Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the Landscape Screening Plan subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1.

Transcription

1 ITEM 3.1 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS December 4, 2014 Staff Rep01i to the Planning Commission SUBJECT: SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN AND FENCING FOR A NEW RESIDENCE; LANDS OF CRESTON DEVELOPMENT; ELENA ROAD; FILE # ZP SD. FROM: Cynthia Richardson, Consulting Planner <JY APPROVED: Suzanne Avila, Interim Planning Director ffi RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission: Approve the requested Site Development Permit for the Landscape Screening Plan subject to the conditions of approval in Attachment 1. BACKGROUND On July 19, 2012, the Planning Commission approved an application for a new residence with basement, swimming pool and driveway, the removal of three heritage oak trees and a Grading Policy Exception for the subject property. At the public hearing of July 19, 2012, several neighbors spoke about concerns with the driveway location and the removal of the heritage oak trees (see meeting minutes, Attachment 2). DISCUSSION Site Data: Gross Lot Area: Net Lot Area: Average Slope : Lot unit Factor 1.19 acres 1.19 acres 21.98%.887 Maximum Proposed Existing Increase Left Development Area Floor Area Basement Basement Garage 9,320 5, , 152 5,000 (2,746) (719) Landscape Screening Plan Pursuant to Section (a) of the Los Altos Hills Municipal Code, in evaluating the adequacy of proposed landscaping, the applicant must demonstrate that the shape, outline,

2 Planning Commission Lands of Creston Development December 4, 2014 Page 2 color, and form of all structures will be unobtrusive when viewed from any location offsite at the time landscaping has matured. The proposal includes fully developed landscape plans with trees, slu ubs and ground cover. Water use calculations demonstrating compliance with Ordinance 520 (Water Efficient Landscape) have been provided. A variety of plantings are proposed at the perimeter of the new residence and along the frontage and driveway. The applicant proposes to plant 11, 36-inch box size coast live oaks and 2, 36-inch box size valley oaks. Nine replacement trees were required due to the removal of three heritage oaks. Five of the thirteen new oak trees will be located at the lower elevation near Elena Road. These tree when mature (approximately 40 feet tall), will soften the view of the property from Elena Road. Plantings near the home include Olive trees, Arbutus Marinas, Coast Live Oak and Japanese Maples. These trees will help soften the view of the home from off site. Along the western property line the applicant is proposing Olive Trees, Grecian Laurel and Strawberry trees to screen the home and driveway from the adjacent neighbor. Five new oak trees are proposed along the rear property line along with pacific wax myrtle to screen the house from the uphill neighbor. Along the eastern property line pacific wax myrtle, olive trees and oaks are proposed between the two existing large oaks trees. The center of the property will be left native. Seeding or other erosion control will be done on exposed slopes that are not planted per condition two. See plan sheets L4.1 & 2 and L4.0 for full planting plan. Outdoor Lighting Plan The applicant has provided a lighting plan that complies with Town standards. The driveway lights alternate on each side of the driveway to avoid a "runway" appearance and are spaced approximately 20 feet apart. Recessed down shielded lights are proposed and will be mounted to the retaining wall along the driveway (see Lighting Policy, Attachment 3 and cut sheets for light fixtures, Attachment 4). Heritage Oak Trees Prior to construction the site contained five Heritage Oak trees (Section ). Three of these trees were removed for construction of the new residence. Per condition 3 of the original approval, tree replacement for the removed Heritage Oaks is required on a 3: 1 ratio at a minimum of 36-inch box size. The proposed plans indicate 13, 36-inch box size oaks to be planted on the property which addresses this condition. Fencing The applicant is proposing five foot high property line fencing. The proposed fencing will be constructed of wood and wire. The proposed driveway gate will be constructed of corten steel. The existing solid rear property line fence and a po1iion of the northern property line solid fence will remain (see sheet L 7.0 of the plans for details of the fencing and steel gate).

