will be in late spring/early summer to minimize plant carbohydrate storage, plants going to seed, while maximizing the attractiveness of target species.
Manual Remove
Summary: When manually cut material is in close proximity to a road system or where a masticator can access, it can be carried/dragged to where it can be further processed (often with a chipper) and trucked away. Generally, removing material more than 300 feet from where it is cut is impractical and counterproductive as the loss of material while manually transporting can sometimes exceed what is actually removed.
Treatment Specifications:
o Remove all activity slash (branches and logs) that is longer than 1 foot and is greater than 1-inch diameter on the large end.
o Limit manual removal distances to less than 500 feet. o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Manual Piling
Summary: In some instances, because pulling material to a machine or road is impractical due to distance or terrain, it may be appropriate to build piles for a future prescribed pile burn.
Treatment Specifications:
o All activity slash (branches and logs) exceeding 1 foot in length and is greater than 1-inch diameter on the large end will be piled.
o Piles shall be constructed by hand to facilitate full consumption when they are burned.
o All piles shall be built and compacted by laying limbs, stems, cut boles, and other slash so there are no air spaces. Each pile shall include an area of kindling for prompt ignition and to aid in combustion of larger slash. These fuels shall be placed in the center or bottom of the pile. The piles will be constructed so that they will burn after a rainstorm.
o All piles shall have a piece of waterproof material not less than 3 feet by 3 feet secured to the top of the pile to maintain a dry ignition zone during seasonal rains.
o As a minimum all slash shall be bucked to the pile diameter. o The minimum pile size will be 6 feet high and 7 feet in diameter. The pile diameter will be symmetrical to each side, in a circle shape. The minimum distance between piles will be the pile height. Measurement is taken at the bottom of the pile for pile size and distance. The maximum size of the piles will
be determined by the opening dimension of the residual forest canopy and tree susceptibility to crown scorch or mortality.
o All material will be contained within the general contour of the pile and any material protruding out 2 feet or more will be sawed off and placed back on the pile.
o Stanford and/or Woodford Fire Protection District may designate maximum, minimum, or both pile sizes when it determines this is required to meet resource objectives.
o The piles will be constructed so that there will be a break in residual slash around the pile of at least 10 feet. This is needed to protect wildlife features such as logs. This is also needed to prevent fire from spreading when piles are burned. o Piles shall be located so that burning will not damage standing live trees or physical improvements such as fences, poles, buildings, signs, tables, grills or cattle-guards.
o Piles shall not be located on roads, bearing survey markers, in drainage ditches, or within stream-courses
o Piles will be located outside the drip-line of trees where possible. Forest canopy openings will be utilized for acceptable piling areas.
o The following is a list of preferred pile placements that the contractor will follow:
a. Outside of the drip-line of trees on the south west side of an opening. b. In the center of large openings.
c. Outside of the drip-line of trees on the downhill to middle of an opening on a slope.
o No piles shall be built within 200 feet of the SPVP boundary. o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Manual Planting
Summary: In order to make the SPVP more fire resistant, fire prone plant species will be removed or rearranged. To keep those growing sites from reestablishing with fire prone plant species, it may require the manual planting of fire-resistant trees and plants. Planting is likely to occur in areas with and without irrigation, so thoughtful plant selection is required to ensure the site’s resources is conducive to that species establishment and health.
Treatment Specifications:
o When planting fire resistant trees without irrigation, like in chaparral for site conversion, consider replacement with SOD resistant native trees (i.e: Interior Live Oak (Q. Wislizenii), Valley Oak (Q. Lobata), etc.). Trees should be of sufficient size and root depth to survive without irrigation in a natural substrate. Tree protection is required to minimize indigenous or introduced grazing animal damage. o When planting other fire-resistant vegetation without irrigation, plants should be of sufficient size and root depth to survive without irrigation in a natural substrate. o When planting other fire-resistant vegetation with irrigation, follow horticulture protocol to ensure establishment and health.
Manual Pile Burning
Summary: Piles that are built will be burned under an approved burn permit coordinated with CALFIRE and Woodside Fire Protection District.
Treatment Specifications:
o Follow an approved Woodside Fire Protection fire plan during implementation.
Appendix D: October 2008 Fuel Hazard Assessment Study – Town of Portola Valley
FUEL HAZARD ASSESSMENT STUDY
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
October 2008
Prepared by Moritz Arboricultural Consulting
1
Preface
This study was commissioned by the town to provide fundamental information with respect to the types of vegetation in the town and the relative potential fire hazards posed by each type. The report is intended to have four fundamental applications, as follows:
First, it will form an important part of the new Safety Element to be developed by the town as a part of the town’s General Plan. This will help fulfill a requirement of the state planning law.
Second, it will provide a basis for the establishment of programs and measures by the town and the Woodside Fire Protection District in assisting in the protection of all properties in the town.
Third, it will allow residents to locate their properties with respect to the several vegetation categories with different degrees of fire hazard and to begin to take prudent precautions on their properties.
Fourth, it will provide an outline of fuel reduction measures along the major roads in the town, most of which will be a responsibility of the town.
Residents and town officials are encouraged to read the study and view the illustrative map. These should provide a good background on the fire hazards posed by the vegetation in the town.
Residents will likely be most interested in the section “Specific Fire Hazard Mitigation Strategies by Fuel Type” starting on page 10. Here, the reader will find detailed mitigation strategies that they can consider applying to their property. As noted in the report, property owners are encouraged to call on assistance from the Fire Marshal’s office of the Woodside Protection District.
Residents may also find Appendix II, “Implementation of the Portola Valley Fuel Hazard Assessment Study,” starting on page 20, as a good starting point when considering overall approaches to providing vegetation fire safety on their properties.
The town and the Woodside Fire Protection District will want in particular to consider the recommendations in the section “Fire Response and Evacuation Routes” starting on page 16. This section includes recommended general standards and more specific recommendations for eight main roads in the town. A next step that the town and the fire protection district will consider will be a more detailed application of the standards.
The standards are general guidelines and their application will need to take into consideration the practical realities of conditions in the various parts of the town.
George Mader, Town Planner
2
Portola Valley Fuel Hazard Assessment
Town of Portola Valley
Prepared by
Moritz Arboricultural Consulting
October 2008
CONTENTS Page
Introduction 3
Methodology 3
General Descriptions of Vegetation Fuels 4
CH—Chaparral (Highest Hazard) 5
FPO—Fire-Prone Oak Woodland (Highest Hazard) 5
MEF—Mixed Evergreen Forest (Highest Hazard) 5
FPUF—Fire-Prone Urban Forest (Highest and High Hazard) 5 CS—Coastal Scrub (High Hazard) 5
RF—Redwood Forest (High Hazard) 5
US—Urban Savannah (Moderate Hazard) 6
GR—Grassland (Moderate Hazard) 6
MG—Mowed Grass (Low Hazard) 6
VIN—Vineyard (Low Hazard 6
Fuel Behavior Severity Ranking 7
General Fire Hazard Mitigation Strategies 8
Specific Fire Hazard Mitigation Strategies by Fuel Type 10 Chaparral (H+) 10
Fire-Prone Oak Woodland (H+) 10
Mixed Evergreen Forest (H+) 11
Fire-Prone Urban Forest (H+) 12
Fire-Prone Urban Forest (H) 13
Coastal Scrub (H) 13
Redwood Forest (H) 14
Grassland and Urban (Oak) Savannah (L to M)) 15
Fire Response and Evacuation Routes 16
Initial Treatment and Annual Maintenance Requirements
for Fuel Modification Zones 16
Standards to be Applied in Each FMZ 16
Comments and Recommendations for Specific Routes 17
Portola Road 17
Westridge Drive 17
Cervantes Road 17
Golden Oak Drive 17
3
Alpine Road 17
Indian Crossing/Valley Oak 17
Los Trancos Road 17
Wayside Road 18
Appendix I: Fire Resistant Plants 19
Appendix II: Implementation of the Portola Valley 20
Fuel Hazard Assessment Study
Fuel Hazard Map, October 2008 Enclosed
4
INTRODUCTION
The goals of this fuel hazard assessment for the Town of Portola Valley are to assist the town and its residents to (1) develop a landscape that has a reasonable level of fire safety for citizens and emergency responders and (2) create a sustainable, aesthetic, and environmentally balanced response to fire threat, taking into account the natural values of the area (e.g., residential use and enjoyment, biodiversity, maintenance of native species, and more).
The project addresses potential fire behavior and offers strategies for fire hazard mitigation in the Town. The following areas are highest in priority for treatment:
♦ Major emergency access/egress routes
♦ Areas adjacent to structures/residences
♦ Areas with potential for severe fire behavior
The values at risk include homes, businesses, government and public infrastructure, the local economy, residents, emergency responders, and aesthetics.
This assessment includes mapping of vegetation fuels and ranking of fuels as to fire behavior, i.e., ability to suppress or fight a fire. Based on the fuel assessment, general and specific strategies are presented to facilitate both public and private actions that can be taken to reduce fire risk. In particular, this assessment has been developed to assist the town in its work on future revisions to the safety element of the general plan.
METHODOLOGY
A fuel hazard assessment of Portola Valley was conducted using color aerial photography (dated 2005), ground reconnaissance (August and September 2007), and published references on fire behavior. This assessment is presented on the “Fuel Hazard Map” dated July 17, 2008. For each mapped unit (or polygon, 5-acre minimum) a ranking of fire behavior potential (highest, high, moderate, and low) was developed using general fuel models created by the Northern Forest Fire Laboratory (USDA Forest Service: NFFL) as modified by Moritz Arboricultural Consulting (MAC) to account for stage of fuel development and regional conditions. In addition, the USDA Forest Service National Fire Danger Rating System (a system of nine fuel models) was used as a reference.
Of the fuel types identified by MAC as occurring in Portola Valley, six are not precisely defined in the national models and required developmental stage modifications for ranking. Consideration was also given to potential changes in fire behavior caused by sudden oak death (SOD)
A follow-up field review of the fuel and fire behavior severity map and methodology was conducted with Woodside fire officials in March 2008. Comments received during this meeting were incorporated into the final fire hazard map and the hazard evaluations presented in this report.
5
GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS OF VEGETATION FUELS
General vegetation fuel types and rankings as to potential fire behavior for Portola Valley are:
“highest” (h+) includes a shrub type (chaparral) and three forest types (fireprone oak woodland, mixed evergreen forest, fire-prone urban forest) “high” (h) includes two forest types (fire-prone urban forest and redwood forest) and one shrub type (coastal scrub);
“moderate (m) includes urban savannah and grassland;
“low” (l) includes mowed grass and vineyard.
There are eleven plant communities/habitats within the borders of Portola Valley as mapped by TRA Environmental Services (TRA). MAC also identified eleven vegetation fuel types in both wildland and urban areas. Eight of the MAC fuel types correspond directly to TRA plant community/habitat types, and two are mapped in a related category. For example, where TRA mapped grassland, MAC divided it into mowed grass and grassland because these distinctions affect the fire hazard.
The comparison of the TRA and MAC types are listed below with corresponding potential fire behavior ratings assigned by MAC. The sequence of plant communities listed under MAC ranges from those with the highest fire potential to those with the lowest potential.
MAC: TRA:
Chaparral (h+) Chaparral
Fire-Prone Oak Woodland (h+) Oak Woodland
Mixed Evergreen Forest (h+) Mixed Evergreen Forest
Fire-Prone Urban Forest [heavy undergrowth] (h+) Urban Forest/Garden Fire-Prone Urban Forest (h) Urban Forest/Garden
Redwood Forest (h) Redwood Forest
Urban Savannah [grass carries fire] (m) Oak Savannah
Grassland (m) Grassland
Mowed Grass (l) Grassland
Vineyard (l) Vineyard
N/A Aquatic Feature
The vegetation fuel types are generally described below in terms of dominant species and general percent cover in the overstory and understory. The prevalence and trends of invasion of exotic species is noted, as are any shifts in species which can be expected over time without manipulation (i.e., shift from oak to bay or oak to Douglas-fir, or shift from grass to coyote bush, etc.). The locations of the fuel types are shown on the July 17, 2008 “Fuel Hazards Map,” that is part of this report. 6
CH – CHAPARRAL (HIGHEST HAZARD) 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). This type is notorious for exhibiting extreme fire behavior.
FPO - FIRE-PRONE OAK WOODLAND (HIGHEST HAZARD) 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.
The combination of dense understory vegetation, ladder fuels, and disease caused by sudden oak death (Phytophthora ramorum) makes this type extremely flammable and prone to crown fires.
MEF - MIXED EVERGREEN FOREST (HIGHEST HAZARD) supports a mixture trees including coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), tan oak (Lithocarpus densiflora), Pacific madrone, black oak (Quercus kellogii), with minor components of bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) and Douglas-fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii var. menziesii). The shrub layer is minimal but includes: tree reproduction, western sword fern (Polystichum munitum), California hazel (Corylus cornuta var. californica), poison oak and various brooms in limited areas. This mixture of trees and shrubs has a great potential for creating severe fire behavior.
FPUF - FIRE-PRONE URBAN FOREST (HIGHEST AND HIGH HAZARD) includes residential areas that are moderate to densely landscaped with fire-prone ornamentals such as juniper (Juniperus spp.), pine (Pinus spp.), acacia (Acacia spp.), and eucalyptus (Eucalyptus spp.). Also present in these areas may be sparse to dense remnants of the native trees and shrubs such as coast live oak, Pacific madrone, and poison oak. This forest type is also strongly affected by sudden oak death. Areas with dense understory vegetation were ranked as having the highest hazard.
CS – COASTAL SCRUB (HIGH HAZARD) supports low shrubs, typically 3 to 6 feet tall that are densely arranged with scattered openings supporting non-native annual grasses. Dominant plants in this type include coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), poison oak (Toxicodendron diversiloba), California-lilac (Ceanothus thyrsiflorus), California bee plant (Scrophularia californica), blackberry (Rubus ursinus), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), and sagebrush (Artemisia californica). Fire behavior in coastal scrub is strongly affected by the live fuel moisture in the coyote bush.
RF - REDWOOD FOREST (HIGH HAZARD) consists of a dense overstory of younggrowth coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), tan oak (Lithocarpus densiflorus), bigleaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), salal (Gaultheria shallon), sword fern, Douglas-fir,and California bay (Umbellularia californica). Associated understory shrubs include California hazel, wood rose (Rosa gymnocarpa), and thimbleberry (Rubus parviflorus).
Redwood forest is surprisingly flammable. The thick duff layer is especially receptive to fire brands and redwood bark ignites easily. Tan oak is highly susceptible to sudden oak 7
death; dead leaves retained on these mid-canopy trees exacerbate the fire hazard by creating ladder fuels.
US - URBAN SAVANNAH (MODERATE HAZARD) consists of residential areas where grass occupies greater than 50 percent of the overall landscape. Areas along roadways and near homes are typically densely landscaped with ornamental trees, shrubs, irrigated flowerbeds, and lawns. Other than the overstory canopy [typically valley oak (Quercus lobata) or coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia)] the grassland species dominate this plant community (See Grassland). While there may be some areas of down and dead overstory materials, grass usually is the fuel that carries the fire. Crowning and torching of the overstory are highly unlikely. Thus, fire behavior in grassy areas is determined by whether the grass has been mowed or not.
GR – GRASSLAND (MODERATE HAZARD) includes unmanaged, introduced annual grasses and native forbs including: oatgrass, annual agoseris (Agoseris heterophylla), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus horeaceus), barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), foxtail barley (H. jubatum), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), and California fescue (Festuca californica).
When dry, this flashy fuel supports fires with high rates of spread under windy conditions.
MG - MOWED GRASS (LOW HAZARD) includes grazed and mowed introduced annual grasses and both exotic and native forbs, including: oatgrass, annual agoseris (Agoseris heterophylla), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), foxtail barley (H. jubatum) Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), needlegrass (Nasella pulchra), and California fescue (Festuca californica).
Rates of fire spread are greatly reduced by grazing or the alteration of the fuel arrangement as a result of mowing; a fire in this type may self extinguish.
VIN – VINEYARD (LOW HAZARD) consists of rows of irrigated grapes (Vitis sp.) vines with an exceptionally sparse to barren soil surface. Associated fences are often lined with showy shrubs such as lavender or rose. Fires typically do not burn this vegetation type.
8
FUEL BEHAVIOR SEVERITY RANKING
The following table ranks the Vegetation Fuel Types in terms of their Fire Behavior. The Fire Behavior Ranking was calculated by Moritz Arboricultural Consulting based on an evaluation of the information in columns (2) – (4).
Vegetation Fuel Type
(1)
NFFL
Model
(2)
Developmental
Stage
(3)
Flame
Length)
(4)
Fire Behavior
Ranking
(current study)
(5)
Chaparral 4 High 45 Highest – h+
Fire-Prone Oak
Woodland
7 Extreme 20+ Highest – h+
Mixed Evergreen
Forest
10 Extreme 20+ Highest – h+
Fire-Prone Urban
Forest
7 Extreme 20+ Highest – h+
Fire-Prone Urban
Forest
7 High 13 High – h
Coastal Scrub 5 High 18 High – h
Redwood Forest 9 Extreme 14 High – h
Urban (Oak)
Savannah
3 Low 7 Moderate – m
Grassland (tall grass) 3 Low 7 Moderate - m
Mowed Grass 1 Moderate 5 Low – l
Explanation of columns:
(1) Vegetation Fuel Type by MAC,
(2) NFFL Fuel Model Number,
(3) Fuel Model Stage of Development (eg. old Douglas fir forest has a different structure and fire behavior than Douglas fir reproduction),
(4) expected flame length (fire intensity) for a given model and its stage of development, (5) expected difficulty to suppress by MAC.
9
GENERAL FIRE HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES
The following are general strategies that the town and others at risk can employ to reduce fire threat and “Behavior Ranking:”
Strategy: Select fire resistant plants
Actions:
• Select species with low surface to volume ratios (i.e., southern magnolia vs. pine, rhododendron vs. Australian tea, English laurel vs. cypress screen). As an example, for a given weight, southern magnolia leaves have less total surface areas than pine needles.
• Select broadleaf vs. needle-leaf species
• Select clean looking species with stout branches and twigs (non-twiggy) • Select species listed as pest and disease resistant
• Select deciduous trees and shrubs with supple, moist foliage • Select species with out volatile oils in their leaves (use the smell test). Sap is waterlike and does not have a strong oil odor Strategy: Reduce fuel volumes
Actions:
• remove deadwood from trees and shrubs
• thin forest stands that produce great amounts of litter and debris • create shrub/grass mosaics from continuous shrub masses • remove shrubs beneath and around existing and emerging trees • select low-growing shrubs and ground covers as replacement plants • 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
Strategy: Reduce fuel flammability
Actions:
• mow grass when it is 50% cured (by June 1st )
• replace annual grass with plants that do not cure (dry out) • remove deadwood in trees and shrubs
• establish an irrigated landscape in carefully selected areas close to the home (along foundations, under windows, under overhangs, and around decks and other structures)
• remove sick, dying and dead shrubs and trees
Strategy: Establish/maintain fuel discontinuity
Actions:
• remove/reduce “ladder” fuels (grass to brush to trees) • create shrub/grass mosaics from continuous masses by installing hardscape • remove shrubs from beneath and around existing and emerging trees • thin thickets of small trees and tree reproduction from large tree understories • create low fuel zone near structural vulnerabilities such as windows, decks, large overhangs,
10
Strategy: Reduce the possibility of fire traveling through tree crown Actions:
• Separate overlapping tree and large shrub canopies
• Thin fire-prone tree canopies (oak, bay, eucalyptus, pines, redwood and Douglas fir) to open canopy structure (no more than 30% foliar reduction) • Prune out low hanging fire-available branches and twigs up to 3 inches in diameter 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
• Perform fuel volume reduction actions mentioned above 11
SPECIFIC FIRE HAZARD MITIGATION STRATEGIES BY FUEL TYPE The following mitigation strategies are specific to the vegetation fuel type.
Chaparral – H+
Dominant shrubs in this type include chemise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), manzanita (Arctostaphylos glauca, A. tomentosa), California lilac (Ceanothus cuneatus, C. oliganthus var. sorediatus), redberry (Rhamnus crocea ssp. crocea), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), coffeeberry (Rhamnus californica ssp. californica), and holly-leaved cherry (Prunus ilicifolia), but may have up to 35% fir or hardwood reproduction.
Chaparral - Fire Hazard: This type is notorious for exhibiting extreme fire behavior. This is one of the serious fire hazardous types due to the heavy horizontal fuel continuity and abundant fine material, almost 100% available to a potential fire. The sclerophyllus species 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, tend 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.
Maintenance: Maintenance actions in this fuel type are affordable, effective and necessary for the health, vigor and survivability of the shrubs. Fire safe maintenance is critical to safety and includes the following actions:
• You may wish to favor a particular native species on site or convert to a new or more fire resistant type such as perennial grass. However, all of the chamise should be removed.
• Thin 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. • Raise (trim up) the crowns by 1/3 the height in defensible space zones and along roads.
• Remove deadwood subcanopies.
• Clear all grass, cured herbs and flammable debris from under the shrub canopies.
• Remove dead shrubs near homes, drives, and roads.
• Remove structurally unstable trees within falling distance of homes, drives and roads.
• Clean up down and dead debris.
Fire-prone Oak Woodland (Pyrophytic Hardwood) - H+
Oak woodland with associated hardwoods, heavy undergrowth or down and/or dead ground fuels. This type consists of a canopy of coast live oak, tan oak, black oak, madrone and bay. It may have a minor component conifers and/or exotics. It has dense undergrowth of, coffeeberry, poison oak, hardwood reproduction, excessive fir reproduction and or exotic brush. This is a hazardous fuel type. It may have an unhealthy over-story/canopy and, as a consequence, excessive down and dead debris.
Fire-prone oak woodland hazard: The fire hazard of this fuel type is among the highest in the area. Under high to extreme fire weather conditions the fire rate of spread is rapid and intensity is very high to extreme. Crowning, branding and 12
spotting is common. Sudden Oak Death may be a significant factor in the flammablility of this type.
Maintenance: Mitigative actions may be most successful in this forest/fuel type.
It can be converted from one of the most hazardous types to one of the least fireprone. Fire safe maintenance of this type includes the following actions:
• Thin out overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor fire resistant species (such as oak rather than bay).
• Remove or substantially thin undergrowth. Separate shrubs by a distance of at least two times their height, crown to crown. Any fire prone shrubs should be cut to no more than two feet in height. Keep the undergrowth sparse. When thinning out undergrowth always favor fire resistant plants. • 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. • When thinning out undergrowth or planting, favor fire resistant plants. • Remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage prior to the fire season or as they develop.
• Remove bay and conifer reproduction.
• Clean up down and dead debris. Chip materials up to 6 inches and cut larger branches and trunks flat to maximize soil contact. • Remove heavily SOD infested trees. Consider replacement with SOD resistant native trees (i.e: Interior Live Oak (Q. Wislizenii), Valley Oak (Q.
Lobata), etc.).
• Maintain trees in good health. See California Oak Foundation guide.
Mixed Evergreen Forest – H+
This forest type is dominated by mature evergreen hardwoods such as oak, bay and tanoak. It may have a 25 to 35% fir and/or redwood component. It has sparse or no continuous undergrowth. The dominant trees are in good (healthy) condition. There is no significant accumulation of down and dead materials.
Mixed Evergreen Forest - fire hazard: The fire hazard of this fuel type is among the highest. Most fires will be in surface fuels with short flame lengths and slow rates of spread but there is a high potential for torching, crowning and branding where fuel concentrations are heavy. Crown fires may be infrequent but in severe fire weather when crowning does occur fires are hard to suppress. The crowning potential may be minimized through proper management of ground fuels and crown raising. The opportunity to provide ongoing maintenance and improvements in fire resistance is great.
Maintenance: Maintenance actions in this forest/fuel type are affordable and effective. If this type is not maintained and is allowed to decline, it will become a very serious fire-prone type, one of the most hazardous types. Fire safe maintenance of this type includes the following actions:
• Thin out overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor the more fire resistant species (such as oak and other broadleaf species rather than bay laurel and fir).
• Keep the fire prone undergrowth sparse and low. Separate fire prone shrubs by a distance of at least two times the height, crown to crown. 13
Any fire prone shrubs should be cut to no more than two feet in height.
When thinning out undergrowth always favor fire resistant species. • Raise tree crowns to a minimum of 10 feet above grade. All parts of the canopy less than 3 inches in diameter should be no lower than 10 feet vertical distance above grade. On slopes the canopy line will be 10 feet above highest point. Raise the crowns of redwoods and firs as high as practical.
• When thinning out undergrowth or planting, favor fire resistant plants. • Remove deadwood trees thoroughly, particularly firs.
• Remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage prior to the fire season or as they develop.
• Remove bay and Fir reproduction.
• Chip down and dead debris.
• Maintain trees in good health. See California Oak Foundation for a guide.
Fire Prone Urban Forest (with heavy undergrowth) – H+
This extremely hazardous forest/fuel type is dominated by mature evergreen hardwoods (e.g., coast live oak, bay, tanoak, madrone, etc.) and 25 to 35% mature fir or redwood. It has a heavy undergrowth of tree reproduction, herbs and/or shrubs. Often it has excessive bay or fir reproduction. It typically has excessive down and dead debris due to SOD and/or competition.
Mixed Evergreen Forest with undergrowth - fire hazard: The fire behavior of this fuel type is high. The opportunity to provide improvements in fire resistance is great but at a greater cost than for hardwood forest or park-like mixed evergreen forest. However, once the initial work is done, maintenance will be significantly less over time.
Maintenance: Maintenance actions in this forest/fuel type are affordable and effective. Fire safe maintenance of this type includes the following actions:
• Thin out overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor the more fire resistant species (such as oak and bay and fir). • Clear undergrowth leaving only well spaced, fire resistant plants.
Separate other shrubs by a distance of at least two times the height, crown to crown. Any fire prone shrubs retained should be cut to no more than two feet in height. When thinning out undergrowth, favor fire resistant species.
