Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-11-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter ABSENT: Commissioner Schallop STAFF: Planner Livingstone, Director Sullivan and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2004. (Continued to Meeting on February 25, 2004 due to Lack of Quorum) ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications underPlanning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-187 (517-22-003) - BORELLI, 20200 Hill Avenue; - Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two story house to a one story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1- 40,000. (JoxN LIVINGSTONE) (APPROVED 6-0) 2. APPLICATION #04-002 -Rezoning Various Parcels for General Plan Consistency (517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18- 018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue; 20170 Bonnie Brae; 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane; 14931 Vickery Ave.; 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave.; - A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Low Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-1, 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding the proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) (CONTINUED TO MEETING ON FEBRUARY 25, 2004 DUE TO NOTICING) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on January 7, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 8:45 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 -12:00 noon PLACE: City Hall Parking Lot, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue TYPE: Site Visit Committee SITE VISITS WILL BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ON THE PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA FOR WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA Application #03-187 - BORELLI 20200 Hill Avenue Item 1 SITE VISIT COMMITTEE The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties which are new items on the Planning Commission agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 12:00 p.m. and 2:00 p.m. It is not necessary for the applicant to be present, but you are invited to join the Committee at the site visit to answer any questions, which may arise. Site ~~isits are generally short (S to 10 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the public hearing. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA DATE: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater,13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Cynthia Barry, Mohammad Garakani, Susie Nagpal, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Jill Hunter PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of January 28, 2004. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS -Any member of the Public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three minutes on matters not on this agenda The law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staf f accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Sta f f. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 5, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an "Appeal Application" with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050 (b). In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the Ciry Clerk at (408) 868-1269 or ctclerhC~saratoga.ca.us. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Ciry to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II). CONSENT CALENDAR - None PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Monday, a week before the meeting. 1. APPLICATION #03-187 (517-22-003) - BORELLI, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two story house to a one story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the. site is zoned R-1- 40,000. (]OHNLIVINGSTONE) 2. APPLICATION #04-002 -Rezoning Various Parcels for General Plan Consistency (517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19-084, 517-19-085, 517-18- 018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021) Various Owners: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue; 20170 Bonnie Brae; 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane; 14931 Vickery Ave.; 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave.; - A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Low Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plan. These parcels are currently zoned R-1, 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in the General Plan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-1, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Information regarding the proposed rezoning is available at the Community Development Department at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - None COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Regular Meetings on January 7, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, February 25, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA • If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@sarato ag ca.us a MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, January 28, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Acting Chair Zutshi called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi Absent: Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner John Livingstone and Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of January 14, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 14, 2004, were adopted as submitted. (4-0-3; Chair Hunter and Commissioners Garakani and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 22, 2004. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Director Tom Sullivan announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). • Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 2 *** CONSENT CALENDAR -ITEM NO.1 CAPITOL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM & GENERAL PLAN CONFORMINTY FINDING: The Saratoga Planning Commission will review and determine if the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program are consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan. Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that there is no specific staff report except to advise that the Planning Commission previously acted on this item. Council subsequently added three additional items to the CIP. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission found the additions to the proposed 2003-04 Capitol Improvement Program to be consistent with the various goals, policies and programs of the City of Saratoga General Plan, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 APPLICATION #03-201 (503-48-029 and 503-48-028), located at and adjacent to 21170 Big Basin Way: Request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) to expand the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels, APN 503-48-029 and APN 403-48-028. (Continued from January 14, 2004.) (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council the request by LAFCO to adjust the Saratoga Urban Service Area Boundary to include two new parcels. • Described the zoning as Residential and the General Plan designation as Hillside Residential. • Stated that the reason behind this change is to give the City of Saratoga a sphere of influence over future development of this property. Without the Urban Service Area Boundary designation, the County is not required to provide the City of Saratoga with notice of pending