3 Planning Commission Lands of Creston Development December 4, 2014 Page 3 Town Committee' s Review The Environmental Design and Protection Committee commented that additional trees should be added to the landscape plan to help screen the new home (see Attachment 5). As a result the applicant added three new large trees to the plan to help screen the house (as shown on sheet L7.0 of the plans). ENVIRONMENT AL CLEARANCE CCEQA) The proposed landscape screening is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act by provision of Section 15304(b) Minor Alterations to Land. ATTACHMENTS 1. Recommended Conditions of Approval 2. Planning Commission meeting minutes July 19, Los Altos Hills Lighting Policy 4. Light fixture cut sheets 5. Environmental Design and Protection Committee Comments, September 19, Proposed Landscape plans (Commission only)

4 Planning Commission Lands of Creston Development December 4, 2014 Page 4 ATTACHMENT 1 ATTACHMENT 1 RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR A LANDSCAPE SCREENING PLAN LANDS OF CRESTON DEVELOPMENT, ELENA ROAD File # ZP-SD-GD PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. Any further changes or modifications to the approved plan or the required landscaping shall be first reviewed and approved by the Plaiming Director or Plaiming Commission, depending on the scope of changes, prior to planting or commencement of work. 2. All required plantings and lighting shown on the plans shall be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. All exposed slopes must be replanted for erosion control to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection of the new residence. 3. A landscape maintenance and water use deposit of $5, shall be posted prior to final inspection of the new residence. An inspection of the screening plantings to ensure adequate establishment and maintenance shall be made two years after installation. Prior to deposit release, the prope1iy owner shall also furnish to the Town the second year (months following receipt of the Certificate of Completion) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the site water usage exceeds the calculated PWB, the deposit will be held for an additional 12 months. At the end of the additional 12 month period, the property owner shall provide the Town with the previous 12 months (months 25-36) of water use and billing data from the subject property's water purveyor. If the water usage still exceeds the estimated PWB, the deposit shall be forfeited to the Town, in full. All Town staff time and materials expended to ensure compliance with this condition will be deducted from the deposit. 4. Exterior and outdoor lighting locations are approved as shown on the plans. Please note that any additional lighting shall be first submitted for Planning Department review and approval prior to installation. Generally, lighting shall be the minimum needed for safety, shall be down shielded, low wattage, shall not encroach or reflect on adjacent properties, the source of the li ghting shall not be visible from off the site. 5. All landscaping required for screening purposes or for erosion control, as determined by the City Engineer, must be installed prior to final inspection of the new residence. 6. The proposed fencing as shown on the project plan set is approved. 7. The property owner shall contact the Building Depaiiment and acquire any and all required building permits prior to commencement of work on landscape or hardscape.

5 Planning Commission Lands of Creston Development December 4, 2014 Page 5 ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: 8. Any revisions or additions to the previously approved grading and drainage plan shall be submitted for review by the Engineering Department. The plan shall be reviewed by the Engineering Department and approved prior to commencement of this project. The approved plan shall be stamped and signed by the project engineer and shall supersede the previously approved drainage plan. 9. No grading shall take place during the grading moratorium (October 15 and April 15) except with prior approval from the City Engineer. No grading shall take place within ten feet of any property line. 10. Any, and all, areas on the project site that have the native material disturbed shall be protected for erosion control during the rainy season and shall be replanted prior to final inspection. 11. All irrigation systems must be located at least five feet from the Town's pathways and outside of the public right of way and public utility easements. The Town staff shall inspect the site and any deficiencies shall be corrected to the satisfaction of the Engineering Department prior to final inspection. FIRE DEPARTMENT: 12. Gate installations shall conform to Fire Department Standard Details and Specification G-1 and, when open shall not obstruct any portion of the required width for emergency access driveways. Locks, if provided shall be Fire Department approved prior to installation. Automatic gates shall be equipped with a knox key switch. Project approval may be appealed if done so in writing within 22 days of the action. Building Permits cannot be accepted until the appeal period has lapsed. NOTE: The Site Development permit is valid for one year from the approval date (until December 4, 2015). All required building permits must be obtained within that year and work on items not requiring a building permit shall be commenced within one year and completed within two years.