• Raise hardwood tree crowns to a minimum of 10 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. On slopes the canopy line will be horizontal with slope. Raise the crowns of fir and redwood as high as practicable leaving no attached deadwood below the live crown. • When thinning out undergrowth or planting, favor fire resistant plants. • Remove deadwood trees thoroughly, particularly bays, redwoods and firs. • Remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage prior to the fire season or as they develop.
• Remove fire-prone shrubs, and bay and Fir reproduction. • Chip down and dead debris, up to six inches diameter and cut up larger branches and trunks down flat to maximize soil contact. • Maintain trees in good health. See California Oak Foundation guide. 14
15
Fire-prone Urban Forest (hardwoods with minor components of conifers) - H Mixed hardwoods with heavy undergrowth. This type consists of a canopy of tanoak, coast live oak, bay laurel and madrone, with minor components of Douglas-fir, redwood and exotics. It has excessive down and dead material and/or a dense undergrowth of douglas fir reproduction, oak reproduction, hardwood reproduction, bay and tanoak reproduction, ceanothus, manzanita, hazel, and exotics. This is the areas’ second-most hazardous fuel type. It may have an unhealthy over-story/canopy.
Fire-Prone Urban Forest Hazard: The fire hazard of this fuel type is among the highest in the area. Under high to extreme fire weather conditions the fire rate of spread is rapid and intensity is very high to extreme. Crowning, branding and spotting is common.
Maintenance: Mitigation may be most successful in this forest/fuel type. It can be converted from one of the most hazardous types to one of the least fire prone.
Fire safe maintenance of this type includes the following actions:
• Thin out overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Favor fire resistant species (such as oak or redwood rather than bay and fir). • Remove or substantially thin undergrowth. Separate shrubs by a distance of at least two times their height, crown to crown. Any fire prone shrubs should be cut to no more than two feet in height. Keep the undergrowth sparse. When thinning out undergrowth always favor fire resistant plants. • Raise tree crowns to a minimum of 10 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. • When thinning out undergrowth or planting, favor fire resistant plants. • Remove dead and diseased trees or branches and foliage prior to the fire season or as they develop.
• Remove invasive shrubs, and bay laurel and fir reproduction. • Clean up down and dead debris. Chip small materials and cut larger branches and trunks flat to maximize soil contact.
• Maintain trees in good health. See California Oak Foundation guide.
Coastal Scrub - H
This vegetation fuel type is highly invasive in grassland and open hardwood forest in the absence of natural fire. This type is dominated by a “doghair” stand of Ceanothus, coyote bush, coffeeberry, manzanita and possibly fir reproduction, but may have up to 35% fir or hardwood reproduction.
Coastal Scrub - Fire Hazard: This is one of the serious fire hazardous types due to the heavy horizontal fuel continuity and abundant fine material, almost 100% available to a potential fire. The high density of shrubs water stresses the stand.
The expected fire behavior of this type is equivalent to heavy chaparral. 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.
Maintenance: Maintenance actions in this fuel type are affordable, effective and necessary for the health, vigor and survivability of the shrubs. Fire safe maintenance is critical to safety and includes the following actions:
16
• First decide on the kind of mature landscape you envision. You may wish to favor a particular native species on site or convert to a new or more fire resistant type.
• Thin brush reproduction up to 10.0 feet tall to a spacing of 2 X the height, on center. Always favor fire resistant species.
• Raise (trim up) the crowns by 1/3 the height.
• Clear all grass, dried herbaceous herbs and flammable debris from under the shrub canopies.
• Remove dead shrubs near homes, drives, and roads.
• Remove structurally unstable trees within falling distance of homes, drives and roads.
• Clean up down and dead debris.
Redwood Forest – H
This forest/fuel type is more than 50% mature coast redwood and occurs on more mesic (cooler, more moist areas with better than average soil development) slopes and in drainages. Where there is no significant sub-canopy of hardwoods, such as tanbark oak (Lithocarpus densiflora) and California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica), an abundance of dead-and-down debris, and/or heavy layer of vegetation ground fuels (sword fern, huckleberry, poison oak, toyon, tree reproduction or invasive exotics such as brooms), and the understory is park-like the fire hazard tends to be relatively moderate. Where such forest do have excessive down-and-dead, heavy continuous undergrowth or young redwood forest with attached “ladder fuels” (continuous attached branches from low to high, living or dead).
Coast Redwood Forest - fire hazard: The fire hazard of this fuel type is typically low on mesic sites with rich well-developed soils and relatively cool microclimates (north to northeast facing slopes, along canyon/valley bottom lands, seep sites and along streams). Most fires will be low intensity fires in surface fuels with short flame lengths and slow rates of spread. There could be occasional torching if spot fuel (“jackpot”) concentrations are heavy. Crown fires are infrequent but when they do occur, particularly on steep slopes under extreme fire weather conditions.
The fire hazard in this fuel type may be moderate where there is a buildup of down and dead debris and/or heavy undergrowth, and they are hard to suppress.
Stand replacement fires are more likely occur in this subtype.
The fire hazard in this fuel type may be high in young to juvenile stand development stages where there is ground to top “ladder” fuels, a heavy buildup of down and dead debris and/or heavy undergrowth, and they are very hard to suppress. Stand replacement fires are more likely to occur in this subtype.
The crowning potential may be minimized through proper management of ground fuels, crown raising and occasionally selective stand thinning. The opportunity to provide ongoing maintenance and improvements in fire resistance is high.
Maintenance: Maintenance actions in this forest/fuel type are affordable and effective. Stand thinning, if needed, is more expensive (It can come to $2,000 per tree in the developed residential setting.). In wildland fuel threat mitigation, 17
with some thinning of mature trees, may pay for itself. Fire safe maintenance of this type includes the following actions:
• Thin out overly dense stands to provide crown separation. Too many stems per acre deplete soil water, available nutrients and healthy growing space.
• Remove basal sprouts.
• Remove unstable, sick, declining and dead trees.
• Limb up trees as high as practical (More than 10 feet above grade). • Remove diseased, dying, and dead branches, trunk-attached twigs, dead branches and branch stubs.
• Remove Douglas fir, bay laurel, tanbark oak and other flammable tree reproduction (except where redwood regeneration is necessary). • Clear undergrowth leaving only well spaced, fire resistant plants.
Separate other more flammable shrubs by a distance of at least two times the height, crown to crown. Any fire prone shrubs (broom, poison oak), should be removed. When thinning out undergrowth favor fire resistant species.
• Clean up dead and down debris.
• Remove SOD killed trees.
Grassland and Urban (Oak) Savannah – L to M
This fuel type typically presents relatively low levels of fire intensity but can exhibit rapid rates of spread. Also grasses are important ignition fuels that should be treated where ignition is likely to occur (around homes, roads and other developed areas).
Grass should receive particular attention where it serves as a transition fuel to heavier fuel types (grass to brush to trees). Grass should be mowed to no more that 4 inches in height in the Fire Apparatus Clear Zone (FACZ) and defensible space areas. It should also be mowed or grazed in fuel management zones where it might serve as a transition fuel.
18
FIRE RESPONSE AND EVACUATION ROUTES:
During a major wildfire, emergency personnel direct evacuees from local streets to the larger collector roads leading to arterial avenues. Portola Valley is served by three arterial roads: Alpine Road, Los Trancos Road, and Portola Road. Collector roads in the area include Westridge Drive, Cervantes Road, Golden Oak Drive, and Indian Crossing leading to Valley Oak Street. In addition Wayside Road serves as a collector.
Vegetation fuel management should be undertaken along these roads initially and on an annual basis in order to provide Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ).
Initial Treatment and Annual Maintenance Requirements for FMZ:
Fuel Modification Zones (FMZ) (commonly referred to as Fire Apparatus Clear Zones) should be constructed and maintained along all roads and other emergency access/evacuation routes if so designated by the Woodside Fire Department. The FMZ along the main routes and collector roads should extend a minimum of 20 feet from either side of the paved surface (note this is greater then required by State and local codes but considering potential flame lengths, it is necessary for fire safe access/egress).
Standards to be Applied within each FMZ :
• In a distance extending 10 feet out from the paved road surfaces, brush and shrub species should not exceed three feet in height and be separated by a distance equal to at least twice the height of the brush or shrub.
• Shrubs and shrub islands (shrub islands should not be greater than 15 feet in diameter) in the 10- to 20-foot-zone out from the road pavement edge shall be separated by a distance no less than two times the shrub or shrub island height • All cured grasses shall be mowed to a maximum of three inches (3”) in height prior to June 15th of any given fire season and debris should be removed. This zone should be so maintained throughout the fire season (as declared by local and State agencies), but at least until October 15. Annual and perennial grasses can be retained in the 10 to 20 foot zone, provided the grasses are mowed annually to a maximum three-inch (3”) height. Perennial grasses should be favored where irrigation is absent because of their longer green period. • Individual oak and ornamental trees can be retained adjacent to the roadway provided a minimum 14-foot clearance is maintained above the paved surface. • All tree canopy fuels less than 3 inches in diameter (100 hour time-lag fuels) within the 0’ to 20’ foot zone shall be limbed up (crown raised) one third the height of trees less than 30 feet in total height and a minimum of ten feet above grade for all trees 30 feet or greater in height. Any plants constituting a “ladder fuels” shall be removed from below the tree canopy. (Ladder fuels consist of continuous vegetation from the ground to tree crowns.)
• All tree crowns within the FACZ shall be separated by a distance of no less than ten feet (10’) above the road surface. As young trees mature, removal of trees may be required to maintain proper separation of tree crowns within this zone. 19
• Treatments for specific fuel types are discussed under the maintenance provisions for each vegetation type in the previous section.
Comments and Recommendations for Specific Routes
Portola Road: This major emergency access/egress route varies greatly in roadside fuel conditions. The north end of the road, on the east side is perhaps the greatest fire threat where a Eucalyptus stand with an Acacia and brush understory could generate high intensity fire and significant torching, crowning and branding. Smoke and branding from this stand could significantly inhibit fire response and evacuation along this critical route.
This condition, capable of generating extreme fire behavior, should be abated. Other areas along this road should receive standard FACZ treatment. Fuels should be modified as described in the fuel treatment section above.
Westridge Drive: This major emergency access/egress connecting Portola Valley Road with Alpine Road passes through large areas of high to highest fire behavior potential urban forest. These areas require the full 20 feet of roadside treatment as prescribed in the fuel treatment section.
Cervantes Road: This secondary access route that connects Westridge Dr. with Golden Oak Drive and ultimately out to Alpine Road. The road runs adjacent to some highest fire behavior potential sites and should receive FACZ attention equivalent to Westridge.
Golden Oak Drive: This road borders some significantly fire hazardous topographic conditions, as well as high to highest fire behavior potential vegetation types. The “chimney drainages” running up to this road should receive as much as 30 feet of vegetation fuel treatment. The remainder of this road should receive that standard recommended treatment described above.
Alpine Road: This road has good FACZ management along most of its extent due to commercial development and other roadside treatments. However, the west end of Alpine, west of the intersection of Portola Valley Road present some FACZ challenges that require attention. This western extent of Alpine is a connector with Willowbrook and could play an important access for wildland fire in the Open Space Preserve. Thus, this area should receive the recommended fuel treatment specified above.
Indian Crossing/Valley Oak: These connected roads are the one-way-in/one-way-out emergency access/evacuation route for Portola Valley Ranch. Therefore this road should receive the full 20 feet of roadside treatment recommended above. The Town and Fire Department may whish to also consider an emergency exit connector to Los Trancos Road from Valley Oak.
Los Trancos Road: This road is an important emergency access/egress for the Blue Oaks development and the Los Trancos Woods development. The fuels on the Santa Clara County (east) side of the road are particularly problematic due to the creek, the steep topography and the unmanaged wildland. This road also requires the full 20 feet of treatment recommended above.
20
Wayside Road. It is an extremely substandard road with substandard road width, turn radii and significant vegetation fuel threats along the road. Consequently, this road should have more than the minimum required roadside fuel treatment. At the east end (low end) of the road there is heavy vegetation off to the north and south side, dominated by fire-prone “pyrophytic” hardwoods. Moving up the road on the south side, in the drainage, is a redwood stand with widespread mortality of tanoak due to SOD.
This road requires particularly full treatment for fire safe access/egress to the extent possible.
21
APPENDIX I
FIRE-RESISTANT PLANTS
10/02/08
Select species and varieties that are relatively fire resistant:
1. Plants that are well adapted to the local climatic zones, microclimate, aspect, slope and local environmental conditions.
2. Plants with low fuel volumes: low growing, limited spread and open architecture.
3. Plants with a low surface to volume ratio (a clean open appearance, not twiggy and dense)
4. Plants that are deep-rooted and proficient at acquiring water.
5. Trees and shrubs with watery sap lacking volatile chemicals, fats and oils.
6. Plants lacking an internal canopy of dead material.
7. Plants with relatively more fire resistant foliage:
Most deciduous trees and shrubs.
Trees and shrubs with large fleshy leaves.
Trees and shrubs with foliage lacking volatile chemicals, oils, waxes, etc.
Examples:
Locally Native Trees
Valley oak (a.k.a.
California white oak)
Oregon oak
California sycamore
Big leaf maple
Oregon ash
Red alder
White alder
Buckeye
Fremont cottonwood
Black cottonwood
Willows
Hinds black walnut
California box elder
Pacific madrone
Locally Native Shrubs
Pacific wax myrtle
California beaked hazel
Magnolias
Flannel-bush
Spicebush (sweet shrub)
Pacific rhododendron
Western redbud
Non-native Trees
Magnolias
Maples
Oaks (most non-native
deciduous oaks)
Fruit & nut trees (almost
all)
Sycamores
Alders
Ashes
Palms (no dead leaves)
Birches
Buckeyes
Elms and Zelkovas
Beeches
Willows
Privets
Plums
A variety of broadleaf
trees with above
Characteristics.
22
APPENDIX II
Implementation of the Portola Valley
Fuel Hazard Assessment Study
(10/02/08)
Residents are encouraged to outline an approach they are going to take to reduce the fire hazard posed by vegetation on their properties. As a first step they should locate their properties on the Fuel Hazard Map to determine the “Vegetation Fuels” on their property. They should review the “Maintenance” recommendations for the types of vegetation on their property. If questions arise with respect to the recommendations, they should seek advice from the Fire Marshall’s office of the Woodside Fire Protection District.
In addition, attention should be given to establishing Shaded Fuel Breaks and Fuel Reduction Zones on each property. A shaded fuel break is a strip of vegetation where the vertical fuel continuity (fire ladder) has been disrupted and the plants maintained so as to resist fire spread, high fire intensity and ignition of a house. In the first 10 feet from buildings vegetation should be irrigated regularly or monthly depending on the plant requirements. The information that follows is intended to provide guidance with respect to these topics. (For a more information, the reader is referred to the state publication “General Guidelines to Implement Performance Based Defensible Space Regulation under Public Resources Code Section 4291.”)
Defensible Space is the area within the perimeter of a parcel where basic wildfire protection practices are implemented. The focus of these guidelines is on fuel modification measures, meaning where vegetation is managed and maintained so that it reduces the spread and intensity of encroaching wildfires. Vegetation surrounding homes is fuel for a fire. Experience has shown that fuel reduction around a structure increases the probability of a structure surviving a wildfire. Good defensible space allows firefighters to protect and save homes safely without unacceptable risk to their lives. Fuel reduction through vegetation management is the key fundamental to creating defensible space. Defensible Space comprises a Shaded Fuel Break next to structures and a Fuel Reduction Zone beyond.
A Shaded Fuel Break should be established within 30 feet of each building or structure by removing and clearing away all fire prone vegetation, with certain exceptions.
Exceptions include: single specimens of trees or other vegetation that is well-pruned and maintained so as to effectively manage fuels and not form a means of rapidly transmitting fire from other nearby vegetation to any building or structure.
A Fuel Reduction Zone should be established from 30 to 100 feet away from a building or to the property line, whichever is less, and limited to your land. Adjacent property owners are not required to clear beyond 100 feet from their structure, but are encouraged to do so to create appropriate defensible space on a community-wide basis.
Within the Fuel Reduction Zone, the following are recommended:
Dead and dying woody surface fuels and aerial fuels should be removed. Loose surface litter, normally consisting of fallen leaves or needles, twigs, bark, cones, and small branches, should be permitted to a height no greater than 3 inches. This guideline is primarily intended to eliminate trees, bushes, shrubs and surface debris 23
that are completely dead or with substantial amounts of dead branches or leaves/needles that would readily burn.
Downed logs or stumps, when embedded in the soil, may be retained when isolated from other vegetation.
Fuel reduction does not mean cutting down all trees and shrubs, or creating a bare ring of earth across the property. It does mean arranging the trees, shrubs and other fuel sources in a way that makes it difficult for fire to transfer from one fuel source to another.
General Notes:
Properties with greater fire hazards will require more clearing. Clearing requirements will be greater for those lands with steeper terrain, larger and denser fuels, fuels that are highly volatile.
Fuel reduction activities that remove trees may require permits from the Town.
Care should be taken with the use of equipment when creating a defensible space zone. Internal combustion engines must have spark arresters and metal cutting blades should be used with caution to prevent starting fires during periods of high fire danger. A metal blade striking a rock can create a spark and start a fire. This is a common cause of fires during summertime.
Vegetation removal can cause soil disturbance, soil erosion, regrowth of new vegetation, and introduction of non-native invasive plants. Keep soil disturbance to a minimum, especially on steep slopes. Erosion control techniques such as minimizing use of heavy equipment, avoiding stream or gully crossings, use of mobile equipment during dry conditions, and covering exposed disturbed soil areas will help reduce soil erosion and plant regrowth.
In the Fuel Reduction Zone, one of the following fuel treatments should be implemented. Combinations of the methods may be acceptable as long as the intent of the guidelines is met.
Separation Between Fuels
Surrounding each structure, minimum clearance between fuels will range from 4 feet to 10 feet in all directions. Clearance should be in both the horizontal and vertical directions. The clearance distance between vegetation will depend on the slope, vegetation size, vegetation type (brush, grass, trees), and other fuel characteristics (fuel compaction, chemical content, etc.). Properties with greater fire hazards will require greater clearing between fuels.
If your property is on steeper slopes or has larger sized vegetation, this justifies greater spacing between individual trees and bushes (see Plant Spacing Guidelines and Case Examples below).
Grass generally should not exceed 4 inches in height. However, grass and other herbs, may be maintained less than 18 inches in height above the ground when isolated from other fuels or where necessary to stabilize the soil and prevent erosion. 24
Clearance requirements
Horizontal clearance should be maintained between aerial fuels, such as the outside edge of the tree crowns or high brush. Horizontal clearance helps stop the spread of fire from one fuel to the next.
Vertical clearance should be maintained between lower limbs of aerial fuels, and the nearest surface fuels and grass/weeds. Vertical clearance removes “ladder fuels” and helps prevent a fire from moving from the smaller fuels to the taller fuels.
Plant Spacing Guidelines
Guidelines are designed to break the continuity of fuels and can be used as a “rule of thumb.”
Minimum Horizontal Space from the edge of one tree canopy to the edge of the next on slopes greater than 20% should be 10 feet.
Minimum horizontal space between edges of shrubs on slopes greater than 20% should be twice the height of the shrub.
Minimum Vertical Spacing between top of shrub and bottom of lower tree branches should be three times the height of the shrub.
Defensible Space with Continuous Tree Canopy
A vegetation removal option is available for those wanting to retain a continuous stand of larger trees with no space between tree canopies while creating defensible space. For this guideline, within the Reduced Fuel Zone, spacing between aerial fuels is not required, such as in a stand of larger trees. In this situation, remove all surface fuels greater than 4 inches in height; remove lower limbs (3” or smaller) of trees (“prune”) to at least 8 feet above ground or up to 1/3 height for small trees). Properties with greater fire hazards, such as steeper slopes or more severe fire danger, will require pruning heights in the upper end of this range. Where there is shrub undergrowth, apply Plant Spacing Guidelines. A minimum clearance of 8 feet should be maintained where there is grass or other ground cover.
25
FPUF (h)
FPUF (h)
MG (l)
GR (m)
FPO (h+)
FPO (h+)
CS (h)
RF (h)
FPO (h+)
FPO (h+)
MG (l)
FPUF (h+)
FPUF (h)
FPUF (h)
MEF (h+)
GR (m)
FPUF (h)
MG (l)
FPUF (h)
RF (h)
MG (l)
VIN (l)
VIN (l)
MEF (h+)
FPUF (h)
VIN (l) CH (h+)
CH (h+)
GR (m) US (m)
CH (h+)
GR (m)
MG (l)
FPUF (h+)
FPO (h+)
MG (l)
MG (l)
MG (l)
MG (l)
MG (l)
CS (h)
FPUF (h)
VIN (l)
MEF (h+)
MEF (h+)
CS (h)
CH (h+)
FPO (h+)
FPUF (h)
FPO (h+)
FPO (h+)
FPO (h+)
FPUF (h+)
CH (h+)
MG (l)
FPO (h+)
FPO (h+)
MG (l)
Basemap: Town of Portola Valley
Vegetation Data Source: Moritz Arboricultural Consulting Map: TRA Environmental Sciences, Inc.
October 2008
CH (h+) CHAPARRAL (highest)
CS (h) COASTAL SCRUB (high)
FPO (h+) FIRE-PRONE OAK WOODLAND (highest)
FPUF (h) FIRE-PRONE URBAN FOREST (high)
FPUF (h+) FIRE-PRONE URBAN FOREST (highest)
GR (m) GRASSLAND (moderate)
MEF (h+) MIXED EVERGREEN FOREST (highest)
MG (l) MOWED GRASS (low)
RF (h) REDWOOD FOREST (high)
US (m) URBAN SAVANNAH (moderate)
VIN (l) VINEYARD (low)
0 1,200 2,400
Feet
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 11/10/20
Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date adjust to date plotted PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19 PLANNING REV. 2 7/14/20 EX-1 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES EXHIBIT 1"=40'
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 11/10/20
Alpine Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
APN#: 077281020 No. Description Date adjust to date plotted PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19 PLANNING REV. 2 7/14/20 EX-2 IMPERVIOUS SURFACES EXHIBIT 1"=40'
Project Number: 217062
Project Name: Portola Valley Housing
Date: 9/3/2024
Lot Number Lot Area (sqft)
Building Foundation
(sqft)
Roof Overhang
Exceeding 6' (sqft)
Hardscaped Areas
(sqft)
Crushed Rock
(sqft)
Retaining Wall
(sqft) Driveway (sqft) Pavement (sqft)
Total Impervious
Area (sqft)
1 1,169 4,092 84 133 105 - 686 - 2,176
2 1,168 4,407 83 133 105 - 689 - 2,178
3 1,319 4,349 141 133 70 - 349 - 2,012
4 1,169 4,274 84 133 44 38 439 - 1,907
5 1,246 3,372 79 132 98 36 394 - 1,985
6 1,227 3,580 79 131 98 39 452 - 2,027
7 1,318 3,922 144 135 70 32 274 - 1,973
8 1,169 3,679 83 136 105 - 274 - 1,767
9 1,238 3,035 79 132 101 - 282 - 1,831
10 1,236 2,981 79 129 95 36 306 - 1,881
11 1,168 3,756 84 134 107 70 364 - 1,927
12 1,168 4,777 83 135 105 32 275 - 1,799
13 1,320 4,569 141 132 70 - 410 - 2,074
14 1,310 5,122 141 132 70 42 585 - 2,280
15 1,168 5,217 207 135 102 82 503 - 2,197
16 1,167 4,044 83 134 106 77 330 - 1,898
17 1,168 4,014 84 133 105 74 362 - 1,927
18 1,320 4,020 141 136 69 78 252 - 1,998
19 1,167 4,024 83 135 104 81 288 - 1,858
20 1,168 4,029 83 135 105 78 314 - 1,884
21 1,311 4,197 141 135 70 38 268 - 1,964
22 1,247 4,237 79 132 98 - 541 - 2,097
23 1,228 4,859 79 133 97 40 497 - 2,074
24 1,167 4,464 83 134 105 95 407 - 1,992
25 1,310 4,496 141 134 70 56 419 - 2,130
26 1,168 3,840 83 133 106 - 309 - 1,799
27 1,311 4,168 141 133 71 - 323 - 1,979
A 2,093 7,386 - 338 157 - 1,769 - 4,356
B 2,093 6,938 - 345 233 - 1,765 - 4,435
C 2,093 8,188 - 406 232 101 2,295 - 5,126
Y - 338,955 - 1,338 - 1,493 - 25,703 28,533 *
Z - 2,803,737 - - - - - 35,168 35,168
TOTAL 39,406 3,276,728 2,813 6,028 3,074 2,617 16,422 60,871 131,230 TOTAL PERCENT PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS (TOTAL IMPERVIOUS AREA / TOTAL LOT AREA) = 4.00% Impervious Surfaces (Areas)
*Playground fibar/engineered wood fiber surface is assumed to be a pervious surface.
UP
DN
K/L/D
PWDRSTOR.
MECH
C.
ENTRY/
DROP
GARAGE
2' - 0" 26' - 0" 3' - 0"
31' - 0"
12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 8' - 0" 12' - 7"
48' - 10"
2' - 0"
12' - 1 1/2"
13' - 10 1/2"3' - 0"
19' - 8 1/2" 8' - 1" 21' - 0"
BEDRM 2
STUDY
BATH
CLO
BATH
BEDRM 1
MASTER
BDRM
CLO
LAUNDRY
HALL
L.
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
28' - 0"
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
7' - 1" 14' - 6" 15' - 5 1/2" 12' - 9 1/2"
49' - 10"
19' - 2 1/2" 9' - 1" 14' - 5 1/2" 7' - 1"
0 8 16 32 ft.
AREA CALCULATION NOTES:
• SEE TABLE 1A - ADJUSTED MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA FOR AREA ADJUSTMENT
• AREAS INCLUDED IN FLOOR AREA
(SHOWN HATCHED): EXTERIOR WALLS,
GARAGES, UNCONDITIONED UTILITY
AREAS, AND CONDITIONED INTERIOR
SPACES
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
3 BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 1
1/16" = 1'-0" 2
3 BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 2
LEVEL 1: 1,168 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,068 SF
TOTAL: 2,236 SF
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - PORTOLA TERRACE
DATE: 10/19/2020
AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAM - 3 BEDROOM
UP
DN
ENTRY/
DROP
K/L/D
STUDY
BATH
STOR
MECH C.