6 ATTACHMENT 2 Planning Co mmission Minutes Jul y 19, 2012 Page 4 Approved August 22, 2012 CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING There were no comments from the public. CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE CLOSED PUBLIC HEARfNG Commissioner Abraham stated he saw no negative issues with the project request. Commissioner Mandie acknowledged that the project is an improvement but would like to see the five foot strip planted with native plantings. Commissioner Harpootlian stated he supports the project. Commissioner Couperus agreed that the project is an improvement but expressed caution for erosion where the creek curves after the bridge. Chairman Pai1ridge stated that he would like to see less of an impact from the bridges but felt the project is an improvement over the prior proposed project. He would like to see a buffer on the west bank to keep weeds from growing into the channel. Planning Director Debbie Pedro advised that staff can work with the applicant and the City Engineer on any modifications to the landscaping in the maintenance corridor. MOTION MADE, AMENDED, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to approve the Addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration in Attachment # I and approve the requested modifications to the previously approved Site Development Permit for creek realignment, a fence exception, a setback variance for bridges and paths, subject to the modified variance of approval in Attachment #2 and modified conditions of approval in Attachment #3 of the staff report dated July 19, Additionally, the applicant and staff should look at the planting of the 5' wide Town maintenance corridor with appropriate vegetation; and approve the modification of condition # 14, as reported by staff. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: 5.2 Commissioners: Abraham, Couperus, Harpootlian, Mandie, and Chairman Partridge None None None LANDS OF YTU, Elena Road; File #5-12-ZP-SD-GD; A request for a Site Development Permit for a 5,000 square foot new two story residence with a 2,746 square foot basement and a 719 square foot basement garage (Maximum height: 27'), a new driveway access to Elena Road, swimming pool and removal of three (3) heritage oak trees. The applicant is also requesting a Grading Policy Exception for portions of the driveway and Fire Truck Turnaround. CEQA Review: Categorical Exemption per Section (a) and (e) (staff-brian Froelich).

7 Planning Commission Minutes Jul y 19, 2012 Page 5 Approved August 22, 2012 CONTINUED FROM THE JUNE 7, 2012, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. Brian Froelich, Associate Planner, presented the staff report. The proposal is for a new residence, swimming pool, and removal of three heritage oak trees. The property includes an existing single story, ranch style home which will be demolished. The driveway easement is shared with Elena Road and is to be abandoned with the new construction. A two-story residence with nearly a full basement, two parking spaces in the garage, and two surface parking spaces along the driveway lane are proposed. With regard to the Grading Policy Exceptions, there are three areas of additional cut associated with the driveway and fire truck turnaround. The areas total 610 square feet with cuts up to 11 feet in depth; the fill area, along the driveway lane is 1,266 square feet of fill up to five feet, where three feet would be allowed. There is a small area of six square feet where an additional six inches of fill is requested associated with the swimming pool. A petition was received with opposition to the oak tree removal, and concerns about the driveway slope were received. Compliance issues relate to the basement and a wall at the end of the basement. CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING Simon Yiu, applicant, explained that he purchased the property to build a house for his parents. He has met with several neighbors and Commissioners to discuss the scope of the project. Steve Stept Architect, stated the proposed home is 5,000 square feet with a master suite on the main level and space for family gatherings. The project took into consideration the privacy of the neighbor to the north. Concerns expressed by neighbors were considered with regard to privacy, tree removal, landscape screening, noise pollution, hydrology, grading and drainage. Two options were looked at in the site analysis: having the driveway bisect the front of the site with a fire truck turnaround on the southern portion of the site or moving the driveway straight up the hill with the fire truck turnaround in the back and shift the pool to the southern portion. A more confined area for the pool was created. The design of the building was sensitive in terms of massing, natural materials, and scale. Pete Carlino, Civil Engineer, stated that the site was a constrained, upsloping lot. Three constraint issues were looked at: driveway location, drainage, and the proposed septic system. The driveway was shifted away from the intersection of Elena Road and centered to give clear line of sight distance and smooth transition out into the road. The drainage system was designed for extra storage of water. Water runoff from the property was a big concern. A culvert will be added to drain down the road to the Foothill Lane catch basin. The architect added that the design was created to be sensitive to neighbors and to meet the needs and goals of the family. With regard to compliance issues, an error in the CAD drawings of the basement was found. The error was fixed and there is no change in the design. Another issue had to do with reducing the house by 6.25 square feet. Director Pedro clarified that the proposed 24' 1" wall is not in compliance with the basement ordinance; however, if the natural grade is put back to meet the 28 inch requirement, that portion

8 Pl anning Commission Minutes Jul y 19, 2012 Page 6 Approved August 22, 2012 would not be counted as daylighted, and the 25 percent daylight requirement would be met. The window needs to be made smaller in order to meet the daylight requirement. The Architect stated he is willing to make the necessary changes and added he is confident that there are no other errors. Commissioner Couperus asked about the location of air conditioning, electrical, mechanical and compressors. The Architect explained that the location of the mechanical equipment is on the southwest corner of the building. Jeff Pack, Acoustical Engineer, stated that, given the distance to the nearest property, he would not expect any noise problems. He added he has not looked at the equipment in detail. Commissioner Harpootlian stated he visited the property and discussed with the Architect about lowering the driveway area. He added that the Architect indicated a couple feet might be feasible which would reduce the overall slope of the driveway. The Architect explained that it is possible to lower the driveway area which would lower the slope of the driveway. There is no benefit to lowering the building. Additional excavation and higher retaining walls would be an added expense to the property owner. Commissioner Harpootlian would like to see an option with the driveway, noting that there is a difference between a 20 percent driveway and an 18 percent driveway. The Architect stated the driveway could be lowered where the fire truck turnaround is which would lower the level of the garage by two feet and the entry of the house by two feet. Lowering the building would lose the opportunity to bring light into the whole house from both sides. Discussion was held about undergrounding utilities. Mr. Carlino indicated he spoke with PG&E about the utility line coming from Elena Road and options. The utility line can be placed underground, at a cost; a new easement line will need to be rededicated under the utility line and an all weather access will need to be placed over the line. The neighbor's utility line would also have to be underground. Commissioner Abraham suggested an alternative to put the meter close to the property line at Elena which would be the termination point for PG&E. No further access roads would be needed. Larry Del Carlo, neighbor at corner of Elena and La Baranca, objected to the removal of the heritage oak trees and the slope of the driveway. Carl Snyder, neighbor, objected to the removal of the trees and offered that his architect designed his residence without having to remove any trees. He stated that the applicant's driveway perspective on the architect's drawing is misleading in scale. He encouraged the Planning Commission to give careful consideration to the project before approving it.

9 Planning Commission Minutes Jul y 19, 2012 Page 7 Approved August 22, Don Harriman, neighbor on Elena, objected to the swimming pool in the front yard because it wil l be a nuisance to the neighborhood. John O' Connell, neighbor, stated that the 2,000 square foot driveway turnaround at the rear of the property adjacent to his prope11y intruded on his privacy. He suggested it is feasible to design the house to maintain one or two of the oak trees. He objected to the 20 percent gradient of the driveway which will generate much noise from vehicles traveling up and down the driveway and objected to the basement being exempt from floor area. Steven Chang, neighbor, referred to prior comments made about an existing easement off his driveway to the Yiu property. He explained that the easement was extinguished, and the Yiu's property access is on a Driveway Site License that will expire at a set time period or if a new property is bui It. He added that the free use of the driveway will expire on August 23, 2012, and the absolute use of the driveway expires in three years. His prior concerns related to privacy and soi l instability have been satisfactori ly addressed by the applicant. Lennie Mok, daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Yiu, spoke in support of the application and urged the Planning Commission to approve the project. Jeff Pack, Acoustic Engineer, stated that he visited a Storyhill Lane property with a similar grade and similar pavers that are planned for the proposed project and measured three scenarios: cars traveling up the driveway, cars in the flat area in front of the garage, and cars traveling down the slope. He summarized details that were presented in the noise analysis report. The Architect addressed the issue of the basement ordinance and stated he is convinced the project is in compliance. With regard to the proposed tree removal, he stated that it is necessary for the fire truck turnaround. He stated that he looked at other options to try to save a tree but the location of the fire truck turnaround would require removal of the trees. CHAIRMAN PARTRIDGE CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING Commissioner Harpootlian supports the design of the project and acknowledged that the property is a challenge. One of his concerns is to try to reduce the steepness of the driveway. He is interested in addressing the undergrounding goals of the Town and supports granting more cut in order to allow lowering the driveway a couple of feet. Commissioner Abraham did not concur with the idea of lowering the driveway to reduce the slope. He supports the removal of the oak trees and added that the applicant has been very considerate of the privacy of the neighbors. He supports the idea of undergrounding the utilities. Commissioner Mandie pointed out that the previous project that was approved would have removed the same trees and was approximately the same size house with a driveway in approximately the same location. She supports the proposed turnaround location because it is below grade level and will help with noise reduction. She is not in favor of lowering the driveway but would like to see screening between the new house and the neighbors prior to approval.