GARAGE
2' - 0"12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2"
26' - 0"
3' - 10 1/2" 12' - 8" 12' - 11" 14' - 11" 11' - 9"
56' - 1"
38' - 7 1/2" 8' - 1" 9' - 4 1/2"
2' - 0"12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2"3' - 0"
120 SF
BEDRM 1
120 SF
BEDRM 2
208 SF
MASTER
BEDRM
31 SF
BATH
91 SF
BATH
66 SF
HALL
44' - 4"
61 SF
STUDY
ALCOVE
32 SF
LAUN
3' - 10 1/2" 12' - 8" 12' - 11" 14' - 11"
44' - 4"
2' - 0"12' - 1 1/2" 13' - 10 1/2"
26' - 0"
2' - 0" 26' - 0"
LEVEL 1: 1,319 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,029 SF
TOTAL: 2,348 SF
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
4 BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 1
1/16" = 1'-0" 2
4 BEDROOM HOUSE LEVEL 2
0 8 16 32 ft.
AREA CALCULATION NOTES:
• SEE TABLE 1A - ADJUSTED MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA FOR AREA ADJUSTMENT
• AREAS INCLUDED IN FLOOR AREA
(SHOWN HATCHED): EXTERIOR WALLS,
GARAGES, UNCONDITIONED UTILITY
AREAS, AND CONDITIONED INTERIOR
SPACES
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - PORTOLA TERRACE
DATE: 10/19/2020
AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAM - 4 BEDROOM
UP
UP
DN
DN
C.
538 SF
K/L/D
PWDR
PWDR
MECH
MECH
C.
STOR
STOR
ENTRY/
DROP
ENTRY/
DROP
GARAGE
GARAGE
K/L/D
12' - 9 1/2" 29' - 5 1/2" 6' - 7"
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"
4' - 0" 26' - 0 1/2" 25' - 11 1/2" 4' - 0"
60' - 0"
BEDRM 1 BEDRM 2
STUDY
LAUN
MASTER
BEDRM
HALL
BATH
BATH
CLO
CLO
L.
BEDRM 2 BEDRM 1
STUDY
LAUN
MASTER
BEDRM
HALL
BATH
BATH
CLO
CLO
L.
4' - 0" 26' - 0 1/2" 25' - 11 1/2" 4' - 0"
12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 14' - 6"
4' - 0" 12' - 9 1/2" 15' - 5 1/2" 14' - 6"
46' - 9"
60' - 0"
4' - 0" 26' - 0" 26' - 0" 4' - 0"
LEVEL 1 (EA. UNIT): 1,236 SF
LEVEL 2 (EA. UNIT): 1,100 SF
TOTAL: 2,336 SF PER UNIT
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
DUET LEVEL 1
1/16" = 1'-0" 2
DUET LEVEL 2
0 8 16 32 ft.
AREA CALCULATION NOTES:
• SEE TABLE 1A - ADJUSTED MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA FOR
AREA ADJUSTMENT
• AREAS INCLUDED IN FLOOR AREA (SHOWN HATCHED):
EXTERIOR WALLS, GARAGES, UNCONDITIONED UTILITY
AREAS, AND CONDITIONED INTERIOR SPACES
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - PORTOLA TERRACE
DATE: 10/19/2020
AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAM - DUET
GARAGE GARAGE
MECH
LAUN
CLO K/L
E.
STORAGE STORAGE BATH BATH
CLO
LAUN
E.
K/L
39' - 3" 5' - 0" 12' - 11 1/2" 14' - 6" 1' - 0"
72' - 8"
4' - 0"
13' - 6" 14' - 6"
19' - 7 1/2" 19' - 7" 5' - 0" 14' - 2 1/2" 14' - 2 1/2" 28' - 0"
K/L/D
BATH MASTER
BDRM
BDRM 1
K/L/D
BATH MASTER
C. C. BDRM
C.
LAUN
HALL
C.
DECK DECK
C.
LAUN
6' - 0 1/2" 39' - 3" 5' - 0" 21' - 0 1/2" 7' - 5"
78' - 8 1/2"
15' - 4" 12' - 8"
14' - 8 1/2" 13' - 3 1/2"
28' - 0"
39' - 3" 5' - 0" 28' - 5 1/2"
1/16" = 1'-0" 1
BMR BUILDING 1
1/16" = 1'-0" 2
BMR BUILDING 2
0 8 16 32 ft.
AREA CALCULATION NOTES:
• SEE TABLE 1A - ADJUSTED MAXIMUM
FLOOR AREA FOR AREA ADJUSTMENT
• AREAS INCLUDED IN FLOOR AREA
(SHOWN HATCHED): EXTERIOR WALLS,
GARAGES, UNCONDITIONED UTILITY
AREAS, AND CONDITIONED INTERIOR
SPACES
AREA CALCULATION DIAGRAM - BMR BUILDING
STANFORD UNIVERSITY - PORTOLA TERRACE
DATE: 10/19/2020
AREA BY LEVEL:
LEVEL 1: 2,093 SF
LEVEL 2: 1,848 SF
TOTAL: 3,941 SF
AREA BY UNIT:
STUDIO UNITS: 549 SF
1 BEDROOM UNIT: 703 SF
2 BEDROOM UNIT: 1,098 SF
GARAGES AND COMMON AREAS: 1,042 SF
TOTAL: 3,941 SF
L U T S K O A S S O C I A T E S L A N D S C A P E
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- LUTSKO ASSOCIATES I 3295 Mission St, San Francisco, CA 94110 I 415.920.2800 1 of 1 MEMO September 12th, 2024
Re: Planned Unit Development, Stanford Wedge, 3532 Alpine Road, File # PLN_ARCH0021-2019
This memo has been prepared in response to a list of 'outstanding items' in a letter from the Town of Portola Valley addressed to Stanford University and dated August 12, 2024 with revisions on August 23, 2024. The subject line was "Planned Unit Development, Stanford Wedge, 3532 Alpine Road, File #PLN_ARCH0021-2019. Herein we address several items related to landscape architecture.
10. Scenic Corridor:
LAL response: All proposed plant material in the scenic corridor is consistent with town design standards, including those for the Alpine Road scenic corridor.
14. Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance:
LAL response: See sheet L4.8 and associated submitted WELO forms. Sheet L4.8 tables show Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) is 734,486 gallons per year and Estimated Water Use (EWU) is 609,232 gallons per year which meets the WELO ordinance.
15. Sheet L3.1 – Demonstrate adequate sight visibility at the driveways:
LAL response: See sheet L3.2, blow-up plans 2 and 3. All proposed planting meets site visibility guidelines.
16. Site Lighting:
LAL response: All landscape lighting is shielded, downlit, and meets dark sky guidelines.
Sincerely,
Ron Lutsko Jr., Principal
Lutsko Associates, landscape, Inc.
California License #2400
����
������ ���� ���������
F1292
To verify product certification,
visit www.ipema.org
www.ipema.org
The Fibar System is protected by U.S. Patents
4679963, 5026207, 5076726 and patents pending. Diagrammatic representation not to scale.
The FIBAR System is protected by U.S. Patents
4679963, 5026207, 5076726 and patents pending. Diagrammatic representation not to scale.
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA ● 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com MEMO
Date: June 11, 2020
To: Kathleen Kavanaugh, Stanford
John Donahoe, Stanford
From: John Leffingwell, HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Subject: Tree Disposition Evaluation, Portola Valley
I have completed my review of the trees within the revised project area. We revisited the site on May 26, 2020 to capture additional trees, review pruning options, and evaluate line of sight and trail alignment issues, in response to City comments. There were 431 live trees on the site, less than half of which are within the planned project area.
To evaluate proposed project impacts to trees I referred to the Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plans (Sandis, 6/1/20). I did find a few discrepancies in tree tag numbers on the Demolition Plan.
In a few instances the tree number on the plan did not correlate to the tag number on the tree. In addition, during our 2017 inventory we included 26 trees that had not be tagged previously (our tag #1-26). Those trees were not plotted on the plans (most are outside the planned project area).
In addition, tree #5578 had failed between the time of the 2019 assessment and our 2020 assessment. This tree has ben removed from the data and plans.
I did not itemize impacts from landscape and irrigation installation. I would like to note, however, that the Irrigation and Planting Plans (9/6/19) will require trenching through tree roots and planting under oak tree driplines in many locations. I recommend re-routing those lines outside the tree protection zones.
Table 1 itemizes trees identified as “Significant” by the Town of Portola Valley that I judge will be removed or possibly preserved; Table 2 lists non-Significant trees (see attachments). Trees in the ‘possibly preserved’ category are either so close to site work that more precise grading and location information is needed, or those for which I judge the impacts to be too severe but could possibly be preserved with site design adjustments. A summary is provided below.
Summary of Significant and Non-Significant Trees to be
Removed and Possibly Preserved. Portola Valley.
Significant trees Condition
(rating)
Remove Possibly
Preserve
Dead (0) 2 0
Poor (1-2) 31 0
Fair (3) 60 6
Good (4) 30 2
Total 123 8
Non-Significant
trees
Dead (0) 2 0
Poor (1-2) 21 0
Fair (3) 25 0
Good (4) 6 0
Total 54 0
Tree Disposition Memo – Portola Valley HortScience | Bartlett Consulting June 11, 2020 Page 2
The Town of Portola Valley asked for additional information regarding the trees in the right-of-way along Alpine Road. The above data reflects trees within the right-of-way and within 30’ of the property line along Alpine Rd. that are adjacent to the project area. No trees within the right-ofway or within 30’ of the property line south of the project area or north to Westridge Rd. were included in the assessment.
Additionally, until there is information on the proposed grading and alignment for any trail improvements, we cannot determine impacts to trees, nor those requiring pruning for vertical clearance over the trail.
Please contact me with questions regarding our observations and recommendations.
Sincerely,
John Leffingwell
Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 3966B
Registered Consulting Arborist #442
Attached: Table 1: Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Table 2: Non-significant Trees to be Removed
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA ● 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4850 Coast live oak 11,11,9 3 Possibly
preserve
Top of cut slope 7'
from trunk. To
preserve maintain
natural grade within
18' of tree.
Multiple attachments at base and 1'; 11"
and 9" stems beginning to separate from
base; full crown; chlorotic; cable?
5562 Coast live oak 8,5 3 Possibly
preserve
Water storage tank. Codominant at 1'; slightly thin.
5572 Valley oak 46 3 Possibly
preserve
Grading for lot 21.
Maintain natural
grade wtihin 15' of
Good form and structure; twig and branch
dieback; epicormic growth.
5738 Coast live oak 12 3 Possibly
preserve
5' NE. of BMR3 ret.
wall
Suppressed form to south; full crown.
5763 Blue oak 13 3 Possibly
preserve
Grading through
trunk; to preserve,
maintain natural
grade within dripline
Suppressed under crown of #5764; dense
crown; board attached at 3' growing into
tree.
5764 Valley oak 26 4 Possibly
preserve
Grading through
trunk; to preserve,
maintain natural
grade within dripline
Asymmetric to E.; base growing into brick
patio; full crown; board attached at 3'.
5767 Valley oak 36 4 Possibly
preserve
Grading for common
area, retaining walls
within dripline; to
preserve maintain
natural grade within
20' of trunk.
Multiple attachments at 7'; full crown; long
scaffold to S. extends 45' to dripline.
5895 Coast live oak 26 3 Possibly
preserve
12' SW. of lot 11
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 5' with included bark; full,
dense crown; cavity on large codominant
stem on east; canopy extends 25' to E.
3 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
History of branch failures; full crown;
many large wounds with decay where
branches failed; codominant trunk
removed years ago.
19 Coast live oak 6,6 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near tree #5000; codominant at base with
included bark; engulfed in poison oak; thin
crown.
20 Coast live oak 15,8 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Near tree #4857; codominant at 3'; full
crown.
21 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Near tree #4857; suppressed to west;
twig and branch dieback.
26 Pacific
madrone
7, 7 1 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Extensive dieback; codominant trunks
arise at 1'.
4853 Blue oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Good form and structure; full crown; slightly thin.
4854 Blue oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 1 One-sided to south; suppressed by #4853; minor twig dieback.
4855 Blue oak 12 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Good, narrow upright form; minor twig dieback.
4856 Blue oak 8,5 3 Remove Construction of lot 1 Branch dieback; flat, suppressed form.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4857 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Codominant at 6'; thin crown.
4859 Coast live oak 11,7 2 Remove Construction for lot 3 drive
Codominant at 2'; boring holes on both
stems; dead bark; trunks fused together
at 6'.
4861 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall, poor
condition.
Stem to east is dead with extensive
decay; twig dieback in live stem.
4863 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall.
Codominant at 9'; good form; slightly thin.
4864 Coast live oak 11,7,6 2 Remove Construction for lot 2 ret. wall, poor
condition.
Multiple attachments at base; very thin
crown; bows north; suppressed by #4863.
4866 Valley oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Codominant at 6'; one codominant stem bows to south.
4867 Valley oak 13 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Base outside dripline to west; full crown. 4868 Valley oak 14 3 Remove 6' S. of lot 2 ret. wall. High crown; straight trunk; poison oak. 4869 Valley oak 14 3 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 5'; suppressed to south. 4870 Valley oak 14 4 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 12'; tall, narrow form. 4872 Valley oak 8,6 3 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 1'; minor dieback. 4873 Coast live oak 23 4 Remove Construction for lot
4/5
Full, dense crown; minor decay in pruning
wound on east.
4874 Valley oak 18 4 Remove Construction for lot 5 Good upright form; minor dieback. 4875 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Construction for lot 5 Codominant high in crown; twig dieback. 4876 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction for lot 5, poor condition
All but dead; only small sprouts alive.
4877 Coast live oak 22,18 4 Remove Construction for lot 6 18" stem extend to east separating from tree; 22" is nice and upright.
4878 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 6 Crown bows to south; full, dense crown. 4879 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 6 Heavy lean to south; full crown. 4880 Coast live oak 12 2 Remove Construction for lot 6, poor condition
Decay cavity at base; suppressed; leans
west.
4881 Blue oak 18 2 Remove Construction for lot 7,
poor condition
Extensive trunk decay; thin crown.
4882 Blue oak 18,16 3 Remove Construction for lot 8 Multiple attachments at 4'; twig dieback. 4883 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction for lot 8 Multiple attachments at 12'; narrow form; good vigor.
4884 Blue oak 18 2 Remove Lot 8 ret. wall/SD,
poor condtion; within
swale
No basal flare; multiple attachments at 5';
thin crown with twig dieback.
4886 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Lot 7 SD/ret. wall,
poor condtion; within
swale
Excellent form and structure; trunk wound
on south from failed stem; full crown.
4887 Coast live oak 28 4 Remove Construction for lot 5 Good form and structure; full wide spreading crown.
4892 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove 6' SW. of lot 5
SD/ret. wall; poor
Little live foliage; narrow form.
4893 Blue oak 18 4 Remove Lot 5 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 6'; one-sided to E.; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 2 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4894 Coast live oak 19 3 Remove Lot 5 SD/ret. wall One-sided to E., 6' above ground, extending 30'.
4895 Coast live oak 21,18 4 Remove 5' SW. of lot 8
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at base; 21" stem is upright
with codominant attachment at 10'; 18"
stem leans to south; decay on W. at base
of 21" stem where another stem removed
years ago.
4897 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Lot 9 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 8'; included bark; full 4899 Blue oak 6 2 Remove Poor condition Extensive dieback in upper crown. 4953 Coast live oak 20 3 Remove 8' E. of lot 1 SD/ret.
wall
Codominant stem removed; decay in cut;
live stem has long wound with decay; low
lateral limb east.
4954 Coast live oak 11,8 2 Remove Lot 1 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Extensive trunk decay; crown created by
multiple sprouts at 5'.
4955 Blue oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 1. Excellent form and structure; slightly thin and one-sided to west.
4988 Coast live oak 20 2 Remove Poor structural
condition.
Extensive trunk wound with decay; full
crown.
5523 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove Impedes line of sight Dense crown; growing on steep slope at edge of road; .
5524 Blue oak 8,6 3 Remove Within grading for
south entrance
Codominant at base with included bark;
sparse crown; under utility lines.
5526 Coast live oak 45 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Branches on ground on E; large branch removal to create clearance; pruned to
keep crown below utilities; no foliage in
center of crown; inadequate clearance for
trail.
5530 Blue oak 6 1 Remove Poor condition; along
trail.
All but dead.
5531 Coast live oak 20 3 Remove Within grading for
north entrance
Leaning N.; thin crown.
5533 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Trunk parallel to ground, 3-4' above ground, extending 33' south; no tag.
5534 Valley oak 14 1 Remove Poor structural
condition; along
Alpine Rd.
Topped for utility line clearance; crown
bows southwest; large, recent wound on
E side of trunk; likely to fail.
5535 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Impedes line of sight Excellent form and structure; grows on top of bank at edge of road; beautiful full
crown; engulfed in poison oak.
5536 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Topped for utility line clearance; codominant at 4'.
5538 Coast live oak 16 2 Remove Impedes line of sight,
poor condition
Poor form and structure; dead top;
codominant at 5'.
5539 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Tree bows west; full crown. 5540 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Codominant at 6' with wide attachment; topped for utility clearance.
5541 Coast live oak 15 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Tree bows west; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 3 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5548 Valley oak 24 3 Remove Rd./lot 21 grading Multiple branch attachments arise at 7'; twig dieback; one upright stem dead;
epicormic growth.
5549 Coast live oak 23 3 Remove Construction of lot 21 Good form and structure; twig and branch dieback; small cavity at base.
5552 Coast live oak 20,15,15,8 3 Remove 5' SE. of Bioretention Multiple attachments at 1'; all stems leaning away from center of tree and
separating; twig dieback; low canopy 4'
above ground extending 19' from trunk.
5560 Coast live oak 28 4 Remove Lot 23 house 10'
from tree; grade
raised; retaining wall
16' from tree; SS and
JT in street 20' E.;
grading under tree.
Good form; multiple attachments at 7'; full
crown; large scaffold to east.
5563 Coast live oak 10,8 4 Remove Within biotreatment. Codominant at base; dense, low crown. 5564 Coast live oak 30 2 Remove Grading for lot 21;
poor condition
W. half of tree failed; trunk leans south;
thinning crown; dripline extends 45' to S.
5576 Coast live oak 18,16 3 Remove Construction of lot 21 Codominant at 3'; heavily suppressed to southwest.
5577 California bay 14, 10 3 Remove Lot 21 ret. wall Codominant at 2'; 10" stem with sweep to S; good vigor.
5579 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Codominant at 8'; high crown; intermediate form; twig and branch
5583 Coast live oak 18,12 2 Remove Poor condition Codominant at 1'; thin crown; minor dieback; largest trunk leans to S,
extending 37'; extensive borer attack;
5702 Valley oak 27,14 4 Remove Constuction of BMR Asymmetric to S, 6' above ground; remove 14" branch to provide clearance;
slightly thin.
5724 Coast live oak 12,14 3 Remove BMR1 ret. wall Codominant at base; minor twig dieback; asymmetric to E; in corral; borers.
5740 Blue oak 9 3 Remove Impacted by lot 24
ret. Wall
Upright form; thin crown.
5743 Coast live oak 12 2 Remove Poor condition Thin; extensive borer damage on lower trunk; trunk wound with decay.
5756 Valley oak 15,14 4 Remove Road, lot 5 Codominant at 2'; slightly thin; wire embedded in 14" stem.
5757 Coast live oak 22 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Multiple attachments at 6'; full wide spreading crown; wire embedded in trunk.
5758 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Road, lot 1 Trunks twist around each other; branch dieback; sparse crown.
5759 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove Road, lot 1 Sparse crown; extensive decay. 5761 Coast live oak 28 3 Remove Construction of lot 9 Codominant at 6' with wide attachment; full, dense crown.
5762 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 11 Good form and structure; minor decay in old pruning wound; full, dense crown.
5765 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove In drivway, BMR 2 Codominant 3' with included bark; good form and structure; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5766 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of BMR
1 Base 1' from shed; trunk leans south.
5770 Coast live oak 14,14 3 Remove Grading for lot 24 Codominant at 3' with wide attachment; top bows east.
5771 Coast live oak 21 3 Remove Grading for lot 24/25 Trunk has heavy lean to east; multiple attachments at 8'; full crown.
5772 Valley oak 28 4 Remove Grading for lot 25 Full crown; good form and structure. 5774 Coast live oak 16 1 Remove Grading, poor
condition
Stump with only small live sprout.
5775 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 High crown bows west. 5776 Coast live oak 17,14 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 Leaning NW; codominant trunks arise at 5777 Coast live oak 22 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Multiple attachments at 10'; twig dieback. 5778 Coast live oak 13 2 Remove Construction of lot 20 Small crown; neighbors tree failed into it; dieback in upper crown.
5779 California bay 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Partial failure; dieback on west stem. 5781 Valley oak 10,10 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Codominant at 3'; extensive dieback and
epicormic growth.
5782 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Extremely thin crown; in rapid decline.
5783 Coast live oak 16 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Crown bows horizontal to east; top half of
crown failed.
5785 Valley oak 16 2 Remove Road, lot 18 Large basal wound on E with decay; multiple branch attachments arise at 6';
asymmetric to W.
5786 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Sinuous form; high, narrow form; twig dieback.
5788 Coast live oak 18 1 Remove Poor condition; could
fail onto lots 20
In decline; extensive twig and branch
dieback; decay fruiting bodies.
5791 Coast live oak 21 2 Remove Poor condition Poor color; thin crown; twig dieback; strongly asymmetric to S; buried in
5792 Coast live oak 25,18 3 Remove 12' N. of Lot 18
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 2'; 18" stem is low to
south, extending 37' to dripline; thin
crown; twig dieback.
5795 Valley oak 14,14 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Codominant at 1' with wide attachment;
extensive twig dieback; epicormic growth.
5799 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 Codominant at 4'; minor dieback. 5910 Valley oak 16 0 Remove Dead Dead.
5920 Valley oak 19 0 Remove Dead Dead snag.
5922 Valley oak 22 4 Remove Impacted by lot 13
SD/ret. wall
Asymmetric to south; high, dense crown;
codominant at 9'.
5925 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove Construction of lots
13/14
Good form and structure; good young
tree.
5926 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 5929 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Sinuous trunk; small, high crown; intermediate form; codominant at 7' with
included bark.
5931 Coast live oak 15,14,13 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Codominant at base and 3' with included bark; full, dense crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 5 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5933 Coast live oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 13 Asymmetric to E; codominant stems arise at 6'; full, dense crown.
5942 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Lot 14 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 5' with included bark; full, dense crown.
5958 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Lot 14 SD/ret. wall Good form and structure. 5976 Valley oak 19 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Good form and structure; twig and branch dieback.
5980 Coast live oak 32 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Multiple stems arise at 6'; basal wound from failed stem; history of branch
failures; good vigor; buckeye #5977
growing from base.
5983 Coast live oak 20 1 Remove Construction of lot 14 Extensive decay from multiple failed stems; not much of a tree.
5984 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 High crown; intermediate form. 5985 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Leaning SW; intermediate form; high crown.
5987 Coast live oak 21 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 High crown; sinuous trunk. 5988 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Strongly asymmetric; bowed to S; full crown.
5989 Coast live oak 7,4 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Heavily suppressed to east; 7" stem stubbed.
5990 Coast live oak 18,18 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Codominant at base with included bark; history of branch failure.
5991 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Base outside dripline; small crown. 5994 Coast live oak 12,10 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Codominant at 2'; branch dieback in low crown.
5995 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Corrected form; full, dense crown. 5997 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Lot 15 ret. wall Strongly asymmetric; base outside dripline to east; Good vigor.
5999 Coast live oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Codominant stems arise at 7-8'; slightly thin; canopy intertwined with neighboring
trees.
6000 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Basal wound; good vigor; good form.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 6 of 7
Table 2: Disposition of Non-Significant Trees to be Removed Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
11 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5914; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback.
12 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5914; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback; poor
form.
13 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5948; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback; poor
form.
4851 Coast live oak 10 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Codominant at 7'; full crown. 4852 Coast live oak 10 2 Remove Construction of lot 1 Extensive basal decay; leans north. 4858 California
buckeye
5,4,2 4 Remove Construction for lot 3 Good young tree.
4862 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall, poor
Failed to south and resting on branch; full
crown.
4865 Valley oak 9 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Okay form; small crown with minor dieback.
4871 California
buckeye
7,5,4,4 4 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 1'; full crown. 4885 Valley oak 10 3 Remove Lot 7 ret. wall/SD, poor
condtion; within swale
Suppressed to north; small, high crown.
4888 Valley oak 9 3 Remove 6' S. of lot 6 SD/ret. Sinuous form; high, thin crown. 4891 Valley oak 9 0 Remove 20' SW. of lot 5 SD/ret.
wall
Dead.
5520 California
buckeye
6,6,4,4,2,2
,2
3 Remove 5' S. of grading for
south entrance
Multiple attachments at base; minor
cavity with decay.
5559 Coast live oak 5,5 0 Remove Dead Dead.
5561 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Within grading for
biotreatment.
Suppressed to south.
5573 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Poor condition;
construction of lot 21
Poor form; sinuous trunk; poor vigor;
poison oak.
5575 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Construction of lot 21 Codominant at 5'; poor vigor. 5580 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Construction of lot 20
5581 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 21 ret. wall Poor form; small crown; codominant at 6'; suppressed.
5582 Coast live oak 5 3 Remove Lot 20 ret. wall Suppressed to north; poor form. 5734 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove 8' NE. of BMR2 ret. One sided to south; sinuous trunk. 5735 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove BMR 2 ret. wall Multiple attachments at 5'; slightly thin crown.
5737 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Poor condition; BMR3
ret. wall
Poor form and structure; trunk wound
with decay.
5739 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Poor condition; BMR3
ret. wall
Extensive trunk decay.