10 Planning Commission Minutes July 19, 2012 Page 8 Approved August 22, 2012 Commissioner Couperus supports the proposed driveway which is an improvement over the plan that came before the Planning Commission two years ago. He is sensitive to hydrology runoff and notes that the applicant has done more than what he was asked to in order to capture runoff, hold it and dissipate it through an energy dissipater. He supports the project. Chairman Partridge supports ensuring that the house meets the Town's codes which he believes the applicant can work out with staff. He supports the design of the house and applauds the applicant for addressing the neighbor's concerns and concurs with his fellow Commissioners on the undergrounding utility issue. Director Pedro noted that the current policy on undergrounding has been in place for quite awhile; the ordinance that carries out the policy can be amended or modified if the Commission wished to make a suggestion. She recommended that the discussion be agendized for a future meeting, at which time the Commission could make changes. She explained that the applicant is in compliance with the ordinance. Commissioner Abraham wants to see a discussion with a representative from the City Council in order to come up with a policy and ordinance that will suppo11 undergrounding. Director Pedro pointed out that the Town had an ad hoc Undergrounding Committee which could be revived to study the issue. Chairman Partridge commented that the landscape screening plan comes after the framing of the house is finished ; the Planning Commission has the option to request that the plan come back for further review. MOTION MADE, SECONDED, AND PASSED BY ROLL CALL VOTE: Motion made by Commissioner Abraham and seconded by Commissioner Harpootlian to approve the requested Site Development Permit for the new residence, driveway, swimming pool, removal of three (3) heritage oak trees and the Grading Policy exception for the driveway, subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval in Attachment #1 of the staff report dated July 19, 2012, and findings for the Grading Policy Exception in Attachment #2. Additionally, the applicant and staff will work together to modify the grade at the planter area along the west wall outside the stairwell and entry area, to be at an elevation of or higher; add a condition to require the applicant to submit a revised floor plan to reduce the floor area by a minimum of 6.25 square feet ; and landscaping plan to be brought back to the Planning Commission. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Commissioners: Mandie, Harpootlian, Abraham, Couperus; and Chairman Partridge None None None Richard Chiu, City Engineer/Public Works Director, suggested that discussion be held with several Council Members regarding the undergrounding of utilities and then to form a subcommittee to further the discussions.