5742 Coast live oak 9 2 Remove Poor condition Poor form and structure; trunk horizontal at 3'.
5773 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 Suppressed form; narrow crown. 5780 Coast live oak 10 2 Remove Construction of lot 19, poor condition
Extremely thin crown; basal wounds.
5784 Blackwood
acacia
9 3 Remove Construction of lot 19
drive
Upright form; codominant high in crown;
poor structure.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 1 of 2
Table 2: Disposition of Non-Significant Trees to be Removed Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5787 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Construction of lot 20 Little live foliage; poor form. 5793 California bay 7,5 3 Remove 8' NE. of Lot 18 SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 1'; with wide attachment;
grows under crown of 5792.
5794 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 18/19 SD/ret. wall Heavily suppressed to south; small crown; bowed to S.
5796 Coast live oak 9 2 Remove Construction of lot 18 Extensive trunk decay; poor form; bowed to SE.
5797 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 Leans S; no basal flare; narrow form. 5798 Coast live oak 9 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 One-sided to east; basal wound on E. 5800 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Construction of lot 17 Extensive trunk wounds; leans west. 5919 California
buckeye
7,6 3 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall 6" stem is dead; little foliage. 5923 California
buckeye
8,5,4 4 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall Minor branch dieback. 5924 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall Sinuous trunk; small crown. 5927 Coast live oak 7 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Lost central leader; suppressed. 5928 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Extensive dieback; poor form; trunk
decay.
5930 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Codominant at 6'; trunk wounds with
borers and decay; bow in trunk.
5932 Coast live oak 7 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Dead top; poor form. 5963 California bay 6 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Good upright form; under canopy of 5964 California
buckeye
5,4,3,3 4 Remove Lot 15 ret. wall Multiple attachments at base; good young tree.
5970 California bay 6 2 Remove Poor condition On property line; crow bows south; poor form.
5971 California bay 10 2 Remove Poor condition Off-site; poor form and structure; bows heavy to south.
5975 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Construction of lot 16 Poor form; suppressed. 5977 California
buckeye
8,6 2 Remove Construction of lot 16 Grows at base of 5980; branches touch ground on east.
5981 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Lots 15/16 ret. wall Poor structure; crook at 10'. 5982 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Poor form and structure; suppressed. 5986 Coast live oak 8 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Asymmetric to S; at edge of canopy. 5992 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Leans heavy to north; small, high crown. 5993 Coast live oak 5 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Narrow form; small crown. 5996 California bay 9 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Sinuous form; dense crown; good vigor.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 2 of 2
MEMO
Date: February 9, 2021
To: Kathleen Kavanaugh, Stanford
John Donahoe, Stanford
From: John Leffingwell, HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Subject: Updated Tree Disposition Evaluation, Portola Valley In response to comment #33 from the City of Portola Valley’s consultant WRA regarding our survey methods, I am providing the following Updated Tree Disposition Evaluation, which includes a brief description of our survey methods.
Tree Assessment Methods
We revisited the site on May 26, 2020 to capture additional trees, review pruning options, and evaluate line of sight and trail alignment issues, in response to City comments. There were 431 live trees on the site, less than half of which are within the planned project area. Descriptions of individual trees are provided in Tables 1 and 2 (see Attachments).
The survey included trees 5” in diameter and greater, located within and adjacent to the proposed project area. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps:
1. Identifying the tree as to species;
2. Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 4.5’ above grade;
3. Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 – 5:
5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species.
4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected.
3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care.
2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated.
4. Rating the suitability for preservation as ”high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age and structural condition of the tree, and its potential to remain an asset to the site for years to come.
High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site.
Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects that can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category.
Low: Tree in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes and generally are unsuited for use areas.
Updated Tree Disposition Memo – Portola Valley HortScience | Bartlett Consulting February 9, 2021 Page 2
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA ● 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com To evaluate proposed project impacts to trees I referred to the Grading, Drainage, and Utility Plans (Sandis, 6/1/20). I did find a few discrepancies in tree tag numbers on the Demolition Plan.
In a few instances the tree number on the plan did not correlate to the tag number on the tree. In addition, during our 2017 inventory we included 26 trees that had not be tagged previously (our tag #1-26). Those trees were not plotted on the plans (most are outside the planned project area).
In addition, tree #5578 had failed between the time of the 2019 assessment and our 2020 assessment. This tree has ben removed from the data and plans.
I did not itemize impacts from landscape and irrigation installation. I would like to note, however, that the Irrigation and Planting Plans (9/6/19) will require trenching through tree roots and planting under oak tree driplines in many locations. I recommend re-routing those lines outside the tree protection zones.
Table 1 itemizes trees identified as “Significant” by the Town of Portola Valley that I judge will be removed or possibly preserved; Table 2 lists non-Significant trees (see attachments). Trees in the ‘possibly preserved’ category are either so close to site work that more precise grading and location information is needed, or those for which I judge the impacts to be too severe but could possibly be preserved with site design adjustments. A summary is provided below.
Summary of Significant and Non-Significant Trees to be
Removed and Possibly Preserved. Portola Valley.
Significant trees Condition
(rating)
Remove Possibly
Preserve
Dead (0) 2 0
Poor (1-2) 31 0
Fair (3) 60 6
Good (4) 30 2
Total 123 8 Non-Significant
trees
Dead (0) 2 0
Poor (1-2) 21 0
Fair (3) 25 0
Good (4) 6 0
Total 54 0
The Town of Portola Valley asked for additional information regarding the trees in the right-of-way along Alpine Road. The above data reflects trees within the right-of-way and within 30’ of the property line along Alpine Rd. that are adjacent to the project area. No trees within the right-ofway or within 30’ of the property line south of the project area or north to Westridge Rd. were included in the assessment.
Additionally, until there is information on the proposed grading and alignment for any trail improvements, we cannot determine impacts to trees, nor those requiring pruning for vertical clearance over the trail.
Updated Tree Disposition Memo – Portola Valley HortScience | Bartlett Consulting February 9, 2021 Page 3
HortScience│Bartlett Consulting ● Divisions of The F.A. Bartlett Tree Expert Company 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA ● 925.484.0211 ● www.hortscience.com Please contact me with questions regarding my observations and recommendations.
Sincerely,
John Leffingwell
Board Certified Master Arborist #WE 3966B
Registered Consulting Arborist #442
Attached: Table 1: Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Table 2: Non-Significant Trees to be Removed
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4850 Coast live oak 11,11,9 3 Possibly
preserve
Top of cut slope 7'
from trunk. To
preserve maintain
natural grade within
18' of tree.
Multiple attachments at base and 1'; 11"
and 9" stems beginning to separate from
base; full crown; chlorotic; cable?
5562 Coast live oak 8,5 3 Possibly
preserve
Water storage tank. Codominant at 1'; slightly thin.
5572 Valley oak 46 3 Possibly
preserve
Grading for lot 21.
Maintain natural
grade wtihin 15' of
Good form and structure; twig and branch
dieback; epicormic growth.
5738 Coast live oak 12 3 Possibly
preserve
5' NE. of BMR3 ret.
wall
Suppressed form to south; full crown.
5763 Blue oak 13 3 Possibly
preserve
Grading through
trunk; to preserve,
maintain natural
grade within dripline
Suppressed under crown of #5764; dense
crown; board attached at 3' growing into
tree.
5764 Valley oak 26 4 Possibly
preserve
Grading through
trunk; to preserve,
maintain natural
grade within dripline
Asymmetric to E.; base growing into brick
patio; full crown; board attached at 3'.
5767 Valley oak 36 4 Possibly
preserve
Grading for common
area, retaining walls
within dripline; to
preserve maintain
natural grade within
20' of trunk.
Multiple attachments at 7'; full crown; long
scaffold to S. extends 45' to dripline.
5895 Coast live oak 26 3 Possibly
preserve
12' SW. of lot 11
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 5' with included bark; full,
dense crown; cavity on large codominant
stem on east; canopy extends 25' to E.
3 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
History of branch failures; full crown;
many large wounds with decay where
branches failed; codominant trunk
removed years ago.
19 Coast live oak 6,6 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near tree #5000; codominant at base with
included bark; engulfed in poison oak; thin
crown.
20 Coast live oak 15,8 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Near tree #4857; codominant at 3'; full
crown.
21 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Near tree #4857; suppressed to west;
twig and branch dieback.
26 Pacific
madrone
7, 7 1 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Extensive dieback; codominant trunks
arise at 1'.
4853 Blue oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Good form and structure; full crown; slightly thin.
4854 Blue oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 1 One-sided to south; suppressed by #4853; minor twig dieback.
4855 Blue oak 12 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Good, narrow upright form; minor twig dieback.
4856 Blue oak 8,5 3 Remove Construction of lot 1 Branch dieback; flat, suppressed form.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 1 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4857 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot
1/2 drive
Codominant at 6'; thin crown.
4859 Coast live oak 11,7 2 Remove Construction for lot 3 drive
Codominant at 2'; boring holes on both
stems; dead bark; trunks fused together
at 6'.
4861 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall, poor
condition.
Stem to east is dead with extensive
decay; twig dieback in live stem.
4863 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall.
Codominant at 9'; good form; slightly thin.
4864 Coast live oak 11,7,6 2 Remove Construction for lot 2 ret. wall, poor
condition.
Multiple attachments at base; very thin
crown; bows north; suppressed by #4863.
4866 Valley oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Codominant at 6'; one codominant stem bows to south.
4867 Valley oak 13 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Base outside dripline to west; full crown. 4868 Valley oak 14 3 Remove 6' S. of lot 2 ret. wall. High crown; straight trunk; poison oak. 4869 Valley oak 14 3 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 5'; suppressed to south. 4870 Valley oak 14 4 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 12'; tall, narrow form. 4872 Valley oak 8,6 3 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 1'; minor dieback. 4873 Coast live oak 23 4 Remove Construction for lot
4/5
Full, dense crown; minor decay in pruning
wound on east.
4874 Valley oak 18 4 Remove Construction for lot 5 Good upright form; minor dieback. 4875 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Construction for lot 5 Codominant high in crown; twig dieback. 4876 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction for lot 5, poor condition
All but dead; only small sprouts alive.
4877 Coast live oak 22,18 4 Remove Construction for lot 6 18" stem extend to east separating from tree; 22" is nice and upright.
4878 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 6 Crown bows to south; full, dense crown. 4879 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction for lot 6 Heavy lean to south; full crown. 4880 Coast live oak 12 2 Remove Construction for lot 6, poor condition
Decay cavity at base; suppressed; leans
west.
4881 Blue oak 18 2 Remove Construction for lot 7,
poor condition
Extensive trunk decay; thin crown.
4882 Blue oak 18,16 3 Remove Construction for lot 8 Multiple attachments at 4'; twig dieback. 4883 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction for lot 8 Multiple attachments at 12'; narrow form; good vigor.
4884 Blue oak 18 2 Remove Lot 8 ret. wall/SD,
poor condtion; within
swale
No basal flare; multiple attachments at 5';
thin crown with twig dieback.
4886 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Lot 7 SD/ret. wall,
poor condtion; within
swale
Excellent form and structure; trunk wound
on south from failed stem; full crown.
4887 Coast live oak 28 4 Remove Construction for lot 5 Good form and structure; full wide spreading crown.
4892 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove 6' SW. of lot 5
SD/ret. wall; poor
Little live foliage; narrow form.
4893 Blue oak 18 4 Remove Lot 5 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 6'; one-sided to E.; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 2 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
4894 Coast live oak 19 3 Remove Lot 5 SD/ret. wall One-sided to E., 6' above ground, extending 30'.
4895 Coast live oak 21,18 4 Remove 5' SW. of lot 8
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at base; 21" stem is upright
with codominant attachment at 10'; 18"
stem leans to south; decay on W. at base
of 21" stem where another stem removed
years ago.
4897 Coast live oak 24 4 Remove Lot 9 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 8'; included bark; full 4899 Blue oak 6 2 Remove Poor condition Extensive dieback in upper crown. 4953 Coast live oak 20 3 Remove 8' E. of lot 1 SD/ret.
wall
Codominant stem removed; decay in cut;
live stem has long wound with decay; low
lateral limb east.
4954 Coast live oak 11,8 2 Remove Lot 1 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Extensive trunk decay; crown created by
multiple sprouts at 5'.
4955 Blue oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 1. Excellent form and structure; slightly thin and one-sided to west.
4988 Coast live oak 20 2 Remove Poor structural
condition.
Extensive trunk wound with decay; full
crown.
5523 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove Impedes line of sight Dense crown; growing on steep slope at edge of road; .
5524 Blue oak 8,6 3 Remove Within grading for
south entrance
Codominant at base with included bark;
sparse crown; under utility lines.
5526 Coast live oak 45 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Branches on ground on E; large branch removal to create clearance; pruned to
keep crown below utilities; no foliage in
center of crown; inadequate clearance for
trail.
5530 Blue oak 6 1 Remove Poor condition; along
trail.
All but dead.
5531 Coast live oak 20 3 Remove Within grading for
north entrance
Leaning N.; thin crown.
5533 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Trunk parallel to ground, 3-4' above ground, extending 33' south; no tag.
5534 Valley oak 14 1 Remove Poor structural
condition; along
Alpine Rd.
Topped for utility line clearance; crown
bows southwest; large, recent wound on
E side of trunk; likely to fail.
5535 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Impedes line of sight Excellent form and structure; grows on top of bank at edge of road; beautiful full
crown; engulfed in poison oak.
5536 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Topped for utility line clearance; codominant at 4'.
5538 Coast live oak 16 2 Remove Impedes line of sight,
poor condition
Poor form and structure; dead top;
codominant at 5'.
5539 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Tree bows west; full crown. 5540 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Codominant at 6' with wide attachment; topped for utility clearance.
5541 Coast live oak 15 3 Remove Impedes line of sight Tree bows west; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 3 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5548 Valley oak 24 3 Remove Rd./lot 21 grading Multiple branch attachments arise at 7'; twig dieback; one upright stem dead;
epicormic growth.
5549 Coast live oak 23 3 Remove Construction of lot 21 Good form and structure; twig and branch dieback; small cavity at base.
5552 Coast live oak 20,15,15,8 3 Remove 5' SE. of Bioretention Multiple attachments at 1'; all stems leaning away from center of tree and
separating; twig dieback; low canopy 4'
above ground extending 19' from trunk.
5560 Coast live oak 28 4 Remove Lot 23 house 10'
from tree; grade
raised; retaining wall
16' from tree; SS and
JT in street 20' E.;
grading under tree.
Good form; multiple attachments at 7'; full
crown; large scaffold to east.
5563 Coast live oak 10,8 4 Remove Within biotreatment. Codominant at base; dense, low crown. 5564 Coast live oak 30 2 Remove Grading for lot 21;
poor condition
W. half of tree failed; trunk leans south;
thinning crown; dripline extends 45' to S.
5576 Coast live oak 18,16 3 Remove Construction of lot 21 Codominant at 3'; heavily suppressed to southwest.
5577 California bay 14, 10 3 Remove Lot 21 ret. wall Codominant at 2'; 10" stem with sweep to S; good vigor.
5579 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Codominant at 8'; high crown; intermediate form; twig and branch
5583 Coast live oak 18,12 2 Remove Poor condition Codominant at 1'; thin crown; minor dieback; largest trunk leans to S,
extending 37'; extensive borer attack;
5702 Valley oak 27,14 4 Remove Constuction of BMR Asymmetric to S, 6' above ground; remove 14" branch to provide clearance;
slightly thin.
5724 Coast live oak 12,14 3 Remove BMR1 ret. wall Codominant at base; minor twig dieback; asymmetric to E; in corral; borers.
5740 Blue oak 9 3 Remove Impacted by lot 24
ret. Wall
Upright form; thin crown.
5743 Coast live oak 12 2 Remove Poor condition Thin; extensive borer damage on lower trunk; trunk wound with decay.
5756 Valley oak 15,14 4 Remove Road, lot 5 Codominant at 2'; slightly thin; wire embedded in 14" stem.
5757 Coast live oak 22 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Multiple attachments at 6'; full wide spreading crown; wire embedded in trunk.
5758 Blue oak 14 3 Remove Road, lot 1 Trunks twist around each other; branch dieback; sparse crown.
5759 Coast live oak 17 2 Remove Road, lot 1 Sparse crown; extensive decay. 5761 Coast live oak 28 3 Remove Construction of lot 9 Codominant at 6' with wide attachment; full, dense crown.
5762 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 11 Good form and structure; minor decay in old pruning wound; full, dense crown.
5765 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove In drivway, BMR 2 Codominant 3' with included bark; good form and structure; full crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 4 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5766 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of BMR
1 Base 1' from shed; trunk leans south.
5770 Coast live oak 14,14 3 Remove Grading for lot 24 Codominant at 3' with wide attachment; top bows east.
5771 Coast live oak 21 3 Remove Grading for lot 24/25 Trunk has heavy lean to east; multiple attachments at 8'; full crown.
5772 Valley oak 28 4 Remove Grading for lot 25 Full crown; good form and structure. 5774 Coast live oak 16 1 Remove Grading, poor
condition
Stump with only small live sprout.
5775 Coast live oak 18 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 High crown bows west. 5776 Coast live oak 17,14 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 Leaning NW; codominant trunks arise at 5777 Coast live oak 22 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Multiple attachments at 10'; twig dieback. 5778 Coast live oak 13 2 Remove Construction of lot 20 Small crown; neighbors tree failed into it; dieback in upper crown.
5779 California bay 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Partial failure; dieback on west stem. 5781 Valley oak 10,10 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Codominant at 3'; extensive dieback and
epicormic growth.
5782 Coast live oak 12 1 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Extremely thin crown; in rapid decline.
5783 Coast live oak 16 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Crown bows horizontal to east; top half of
crown failed.
5785 Valley oak 16 2 Remove Road, lot 18 Large basal wound on E with decay; multiple branch attachments arise at 6';
asymmetric to W.
5786 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 20 Sinuous form; high, narrow form; twig dieback.
5788 Coast live oak 18 1 Remove Poor condition; could
fail onto lots 20
In decline; extensive twig and branch
dieback; decay fruiting bodies.
5791 Coast live oak 21 2 Remove Poor condition Poor color; thin crown; twig dieback; strongly asymmetric to S; buried in
5792 Coast live oak 25,18 3 Remove 12' N. of Lot 18
SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 2'; 18" stem is low to
south, extending 37' to dripline; thin
crown; twig dieback.
5795 Valley oak 14,14 2 Remove Construction of lot
19, poor condition
Codominant at 1' with wide attachment;
extensive twig dieback; epicormic growth.
5799 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 Codominant at 4'; minor dieback. 5910 Valley oak 16 0 Remove Dead Dead.
5920 Valley oak 19 0 Remove Dead Dead snag.
5922 Valley oak 22 4 Remove Impacted by lot 13
SD/ret. wall
Asymmetric to south; high, dense crown;
codominant at 9'.
5925 Coast live oak 12 4 Remove Construction of lots
13/14
Good form and structure; good young
tree.
5926 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Multiple attachments at 6'; good form. 5929 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Sinuous trunk; small, high crown; intermediate form; codominant at 7' with
included bark.
5931 Coast live oak 15,14,13 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Codominant at base and 3' with included bark; full, dense crown.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 5 of 7
Table 1: Disposition of Significant Trees to be Removed or Possibly Preserved Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5933 Coast live oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 13 Asymmetric to E; codominant stems arise at 6'; full, dense crown.
5942 Coast live oak 13 3 Remove Lot 14 SD/ret. wall Codominant at 5' with included bark; full, dense crown.
5958 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Lot 14 SD/ret. wall Good form and structure. 5976 Valley oak 19 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Good form and structure; twig and branch dieback.
5980 Coast live oak 32 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Multiple stems arise at 6'; basal wound from failed stem; history of branch
failures; good vigor; buckeye #5977
growing from base.
5983 Coast live oak 20 1 Remove Construction of lot 14 Extensive decay from multiple failed stems; not much of a tree.
5984 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 High crown; intermediate form. 5985 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 16 Leaning SW; intermediate form; high crown.
5987 Coast live oak 21 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 High crown; sinuous trunk. 5988 Coast live oak 16 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Strongly asymmetric; bowed to S; full crown.
5989 Coast live oak 7,4 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Heavily suppressed to east; 7" stem stubbed.
5990 Coast live oak 18,18 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Codominant at base with included bark; history of branch failure.
5991 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Base outside dripline; small crown. 5994 Coast live oak 12,10 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Codominant at 2'; branch dieback in low crown.
5995 Coast live oak 16 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Corrected form; full, dense crown. 5997 Coast live oak 12 3 Remove Lot 15 ret. wall Strongly asymmetric; base outside dripline to east; Good vigor.
5999 Coast live oak 18 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Codominant stems arise at 7-8'; slightly thin; canopy intertwined with neighboring
trees.
6000 Coast live oak 14 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Basal wound; good vigor; good form.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 6 of 7
Table 2: Disposition of Non-Significant Trees to be Removed Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
11 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5914; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback.
12 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5914; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback; poor
form.
13 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Remove due to poor
condition
Near #5948; codominant at 5'; crowded
with narrow form; branch dieback; poor
form.
4851 Coast live oak 10 4 Remove Construction of lot 1 Codominant at 7'; full crown. 4852 Coast live oak 10 2 Remove Construction of lot 1 Extensive basal decay; leans north. 4858 California
buckeye
5,4,2 4 Remove Construction for lot 3 Good young tree.
4862 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Construction for lot 2
ret. wall, poor
Failed to south and resting on branch; full
crown.
4865 Valley oak 9 3 Remove Construction for lot 3 Okay form; small crown with minor dieback.
4871 California
buckeye
7,5,4,4 4 Remove Construction for lot 4 Codominant at 1'; full crown. 4885 Valley oak 10 3 Remove Lot 7 ret. wall/SD, poor
condtion; within swale
Suppressed to north; small, high crown.
4888 Valley oak 9 3 Remove 6' S. of lot 6 SD/ret. Sinuous form; high, thin crown. 4891 Valley oak 9 0 Remove 20' SW. of lot 5 SD/ret.
wall
Dead.
5520 California
buckeye
6,6,4,4,2,2
,2
3 Remove 5' S. of grading for
south entrance
Multiple attachments at base; minor
cavity with decay.
5559 Coast live oak 5,5 0 Remove Dead Dead.
5561 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Within grading for
biotreatment.
Suppressed to south.
5573 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Poor condition;
construction of lot 21
Poor form; sinuous trunk; poor vigor;
poison oak.
5575 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Construction of lot 21 Codominant at 5'; poor vigor. 5580 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Construction of lot 20
5581 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 21 ret. wall Poor form; small crown; codominant at 6'; suppressed.
5582 Coast live oak 5 3 Remove Lot 20 ret. wall Suppressed to north; poor form. 5734 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove 8' NE. of BMR2 ret. One sided to south; sinuous trunk. 5735 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove BMR 2 ret. wall Multiple attachments at 5'; slightly thin crown.
5737 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Poor condition; BMR3
ret. wall
Poor form and structure; trunk wound
with decay.
5739 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Poor condition; BMR3
ret. wall
Extensive trunk decay.
5742 Coast live oak 9 2 Remove Poor condition Poor form and structure; trunk horizontal at 3'.
5773 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Grading for lot 25 Suppressed form; narrow crown. 5780 Coast live oak 10 2 Remove Construction of lot 19, poor condition
Extremely thin crown; basal wounds.
5784 Blackwood
acacia
9 3 Remove Construction of lot 19
drive
Upright form; codominant high in crown;
poor structure.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 1 of 2
Table 2: Disposition of Non-Significant Trees to be Removed Stanford, Portola Valley
Tag #Species Diameter Condition Disposition Project impact Tree condition comments (in.) 0=dead;
5=excellent
5787 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Construction of lot 20 Little live foliage; poor form. 5793 California bay 7,5 3 Remove 8' NE. of Lot 18 SD/ret. wall
Codominant at 1'; with wide attachment;
grows under crown of 5792.
5794 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 18/19 SD/ret. wall Heavily suppressed to south; small crown; bowed to S.
5796 Coast live oak 9 2 Remove Construction of lot 18 Extensive trunk decay; poor form; bowed to SE.
5797 Coast live oak 10 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 Leans S; no basal flare; narrow form. 5798 Coast live oak 9 3 Remove Construction of lot 18 One-sided to east; basal wound on E. 5800 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Construction of lot 17 Extensive trunk wounds; leans west. 5919 California
buckeye
7,6 3 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall 6" stem is dead; little foliage. 5923 California
buckeye
8,5,4 4 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall Minor branch dieback. 5924 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Lot 13 SD/ret. wall Sinuous trunk; small crown. 5927 Coast live oak 7 3 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall Lost central leader; suppressed. 5928 Coast live oak 9 1 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Extensive dieback; poor form; trunk
decay.
5930 Coast live oak 7 2 Remove Lot 12 SD/ret. wall,
poor condition
Codominant at 6'; trunk wounds with
borers and decay; bow in trunk.
5932 Coast live oak 7 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Dead top; poor form. 5963 California bay 6 4 Remove Construction of lot 15 Good upright form; under canopy of 5964 California
buckeye
5,4,3,3 4 Remove Lot 15 ret. wall Multiple attachments at base; good young tree.
5970 California bay 6 2 Remove Poor condition On property line; crow bows south; poor form.
5971 California bay 10 2 Remove Poor condition Off-site; poor form and structure; bows heavy to south.
5975 Coast live oak 8 2 Remove Construction of lot 16 Poor form; suppressed. 5977 California
buckeye
8,6 2 Remove Construction of lot 16 Grows at base of 5980; branches touch ground on east.
5981 Coast live oak 6 2 Remove Lots 15/16 ret. wall Poor structure; crook at 10'. 5982 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Construction of lot 14 Poor form and structure; suppressed. 5986 Coast live oak 8 3 Remove Construction of lot 13 Asymmetric to S; at edge of canopy. 5992 Coast live oak 6 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Leans heavy to north; small, high crown. 5993 Coast live oak 5 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Narrow form; small crown. 5996 California bay 9 3 Remove Construction of lot 15 Sinuous form; dense crown; good vigor.