11 ATTACHMENT 3 TOWN OF LOS ALTOS HILLS Fremont Road Los Altos Hills, CA Phone: (650) Outdoor Lighting Policy Approved by City Council -9/30/97 Amended by City Council -5/17 /12 Code Sections and Fast Track Guide for New Residences: Article of Title I 0 Chapter 2 of the Site Development Ordinance outlines criteria for outdoor lighting. In particular, Section indicates that outdoor lighting should use "the minimum wattage lights which will safely illuminate the area" and that outdoor light sources "shall be shielded so as not to be directly visible from off-site." Goal IV (C3) of the Fast Track Guide for New Residences suggests that exterior lights be carefully placed to prevent light shining onto neighboring houses. The Zoning and Site Development Ordinances limit lighting within the property line setbacks to "driveway light fixtures, limited to one fixture on each side of a driveway, for a maximum of two (2) fixtures per lot," but additional fixtures may be approved if necessary for safety. The purpose of Zoning and Site Development Ordinances and the Fast Track Guide regarding outdoor lighting is to assure that the open and peaceful character of the Town is maintained, that adequate lighting is provided for the enjoyment of outdoor use areas, lighting does not intrude on the privacy of neighbors, light pollution is reduced, and the glare is minimized onto adjacent properties. The intent of this policy is to clarify the types and numbers of li ghtffig fixtures that are generally consistent with the ordinances and the Fast Track Guide, yet to allow flexibility for additional lighting when it is necessary for safety purposes or where it is not visible from off the site. Policy: 1. The number of lights on the exterior of a structure should be limited to providing for one light per doorway, with the exception of two lights at the main entrance, at double doors or garage doors, etc., and additional li ghts only where the Planning Director or Planning Commission determines they are needed for safety. 2. Pathway and driveway lighting should be restricted to low-height fixtures and should be spaced the maximum distance apart which w ill still provide for safe use. In order to avoid a " runway" appearance, it is recommended that li ghting be placed on only one side of the driveway or walkway, or alternate from one side to the other. Recessed louvered lights are suggested for walkways and steps.

12 3. Light fixtures should be shielded or down lights, so that the light source is not visible from off site. Exceptions may be permitted in limited locations (entry, garage, etc.) or where the fixtures would not be visible from off site. 4. Downlighting from trees is acceptable if provided for safety or for outdoor use areas, where minimal in number, and where the light source is not visible from off site. 5. Uplighting of trees is not allowed, unless it is clearly demonstrated that the number of such lights are minimal and the glow of the up lighting would not be visible from off site. 6. Spotlights should be limited in number, and directed away from clear view of neighbors. Shielding of spotlights with shrouds or louvers is suggested. 7. High intensity discharge lighting, such as mercury vapor, high and low pressure sodium, and metal halide lighting, is prohibited. 8. Lighting within the property line setbacks is limited to two driveway light fixtures ooly, for the purpose of locating and identifying the site. No lights are allowed in side or rear yard setback areas, except where determined to be necessary for safety. 9. The Planning Commission and/or staff may allow lighting different from that outlined above when the proposed outdoor lighting is determined to be necessary to safely illuminate the area, or where the size of the property and/or extensive screening will assure that the light source is not visible from off site. 10. Artificial lighting is not permitted for tennis courts or other recreation/sports courts. 11. Pool lighting is allowed under the following conditions: Lights are placed beneath the surface of the water in the pool or spa to illuminate the water Other exterior lights used to illuminate the surrounding area use the m1111mum number and wattage of lighting which will safely illuminate the area No direct light is cast beyond the immediate area of the pool Definitions * Glare - Lighting entering the eye directly from luminaries or indirectly from reflective surfaces that causes visual discomfort or reduced visibility. * Light Pollution - Any adverse e ffect of ai1ificial light including, but not limited to, glare, light trespass, sky glow, energy waste, compromised safety and security, and impacts on the nocturnal environment.

13 I FXLuminaire ATTACHMENT 4 LEO Wall Lights The MS pairs the popular styling of the MM with the energy efficiency and long life of LED technology. Choose brass or a variety of powder coat finishes to add contrast or subtly complement the surroundings. MS: Wall Light NUMBER OF LEDS: 2"/5.1 cm HALOGEN LUMEN OUTPUT EQUIVALENT: 10 Watt USEFUL LED LIFE (L70): 50,000 hrs avg INPUT VOLTAGE: 10to15V VA TOTAL: (Use this numbertosizethetransformer) 2.4 WATTS USED: 2.0 LUMENS PER WATT (EFFICACY) 25 MAXLUMENS. 52 CCT (Ra) "/1 cm 2 '" ~ Ci 6 "' "'... ~ I Learn more about FX Lum in aire wall lights. Visit: fxl.com