HortScience | Bartlett Consulting
June 11, 2020 Page 2 of 2
B C C 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 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
8/22/24
PLANNING REV. 1 11/15/19
PLANNING REV. 2 7/14/20
C-9.0
FIRE ACCESS
PLAN
1"=40'
PLANNING REV. 3 11/10/20
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
ALPINE ROAD
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net LOT AREA (SQFT) AREA (ACRES) 1 4,092 0.1 2 4,407 0.1 3 4,349 0.1 4 4,274 0.1 5 3,372 0.1 6 3,580 0.1 7 3,922 0.1 8 3,679 0.1 9 3,035 0.1 10 2,981 0.1
11 3,756 0.1
12 4,777 0.1
13 4,569 0.1
14 5,122 0.1
15 5,217 0.1
16 4,044 0.1
17 4,014 0.1
18 4,020 0.1
19 4,024 0.1
20 4,029 0.1
21 4,197 0.1
22 4,237 0.1
23 4,859 0.1
24 4,464 0.1
25 4,496 0.1
26 3,840 0.1
27 4,168 0.1 A 7,386 0.2 B 6,938 0.2 C 8,188 0.2
Y 338,955 7.8 Z 2,803,737 64.4
TOTAL 3,276,728 75.2
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
B C C
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
A
1 2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
B
C C
A
8 9
10 7
C C
A
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
2015
1700 S. Winchester Blvd, Suite 200, Campbell, CA 95008 l P. 408.636.0900 I F. 408.636.0999 I www.sandis.net
078319\18188943v3
DRAFT
Proposed Terms to the Town of Portola Valley to Provide Affordable Units as part of the Portola Terrace Residential Development.
November 27, 2024
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
The Town of Portola Valley presently does not have an affordable housing policy in place.
Therefore, Town staff has asked Stanford University as applicant for the Portola Terrace project to initiate a dialogue with the Town to clarify the terms of how project affordable housing units would be managed by Stanford University, subject to oversight by the Town of Portola Valley.
The project site is located at 3530 Alpine Road on a 75.4-acre parcel (APN 077-281-020) that forms a triangular shape between Alpine Road, and developments along Westridge Drive and Minoca Road in Portola Valley, California. The site, known as the Stanford Wedge property, is mostly undeveloped and covered with grasses, shrubs, and trees. An area of approximately 7.4 acres at the northeastern portion of the project site (10% of the total site area) is proposed for development.
The project would subdivide the development area into 30 residential lots, which would be developed with 27 market-rate single-family 2-story residences as part of a planned unit development and 12 affordable multifamily units (configured as 3 lots, each with a 2-story, 4-unit building), as well as a picnic and play area and stormwater detention and bioretention treatment facilities.
Stanford’s proposed project (Planned Unit Development, Stanford Wedge, 3532 Alpine Road, File # PLN_ARCH0021-2019) is described in detail in the “Project Description” document submitted with the project’s application package, as supplemented since then by additional submissions, and is referred to in this proposal as the “Project.” To briefly summarize, 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 twelve (12) affordable housing units will be located in multifamily buildings clustered on 3 lots.
• Six (6) affordable units will be set aside for low-income households. • Six (6) affordable units will be set aside for moderate-income households. • Stanford would construct all affordable units on the Property, and Stanford would operate the affordable subject to oversight by the Town of Portola Valley (or its designee). • The Affordable Housing units would be reserved and priced for low and moderate income households for a term of 55 years.
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
078319\18188943v3
November 27, 2024
2 occupants, while all affordable units will be rented to their occupants. 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.
Stanford University, as project applicant, has requested a density bonus under Government Code section 65915(b)(1)(A) for agreeing to construct units for low-income households.
CHARACTERISTICS OF BMR UNITS
a. Size and Location of BMR Units. The Portola Terrace project will provide 12 affordable rental housing units (also referred to as “below market rate” or “BMR” units). The 12 BMR units will be in three buildings of four units each. Each of these three buildings will contain two (2) studio BMR rental units, one (1) 1-bedroom BMR rental unit, and one (1) 2-bedroom BMR rental unit. The BMR units will generally be of the same size (square footage) as depicted in the approved application set (Planned Unit Development, Stanford Wedge, 3532 Alpine Road, File # PLN_ARCH0021-2019). The BMR units will contain standard appliances common to new units.
b. Design and Materials in BMR Units. The design and materials used in construction of BMR units will be of a quality comparable to other new units constructed in the development, except that in no event will BMR units need to be of luxury quality. All BMR units will be designed and constructed of equal quality to each other regardless of the BMR unit’s affordability designation.
c. Initial BMR Rental Rates Will Be Set Before Final Building Inspection. The initial BMR rental rates will be established prior to final inspection of the BMR housing units and prior to commencement of the initial rental process for the BMR housing units. Initial BMR rental rates will be established in compliance with the rent standards described below.
INCOME AND RENT STANDARDS.
a. Income Limits upon Occupancy of BMR Units. Only households having gross incomes at or below Low Income for San Mateo County, adjusted for household size, as published annually by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (“HCD”) are eligible to occupy the six (6) BMR units that will be restricted as low-income units, either when initially rented or upon filling any subsequent vacancy. The remaining six (6) BMR units are designated for households having gross incomes at or below Moderate Income for San Mateo County, adjusted for household size, as published annually by HCD. See Table A (Below Market Rate Household Income Limits). (2024).
b. BMR Unit Rent. The six (6) low-income BMR units may be rented for monthly amounts not exceeding one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of sixty percent (60%) of the Area Median Income for San Mateo County, adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.
The other six (6) moderate BMR units may be rented for monthly amounts not exceeding one-twelfth (1/12) of thirty percent (30%) of one hundred ten percent (110%) of the Area Median Income for San Mateo County, adjusted for household size appropriate for the unit.
078319\18188943v3
November 27, 2024
3 BMR rents may be adjusted from time to time to reflect any changes to the then current Income limits.
c. Tenant Selection and Certification Procedures. In order to ensure that there is an adequate supply of affordable housing within the Town, to the extent permitted by fair housing and other laws, Stanford shall give priority for occupancy of all BMR rental units to eligible households with members who live or work in the Town. In the event that there are fewer applicants for the BMR rental units that meet the criteria specified in the preceding sentence than there are available units, such units shall be made available to other eligible households. Stanford will maintain a waiting list for BMR rental units, such that the priority for occupancy of available BMR rental units will be given to eligible households on the waiting list, on a first-come, first-served basis. A selected household will be allowed up to thirty (30) days to move into a BMR rental unit after it is ready for occupancy. Below market rate units application opportunities should be marketed first to Portola Valley residents.
Stanford will develop a marketing plan that addresses this goal. Town staff will be entitled to review Stanford’s marketing plan to verify compliance with the foregoing requirements. c. BMR Waiting List. The Town or its designee will be entitled to review Stanford’s Waiting List to verify compliance with qualification requirements for BMR rental units. d. One-Year Lease Offer. Each prospective tenant of a BMR rental unit will be offered the opportunity to enter into a lease for a minimum term of one (1) year. Such offer will be made in writing. If the tenant rejects the offer to lease a BMR rental unit, such rejection must also be in writing. A lease may be renewed upon the mutual agreement of both parties. e. Vacation of Units and Re-Renting. When a BMR tenant vacates, Stanford will provide notice to the Town, and Stanford will then re-rent the unit to a qualified BMR tenant in accordance with these Guidelines and the Affordability Restriction Agreement recorded against the BMR rental units.
f. Annual Recertification of BMR Units. Stanford will recertify annually, by procedures to be established in the Affordability Restriction Agreement, the provision of BMR rental units as specified in these Guidelines the Affordability Restriction Agreement recorded against the BMR rental units. If, at the time of recertification, Stanford determines that the income of a household that initially qualified as low-income under the eligibility requirements set forth in the Guidelines has increased above the applicable low- income limit, such household will be redesignated as a moderate income unit and the rent for such unit may be increased to no more than the moderate income rent limit, and the next available vacant BMR unit will be leased to a low-income household. If, at the time of recertification, Stanford determines that the income of a household that initially qualified as moderate-income under the eligibility requirements set forth in the Guidelines (or was redesignated as a moderateincome tenant as provided in the preceding sentence) has increased above the applicable moderate- income limit, the rental rate for that household may be raised to market rate but such unit will continue to qualify as a compliant BMR unit, provided that the next available vacant BMR Unit will be leased to a moderate-income household.
078319\18188943v3
November 27, 2024
4 g. Annual Report. On an annual basis, Stanford will submit a report (the “Annual Report”) to the Town which will contain, with respect to each BMR unit, the name of the eligible tenant, the rental rate and the income and household size of the occupants. The Annual Report will be based on information supplied by the tenant or occupant of each BMR unit in a certified statement executed yearly by the tenant. Execution and delivery thereof by the tenant may be required by the terms of the lease as a condition of continued occupancy at the BMR rate. The Town shall have the right to inspect the relevant books and records of Stanford and its rental agent or bookkeeper upon reasonable notice during normal business hours, to verify the qualification of the tenants of the BMR units. The Annual Report will also provide a statement confirming compliance with all applicable requirements of the Affordability Restriction Agreement and will include a statement of any planned repairs to be made and the estimated dates for the repairs.
h. Subleasing. Subleasing by the tenant of any BMR unit is prohibited.
078319\18188943v3
November 27, 2024
5 TABLE A
Below Market Rate Household Income Limits
Source: Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development. May 2024. (Updated limits are typically issued every June.)
078319\18212676v3 1
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:
Town of Portola Valley
___________
___________
Attention: Town Manager
No fee for recording pursuant to
Government Code Section 27383
AFFORDABLE HOUSING REGULATORY AGREEMENT AND
DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS
(Portola Terrace)
This Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants (the “Agreement”) is made and entered into as of [____________, ____] (the “Effective Date”), by and between Town of Portola Valley, a [____________________] (the “Town”), and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, a body having corporate powers under the laws of the State of California, (the “Owner”) (each individually a “Party” and together the “Parties”), with reference to the following facts.
RECITALS
A. Capitalized terms used but not defined in these recitals are as defined in Article 1 of this Agreement.
B. Owner owns certain real property located at 3530 Alpine Road, Portola Valley, California (APN 077-281-020), as more particularly described in Exhibit A (the “Property”), upon which Owner will develop with 27 single-family 2-story residences located on 27 lots as part of a planned unit development, and 12 affordable multifamily units (configured as 3 lots, each with a 2-story, 4-unit building), as well as a picnic and play area and stormwater detention and bioretention treatment facilities (the “Development”).
C. Town now desires to have Owner restrict 12 multifamily units at the Development (the “Affordable Units”), with 6 Affordable Units restricted as affordable to low income households with incomes at or below eighty percent (80%) of Area Median Income, and 6 Affordable Units restricted as affordable to moderate income households with incomes at or below one hundred twenty percent (120%) of Area Median Income, and Owner desires to restrict such Affordable Units, as set forth herein.
D. Owner is entitled to a density bonus under California Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(A) for agreeing to construct the Affordable Units. 078319\18212676v3 2
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and undertakings set forth herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the Town and Owner hereby agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
The foregoing recitals are hereby incorporated by reference and made part of this Agreement.
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1.1 Definitions.
When used in this Agreement, the following terms shall have the respective meanings assigned to them in this Article 1.
(a) “Low Income Household” means a household with an annual income which does not exceed the income limit for a “Low Income” household, defined as not exceeding 80% AMI (as hereinafter defined), for San Mateo County, as published and periodically updated by HCD, adjusted for Assumed Household Size, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (b)(a) “Low Income Household Rent” means Rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of sixty percent (60%) of Area Median Income for the Assumed Household Size. (c)(a) “Low Income Units” means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(b) below, are required to be occupied by Low Income AMI Households. (d)(a) “Moderate Income Household” means a household with an annual income which does not exceed the income limit for a “Moderate Income” household, defined as not exceeding 120% AMI (as hereinafter defined), for San Mateo County, as published and periodically updated by HCD, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (e)(a) “Moderate Income Household Rent” means Rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of one hundred ten percent (110%) of Area Median Income for the Assumed Household Size.
(f)(a) “Moderate Income Units” means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(c) below, are required to be occupied by 120% AMI Households. (g)(a) “Affordable Units” are defined in Recital B.
(h)(b) “Agreement” means this Affordable Housing Regulatory Agreement and Declaration of Restrictive Covenants.
(i)(c) “Area Median Income” or “AMI” means the area median income for San Mateo County as published and periodically updated by HCD, adjusted for Assumed Household Size.
078319\18212676v3 3
(j)(d) “Assumed Household Size” means for a studio apartment, one (1) person; for a one (1) bedroom apartment, two (2) people; and for a two (2) bedroom apartment, three (3) people.
(k)(e) “Default” is defined in Section 6.5(a).
(l)(f) “Development” is defined in Recital B.
(m)(g) “Effective Date” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (n)(h) “HCD” means the California Department of Housing and Community Development.
(o)(i) “HUD” means the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(p)(j) “Indemnitees” are defined in Section 6.4.
(k) “Low Income Household” means a household with an annual income which does not exceed the income limit for a “Low Income” household, defined as not exceeding 80% AMI (as hereinafter defined), for San Mateo County, as published and periodically updated by HCD, adjusted for Assumed Household Size, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (l) “Low Income Household Rent” means Rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of sixty percent (60%) of Area Median Income for the Assumed Household Size. (m) “Low Income Units” means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(b) below, are required to be occupied by Low Income AMI Households. (n) “Moderate Income Household” means a household with an annual income which does not exceed the income limit for a “Moderate Income” household, defined as not exceeding 120% AMI (as hereinafter defined), for San Mateo County, as published and periodically updated by HCD, adjusted for Assumed Household Size. (o) “Moderate Income Household Rent” means Rent that does not exceed thirty (30) percent of one hundred ten percent (110%) of Area Median Income for the Assumed Household Size.
(p) “Moderate Income Units” means the Units which, pursuant to Section 2.1(c) below, are required to be occupied by 120% AMI Households. (q) “Owner” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (r) “Party” or “Parties” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (s) “Property” is defined in Recital B.
(t) “Rent” means the total of monthly payments by the Tenant of a Unit for the following: use and occupancy of the Unit and land and associated facilities; any separately charged 078319\18212676v3 4
fees or service charges assessed by Owner which are required of all Tenants, other than security deposits; an allowance for the cost of an adequate level of service for utilities paid by the Tenant, including garbage collection, sewer, water, electricity, gas and other heating, cooking and refrigeration fuel, but not telephone service or cable TV; and any other interest, taxes, fees, or charges for use of the land or associated facilities and assessed by a public or private entity other than Owner, and paid by the Tenant.
(u) “Tenant” means a household legally occupying an Affordable Unit pursuant to a valid lease with Owner.
(v) “Tenant Lease” is defined in Section 2.5.
(w) “Term” means the term of this Agreement, which commences on the Effective Date of this Agreement and continues until the fifty-fifth (55th) anniversary of the date hereof.
(x) “Town” is defined in the first paragraph of this Agreement. (y) “Unit” means one of the approximately thirty-nine (39) housing units constructed on the Property.
1.2 Exhibits.
The following exhibit is attached to this Agreement and incorporated into this Agreement by this reference:
Exhibit A: Legal Description of the Property
ARTICLE 2
AFFORDABILITY AND OCCUPANCY COVENANTS
2.1 Occupancy Requirements.
The Affordable Units shall be rented to and occupied by, or, if vacant, available for occupancy by Low Income and Moderate Income Households as follows:
(a) Low Income Units. Owner shall rent six (6) Affordable Units to, or, if vacant, make available for occupancy by, Low Income Households. (b) Moderate Income Units. Owner shall rent six (6) Affordable Units to, or, if vacant, make available for occupancy by, Moderate Income Households. (c) Access to Facilities. All Tenants must have equal access to and enjoyment of all common facilities in the Development.
(d) Bedroom Size. The bedroom sizes for the Affordable Units shall be six (6) studios, three (3) 1-bedroom units, and three (3) 2-bedroom units.
2.2 Allowable Rent.
078319\18212676v3 5
(a) Low Income Household Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, Rent paid by Tenants of all Low Income Units during the Term shall not exceed the Low Income Household Rent for the applicable bedroom size.
(b) Moderate Income Household Rent. Subject to the provisions of Section 2.3 below, Rent paid by Tenants of all Moderate Income Units during the Term shall not exceed the Moderate Income Household Rent for the applicable bedroom size. (c) In the event that income determinations are no longer published by HCD or are not updated for a period of at least eighteen (18) months, the parties hereto shall thereafter use the income determinations for Low Income and Moderate Income as published by HUD.
2.3 Increased Income of Tenants in Affordable Units.
(a) Increased Income Above 80% but Below 120% AMI . If, upon annual recertification of the income of a Tenant of an Affordable Unit, Owner determines that the Tenant no longer qualifies as a Low Income Household, but does qualify as a Moderate Income Household, the Tenant may continue to occupy the Unit and, upon sixty (60) days written notice to Tenant, Owner may increase the Tenant's rent up to the to no more than Moderate Income Household Rent, provided, however, that the rent such Tenant must pay shall not exceed 30% of such income, and further provided that such unit shall continue to be an 80% a Low Income Unit for the purposes of Section 2.1 hereof.
(b) Increased Income above 120% AMI. If, upon recertification of a Tenant's income, Owner determines that a Tenant no longer qualifies as either an Low Income Household or a Moderate AMI Household, then, Tenant may occupy their unit as a Moderate Income Unit, and that Unit will continue to be classified as a Moderate Income Unit, but the rent for that unit shall become unrestricted hereunder until the earlier of (i) such Tenant moves out of the Development, or (ii) such Tenant’s income decreases to an amount equal to or less than the income limit for a Moderate Income Household.
2.4 Termination of Occupancy.
Upon termination of occupancy of an Affordable Unit by a Tenant, such Affordable Unit shall be deemed to be continuously occupied by a household of the same income level (e.g., Low Income Household or Moderate Income Household) as the initial income level of the vacating Tenant, until such Affordable Unit is reoccupied, at which time the income character of the Affordable Unit (e.g., Low Income Unit or Moderate Income Unit) shall be re-determined. Owner shall make reasonable efforts to maintain the occupancy requirements set forth in Section 2.1 above, except as may be allowed by Section 2.3.
2.5 Lease Provisions.
The Owner shall use a form of Tenant lease (the “Tenant Lease”) for the Affordable Units that is consistent with the requirements of this Agreement. The Tenant Lease shall, among other matters:
078319\18212676v3 6
(a) provide for termination of the lease for failure: (1) to provide any information required under this Agreement or reasonably requested by Owner to establish or recertify the Tenant's qualification, or the qualification of the Tenant's household, for occupancy of the Affordable Units in accordance with the standards set forth in this Agreement, or (2) to qualify as an Low Income Household or Moderate Income Household, as the case may be, as a result of any material misrepresentation made by such Tenant with respect to the income computation or certification;
(b) be for an initial term of not less than one (1) year. After the initial year of tenancy, the lease may be month to month by mutual agreement of Owner and the Tenant; and (c) prohibit subleasing of the Affordable Unit or any portion of the Affordable Unit or any spaces reserved for the use of the Tenant, contain nondiscrimination provisions, and include the Tenant's obligation to inform the Owner of any need for maintenance or repair. (d) Owner shall provide its form Tenant Lease for review and approval by Town not less than thirty (30) days prior to prior to commencing leasing of Affordable Units; provided, that the Town shall be deemed to have approved the form Tenant Lease if the Town does not provide Owner with comments to the Tenant Lease within thirty (30) days of Owner’s delivery of the form Tenant Lease for Town review.
2.6 Security Deposits.
Any security deposits collected by Owner or Owner’s agent shall be kept separate and apart from all other funds in a trust account with a depository insured by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation or other comparable federal deposit insurance program and shall be held and disbursed in accordance with California law. The balance in the trust account shall at all times equal or exceed the aggregate of all outstanding obligations, plus accrued interest thereon.
ARTICLE 3
INCOME CERTIFICATION AND REPORTING
3.1 Income Certification.
Owner or Owner’s designee will obtain, complete and maintain on file, immediately prior to initial occupancy and annually thereafter, income certifications for each Tenant renting any of the Affordable Units. Owner shall make a good faith effort to verify that the income statement provided by an applicant or Tenant is accurate by taking one (1) or more of the following steps as a part of the verification process for all members of the Tenant household age eighteen (18) or older: (a) obtaining a minimum of the three (3) most current pay stubs; (b) obtaining an income tax return for the most recent tax year; (c) conducting a credit agency or similar search; (d) obtaining the three (3) most current savings and checking account bank statements; (e) obtaining an income verification form from a current employer; or (f) obtaining an income verification form from the Social Security Administration and/or the California Department of Social Services if an adult member of the Tenant's household receives assistance from either of such agencies. Copies of Tenant income certifications shall be made available to the Town upon request. 078319\18212676v3 7
3.2 Annual Report to the Town; Town Obligation to Confirm Receipt of Annual Report.
(a) Owner shall provide the Town no later than April 1 of each calendar year following the Effective Date, an occupancy report including: (i) the verified income and household size; (ii) the Affordable Unit rent amount; and (iii) the date tenancy commenced for each Affordable Unit.
(b) Within thirty (30) days after receipt of a written request, Owner shall provide any other information or completed forms reasonably requested by the Town to ensure compliance with this Agreement.
(c) If similar reports on some or all of the Affordable Units are required for regulatory compliance with other financing programs, those reports shall be deemed satisfactory for the purpose of this Section by the Town, with respect to the portion of the requirements of this Section covered by such reports, provided that copies are provided on an annual basis to the Town with an owner certification addressed to the Town certifying that Owner has complied with this Agreement.
(d) Each calendar year following the Effective Date, no later than thirty (30) days after receipt of Owner’s submitted materials as required under Section 3.2(a) above, the Town shall provide Owner with written confirmation that the Town has received such materials submitted by Owner.
3.3 Tenant Records and Inspection.
(a) Owner shall maintain complete, accurate and current records pertaining to the affordability obligations hereunder, and shall permit any duly authorized representative of the Town to inspect the records, including but not limited to records pertaining to income and household size of Tenants of the Affordable Units, Rent charged Tenants of the Affordable Units and documents necessary to verify eligibility and preferences under Section 4.2 hereof, upon reasonable prior notice during normal business hours. All Tenant lists, applications and waiting lists relating to the Affordable Units shall at all times be kept separate and identifiable from any other business of Owner and shall be maintained as required by the Town, in a reasonable condition for proper audit and subject to reasonable examination during business hours by representatives of the Town. Owner shall retain copies of all materials obtained or produced with respect to occupancy of the Affordable Units for a period of at least five (5) years. (b) The Town shall notify Owner of any records it deems insufficient. Owner shall have thirty (30) calendar days after the receipt of such a notice to correct any deficiency in the records specified by the Town in such notice, or if a period longer than thirty (30) days is reasonably necessary to correct the deficiency, then Owner shall begin to correct the deficiency within thirty (30) days and correct the deficiency within ninety (90) days, or as otherwise agreed by the Town if a longer time period is reasonably required. (c) The Town, or its designee, shall have the right to perform an on-site inspection of the Development at least one time per yearbuildings at the Development in which Affordable Units are located, from time to time, including the right to inspect Affordable Units, subject to any 078319\18212676v3 8
applicable notice required by applicable law, and the rights of the Tenants under applicable leases, to confirm that the Affordable Units constitute decent, safe, and sanitary housing. The Owner agrees to cooperate in such inspection.
ARTICLE 4
OPERATION OF THE DEVELOPMENT
4.1 Residential Use.
(a) The Affordable Units shall be used only for residential purposes, and the Affordable Units shall be operated and maintained as residences for the Term of this Agreement.
No part of the Affordable Units shall be operated as transient housing in which the term of the lease or rental agreement is less than thirty (30) days.
4.2 Occupancy Preferences.
Applicants for vacant Affordable Units shall be given preference in the following order, to the extent permitted by fair housing and other laws: (a) eligible households (based on income) of which at least one adult member lives or is employed within the Town limits; (b) all other eligible households (based on income) who do not meet the criteria for priority (a), above.
ARTICLE 5
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE
5.1 Management Responsibilities.
Owner is responsible for performing or causing to be performed all management functions with respect to the Affordable Units, including without limitation the selection of tenants, certification and recertification of household size and income, evictions, collection of rents and deposits, maintenance, landscaping, routine and extraordinary repairs, replacement of capital items, and security. The Town shall have no responsibility over management of the Units. Owner shall operate the Development in accordance with all applicable laws and approvals, and this Agreement. All leasing decisions at the Property shall be made by Owner in its sole discretion, subject to the Town’s rights and remedies hereunder with respect to the Affordable Units.
ARTICLE 6
MISCELLANEOUS
6.1 Nondiscrimination.
Owner covenants by and for itself and its successors and assigns that there shall be no discrimination against or segregation of a person or of a group of persons on account of race, color, religion, creed, age, disability, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, ancestry or national origin, HIV/AIDS, or any other arbitrary basis in the construction, sale, lease, sublease, transfer, use, occupancy, tenure or enjoyment of the Property, nor shall Owner or any person claiming under or through Owner establish or permit any such practice or practices of discrimination or segregation with reference to the selection, location, number, use or occupancy of tenants, lessees, subtenants, sublessees or vendees in the Property. Owner further covenants by 078319\18212676v3 9
and for itself and its successors and assigns shall not discriminate on the basis of source of income or rent payment (for example, TANF or SSI) or poor credit history if a prospective Tenant’s previous rent history of at least one (1) year provides evidence of Tenant’s ability to pay the applicable Rent (ability to pay shall be demonstrated if the prospective Tenant can show that the Tenant has paid the same percentage or more of the Tenant’s income for Rent as the Tenant would be required to pay for the Rent applicable to the Affordable Unit to be occupied). Subject to any applicable law, Owner shall not refuse to rent to any prospective Tenant on the basis of household size so long as such household size is not smaller than the minimum or larger than the Assumed Household Size as permitted by law.
6.2 Term.
The provisions of this Agreement will apply to the Property for the entire Term. Subject to the foregoing, this Agreement shall bind any successor, heir or assign of Owner, whether a change in interest occurs voluntarily or involuntarily, by operation of law or otherwise, except as expressly released by the Town.
6.3 Covenants Running with the Land.
The Town and Owner hereby declare their express intent that the covenants and restrictions set forth in this Agreement shall apply to and bind Owner and its heirs, executors, administrators, successors, transferees, and assignees having or acquiring any right, title or interest in or to any part of the Property and shall run with and burden such portions of the Property until the end of the Term. Until all or portions of the Property are expressly released from the burdens of this Agreement, each and every contract, deed or other instrument hereafter executed covering or conveying the Property or any portion thereof shall be held conclusively to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to such covenants and restrictions, regardless of whether such covenants or restrictions are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. In the event of foreclosure or transfer by deed-in-lieu of all or any portion of the Property prior to completion and sale of all of the Affordable Units, title to all or any portion of the Property shall be taken subject to this Agreement.
6.4 Indemnification.
(a) To the full extent permitted by law, Owner shall indemnify, defend at its own expense, and hold the Town and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents in their official capacity (collectively “Indemnitees”) harmless against any and all claims, suits, actions, losses, and liability of every kind, nature and description made against it and expenses (including reasonable attorneys' fees) which arise out of or in connection with this Agreement, including but not limited to the purchase of the Property, marketing and operation of the Development, except to the extent such claim arises from the grossly negligent or willful misconduct of the Town or Indemnitees. Each Party shall notify the other Party immediately in writing of any claim or damage related to activities performed under this Agreement. The Parties shall cooperate with each other in the investigation and disposition of any claim arising out of the activities under this Agreement, provided that nothing shall require either Party to disclose any documents, records or communications that are protected under the attorney-client privilege or attorney work product privilege.
078319\18212676v3 10
(b) The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration of the Term and any release of part or all of the Property from the burdens of this Agreement.
6.5 Default.
(a) Failure by the Owner to perform any obligation under this Agreement in all material respects shall constitute a “Default” by the Owner under this Agreement. (b) The Town shall give written notice to the Owner specifying the nature of the violation giving rise to the Default. If the violation is not corrected to the satisfaction of the Town within a reasonable period of time, not longer than thirty (30) days after the date the notice is mailed, or if a period longer than thirty (30) days is reasonably necessary to correct the violation, then Owner shall begin to correct the violation within thirty (30) days and correct the violation within ninety (90) days, or as otherwise agreed by the Town if a longer time period is reasonably required, the Town may declare a Default under this Agreement by written notice to the Owner. (c) Remedies. The occurrence of any Default following the expiration of all applicable notice and cure periods will give the Town the right to proceed with any and all remedies set forth in this Agreement, including but not limited to the following:
(1) Action to Compel Performance or for Damages. The Town may bring an action at law or in equity to compel Owner’s performance of its obligations under this Agreement, and/or for damages. Owner acknowledges that any breach in Owner’s performance of Owner’s obligations under this Agreement shall cause irreparable harm to the Town, and materially impair the public policy objectives to provide affordable housing within the Town.
Therefore, Owner agrees that the Town is entitled to equitable relief in the form of specific performance, and that an award of damages may not be adequate to compensate the Town for Developer's failure to perform according to the terms of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Town, in its sole and absolute discretion, may elect the appropriate remedy for Owner’s default under this Agreement.
6.6 Entire Understanding of the Parties.
This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and no modification shall be binding unless reduced to writing and signed by the Parties.
6.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries.
To the extent permitted by law, there shall be no third-party beneficiaries to this Agreement.
6.8 Each Party's Role in Drafting the Agreement.
Each Party to this Agreement has had an opportunity to review the Agreement, confer with legal counsel regarding the meaning of the Agreement, and negotiate revisions to the Agreement.
Accordingly, neither Party shall rely upon Civil Code Section 1654 in order to interpret any uncertainty in the meaning of the Agreement.
078319\18212676v3 11
6.9 Recording and Filing.
The Town and Owner shall cause this Agreement, and all amendments and supplements to it, to be recorded in the Official Records of the County of San Mateo.
6.10 Governing Law and Venue.
This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Venue shall be the County of San Mateo.
6.11 Title of Parts and Sections.
Any titles of the sections or subsections of this Agreement are inserted for convenience of reference only and shall be disregarded in interpreting any part of the Agreement's provisions.
6.12 Attorneys' Fees and Costs.
In any action brought to enforce this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs and expenses of suit, including reasonable attorneys' fees. This section shall be interpreted in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1717 and judicial decisions interpreting that statute.
6.13 Waiver of Requirements.
No waiver of the requirements of this Agreement shall occur unless expressly waived by the Town in writing. No waiver will be implied from any delay or failure by the Town to take action on any breach or Default of Owner or to pursue any remedy permitted under this Agreement or applicable law. Any extension of time granted to Owner to perform any obligation under this Agreement shall not operate as a waiver or release from any of its obligations under this Agreement. Consent by the Town to any act or omission by Owner shall not be construed to be consent to any other or subsequent act or omission or to waive the requirement for the Town's written consent to future waivers.
6.14 Amendments.
This Agreement may be amended only by a written instrument executed by all the Parties or their successors in title, and duly recorded in the real property records of the County of Santa Clara.
6.15 Notices.
Any notice requirement set forth herein shall be deemed to be satisfied (a) three (3) days after mailing of the notice first-class United States certified mail, postage prepaid, addressed to the appropriate Party, or (b) one (1) business day after sending via email, addressed to the appropriate Party, as follows:
Owner: Faculty Staff Housing
Stanford University
078319\18212676v3 12
552 O’Connor Lane
Stanford, CA 94305
and
Office of the General Counsel
Stanford University
Building 170, 3rd Floor, Main Quad
Stanford, CA 94305
Town: Town of Portola Valley
[_____________]
[_____________]
Attention: [_____________]
Email: [_____________]
Such written notices, demands and communications may be sent in the same manner to such other addresses as the affected Party may from time to time designate by mail or Email as provided in this Section. Receipt shall be deemed to have occurred on the date shown on a written receipt as the date of delivery or refusal of delivery (or attempted delivery if undeliverable).
6.16 Severability.
If any provision of this Agreement shall be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining portions of this Agreement shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby.
6.17 Multiple Originals; Counterparts.
This Agreement may be executed in multiple originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, and may be signed in counterparts.
[Signatures on following page.]
078319\18212676v3 13
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Town and Owner have executed this Agreement by duly authorized representatives, all on the date first written above.
TOWN:
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY,
a [_____________]
By:
Name:
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM BY:
[___________], City Attorney
Date:
OWNER:
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LELAND
STANFORD JUNIOR UNIVERSITY,
a body having corporate powers under the laws of
the State of California
By:
Name:
Title:
078319\18212676v3 1
A notary public or other officer completing this certificate verifies only the identity of the individual who signed the document to which this certificate is attached, and not the truthfulness, accuracy, or validity of that document.
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUNTY OF SAN MATEO )
On ______________________, before me, _________________________, Notary Public, personally appeared ______________________________, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatures on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.
I certify UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Name:
Notary Public
078319\18212676v3 Exhibit A – Page 1
EXHIBIT A
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The land referred to is situated in the County of San Mateo, Town of Portola Valley, State of California, and is described as follows:
[INSERT]
1858029.2
Northern California Office Central California Office Southern California Office 330 Village Lane 6417 Dogtown Road 550 St. Charles Drive, Suite 108 Los Gatos, CA 95030-7218 San Andreas, CA 95249-9640 Thousand Oaks, CA 91360-3995 (408) 354-5542 • Fax (408) 354-1852 (209) 736-4252 • Fax (209) 736-1212 (805) 497-7999 • Fax (805) 497-7933 www.cottonshires.com
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING ENGINEERS AND GEOLOGISTS
June 5, 2024
V5189E
TO: Stephanie Bertollo-Davis
Principal Planner
TOWN OF PORTOLA VALLEY
765 Portola Road
Portola Valley, California 94028
SUBJECT: Supplemental Geologic and Geotechnical Peer Review RE: Stanford Wedge, New Residential Development
Alpine Road, APN #077-281-020
PLN-ARCH 0021-2019
At your request, we have completed a supplemental geologic and geotechnical peer review of the Site Development Permit application for the proposed new residential development using the following documents:
Current Submittal:
• Civil Engineering Plans, including: Topographic Survey, Lot and Parcel Plans, Grading and Drainage, Utility, Grading Quantity Calculations, Sections, Details and Notes (14-sheets, various scales), prepared by Sandis Civil Engineers, Planners, Surveyors, dated November 10, 2020; • Impervious Surface Maps (3 sheets), prepared by Sandis Civil Engineers, Planners, Surveyors dated July 14, 2020;
• Landscape Plans, including: Planting and Irrigation Plans, Elevations and Details (15 sheets, various scales), prepared by Lutsko Associates Landscape, dated July 14, 2020;
• Architectural Plans, including: Site, Floor and Roof Plans, Renderings, Elevations and Sections (35 sheets, various scales), prepared by Siegel and Strain Architects, dated November 10, 2020;
• Responses to Comments, prepared by Stanford Real Estate, dated November 20, 2020; and
Stephanie Bertollo-Davis June 5, 2024
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
• Cal Water Service Letter, dated September 28, 2020.
Selected Past Submittal Items:
• Preliminary Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Investigation (report), prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc., dated September 18, 2017; • Trenching Investigation (report), prepared by Cornerstone Earth Group, Inc., dated August 4, 2021; and
• Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, Portola Valley Housing Site (report), prepared by GSI Environmental Inc., dated March 11, 2020.
In addition, we reviewed pertinent technical documents from our office files.
DISCUSSION
Based on our review of the referenced documents, we understand that the applicant proposes to develop an approximate 6-acre portion of the 75-acre ‘Stanford Wedge’ with a new residential development consisting of approximately 27 singlefamily, two-story detached homes. The development would be accessed via a private loop road with two separate ingress/egress points along Alpine Road. In addition, 3 Below Market Rate (BMR) lots will be created, each containing a 4-unit residential structure. Anticipated grading quantities for the residential development include approximately 5,327 cubic yards of cut and 5,154 cubic yards of fill. Retaining walls are proposed for the upslope portion of the development, with maximum retained heights of approximately 4 feet. Two bio-retention basins and one underground storage basin are planned for the far northeastern portion of the development.
We understand that septic effluent from the development will be discharged into the existing West Bay Sanitary Sewer District’s sanitary sewer facilities in Alpine Road.
Water for the development is to be supplied by Cal Water Service Company.
A fire access road is depicted on the Grading and Drainage Plan west of the residential development. Grading quantities associated with the fire access road are to include approximately 6,060 cubic yards of cut, and 10,111 cubic yards of fill.
SITE CONDITIONS
The proposed residential development area is characterized, in general, by a relatively level to gently inclined, alluvial flood plain associated with ancestral Los Trancos Creek. A moderately steep to steep (up to 25-degree inclinations), east-facing
Stephanie Bertollo-Davis June 5, 2024
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
hillside is upslope from the proposed residential area. Slope debris shed from this hillside locally blankets the alluvial deposits. A prominent drainage channel captures runoff along the east-facing hillside and conveys it eastward along the northern boundary of the proposed residential subdivision. This drainage channel is incised from 5 to approximately 8 feet. Drainage within the proposed residential area is generally characterized by infiltration and by sheetflow directed to the east.
The Town Geologic Map reveals that the site is underlain, at depth, primarily by bedrock materials of the Whiskey Hill Formation (i.e., interbedded sandstone and siltstone). These materials are locally overlain by unconsolidated alluvium in the vicinity of the proposed residential area. The Town Movement Potential Map shows that the proposed residential development area is located within a ‘Sun’ zone, which is defined as: “Unconsolidated granular material (alluvium, slope wash, and thick soil) on level ground and gentle slopes; subject to settlement and soil creep; liquefaction possible at valley floor sites during strong earthquakes. The slope areas upslope (northwest) from the proposed residential area have been mapped as ‘Ps’ and ‘Sbr’ zones. A ‘Ps’ zone is defined as:
“Unstable, unconsolidated material, commonly less than 10 feet in thickness, on gentle to moderately steep slopes subject to shallow landsliding, slumping, settlement, and soil creep.” An ‘Sbr’ zone is defined as: “Level ground to moderately steep slopes underlain by bedrock within approximately three feet of the ground surface or less; relatively thin soil mantle may be subject to shallow landsliding, settlement, and soil creep.
The closest trace of the active San Andreas fault is mapped approximately 2 miles southwest of the property. A suspected trace of the Hermit fault is shown on regional geologic maps at various locations, including some maps that show it through the Stanford Wedge site. Previous site-specific fault investigations surrounding the Stanford Wedge property have not positively identified this fault, and thus, the Town Geologic map has shown this fault in several locations in the past, including through the center of the property, and along the range-front west of the proposed development. In their Preliminary Geotechnical and Geologic Hazard Report, Cornerstone identified a bedrock step in the central portion of the site that roughly corresponds with a topographic step. A trenching program was undertaken in 2021 to characterize the nature of the bedrock step in this area to determine if it was fault-related. Their trenching investigation revealed that the bedrock step was a result of fluvial processes and not faulting. The trenching also revealed that the bedrock materials were Ladera Sandstone, which indicated that the suspected Hermit fault (which has been mapped in this area separating the Ladera Sandstone on the east, from the Whiskey Hill Sandstone on the west) is west of the trench. At the time of trenching, logistical reasons precluded extending this trench further to the west to fully clear the proposed residential units from fault rupture hazards associated with the Hermit fault.
Stephanie Bertollo-Davis June 5, 2024
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDED ACTION
The proposed new residential development is potentially constrained by expansive surficial soil and bedrock materials, surficial soil creep, shallow sloughing and landsliding, the potential for liquefaction and differential settlement of alluvial soil materials, the potential for variable foundation conditions across the site, the potential for ground deformation associated with the Hermit fault, and the susceptibility of the site to very strong seismic ground shaking.
The Project Geotechnical Consultant performed a preliminary investigation of the development site and provided general geotechnical design recommendations for the proposed residential subdivision including supporting the proposed residential structures and retaining walls on conventional spread footings. A fault investigation was performed in 2021 where a portion of the proposed residential footprint was cleared from the potential for fault rupture. The Project Geologist/Geotechnical Consultant was logistically prevented from extending the fault trench further westward due to on-site constraints. They indicated that further trenching was to be performed when the logistical constraints were removed. We are in agreement that extending subsurface exploration westward would provide valuable geologic information pertaining to the location and nature of the geologic contact between the Whiskey Hill and Ladera Sandstone Formations. Consequently, we recommend that the following tasks be performed prior to approval of grading or building permits since the outcome of this geologic and geotechnical exploration could result in layout changes to existing residential structures and retaining walls. The following should be performed:
1. Supplemental Exploratory Trenching – The Project Geologist should perform additional subsurface exploration westward from Exploratory Trench T-1 to determine the location and nature of the geologic contact between the Whiskey Hill and Ladera Sandstone Formations. Offset trenches should be considered where mature oak trees prevent continuous exploratory trenching. Exploration in the northern portion of the residential site should be considered to help characterize the subsurface geology and further clear the site from geologic hazards. We recommend that an exploration plan be submitted to the Town for review prior to commencement of subsurface exploration. The Town Geologist should be notified prior to the start of exploration and be given the opportunity to inspect the subsurface exposures.
2. Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluation of Site Slopes and Drainage Channel – The slopes above the proposed development should be evaluated with respect to their potential for instability and adverse impacts to the properties. Retaining wall freeboard/mitigation from
Stephanie Bertollo-Davis June 5, 2024
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
sloughing/landsliding along the upslope side of the development should be evaluated. In addition, setbacks from the northern drainage channel should be assessed.
3. Supplemental/Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation for Residential Development and Fire Access Roadway – The Project Geotechnical Consultant should perform Supplemental/Design-Level Geotechnical Investigations, including the following:
• The proposed fire access roadway is to include substantial grading. A feasibility-level investigation was performed and determined that the roadway was feasible from a geologic standpoint. A fire access roadway design-level investigation should be performed and should include, at a minimum, surface and subsurface exploration, laboratory testing, and slope stability evaluations/analyses to assure that grading and drainage modifications along this hillside do not result in slope instability.
• A Design-level Geotechnical Investigation should be performed for the residential development to provide foundation and retaining wall design criteria.
4. Updated Development Plan/Final Map – An Updated Development Plan should be generated based upon the results of Tasks 1, 2 and 3.
5. Structural Plans - Structural plans should be developed that incorporate the design recommendations of the Project Geotechnical Consultant.
6. Geotechnical Review of Grading, Drainage, and Structural Plans and Final Map - The Project Geotechnical Consultant should review and approve the Grading and Drainage Plans, Structural Plans, and Final Map to assure that their recommendations have been incorporated into the plans.
The results of the Supplemental Exploratory Trenching, Geologic and Geotechnical Evaluations, Design-Level Geotechnical Investigation, Updated Development Plan, Structural Plans, and Grading and Drainage Plan and Final Map Review should be submitted to the Town for review prior to issuance of grading or building permits.
Stephanie Bertollo-Davis June 5, 2024
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
LIMITATIONS
This geologic and geotechnical peer review has been performed to provide technical advice to assist the Town in its discretionary permit decisions. Our services have been limited to review of the documents previously identified, and a visual review of the property. Our opinions and conclusions are made in accordance with generally accepted principles and practices of the geotechnical profession. This warranty is in lieu of all other warranties, either expressed or implied.
Respectfully submitted,
COTTON, SHIRES AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
TOWN GEOTECHNICAL CONSULTANT
John M. Wallace
Principal Engineering Geologist
CEG 1923
Patrick O. Shires
Senior Principal Geotechnical Engineer
GE 770
JMW:POS:st
1 MEMORANDUM
To: Howard Young & Stephanie B. Davis,
Town of Portola
Date: April 26, 2024
From: Jay Radke & Nona Espinosa,
NV5 Inc.
Project: SJ00717-305
3510 Alpine Road
Subject: Review comments for planning permit application #PLN_ARCH0021-2019
1. Stanford University - Revised Project
Description FINAL dated 7/14/20
2. Portola Valley Housing - Response to
application comments - Nov '19 dated July20
3. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting - Tree
Disposition Memo - Portola Valley dated
6/11/20
4. Stanford University - SFH Building Heights
dated 7/9/20
5. Sandis - Civil supplemental docs
• Earthwork Calcs – Total Soil Movement
dated 5/15/20
• Hydromod BAHM Calcs dated 5/15/20
• Impervious Surface Exhibit dated
11/18/19
• Impervious Surface Table dated 5/20/20
• Slope Density Calculation dated 7/14/20
6. Water Efficiency Checklist dated 7/20/20
7. Cal Water Service Will Serve Letter APN
077281020 dated 3/23/20
8. Stanford Univertsity - Town of Portola Valley re
Trails w exhibits dated 5/26/20
9. Basin Research Associates - Updated Cultural
Report – Review Fire Access dated 7/7/20
10. Proposal to Use State Affordable Housing Law -
Updated Final dated 7/14/20
• Tables 1 & 2 updated – Project Parcel
Sizes, Project Spacing between main
buildings
• Exhibit B – updated project spacing
drawings
• Exhibit C – parcel size vs MFA
11. 105-117-1 The Stanford Wedge Draft Prelim GI
Report dated 9/18/17
2 12. GSI Environmental Inc. - Phase_I
Environmental Site Assessment -StanfordPortola_Valley-F_reduced dated 3/11/20
13. Sandis - ASCC Resubmittal Civil TM Set dated
7/10/20
14. PORTOLA TERRACE ASCC PACKAGE
REDUCED SET dated 7/14/20
15. Stanford PV Complete ASCC Resubmittal Set
dated 7/14/20
16. Siegel & Strain Architects - 201117 SFH ASCC
Resubmittal Set #3_compressed dated 11/10/20.
17. Sandis - ASCC Resubmittal Civil TM Set (1)
dated 11/10/20.
18. Updated CWS Will Serve Letter APN
077281020 dated 9/28/20.
NV5 has completed the review of the Site Development Application package and has the following comments:
A. General.
1. All conditions listed in the most current “Public Works & Engineering Department Site Development Standard Guidelines and Checklist” shall be reviewed and complied with.
A completed and signed checklist by the project architect or engineer must be submitted with the building plans. This checklist document is available on the Town website at https://www.portolavalley.net/building-planning/stormwater. (Submitted but not signed by applicant.) (Response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
2. All items listed in the most current “Public Works & Engineering Department PreConstruction Meeting for Site Development” shall be reviewed and understood. This document is also available on the Town website. (Response acknowledged.)
3. The site is subject to County’s Green Infrastructure plan. Use San Mateo County Design Guidelines as template. (Complied)
4. Any revisions to the Site Development permit plan set shall be resubmitted to the Town for review. The revised items must be highlighted on the plans, and each item that was revised listed in the letter. (Response acknowledged.)
5. All plan review comments and subsequent review comments from NV5 shall be addressed to the Town’s satisfaction. (Response acknowledged.)
3 6. Show and label all existing and proposed utilities within the project vicinity on the plans. (Acceptable for site development stage of project.)
B. Specific (for resubmittal before approval of the PUD)
1. Prepare an analysis of the hydraulics/hydrology of the creek and demonstrate whether any 100-year overland flow reaches the project site, and, if it does, indicate how such flows are directed to flood proof the site and not induce/concentrate flooding on downstream properties. Show the overland flow path. The north side of the development is adjacent to the Pine Ridge Run. Please evaluate the potential for flooding issues along this area and if the setback is sufficient. (Calculation provided is acceptable, roughly 4 feet of freeboard.)
2. It appears that there will be significant runoff from the hillside drainage area (to the west of the development) that will flow along the western retaining walls of the proposed site.
Please provide more detail as to how the proposed storm drainage system along the
4 retaining walls is sized and how the runoff from the site impacts the existing storm drainage system along and crossing Alpine Road and ultimately discharges into Los Trancos Creek. Please confirm the condition and size of the Town’s storm drains that cross Alpine Road are sufficient to handle site runoff and upgrade these crossings, if necessary.
a. Calculation provided for existing 18” is acceptable, 25-year event ok, no upsizing needed.
b. But calculation for the proposed 8” pipe capturing the hill side runoff is under sized, the proposed pipe connecting to existing inlet upstream of the existing 18”storm drain pipe. (Response dated July 2020 is acceptable – 10” pipe is required for 100-year storm event. But sheets C-6.0 and TM-5.0 shows an 8” SD pipe to capture the hill side 100-year event runoff.) (Revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable.)
c. Please provide overland flow path for the 100-year event in plan. (Overland flow path is acceptable.)
3. Please show a safe release pathway for the post development 100‐year flow condition.
Within urbanized areas, the 100‐year discharge may be carried by a combination of a storm drain system and surface flow on streets, as long as the hydraulic grade line is contained within a designated flow path. Under no circumstances shall the energy grade line (water surface plus velocity head) exceed the finished floor elevation of any structure, including garages. (Response is acceptable.)
4. The plans show a proposed detention or bioretention system to be used as part of the stormwater management system for the development. Please provide more detail as to how this system will meet the Town’s hydromodification and stormwater treatment requirements. (BAHM report acceptable, please provide geotechnical report for infiltration rate and groundwater elevation information. The proposed storm drainage system should discharge into the biorention basins for stormwater treatment, instead of the peak/volume attenuation basin.) (Updated BAHM report dated 5/15/20 is acceptable)
5. There appears to be storm drain inlets that are proposed to be located down gradient of the proposed bioretention/detention basins, near Alpine Road and the proposed northern entrance to the development. Please provide more details as to how the stormwater captured by these inlets will be diverted into the bio-retention/detention basins. The bioretention/detention basins should be designed to not impact Alpine Road (e.g., underseepage and boiling up in the roadway) and minimize vector/mosquito issues. (Response acceptable for planning stage.)
6. Provide an analysis of how the development will impact traffic flow and sight visibility on Alpine Road, including whether a dedicated turn lane or other measures will be required. (Response is acceptable.)
5 7. The Fire Department may require a fire road be constructed along uphill perimeter of the development site. Please coordinate with the Town and Fire Department regarding the need for a fire road. (Response is acceptable.)
8. The Town of Portola Valley has horse trails and hiking paths that may be impacted by the development. Please coordinate with the Town regarding trail alignment, potential mitigation measures, including relocating or improving (e.g. widening of the paths), for any potential impacts to the paths. Please refer to Town trail standards or provide better/equivalent trail design standard. Please clarify if the proposed extended trail shown on sheet TM-5.2 will be on public or private property. (Response that the applicant is working with the Town staff & Trails Committee is acceptable. Please note that additional trails as determined by the applicant, Town staff, and the Trails Committee will be required.) Also see Trails Committee comments. (Response dated July 2020 stating a detailed trail proposal has been submitted to the Public Works Director is acceptable. Additional comments to be provided by Public Works Director and Trails Committee after their review.)
9. The construction work on Alpine Road will impact the Town’s planned 2021 slurry seal project for Alpine Road. If the slurry seal is disturbed, the Town may request re-slurry sealing from curb to curb for the length of the effected roadway. (Response acknowledged.)
10. The planned subdivision is subject to the Subdivision Map Act and Chapter 17 of the Town of Portola Valley municipal code. Final maps shall be reviewed and approved by NV5 / Town Land Surveyor/Engineer. (Response acknowledged.)
11. Please coordinate with the Town regarding revegetation upgrades in the right of way. (Response that comment is noted is acceptable.)
12. Sheet TM-5.2 shows a proposed 6-foot-wide trail; please confirm with the Town whether a public easement is required (Chapter 17.20.020 U). (No response to this comment was provided.) (Response dated July 2020 stating this to be a condition of approval of the Tentative Map is acceptable.)
13. Please indicate the presence of any historic resource as identified in the historic element of the general plan, or provide a statement regarding the absence of historic resources (Chapter 17.20.020 W). (Response that report was previously provided that states there are no historic resources is acceptable.) (The additional response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
14. Include a blank space of eighty square inches in area, of suitable shape for certificates, conditions and approvals, and other similar matters (Chapter 17.20.020 X). (Response is acceptable.)