14 I ORDERING INFORMATION LED MS: Wall Light FACTORY INSTALLED OPTIONS: Order 1+2 (optional) Step Description Code FIXTURE MS 2 OPTIONALZD ZD (Refer to the Luxor page in the Lighting Control section) 3 LAMP lled (50,000 avg. life hours) 4 FINISH AB*, AT*, BS, NP*, WG, FW, AL, BZ, DG, WI, VF, SB, FB EXAMPLE: MS-ZD-1LED-BZ =MS - ZD Option -1LED Board - Bronze Metallic Finish METALS AB= Antique Bronze (On Brass) AT= Antique Tumbled (On Brass) NP= Nickel Plate BS= Natural Brass PHOTOMETRICS: POWDER COAT MS 1LED ILLUMINANCE AT A DISTANCE WG =White Gloss 1.7 ft 3.3 ft 5.0 ft 6.7 ft 8.3 ft 10.0ft Center Beam FC Beam Width l.9ft 3.6 ft 2.91 fc 3.8ft 7.3ft 1.29 fc 5.8ft 10.9ft 0.73 fc 7.7ft 14.6ft 0.47fc 9.6 ft 18.2ft 0.32 fc 11.5 ft 21.8ft Vertical Spread: 59.8 Honzontal Spread: 95.0 FW =Flat White AL= Almond BZ =Bronze Metallic DG = Desert Granite WI= Weathered Iron VF= Verde Speckle Beam angle 1s calculated using LM-79 method for SSL Luminaires: "Beam angle 1s defined as two tw1es the ve't1cal angle at which the 1ntens1ty s 50% of the maximum." SB = Sedona Brown FB =Flat Black The MS includes o 1LED board, choice of finish and 9 ft lead wire. All MS wall lights come standard with amber, and frosted filters May require longer lead time c@us LISTED 3YJ8 4/ I fxl.com FXLuminaire

15 Page 1 of 1 _ Z.jpg 11/4/2014

16 PROFESSIONAL OUTDOOR LI GHTING SPECIFICATION SHEET Type: Model: Project: MODEL 4202-LED Landscape Series Path & Spread Lights FIXTURE SPECIFICATIONS: HOUSING: Die-cast, copper-free aluminum. STEM: 1" sq. aluminum tube with W' NPT. FINISH : Polyester powder-coat finish available in Black, Verde, Architectural Brick, Architectural Bronze, Light Bronze, Dark Bronze, Granite, Pewter, Terracotta, Rust, Hunter Green, Mocha, Weathered Bronze, Weathered Iron, and White. LENS : Clear, high-impact, polycarbonate lens. LAMP TYPE: High Output LED with Vista exclusive smart-driver, powered to operate for 50,000 hours. ELECTRICAL: Input voltage range 6-1 SV AC, regulated to achieve uniform illumination throughout the cable run of fixtures. Integral surge & reverse polarity protection. MOUNTING: Bottom of stem threaded with W' NPT. Fixture may be mounted into threaded hubs in junction boxes, ground stakes, or floor-mounting canopies. Please see fixture ordering information for mounting selection. FASTENERS: All fasteners are stainless steel. WIRING: Prewired with a three-foot pigtail of 18-2 direct-burial cable and underground connectors for a secure connection to supply cable. Al l Vista lu minaires are MADE IN U.S.A. DIMENSIONS: 3'/." 79.4mm /." 730.3mm O t 5" 127mm 1-4" 101.6mm ~ 1 Visra Professional Outdoor Lighting reserves the right W modify the design and/or construction of the fixture shown without further notification Surveyor Avenue Simi Va lley, CA (805) (800) 766-VISTA (8478) FAX: (888) 670 VISTA (8478) @vistapro.com