6 15. Provide profiles of all streets, highways, ways, trails, sanitary sewers and storm drains in the subdivision (Chapter 17.20.030 C). (No response to this comment was provided.) (Response dated July 2020 is acceptable – “Typical street, hillside, and bioretention area section has been provided. See Sheet C-5.2. A utility section showing the sanitary sewer and storm drain in profile has been provided. See C-6.2. More detailed profiles will be provided during construction documents”)
16. Provide a preliminary title report (Chapter 17.20.030 M). (Response is acceptable.)
17. Provide proposes Conditions, Restrictions or Covenants (Chapter 17.20.030 N). (Response that CC&Rs are being prepared and will be submitted upon completion is acceptable.)
18. Lot corners, property corners, the boundaries of any open space easements, and the centerlines of roads, trails and paths shall be staked and flagged in the field. Trails and paths flags shall be of a distinctive color. Six copies of the tentative subdivision map shall be submitted showing the location of the stakes (Chapter 17.20.030 S). (Response is acceptable.)
Additional Comments:
19. The Town’s General Plan defines Alpine Road as an arterial road. Per the Town’s Municipal Code (Chapter 17.40.100), arterial roads right-of-way shall be a minimum of 100’. The existing Alpine Road right-of way is generally 80 feet wide. Provide additional right-of-way along the entire property frontage where needed to achieve the 100’. Staff would like to discuss implementation of this requirement. (The additional right-of-way along Alpine Road to maintain 100’ shown on sheet C-3.0 is acceptable; however, there should be a distinction made between the existing right-of-way and the areas of additional right-of-way that need to be dedicated. Widths should also be added to demonstrate the compliance with the 100’. The additional right-of-way should also be shown on the Tentative Map sheets TM-3.0 & TM-3.1.) (Revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable, except shade area to be dedicated.)
20. Depict the entire existing Alpine Trail along the entire length of the existing parcel and up to Westridge Drive on the plans. (The existing Alpine Trail shown on sheet C-2.0 should be labeled. It should also be clearly labeled on TM-2.0, TM-2.1, and TM-3.0.) (Revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable.)
21. Provide easement for the portion of the existing Alpine Trail that falls outside the existing Alpine Road right-of-way that is located within the existing property. (Additional trail easement(s) needs to be shown on the Tentative Map.) (Response dated November 11, 2020, is acceptable.)
7 22. Provide additional information in the project Arborist’s report for the trees along the entire property frontage of Alpine Road including the trees within the Alpine Road rightof-way and approximately 30’ behind the property line along the property frontage to determine the trees that may affect the Alpine Trail and right of way (protruding or canopying). In addition, include trees in the right of way east to Westridge Drive. (The trees shown on sheets C-4.0 and C-4.1 only cover the area of the proposed development.
The request is to show the trees along the entire frontage of Alpine Road along the entire property (APN 077-281-020) frontage.) (Response dated November 11, 2020, is acceptable? Early Conditions of Approval item #8 has been added.)
23. Provide sight visibility study at each project entrance onto Alpine Road. (The additional response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
C. Specific (for consideration during building plan submittal).
1. Hydrology/Hydraulics (BAHM report acceptable, please provide geotechnical report for infiltration rate and groundwater elevation information. Please provide final report.) (Updated BAHM report dated 5/15/20 is acceptable)
2. Please refer to the current San Mateo County stormwater quality control requirements and demonstrate how the project complies with these requirements. (Response is acceptable.)
3. Provide documentation and a summary table showing the total overall impervious surface area for both the existing pre-construction site condition and the post-construction site condition. The Town’s Site Development Standard Guidelines include a requirement for the installation of stormwater detention for projects that create or replace greater than 10,000 square feet of impervious surface. (BAHM report is acceptable.)
4. Please provide documentation as to how the size of the detention system and its components were determined. (BAHM report is acceptable.)
5. Provide documentation showing the existing condition and estimated post-development peak runoff. Post-development peak runoff must be less than or equal to the existing predevelopment condition or mitigation must be provided. For the runoff calculation for existing and post-construction conditions, please provide the watershed delineation, time of concentration for peak flow and the runoff coefficient used for the project site. (BAHM report acceptable.)
6. Provide calculations indicating the flow velocity for sizing the proposed storm drainage pipes, and provide information for the sizing of any proposed rock slope protection. (Response is acceptable.)
8 7. Please provide cleanouts in the drain system along bends. (Response is acceptable.)
8. Provide a sediment capture inlet upstream of the detention basin connection. (Response is acceptable.)
9. Per Fire Department requirements, the minimum turning radius is 40 feet for Hammerhead/Tee and curves. Please ensure the minimum turning radius meets this requirement. (Only one inside curve radius along the roadway is labeled. Please provide labels on all curves to demonstrate compliance with the 40’ minimum turning radius.) (As stated in the July 2020 response, the radii have been labeled on Sheet C-9.0.
However, the width of the access road does not appear to be a consistent 20’. In front of Lot 11 the radius is labeled 94’ but the label on the opposite side of the street is labeled as 110’ which is only 16’ in width. Also, at the northerly entrance the radii on both sides of the access road are labeled as 40’. Please revise the radii labels to demonstrate a consistent 20’ width.) (Revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable.)
10. Please show and provide the sizes of all existing utilities in the project area. (Sheet C-6.1, some existing utilities are missing.) (The additional response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
11. Please show the existing 42-inch storm drainage pipe that crosses the proposed water line. (Response acceptable.)
12. For maintenance purposes, the proposed 8-inch storm drain that crosses under Alpine Road on the south side of the development should be increased to 18 inches in diameter, similar to the other existing storm drain crossings. (Response acceptable, per calculation provided there is no upsizing of existing 18” pipe is needed. However, replacement of the pipeline and/or inlet/outlet erosion control might be required due to existing pipe condition. Please verify with Town’s Public Works Maintenance Department.) (The additional response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
13. Please show the location of the proposed fire hydrants along Alpine Road. (Response is acceptable.)
14. Please score trails located at any driveway approaches. (Response not acceptable, painting and scoring are not the same???) (The additional response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
Additional Comments:
15. The Utility Plan (TM-5.0 & TM 5.1 and C6.0 & C6.1) shows a single water main connection to the existing water system located at the intersection of Alpine Road and
9 Westridge Drive to serve the development. Please confirm with CalWater and Woodside Fire Protection District that it is acceptable to have only one point of connection for the water system rather than being looped to provide two points of connection for redundancy in the event the main is shut down for any reason. (The response dated July 2020 is not acceptable. The concern is not just that the proposed 12” pipeline meets the domestic and fire demand needs. The concern is that the project is proposed to be served by a single 12” pipeline from the intersection of Westridge Drive to the northerly access entrance without a redundant source of water in case of emergencies. If this section of single pipeline were to be taken out of service for any reason, the project would be completely without water for possibly an extended period of time. Please provide evidence from CalWater and Woodside Fire that this single source of water without an emergency supply source is acceptable.) (Provided response in incomplete. Provide acceptance from CalWater and Woodside Fire Protection District for the single source of water.)
16. The Fire Access Plan (C9.0) shows the corner radii for the private roadway connections to be 10-feet on the southerly connection and 11-feet on the northerly connection.
Although the Town standard for driveways is a 10-foot radius, please consider these connections as roadways rather driveways and provide 25’ corner radii per Town of Portola Valley municipal code (Chapter 17.40.070). (The response dated July 2020 is not acceptable. There are too many homes proposed to be served by the two entrances to consider this a private roadway which typically serves one or two residences. The response also conflicts with the 25’ radii as shown on the Fire Access Plan sheet C-9.0.) (Response and revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable.)
17. Parking should not be allowed on the Private Road to allow minimum 20’ wide adequate emergency vehicles access. Coordinate with Woodside Fire Protection District for striping and signage requirements for emergency vehicle access. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
Additional Comments:
18. The Will Serve Letter provided by CalWater references the City of Menlo Park rather than the Town of Portola Valley. (Updated letter dated September 28, 2020, is acceptable but the letter has an expiration of two years and has now expired. Provide updated Will Serve Letter from CalWater.)
19. Please provide a typical cross-section for the emergency access between lots 8 & 9. (Show how the 100-year overland flow path and water surface elevation will work through the provided emergency access road section keeping the adjacent residential buildings above the 100-year water surface.)
10 20. Please provide a typical cross-section and centerline radii for the Vegetation Management Maintenance Road shown on C5.0, C5.3, and TM-4.0. (Response and revised plans dated November 11, 2020, are acceptable. )
21. Please note the Vegetative Management Maintenance Road shown on sheets C5.3 and TM-4.0 do not match the same roadway shown on sheets EX-1, EX-2, and EX-3 of the Proposed Trails letter dated May 26, 2020. (Response is understood. Provide updated Proposed Trails letter with updated Exhibits EX-1, EX-2, and EX-3.) Early Conditions of Approval:
1. Improve entire length of Alpine Trail along the property frontage and up to Westridge Drive. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
2. Replace the two existing 18” storm drains under Alpine Road. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
3. Underground existing overhead utility lines on Alpine Road along the entire property frontage. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
4. Repair or replace fencing along right of way/property line of entire property frontage of Alpine Road. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
5. Provide traffic improvements based on recommendations from traffic study. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
6. Remove all dead brush, dead trees or trees in poor health and trim all trees and brush along Alpine Road frontage and within the 30 foot area behind the property line as recommended in Arborist’s report and in coordination with the Town. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
7. Meet all requirements of Town of Portola Valley Municipal Code. (The response dated July 2020 is acceptable.)
8. Provide additional information in the project Arborist’s report for the trees along the entire property frontage of Alpine Road including the trees within the Alpine Road rightof-way and approximately 30’ behind the property line along the property frontage to determine the trees that may affect the Alpine Trail and right of way (protruding or canopying). In addition, include trees in the right of way east to Westridge Drive.
WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Prevention Division
808 Portola Rd. Portola Valley, CA ~ www.woodsidefire.org ~ Fire Marshal Denise Enea 650-851-6206 ALL CONDITIONS MUST MEET WFPD SPECIFICATIONS – go to www.woodsidefire.org for more info
BDLG & SPRINKLER PLAN CHECK AND INSPECTIONS
PROJECT LOCATION:Alpine Rd. Jurisdiction: PV
Owner/Architect/Project Manager:
Stanford University
Permit#:
ASCC
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New site development WEDGE
Fees Paid: $YES See Fee Comments Date:
Fee Comments: $450.00 paid7/29/19 Planning ck # 2171777 CC payment ...........John Donahoe – 6/5/24 - MT 6/19/24 BUILDING PLAN CHECK COMMENTS/CONDITIONS:
THE FOLLOWING WAS IDENTIFIED AS BEING REQUIRED DURING THE PLANNING APPLICATION REVIEW PROCESS. DURING THE BUILDING REVIEW ADDITIONAL ITEMS MAY BE REQUIRED.
FIRE DEPT ACCESS:
1. Loop fire apparatus access road and/or driveway will be a minimum of 26 ft.., exclusive of shoulders, and be of a WFPD approved all weather surface. Be aware WFPD does not have capability to reach a roof over 2 stories in height (24ft).
Emergency response will be delayed, and only if outside resources are available for fire fighter operations. Access to the roofs is essential for fire fighting operations. It is essential to note emergency response will be delayed if there is a fire.
2. All fire apparatus access roads and/or driveways (including from all public roadways to secondary roadways) shall have a minimum turning radius of 40ft.
3. All roadway transitions and superelevation’s shall be less than 10%
4. All fire apparatus access roads and/or driveways must always maintain a minimum of 13’6” vertical clearance of any vegetation or tree branches.
5. The fire lane in the middle of the main loop as proposed will be 12ft inclusive all-weather type drivable shoulders to meet minimum requirements for fire and rescue operations. As per plans show.
SIGNAGE:
1.Addressing required on each structure and each individual R-2 rental unit. Numbers shall be visible from the loop road, be of contrasting color from background, illuminated and a minimum of 4-inch stroke.
2. No parking lanes shall be indicated with red curbs and/or no parking signs shall be installed where Fire Dept. Access to structures, PIV, FDC, and hydrants are installed.
CA STATE FIRE MARSHAL MANDATED INSPECTIONS
1. R-2 occupancies are required by state mandate to have annual fire inspections by local jurisdiction (fee TBD) WATER SUPPLY/FIRE HYDRANTS:
1. R-3 Occupancy: Three fire hydrants, capable of a minimum of 1000 gpm at 20 psi, along the loop road, with a maximum separation of 400 ft. between each hydrant. Hydrants shall be installed prior to any framing of structures. Each structure shall have a hydrant within 500ft measured via the roadway or driveway.
2. R-2 Occupancy: will be 1500gpm at 20psi based on the V-B construction type.
3. FDC and hydrant proximity must be within 100ft per WFPD ordinance.
DEFENSIBLE SPACE:
1. 200ft of defensible space will be required between the remaining undeveloped Stanford parcel and all proposed developed parcels. Defensible space will be required prior to start of any site development work and maintained in perpetuity.
2. 50ft perimeter property line defensible space per WFPD Local Ordinance No. 24-01 will be required prior to start of any site work and maintained in perpetuity.
3. A fire protection plan including a vegetation management component indicating; map of area, acres to be treated, distance to neighboring structures, vegetation types, topography, riparian areas, complete prescription, scope, methods and annual treatment timelines and individuals responsible for overseeing work. A fire fuels management report was submitted to WFPD for review and approved by WFPD.
WOODSIDE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT
Prevention Division
808 Portola Rd. Portola Valley, CA ~ www.woodsidefire.org ~ Fire Marshal Denise Enea 650-851-6206 ALL CONDITIONS MUST MEET WFPD SPECIFICATIONS – go to www.woodsidefire.org for more info Landscape Requirements:
Please Note: New WFPD Local Ordinance No. 24-01 requires the following:
ZONE 0 Requirements (Ember Resistant Zone 0’-5’ from structure)
1. No hazardous vegetation and combustible materials that are within the first five feet (5 ft.) of or above a structure and any attached deck.
2. No combustible bark or mulch is allowed in this zone. Consider using hardscape like gravel, flagstone, permeable pavers or blocks, pervious or porous concrete, or other noncombustible materials.
3. Ensure all live tree branches are kept a minimum of 10 feet above the roof and decking.
4. Ensure all branches are a minimum of ten feet (10 ft.) away from chimney and stovepipe outlets.
5. Replace combustible fencing, gates, trellis, and arbors attached to the Structure(s) with noncombustible features. For existing fences, consider providing a separation distance of at least 6 feet from any structure unless the last 6 feet of fence connecting to the structure is constructed of non-combustible material.
6. Maintain horizontal and vertical spacing among shrubs and trees to achieve defensible space clearance utilizing the Fuel Separation or Continuous Tree Canopy method. (both can be found on our website under the Fuel Mitigation Ordinance "Appendix A & B")
FIRE SPRINKLER REQUIREMENTS:
1. NFPA 13 or 13D Fire Sprinkler System to be installed based on occupancy type. Will be deferred submittals.
FIRE ALARM SYSTEM:
1. Deferred submittal.
***RESUBMIT***Shall be shown on plans with clouds and deltas • The turning radius was not shown on current plan and must be 40ft. • Plans need to show the location on the FDCs. Proximity to a hydrant must be within 100ft. ***NOTE***
As per plans the fire access road off the main loop will remain 12ft, confirmed with WFPD Turning radius is confirmed to be 40ft per WFPD local ordinance standards. 8/15/24 - MT
Reviewed by:M. Tamez Date: 8/15/24
Resubmit x Approved with Conditions Approved without conditions Sprinkler Plans Approved: NO Date: Fees Paid: $390 See Fee Comments As Built Submitted: ----------- Date: As Builts Approved Date:
Fee Comments:
Rough/Hydro Sprinkler Inspection By: --------- Date:
Sprinkler Inspection Comments:
Final Bldg and/or Sprinkler Insp By: -------- Date:
Comments:
From: Michael Tamez
To: John D. Donahoe
Subject: RE: Portola Terrace
Date: Wednesday, September 18, 2024 7:11:52 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you John, I appreciate this layout, this is helpful indeed. For future reviews with the layout of the hydrants and FDCS, we will make sure to state proper labeling and signage for the FDCS and fire lane marking as conditions of approval once we see more reviews. I appreciate this John, Thank you,
Michael Tamez
Fire Inspector/Investigator
Woodside Fire Protection District
Office (650) 851-1594
[email protected]
808 Portola Road
Portola Valley, CA 94028
From: John D. Donahoe <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, August 22, 2024 3:34 PM
To: Kim Giuliacci <[email protected]>; Michael Tamez <[email protected]>; [email protected]; Adrienne Smith <[email protected]> Cc: Steven D Elliott <[email protected]>; Christopher E. Wuthmann <[email protected]>; Nancy Malone - Siegel & Strain ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Laura Levenberg ([email protected]) <[email protected]>; Steven Yasutake ([email protected]) <[email protected]> Subject: Portola Terrace
Fire Marshall Giuliacci and Inspector Tamez:
In an effort to provide the Woodside Fire Protection District with a concise document that reflects our discussions over the past few weeks, I have asked our project team to prepare the revised document for our collective records. We have added the text from WFPD district comment letters to this exhibit. I am hoping this document will be a helpful resource to the
district during the future plan check process. Both the Town and the District can reference this document in conditions of approval moving forward.
This document now reflects the location of FDCs for each of the three multi-family buildings.
The depiction of the FDCs also triggered the need to relocation one fire hydrant and to add an addition fire hydrant to our proposed project. The additional fire hydrant also provides an additional benefit by placing hydrants near each of the project’s entrances, thus providing additional fire hose coverage along the project frontage along Alpine Road.
Thank you for your assistance and coordination for this project.
John
John D. Donahoe
Senior Director, Planning and Entitlement
Stanford University
Stanford Real Estate
415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, Mail Code 8873
Redwood City, CA 94063
Cell: (650) 223-4971
WEDGE SUBCOMMITTEE
THIRD COMMENTS FROM Conservation Committee
8/5/20
It is a real loss for the Town to have this rural open space developed. We appreciate that Stanford has attempted to understand how valuable the scenic corridor and open space are to PV residents – for the esthetics of the view corridor, for the wildlife, and for the trails. We hope that the Town and the other committees will hold Stanford to a high level of follow through on preserving the natural appearance of this property as it loses its minimally developed state.
Comments:
1. In the site to be developed itself, much of the natural habitat has been lost to horse accommodations. The remainder of the site is pristine, largely undisturbed, native habitat rich with local wildlife. It is densely overgrown with no fire mitigation in the central area for decades.
2. We appreciate that the landscaping is now low water use natives.
3. We appreciate that the planting along Alpine Road is now more naturalistic oak woodland and less “landscaped”,
although still more should be eliminated to preserve the rural appearance along the road. The renderings in the Third
Submission show landscaping much as we would wish it to be – but that is not what the formal planting plan maps illustrate.
4. We appreciate that a fire road has been added. The exact placement of this is shown differently on the printed plan set and the page C.5.0 on Box – which is correct? Ongoing Fire mitigation projects done from this access need to be sensitive to wildlife and concern for the wildlife habitat should influence all decisions. There are grave fire concerns but they are being addressed with more authority and expertise by
others. We assume all dead and senescent trees will be
removed from area Y.
5. We appreciate area Y, the relatively open defensible space behind the proposed homes. No development should be
allowed here except perhaps for a community garden.
Requests:
1. To the maximum extent legally permissible, working
within the limitations of the Founder’s Grant, the
undeveloped remainder of the property should be preserved as committed open space.
2. We would like to see the developed area pushed as far back from the road and as far south as the terrain will allow, rather than focusing on meeting bare minimal easement
requirements. Ideally 100 feet from Alpine Road and 40-50 feet from northern border. The amount of additional grading this would require is small compared to the major impact it would have on settling the developments more comfortably into the community. The additional cut might be used to create gentle berms in the Alpine Road setback, providing additional screening.
3. The setback from Alpine should be for all structures and uses, not just buildings. Special care should be taken with planting or berming to insure that this area does not become used informally for overflow parking.
4. No illustration is provided to show landscaping at the entrance to the fire road – we hope there is none. If
landscaping is planned here, please provide specific plan and plant list.
5. We again request much less planting at the entrances to create a more informal and natural area in harmony with the current roadside. Our rural esthetic should be maintained; this should not look like the landscaped entrance to a
development. Ideally it would look like the rendering
pictures in your Third Submission and not like your planting plan illustrations.
6. The renderings show a utility pole by Alpine Trail – we thought utilities were to be undergrounded along this
frontage.
7. We suggest that the several areas called out for Stipa pulcra also include Stipa lepida – one prefers more sun than the other and a more pleasing cover will be created as the 2 species sort themselves out in the dappled sun/shade.
8. Fencing should be minimized or absent. A fence would make sense to separate BMR 1 and unit #25 from the
common area, and units # 15-21 from the wildlife corridor and trail, and would be allowed around a shared garden plot area.
9. The play area should be as natural as possible and
appeal to a wide age range. Because the common area is so small, all of it should be as multi-use as possible. Play area should be protected from nearby parking spaces by picnic tables and/or grade changes.
10. Trails:
a. The loop trail with a stub connection to Alpine Canyon Trail is an improvement over the previously proposed
trail.
b. A wildlife corridor and trail along the north property line should be established. There will inevitably be an informal path created here by deer and hikers. It would be preferable to have a proper trail with appropriate
protections rather than an ad hoc path. We strongly
recommend that the development be pushed back
another 20-25’ to allow a trail and vegetation space to separate/screen the trail from the development and the
Westridge lots
c. Once Stanford has re-established and graded these
Trails, the Town should be granted a trails easement so these will be official public trails. It would be desirable
to have Stanford assume responsibility for maintenance
of these trails.
11. It would be desirable to move the existing Alpine Road horse trail – which will need rebuilding anyway – back from the roadway into the setback area to provide a more pleasant and safe trail experience.
12. Consider zero lot lines on one side of units so they have useable side yards. As planned each has only 2 narrow strips for side yards. These narrow yards are not really functional and are likely to accumulate junk and less tended vegetation.
13. The limited number of parking spaces creates a
potential problem – where will overflow parking go? It
cannot be allowed to spill over to Alpine Road or intrude into the setback. This argues for a way to get here other than driving a car. A Marguerite extension would be ideal.
14. The additional traffic generated by the new residents should be mitigated by extending Marguerite to Portola
Valley. Many Stanford faculty, staff and students already live out here; many more residents make frequent trips to the Medical Center and shopping center. This could help with parking congestion on campus.
15. More bike parking is needed.
Submitted by Judith Murphy, Chair, Conservation Committee
From: Gary Hanning
To: Laura Russell
Cc: Joe Coleman; Fred Leach
Subject: Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee 2nd Round Comments - Stanford University Faculty Housing Project
Date: Monday, December 16, 2019 5:45:56 PM
Dear Laura,
The Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee has reviewed the applicant's response to our preliminary comments and the associated set of new plans dated 11/15/19. Unfortunately, very little feedback was received and the new plans do not incorporate any of the changes proposed by our Subcommittee. Therefore, we're forwarding our initial comments again, and providing some reiteration info and additional comments as follows:
1. In response to item #3 in our preliminary comments, we strongly reiterate our desire to have the proposed new homes moved south a minimum of 25 additional feet from the northern property line to make room for a trail and a wildlife corridor. Note that a portion of the Canyon Trail has existed in this area since at least 1962. Moving the homes south away from the property line would also reduce a perceived massing/crowding of structures on that border.
It's our understanding that both Conservation and ASCC have also made this request.
Furthermore, during a recent site visit we were able to identify tree #4855 (on page C-4.1 of the new plans). This tree marks the current proposed southern edge of the new homes. We observed substantial usable land to the south, west and east of this tree and have concluded that moving the subdivision 25-30 feet south from Tree #4855 would not have a substantial impact to the design. Also keep in mind that there are numerous locations in Portola Valley where trails/paths run close to homes and, given adequate space, it is possible to naturally screen the homes from the trail.
2. It's our understanding that the Public Works Department will be asking the applicant to rebuild the portion of Alpine Trail that runs alongside the eastern edge of the subject property.
During a recent site visit, it was determined that there are substantial portions of Alpine Trail that in fact reside on the subject property and are outside of the road setback easement. Given that the applicant will be rebuilding a portion of Alpine Trail and that the Town will need to secure easements for the existing portions of Alpine Trail that reside on the subject property (see comment #6 below) , we would like to propose that the entire portion of Alpine Trail that runs alongside the eastern edge of the subject property be moved westward onto the subject property and a new easement created for this relocated section of Alpine Trail. We believe that this will make for a much improved trail user experience as traffic on Alpine Road has increased substantially in the recent years and the resulting noise has a significant impact on users of the Trail. Moving the Trail west into the subject property will likely save several trees that would otherwise need to be removed or substantially trimmed. We anticipate that residents of this new subdivision will be using this trail often and they will benefit from having the Trail on the subject property and further away from Alpine Rd.
3. The Trails and Paths Subcommittee has located an existing public trail easement that borders the western side of the subject property. This easement is located on lots in the Pine Ridge Subdivision. Given this, we propose that a fourth new trail be added on the subject property that connects the first new trail (see #2 below) to the trail easement on Pine Ridge Subdivision Lot #11. This easement can be seen on the Pine Ridge Subdivision Map Volume
56 Page 32.
4. We ask that a licensed surveyor mark the entire property line along the northern border with the Westridge Subdivision as well as the western border with the Pine Ridge Subdivision. This is necessary to determine if parts of the existing Canyon Trail lie within the boundaries of the subject property.
5. The applicant has noted in their response that they are working with both the Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee and the Town Staff to determine locations of the trails.
However, at this point our Subcommittee has not been contacted by the applicant and currently there is no collaborative effort under way. We encourage the applicant to contact us to setup a meeting to begin work on locating the new trails as soon as possible.