17 PROFESSIONAL OUTDOOR LIGHTING SPECIFICATION SH EET MODEL 4202-LED Landscape Series Path & Spread Lights FIXTURE ORDERING INFORMATION TO ORDER FI XTURE: Select appropriate choice from each col umn as in the following example. EXAMPLE: PR B-W-LB2ND MOUNTING MODEL FINISH PR - ABS ground stake 4202 B - Black G - Verde BR - Architectural Brick Z - Architectural Bronze LZ - Light Bronze DZ - Da rk Bronze GT - Granite P - Pewter TC - Terracotta R - Rust HG - Hunter Green M - Mocha WB - Weathered Bronze WI - Weathered Iron W-White COLOR TEMP W-Warm N - Neutral C-Cool LAM P LB2ND watt LBSND - 5 watt LED - Group B Emitter Oty - 1 Temperature - Warm 0Nl, Neutral (N), Cool (C) Operating voltage range - 6 to 15V. (Please see lamp order code column on lamp guide, Vista product ca talog.) Fixtures shipped wit h standard lamp, unless otherwise specified. Fixtures shipped with specified mounting hardware. Not e: Optional custom length stems available. Consult local distributor. Vista Profess ional Outdoor Lighting resenes the right to modify the design and/ or construction of the fixture sho wn without further notification Surveyor Avenue Simi Valley, CA (805) (800) 766-VISTA (8478) FAX: (888) 670-VISTA (8478) @vistapro.com LED

18 ~';)~ ~,,,o,~,. e'ktoston JJ:fVV ~-~ ATTACHMENT 5 ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN and PROTECTION COMMITTEE ~ :~:P.JI~~~i~6=fg f;::::.:.: :::-.:::::i:=~. ~:~ ::. ~:~:::::.:::::: :-.: :.:::.:: ::. ::::.:::: ::::. :-.::::. EP.~P.If~~-fB_a.:6]~~ :~:::=::-.-.::l~ h~h~~k ~ <t> ~-. :.::~~~-~f~.l.. ~-m ::=::::.. - : hh~::::. :~:~.i?jl~~:6-~~_g~:f.~~ i~:::-.:::t.:::~. -~:~q:::-.:.. ::.~::::::... ~~~~~:~=:.~: :::::.-.: : :::~::::::~::~:::: ~~_yl~~~e <! by..: ~ ~ -. ~ ' ~-.-~-- ~~~~=:-.~~-.===-. :::: ::=:~-.::J:::::=::?.c ~-.::cc:i=~-.r-.~ :-.~:-.-.-.=:::::-.==-.::::-.::::-.:-. : -.:: : :::::::::-.=:~=::::-.:::-.:::=:~~-.-.-.::-.-.-.:::-.::-.::::::~:::-.:: ~ COMMENTS G ~~ -~ - ~~ ~i~hl~~~-=-~::~:~ : ~::-~r:1~=~:-~3=: :~:=~~~~i::~ ::~~: : ::: :~:: ~:::~:==~-.:-.::~ ::: :-. ::~=:::: ::::=:~:::~:~:~::::~~~t::::::-.::~~::: -.:: : :::: : ::: =:::::~:~:::-..~9.!?~ ~ - '.:'.t::... ~- - ~LP ~- -- ~ : ::rg ~ t;, -c;;~h ;;::r - 0-:;; ~ ;;- ~-~-.- ~ - ~ _ l ~--:... :... _ ~r.~e~--~:~-~:::::~:::::~-.:::::::::~: ::-.~~:::::::~::::::::::~:::;::::::::~=:::::-.~:~~-~::.-.:-.: :::::::::-.:::::-.~:::=::::-.:::::::::~~ :::~:~.::: ; _, , -'- ;: ~ :-... :. ~.?-~ em~q~ """"''.~rn.ff'" ':s.c _~.tav...::.k ~.~l.sti~.9.. Yeg.!!.?.1. ~!.g.q.._... _ :-.:::::.:::: ::-.::.=:~_::::: :~ : ~-~.::-.::SJ".P.J::~ : -~:O.IL :-.=~:~:~:~: ( )