Best Regards,
Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee
----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Gary Hanning <[email protected]>
To: Laura Russell <[email protected]>
Cc: Terry Lee <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2019, 11:38:49 AM PDT
Subject: Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee PRELIMINARY Comments - Stanford University Faculty Housing Project
Dear Laura,
The Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee has reviewed the Stanford University Faculty Housing Plans dated 9/13/2019 (plot date 9/6/2019). Included in this set of plans is a Trail Map prepared by Sandis Civil Engineers dated 8/30/2019. The Subcommittee also visited the site on 9/30/2019 and met with John Donahoe of Stanford. With respect to this project, The Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee offer the following remarks, comments and recommendations:
1. The Trail Map included in the package shows a single new Trail/Path starting near the southern most proposed entrance into the subdivision extending up the hill and along a portion of the hillside to the northern property boundary with the Westridge Subdivision. This Trail/Path is proposed by the project developers and is not consistent with the Town of Portola Valley General Plan Trails and Paths Element dated 1/8/2003. The Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee recommends against implementing this Trail/Path as proposed.
2. The Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee recommends that, as a condition of approval of the new Stanford Faculty Housing Subdivision, the project incorporate several new Trails/Paths as outlined in the Town of Portola Valley General Plan Trails and Paths Element dated 1/8/2003. The Trails and Paths Element addresses the entire property known as the "Stanford Wedge" and specifies the creation of several new Trails/Paths. The first new Trail/Path has an entrance at the southern most point of the subject property near Golden Oak Dr. This new Trail/Path traverses the hillside north to the property line with the Westridge Subdivision. A second new Trail/Path enters the subject property from Alpine Road near an
existing gate across from Glenoaks Stables. This new Trail/Path runs somewhat parallel to the first, lower on the hillside and also traverses north to the property line with the Westridge Subdivision. A third new Trail/Path connects the two and then travels east alongside the creek and returns to Alpine Road. Reference The Town of Portola Valley Trails and Paths Element Plan Diagram A dated 12/21/2009 for more specific information on these new Tails/Paths.
These new Trails/Paths are to be multi-use, with the upper trail available to hiking and equestrians, and the lower available to hiking, equestrians and possibly bicycles as yet to be determined.
3. The Trail/Path returning to Alpine Road along the creek would run very close to the proposed housing units that back up to the creek. The Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee recommends that those units be moved south to create a sufficient scenic corridor along the creek to allow for the new Trail/Path and for any conservation purpose as required by the Conservation Committee.
4. The new Trails/Paths should be staked out by a licensed surveyor and their locations approved by the Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee prior to approving the Stanford Faculty Housing Subdivision.
5. Construction of the new Trails/Paths should adhere to Town of Portola Valley Trail/Path Construction Standards and Specifications including but not limited to six foot minimum width and an all weather compacted base-rock surface. Additionally, Trail/Path surfaces shall be scored and made non-slip at any location where a Trail/Path traverses and driveway, sidewalk or any other hardened surface.
6. Prior to approving the proposed Stanford University Faculty Housing Subdivision, the Town should secure and record Public Use Trail Easements (ingress, egress & traversal) for all new Trails/Paths created as part of the Standford University Faculty Housing Subdivision per the Town of Portola Valley General Plan and the Trails and Paths Element. Additionally, the Town should verify and/or secure and record Public Use Trail Easements for portions of the existing Alpine Trail that are on or adjacent to the subject property or for any other existing Trail/Path that may be on the subject property.
7. While it is not within the scope of the Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee to seek out new open space easements, it's our understanding that Stanford wishes to keep the remainder of the "Wedge" property (the area not being developed) as open space and that the Town of Portola Valley Conservation Committee and/or Open Space Committee may be pursuing an open space easement on this land for the benefit of the Town of Portola Valley. If so, the Trails and Paths Subdivision Subcommittee reserves the right to propose new trails on this portion of land, per the Town of Portola Valley General Plan and Trails and Paths Element, and we request that the Town of Portola Valley secure and record Public Use Trail Easements for these new Trails/Paths prior to approval of the new Stanford Faculty Housing Subdivision.
Best Regards,
Gary Hanning
Trails and Paths Committee Subdivision Subcommittee
Subdivision Committee Meeting Minutes – October 8, 2019 Page 1 SUBDIVISION COMMITTEE OCTOBER 8, 2019
765 Portola Road
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 3:30 p.m. in the Town Hall Conference Room, 765 Portola Road.
Present: Laura Russell, Planning Director (LR); Elizabeth Rider, Consultant Building Official (ER); John Donahoe, Stanford Real Estate (JD); Alan Murphy, Parkins Coie for Stanford (AM); Nate Dickinson, Sandis Civil Engineering (ND); Jane Wilson, ASCC Commissioner (JW); John Wallace, Town Geologist (JWa); Gary Hanning, Trails and Paths Committee (GH); Judith Murphy, Conservation Committee (JM); Cara Silver, Town Attorney (CS); Greg Smith, San Mateo County Environmental Health (GS); Howard Young, Public Works Director (HY); Ellie Ferrari, Trails and Paths Committee (EF).
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
None.
(2) REVIEW OF COMMITTEE ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Planning Director Laura Russell (LR) advised that the Subdivision Committee is a unique way to establish communication between parties and collaborate on the project. The Committee will prepare reports to deliver to the Planning Commission regarding recommendations for the subdivision. The Committee will be providing preliminary recommendations to the applicant team today. The next step in this process will be to schedule a site visit to view the property and trail areas. All groups will provide a written report to the Planning Director. The Planning Director will consolidate the reports for review at the Planning Commission.
JW - How long will this process take? LR- At this time, the first submittal is in review, and we don’t know how know how long the whole process will take, likely several months until the next step.
GH - How does this process relate to the environmental review? LR- This committee will look at the environmental review when the report is completed and consider it when writing reports and making recommendations.
(3) STANFORD UNIVERSITY FACULTY HOUSING – PRELIMINARY REVIEW OF THE
TENTATIVE MAP
Planning Director Laura Russell advised that the committee will be providing comments and recommendation to the applicant team. The goal for this meeting is to review the high level comments and complete the meeting by 4:30 p.m. On Friday, October 11, 2019, the Planning Director will issue a letter with all the comments attached. All comments and documents will be part of the public record.
Subdivision Committee Meeting Minutes – October 8, 2019 Page 2 HY - The Town uses NV5 as an engineering consultant. Developers should use the Town checklist, and there will be a pre-construction meeting. An encroachment permit is required for this project. A hydrology study is being requested. The size of the Town’s storm drain and serviceability may have to be upgraded. More details are desired about storm water treatment.
The Town has a Green infrastructure Plan and the Developer is expected to use it. For C3 development guidelines, use the County documents as a template. An analysis is required of the traffic impact on Alpine and the road going in and out of the subdivision. The developer shall respect the horse trails and conform to standards. Utility hook ups require an encroachment permit with a bond. This section of Alpine Road will be resurfaced in 2021 so that will need to e coordinated. There shall be right of way improvements to trail system and landscape which fronts the property. Would like to get answers as to whether there will be trails on the property and will they be public or private and will the trail(s) connect up hill.
GS - It needs to be determined if there is an adequate supply of water and if the current sewer system is capable of serving the site. The project will have to get “Will Serve” letters from both Cal Water and West Bay Sanitary District. The Will Serve letters address the number of future parcels and should state that there are available utilities. The County will have a fee for the plan review.
GH - Guided by the Town’s General Plan, which calls for the creation of trails when new subdivisions are built, the Trails Committee expects this project to incorporate three new trails.
Trail 1: Golden Oak Alpine north to Westridge Subdivision. A concern about if the trails will accommodate bicycles? All trails should be all-weather type with proper drainage. One issue is that a trail is close to the creek, but too close to a property line of one of the houses, so there is a desire to move the subdivision south to create a scenic corridor. Will the developer hire a surveyor to stake out the trails so the Trails Committee can see them? One good example of trail development is Coalmine Ridge. The trails will need signs and may be closed seasonally. Ensure it’s designated early who will own the trails. It would be admirable if Stanford dedicated open space easements. If Stanford does dedicate open space easements, then the Trails Committee will want more trails and will not sign off on the subdivision maps until this can be reviewed.
JWa - The project is geologically feasible. The project geotechnical engineer is working on some upslope areas of Lot 13. Be sure to provide cut and fill quantities. The north side of the development has a drainage channel. For this reason, the project could be shifted south. Ensure there is an analysis of the amount of water in this drainage channel and determine if it will continue to be capable of carrying all the drainage water when this development is built.
JW – Questioned that the project description included private fenced yards. Is there funding for trail maintenance? Make sure buildings are subordinate to the landscape. Would like more details and arborist reports for 112 trees to be removed. Consider eliminating all fences because they block wildlife corridors and encourage split rail fences. Remove non-native plants. Lighting should be reduced by about 50 percent. Garden lighting should be deleted. Views of the housing from the street should be reduced. Clarify how the air conditioning units will be screened. Identify location of mailboxes and trash receptacles. The view corridor, fences, and lighting can all be improved. Provide more details on what portion of the land will be covered by buildings and
Subdivision Committee Meeting Minutes – October 8, 2019 Page 3 impervious surface numbers. Provide more reports from the Fire Marshal, fire safety will be a concern. Green Point Rating and greywater systems are missing. Outdoor Water Checklist is needed. LR noted that there will be a fire safety analysis as part of the CEQA review.
JM –- Expressed concern over scenic corridor open space. Hold Stanford to a high level of responsibility. Appreciated that the landscape is drought tolerant. Area Y is very good for a fire break. Request to the maximum extent possible that the undeveloped land remain open space.
Push the project south and have each lot set back 85 feet not 75 feet along the scenic corridor.
Leave the front landscape as is. Nothing formal to be placed at the front. Minimal landscaping in the scenic corridor. Trees should be more abundant. Consider the fire load. Decrease water use. Consider the wildlife corridors and widening of trails. Additional trails desired. Town should be granted easements and maintain trails. There should be minimal to no fencing. Encourage traffic to be mitigated by extending the Marguerite Shuttle to the project.
GH - People from the Town could go down to this new neighborhood and park their cars there and take the Marguerite to Stanford.
GH - Where do the horses go that currently live on the property? Can the Town pay to move the horses to a better location?
ER- No comments at this early stage, however if the applicant has any questions, they are to call the Building Official.
LR- Planning comments are mostly technical and many comments overlap with what was said today. Early feedback is helpful and makes it easier to navigate the process.
GH - as this process moves forward, how does the Trail Committee get notified of next steps? LR - All requests will go through Town Staff
LR - Are there any members of the public who wish to speak? – see none JD - This first plan is our best attempt to follow all of the Town’s requirements, and we appreciate this feedback moving forward.
ADJOURNMENT [4:30 p.m.]
Town of Portola Valley - Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
Transcript of Committee Comments
October 17, 2024
Members Present:
Woodside Fire Protection District Marshall: Kimberly Giuliacci County Health Officer: Ed Diaz
Architectural Site Control Committee Member: Carter Warr Conservation Committee Member: Judith Murphy
Trails Committee Member: Fred Leach
Town Attorney: Catherine Engberg
Interim Planning & Building Director: Terrence Grindall Town Planner: Absent
Town Engineer: Brian Fuus
Town Geologist: John Wallace, Cotton Shires
Town Building Inspector - Absent
Town Clerk Consultant: Christine Boland
Commitee Comments:
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL SITE CONTROL COMMITTEE: Would you like to use the Findings on page 23 as the mechanism for discussion? I’m not on the Trails Committee but did the Trails Committee want the difference between the proposed plan and the trails plan and the general plan?
FRED LEACH, TRAILS COMMITTEE: Our position remains that we would like to see the shift of the site for the houses moved south to allow for the further connection of the Alpine trail between where it's currently proposed to connect where the Stanford proposal is to connect to the existing Alpine trail. We would like to see it extended down to Alpine Road. That remains our preference and I think we’d like to see a little bit more detail about how the Alpine trail would be improved; moved back away from the road.... is our recommendation. If you look at Page 161 of the overlay; the pink is what the Trails Committee would like to see developed and the red is what Stanford has proposed. The position is our preference is that the trails are developed in the pink. Maybe a couple of precedents to reference are the development of Porto Valley Ranch and the Blue Oaks which have implemented trails that are consistent with I believe it's Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the trails and paths element of the General Plan. We haven’t seen any evidence that suggests it’s not an impossible request and would like to see trails developed in that way.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE:
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
So I'd like to weigh in briefly on that very same thing that Conservation has been concurring with Trails about this all along this, this shift from north to south, and Stanford has multiple, excellent reasons that they don't prefer to do this. and we feel they're outweighed by enormous advantages to both the residents, and importantly, from the conservation point of view to the animals and habitat there because there’s wildlife usage of that area existing and if it’s blocked then that has a fairly dramatic impact on that.
The other piece of it is these social, informal trails that form. You can see it on the Town Center property. We lay out the little path, and then people walk where they walk, and those become the new ways. And, in fact, if there's going to be that informally to not have that happen. Someone’s going to put a fence at this end and a fence at that end, which I don't see on the plans and it seems that if it's going to be happening informally and constricted, then it would be better to plan for it and do it properly.
FRED LEACH, TRAILS COMMITTEE: I’m nodding my head but I should, for the record, concur with what Judith said.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: So, I’m sorry what I said actually, probably fits partly under number five. My little packet somehow goes from one to five without having two, three and four, but five is the thing that applies, that talks about wildlife, and this is obviously not something that will unavoidably injure wildlife as this set but it will have a dramatic impaction.
Thank you.
ED HOLLAND, BICYCLE, PEDESTRIAN & SAFETY COMMITTEE: I have a concern that traffic volumes will have increased since the original study which I think was dated 2022, which was mentioned in John’s presentation. I think a reassessment of that particularly concentrating on busy times, for example 6:45 a.m. to 10 a.m., where you would expect a lot of ingress and egress from the new proposed development and up and down Alpine Road. That warrants a fresh study, in my opinion.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: Could you have page 24 up on here because the package that you put together skips from 23 to 25 and so does his? CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: I can make a technologically.(inaudible)...For Finding 1, I have difficulty making the finding regarding the Trail element in the General Plan and continue to have the desire that’s shared with my Conservation colleagues to move the development adequately to the South to accommodate that. I understand the issue with the grading volumes and the trees but I think it would be a better balance. As far as Title 18, this is the first time we’ve dealt with the development utilizing the density bonus and it feels frustrating that the zoning district has. with the density bonus, very little to deal with establishing the density. It’s a personal frustration and I don’t have a problem with the compliance of it.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: The additional thing I’d like to say along here. It talks about the lines in it under Number 1, is the beauty of the landscape and the rich variety of plants and wildlife,,, there’s a discrepancy in the Stanford plans between the - , I can’t remember what you call it - the illustration of what it’s going to look like and the actual landscaping plan. The two don’t match when you look at the schematics. It’s really lovely and it’s what we would like to see there and on but on the landscape plan, there’s much more density of
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
landscaping and shrubs and so that it looks more like the landscaped entrance to a gated community or something, rather than this informal Native landscaping. They’ve done a great job at the native plants and drought resistant plants,etc., but the plan itself for the density that’s called for and the way it’s arrange is I’m hoping they’ll stick to what they’ve drawn instead of what they’ve written and I don’t know how to get that in, as a requirement but it’s certainly a request and it may already have been done since the stuff’s not reflect on the map that we see.
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: If I can, through the chair? Yes, Judy, I think those kinds of things can be dealt with as the project moves forward because those issues, I think, are less related to the recommendations we're making associated with the tentative map.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: Yeah, I don't want to bog us down with tiny details; I just hate to see stuff lost.
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: So, do we want to deal with Finding 2 - Design of the improvement of any proposed subdivision is not consistent with the general plan in Title 18, that you essentially built; and we're essentially talking about that? Anybody on the committee deal with that?
CARTER WARR, ARCHITECTURAL: Finding 3: The site is not physically suitable for this type of development. Anybody take issue with the suitability of the development? JOHN WALLACE, COTTON SHIRES, TOWN GEOLOGIST: Yeah, partway down under Item 3, it says, “the Town Geologist has reviewed the proposed development plan and determined that the site is suitable for such residential development from a geologic perspective.” I just want to go on the record and make the item has already been discussed earlier, but I wanted to go on the record and say we have not approved this from a geologic perspective in its entirety; that there is additional work to be done, and upon that work, be in a position to review and approve a final map.
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION COMMITTEE: The fire person hasn't left but in her comments it wasn't clear to me that previously, when this all started the current, one of the current, one of the fire official has said, this site is not suited and it, it seems from what she was saying, that there opinion has shifted, that she didn't come right out and say, “we don't think that anymore.
Our opinion is now that this is suitable.” Have you heard that in their communications with you? That where it wasn't clear with us tonight, and I must sort of assumed that happened, but would like to hear it.
JOHN, STANFORD: Responded to comment.
CARTER WARR, ASCC: So ,any other issues with the site not being suitable, physically suitable or that the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development? This is where I'm still rather confused. We're doubling the density of the development from 21units to 39 units.
So that's where I'm having difficulty because I can understand a 35% bonus..... I understand how the numbers are created. You know, according to the math but it just doesn't taste right.
ED HOLLAND: If I might go ahead on that and return also to the question of fire safety:
Subdivision Committee Meeting
Regarding Stanford Portola Terrace Wedge Project
October 17, 2024
Has there been approval for the density of the dwellings, and given that we mentioned that fire-safe materials would be used. But one factor that has come up in biosafety studies is the proximity of dwellings to one another and I wonder how the proposed development complies with whatever the current standards are?
JOHN/STANFORD: Responded to that comment
JUDITH MURPHY, CONSERVATION: I would take issue with Carter just asked. I think the numbers have been explained. I understand that he doesn't like the density that results, but it all maybe lots of people don't like the density that results, but that, you know it's all it all totally pencils out, as far as I can see.
CARTER WARR, ASCC: I understand the map.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Moving on to - Finding 6:
CARTER WARR, ASCC: I’m new to this project. I'd love to see a turning lane across the front of this property to help increase the opportunity for evacuation. So there'd be two lanes out and one lane in and also the ability for you know people to pull off to get into the project, and also a turning lane to get out.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Comments - Finding 7: (No comments were received.) CARTER WARR, ASCC: The question Terrence was what's the process or procedure that you're going to use to develop the report from this committee? TERRANCE GRINDALL: Terrence provided a response.
ED DIAZ, SAN MATEO COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH DEPT: Our only comment would be, since public utilities will be provided for the proposed units that a well-served letter, for both water and sewer, will be made available to environmental health.
TERRENCE GRINDALL: Invited Public Comment:
Resident Kristi Corley: Would like to see noise study, vehicle miles traveled and updated traffic study.
###
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 1
ARCHITECTURAL AND SITE CONTROL COMMISSION November 4, 2024 Hybrid Special Meeting – In Person at Schoolhouse and via Zoom
CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chair Carter Warr.
Present: Danna Breen, Gina Dixon, Rebecca Flynn and Carter Warr.
Absent: Kenny Cheung
Town Staff:
Council Liaison: None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Rita Comes stated that with the 621 pages on this particular meeting agenda, it is not a lot of time for the Town on such an important topic that will change the community. She said that it was hard for her to accept that on such short notice, this particular meeting has come out. She stated that she saw the burden of the nice volunteers that had to read through each and every page. She urged all speakers to speak into the microphone so that hopefully there could be a decent conversation during the meeting.
Ed Holland indicated that he communicated earlier today with a letter to the ASCC Chair and to Interim Planning and Building Director Terrence Grindall. He requested confirmation that it was received and distributed to the Commission.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall confirmed that it was.
Mr. Holland stated that he would like to reinforce some of the comments he made about the traffic safety study, study of volume numbers, and consideration of intersections on Alpine Road that he made at the October 17, 2024 Subdivision Committee. He also wanted to draw the Commission’s attention to his further thoughts on those points that were not a part of the public discussion, but were matters that came to his mind subsequently after further consideration of his own.
Caroline Vertongen, Bicycle, Pedestrian and Traffic Safety (BPTS) member, stated that the association would like to know from Staff who is presenting today. There was a coordinated effort between BPTS, Conservation, and the Trails Committee, but unfortunately, there was no quorum. She asked if anyone could give an update on when that has been rescheduled.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall advised that the meeting was not rescheduled and in lieu of that meeting, a Subdivision Committee meeting was held. The three Committee meeting will not occur.
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 2
AGENDA
(1) Public Hearing: Receive a Presentation from Staff and Applicant, Ask Clarifying questions, Receive Public Comments, and Make Recommendations on the Conditional Use Permit for Establishment of a Planned Unit Development, Architectural Review And Site Development to be Presented to the Planning Commission in Accordance with Section
18.72.100, 18.44.040, 15.12.100, and 18.64.030 of the Portola Valley Municipal Code (PVMC).
Stephanie Davis, Good City Company, presented the item as detailed in the staff report and provided an overview of the project.
Rebecca Auld Lamphier-Gregory, Town Consultant, advised that she led the Environmental Review for the project as a consultant to the town. She provided an overview of the purpose and process of the Environmental Review and summarized the analysis that was conducted in the documentation issued.
Vice Chair Flynn inquired about what types of changes would require the EIR to be redone or parts to be updated.
Ms. Lamphier-Gregory explained that it is called recirculation at this point in an EIR process. If there are things that would trigger that to occur, that would be when the changes for various reasons result in new or worsened significant effects. She advised that she as the consultant would draft it and then work with the Town to make sure that the Town agreed. That is ultimately the conclusions for certification of the EIR.
John Donahoe, Project Manager, introduced Nancy Malone, Principal of Siegel & Strain Architects, and provided a presentation and offered further review of the project.
Ms. Malone advised that twenty-seven faculty homes were being developed. There will be thirteen three-bedroom units, six three-bedroom units in duet buildings, eight fourbedroom units, and twelve below market-rate units. She discussed the design approach, site layout, and site grading of the project.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall commented regarding the enhanced vegetation shown along Alpine Road and inquired whether it complied with the fire department’s letter. He stated that there is a Condition of Approval that during the final work, there would be a certainty that it conforms to the fire department’s ordinance.
Mr. Donahoe stated remarked that what is being approved by the Council is the first step.
There will be a series of review of the final documents that the City will undertake, and one of the Conditions of Approval is that the landscaping plans must be reviewed and approved by the Woodside Fire Protection District and the Town in advance of any construction activity beginning.
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 3
Chair Warr invited questions from the Commissioners.
Commissioner Breen asked about the sustainability features of the project.
Mr. Donahoe advised that there were efforts to do as much as feasible. There are not many major employers that can provide housing for their people within close proximity to where they work. That is a huge sustainable element. He stated that this was not a market rate project where it is unknown who will be buying the homes or where they will work.
There are enough existing trails that residents can bike to work and not necessarily rely on cars.
Commissioner Breen asked if the 89 parking spaces were outside of the garages or 89 total.
Mr. Donahoe answered that there were 89 in total. There are one-car garages, a parking space in the driveway itself, and guest spots located along the looped street.
Commissioner Breen felt it would be unacceptable to have any parking on Alpine Road.
Vice Chair Flynn stated that when looking at the plans, it appears that the driveway is the width of the garage. She was unclear how a car could park there unless they were one in front of the other.
Mr. Donahoe remarked that it is called tandem.
Commissioner Breen requested information regarding what would happen on Alpine Road , whether there would be turning lanes, and signage.
Mr. Donahoe explained that an application was made for the project. It was up to the Town and consultants, including the EIR, to do the traffic analysis.
Commissioner Dixon inquired about why the larger BMR units are located closer to the road as opposed to the smaller scaled units, and how the setbacks between the buildings were determined.
Mr. Donahoe remarked that in the case of the faculty homes, they would have a ground lease for the land and then they would own the structure on top of them because they are affiliated with the university. The BMR units are rental configuration. There will be four rental units in each of the three buildings. When the design was first envisioned for the project, the BMR units were going to be separated on the edge of the property. The input from the Town Council at the time was to have them integrated into the project itself. He explained that they have their own slightly isolated parking spaces that are not on the looped street, and they have been integrated into the central portion of the property and adjacent to the top lot to give them some common open space area. He stated that they are relatively small houses on small lots, and they have basic small setbacks. He explained that the garages will be pre-wired and there would be no standalone EV
DRAFT MINUTES
ASCC Meeting Minutes – November 4, 2024 P a g e | 4
chargers in the parking lot. The larger apartment would get access to the two garages in each BMR building and they would be priced accordingly.
Chair Warr invited comments from the public.
A member of the public stated that the ASCC is being asked to approve plans seen and then being told that the things the Commission has concerns about will get worked out down the line. This is the first time that someone will be putting conditions on what will happen next. Conservation, Trails, and BPTS cannot do that and can only provide suggestions. She suggested condensing some of the things that were most important to Conservation, which includes the landscape plan. The ASCC has been discussing the landscape plan in terms of fire, but it should be looked at in terms of the general plan.
One concern is that it seems the roadside is much more formally planted than desired.
She stated that the renderings do not match the plans, and Conservation would like to see the plans changed to being much closer to the rendering. She suggested that the ASCC make a Condition of Use that the final landscaping plan have conditions that are the Fire Marshal’s conditions and the Commission’s conditions. The final map should be revised by a small committee so that there can be an agreement about what it is going to look like on site. She expressed concern that the setback from Alpine Road should be for all structures and uses and not just buildings. There is also concern about overflow parking. Trails feels very strongly that they would like to see the project put slightly south so that there would be enough room for a trail to come down. She added that it would be nice to see it back further away from Alpine Road.
Bob Wrucke stated that there is a geologic hazard on site that goes under below-market homes. He explained that he was not opposed to below-market homes, but there should not be houses built on the geologic hazard. He believed that there should be a green belt across the lineament or there should be parking. He stated that something that has been missing from all of the geologic studies is how its geology changed from what used to be there twenty thousand years ago to what is there today. There has been lots of trenching done in Portola Valley, including places where some of it was across the San Andreas Fault, and nothing was found. Trenching is thought of and talked about as a gold standard for trying to understand geology.
Interim Planning and Building Director Grindall advised that there would be supplemental trenching done before the building permit was issued, and additional trenching extending the area. If there are any geologic hazards found, there is a requirement to redesign the plan.
Mr. Donahoe explained that the geology team first looked for where the Ladera formation and the Whiskey Hill formation come together. The location where the trenching was planned was based on potential faulting that was suggested to be faulting at a roadcut on Westridge. They also looked in the creek bed on the other side of Alpine Road. The