development applications. • Stated that the proposed addition to the Urban Service Area Boundary is consistent with the City's General Plan and LAFCO's policies. • Informed that the property owner's attorney has provided a letter that has been distributed to the Commissioners this evening. • Recommended approval of this proposed Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Barry asked staff to clarify what it takes to bring a property into the Urban Service Area * Boundary. Associate Planner John Livingston replied that said properties must be contiguous to the City and a resolution be adopted by the City Council. Commissioner Barry restated that there are no specific requirements other than being contiguous to a City's boundary. Commissioner Nagpal asked for verification that the City has received no current notice of pending property development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff to confirm that under the Urban Service Area Boundary, these property owners would not have to comply with City of Saratoga design guidelines but rather the City is just given the opportunity to provide comments to the County on potential development. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal asked why Land Use Policy 5, regarding development compatibility, is included in the report. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that if these properties were to be annexed into the City of Saratoga, the City's design review polices would ensure compatibility with the adjacent properties and uses. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the issue of annexation would come before the Planning Commission or before City Council. Associate Planner John Livingstone advised that the issue of potential annexation would be considered by the City Council. Commissioner Schallop asked if the only way the City has any influence is if it were to directly receive notice from the County. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the City sometimes gives comment to the County. Sometimes they listen and act upon the comments provided. Director Tom Sullivan said that the relationship between City and County staff is better today than a few years ago. Commissioner Schallop asked if the City has yet considered the possibility of annexation. Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Commissioner Schallop asked if the attorney's reference to a 50 percent rule is accurate. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 4 , Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes. This could change however with ownership changes or more properties being considered for annexation at one time. Commissioner Schallop asked if structures built on this property would be visible from the valley. Director Tom Sullivan replied that there are many parcels far from the City of Saratoga's sphere of influence where structures constructed are clearly visible. Commissioner Schallop asked staff what cost is incurred in bringing the proposal for additions to the Urban Service Area Boundary forward. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied just staff time. Commissioner Schallop asked what triggered this interest. Director Tom Sullivan replied City Council. Acting Chair Zutshi asked for further clarification regarding the attorney's letter and the comment that annexation cannot occur without their consent. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied that this statement depends upon certain variables. Director Tom Sullivan added that without those possible variables, that comment is generally true. Commissioner Barry asked staff if the County has any position on the idea of bnngmg this property into the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the County is supportive of all cities annexing property as much as possible. The County is a social service oriented agency and not property development oriented. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. David Britton, Property Owner, 21170 Big Basin Way: • Identified himself as owner of 10 acres of property under consideration this evening. • Apologized for the delay in getting his attorney's letter in to the Commission. • Said that it is important that the Commission know that adding his property to the Urban Service Area Boundary would not benefit the City of Saratoga as the only way for the City to have any influence would be annexation. The City is unable to annex properties without the consent of 50 percent of the property owners. Both the Brittons and the Englishes would protest annexation. • Recommended that the Planning Commission deny inclusion of their property into the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. • Assured that he plans to appear before Council when they consider this proposal. • Asked if his previous correspondence was included in the Commission's staff report. • Said that he is not against what the City is trying to accomplish, just that he is not exactly sure what it is the City is trying to accomplish. • Questioned the reasoning for the City to spend its money when it would receive no benefit. • Listed the likely scenario to be first, Urban Service Area; second, annexation into the City and, finally, merging of property to Hakone Gardens. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 5 • Pointed out an entire paragraph regarding the expansion of Hakone Gardens. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Commissioner Schallop asked Mr. David Britton what his specific concerns are. Mr. David Britton replied that if annexation occurs before he is able to sell his property the new owners would be under City jurisdiction and not County jurisdiction. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that it is probably not even possible to secure annexation under these conditions even if annexation is attempted. Mr. David Britton asked why even change the Urban Service Area Boundary. The County may not care but the property owners do care. He added that he is required to disclose this possibility as he is trying to sell his property. He is required to make it clear as to what a new owner can expect. Ms. Sara Louise Freitig English: • Said that she was so upset at the last meeting she ranted. • Said that they were never noticed about the Council meeting in August where this issue was first raised. Their first notification came on December 23, 2003. • Stated that they do not know how this issue came before Council and that this process is damaging the ability of the Brittons to sell their property. • Accused that someone is trying to stop the sale of this property. • Reminded that City representatives who visited the property in August told their agent that the property might be purchased for Hakone. • Stated that the notices sent are prejudiced regarding Hakone being next door to the property under consideration. • Declared that she does not want to have her property annexed into the City of Saratoga as the land has a better value under County jurisdiction. • Advised that this vote would have some adverse meaning to them. It would actually be damaging to be included in the Urban Service Area Boundary. It would be detrimental to the sellers of this property. • Expressed concerns that this process is reminiscent of Police Powers of the State and compared it to lands taken from her ancestors in Europe. • Thanked the Commission for its time. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Schallop asked staff whether the Commission's action on this matter is simply a non- binding recommendation to Council. Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the only thing on the table at this phase is the possibility of inclusion of these properties to the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary. There is nothing under consideration regarding annexation and that the potential of annexation is not an automatic progression. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 6 Director Tom Sullivan replied correct. Commissioner Nagpal reminded that annexation would not be possible without 50 percent of the property owners agreeing to it. Director Tom Sullivan agreed but said that property owners and laws change all the time. Acting Chair Zutshi pointed out that Council would consider this item and these families could speak to the Council at that time. Director Tom Sullivan added that after Council takes action, the next process would be before LAFCO. LAFCO makes the final decision. Commissioner Barry pointed out that this designation would give the City a chance to have a seat at the table when the County discusses development of this property. This is valuable to the City. Said that she is concerned about hillside development and the amount of cement that is added to hillside properties. She would like to see the City able to comment. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that the City could actually choose to comment on development at any time. The only real difference is that the City will received public hearing meeting notices. Director Tom Sullivan said that the City receives the County Planning Commission agenda but has never received their Design Review agenda or their Grading Review agendas. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Hakone is automatically noticed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the City would be notified as the property owners of Hakone Gardens. Again the City currently only gets the County Planning agendas and not the rest. Commissioner Barry pointed out that another important issue is the fact that the County is not in the business of design guidelines. The City is invested in the character of the neighborhoods and hillsides. Commissioner Schallop pointed out that people buy County properties for that reason, there are less stringent requirements. Commissioner Barry said that annexation is not being voted upon. The only benefit is the opportunity to comment on the future development of these two properties. There would be no control to stop development but just to register a comment on the proposed development. Commissioner Schallop reminded that that option exists right now. Commissioner Barry said not practically speaking. Commissioner Schallop said that the concern he has is the timing as some interest seems to be there for Hakone Gardens. Said he is not sure what the trigger is for this action. Director Tom Sullivan said that when the City realized the property was on the market it was also clear that potential development might of this property might be eminent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Barry reminded that the property has been on the market for two years. The City did not just jump on this process immediately upon its being put on the market. Additionally, the County encourages this action. Said that despite how it might seem, there are no nefarious motives here. It seems pretty straightforward to have a design review voice. Commissioner Schallop said that the City could speak anyway. He added that it is not clear that annexation is coming next. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that the possibility of annexation was of concern to her as well. However, she considers this process to be simply an issue of Urban Service Area Boundary in order to get design review opportunities. • Said that she does not agree that Hakone Garden is a strange link, it is a logical link. • Stated that the County's land use capabilities are at issue and that the City's Land Use Policy seems to indicate annexation. • Reminded that the annexation would require participation by the landowners and would not occur without agreement of a majority. • Advised that she is inclined to support the Urban Service Area Boundary adjustment. Commissioner Barry suggested that the sentence in the Resolution regarding possible annexation be removed. Director Tom Sullivan said this could be done. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution for Application #03-201, recommending that Council approved the proposed expansion of the City of Saratoga's Urban Service Area Boundary to include APN 503-48-29 and 503-48- 028 with the removal of text indicating the possibility of future annexation from said Resolution, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan: • Restated that the Commission has taken action to adopt a Resolution recommending approval to Council with the stricken language that refers to possible future annexation. • Advised that this matter would now go on to Council for Public Hearing for which the property owners will be notified by mail of the hearing date. x~~* PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #03-267 397-19-024 - MUELLER A ellant 19351 Athos Place: The City denied a tree removal permit for three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place. The property owner has Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 8 appealed the denial. The trees are located in the side yard, toward the front of the residence. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the City denied a Tree Removal Permit for three Eucalyptus trees located on the side yard along the left property line and fence. The property owner has appealed that denial. • Said that the City Arborist has since inspected the trees and found them to be in good to fair condition but in poor structural condition, which supports their removal. • Added that the adjacent neighbor has provided a letter in support of the removal of these three trees. • Recommended that the Commission conducts a public hearing and takes appropriate action. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the initial denial and asked if the lack of opinion on the economic enjoyment of the property is important. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the inspector thought this was not a relevant criteria in this situation. Commissioner Barry pointed out that the Arborist's report mentions the poor trimmings/cuts made on these trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that when such trees are topped, new sprouts become limbs that are weak and therefore can more easily fall off in weather and wind. Acting Chair Zutshi asked if these trees are a special species as had been implied during the site visit. Commissioner Nagpal reported that Chair Hunter had thought it might be an unusual species of Eucalyptus during the site visit. She asked if the Arborist believes that replacement with three trees is a sufficient mitigation for the removal of these three trees. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. John Nance, 19363 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Said he is the adjacent next door neighbor, to the north, and has lived here since 1968. • Reported that the Muellers are the fourth owners of the neighboring property. • Advised that these trees were planted in 1967 or 1968. • Said that he emailed his support of this request and was disappointed that the Tree Removal Permit was denied. • Asked if the Commission saw his email in which he outlined his reasons to support the removal. Commissioner Nagpal assured Mr. Nance that his email was included in the staff report packet. Mr. John Nance: • Stated that he still believes what he originally wrote. • Said that his main concern is fire hazard as these types of trees burn furiously almost immediately upon ignition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 9 • Said that he is fearful that if there were to be a fire these trees would present a large fire hazard. • Advised that over the last 35 years, he has cleared debris from these trees off his driveway, which runs along the property line, next to these trees. There is debris every season and he cannot put a car in the driveway for 20 minutes without finding drippings on the car. Oil from the trees stain cars and the driveway. • Added that the tree has resulted in cracks in his driveway. • Informed that he has inadvertently been the water source for these trees every time he hoses down his driveway to clean the debris. • Pointed out that there are many trees in this cul-de-sac and that these trees do not have any significant aesthetic value to the neighborhood. • Said he hopes the Commission will recommend approval for removal of these three trees as there will be no negative consequences by their removal. Acting Chair Zutshi asked Mr. Nance if any branch has fallen on his property causing damage. Mr. John Nance replied once when the tree was being trimmed. However, smaller branches fall all the time. Commissioner Barry pointed out that there is no recommendation in the staff report as to where the replacement trees ought to go. Asked Mr. Nance if he has any suggestions. Mr. John Nancy said he hopes that there are no tall trees replaced along their shared property line. He added that his neighbor has a nice large property and he leaves placement of the replacement trees in their hands. Ms. Cindy Mueller, Appellant, 19351 Athos Place, Saratoga: • Expressed concern that these trees represent a major safety and liability concern. • Said that she has owned her home for three years and had the trees maintained by a tree company at a cost of $800 per year to trim and top each tree. However, she has learned that this regular trimming is actually hurting the structural integrity of the trees. • Added that there is no other way but to trim these trees. If not, they grow outward, over rooftops. • Informed that the Arborist has recommended trees but that there are not appropriate for this same location. • Advised that she would like to have time to review a landscape plan for appropriate location of the replacement trees as part of a planned extensive remodel of their home. • Said that there are lots of trees on the property, they are completely surrounded by trees. Commissioner Barry asked Ms. Mueller what time frame she would require to figure out the replacement location for the new trees. Ms. Cindy Mueller said she is not sure. They need to rebuild the fence, find an architect and go through the design review process with the City. This may take a year or more from what people tell her. Assured that the trees to be removed are not a rare species per the Arborist. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 10 Commissioner Nagpal expressed support for flexibility in the replacement schedule and asked staff for a recommendation. Director Tom Sullivan said that staff generally tries for three months but that there is no hard and fast rule. If an extension is requested, it can be granted. Staff will keep a record and check back. Commissioner Nagpal said the most compelling reason to support removal is the Arborist report. Criteria No. 1 is met. Said that she is leaning toward supporting this Tree Removal Permit. Commissioner Schallop: • Said that this is the least controversial Tree appeal he has heard so far. • Said that he relies heavily upon the Arborist report and the Arborist feels that Criteria No. 1 has been met. • Stated that with replacement trees and flexibility on the City's part on the timing of the replanting, he can support granting this appeal to allow the removal of these trees. Commissioner Barry expressed her agreement and said that she appreciated the comments by Ms. Mueller that pruning contributed to the damage of these trees. Said that she is comfortable with the Planning Department tracking future replacement of these trees. Acting Chair Zutshi said that she had thought these trees looked nice originally but that the Arborist report influenced her position. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that if a City inspector has a doubt, they are told to rule in favor of saving the tree. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission granted an appeal (Application #03-267) to allow the removal of three Eucalyptus trees located at 19351 Athos Place, allowing the property owner some flexibility in the timing of planting replacement trees to coincide with a pending major residential remodel, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None ~~~ PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.4 APPLICATION #03-092 (397-19-024) - CHU 19554 Three Oaks Way: Request Design Review Approval to add 1,504 square feet to the existing 3,169 square foot house with an existing 434 square foot garage for a total floor area of 5,107 square feet. The addition includes a new 1.007 square foot second story addition to the existing house. The gross lot size is 40,140 square feet and zoned R-1- 40,000. The maximum height of the residence will be approximately 23 feet. (JOHN LIVINGSTONE) Associate Planner John Livingstone presented the staff report as follows: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 11 • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to allow the addition of approximately 1,500 square feet to an existing 3,000 square foot house for a total of 5,000 square feet. One thousand square feet represents a second story addition. • Reported that the impervious surface of this property exceeds the maximum allowable. The owners will remove the existing driveway, about 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. • Described building materials to include redwood board and batten siding, stone veneer base at the front facade and a brown roof of weathered composition shingle. • Explained that the proposal meets Design Review guideline policies that include integration with the environment, planting of new trees, protection of the privacy of adjacent neighbors, no view impacts and no trees to be removed. • Advised that 15 15-gallon oaks will be planted as well as six 24-inch box trees. • Stated that no negative correspondence has been received and that the neighbors have been shown the plans. • Recommended approval. Corrunissioner Barry asked what the lot coverage would be. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied 42 percent of net. The existing coverage is 57 percent. Staff is supporting the proposal with the reduction of impervious surface from 57 to 42 percent. Commissioner Nagpal asked if this percentage still does not meet Code standards. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied correct. However, these are existing conditions that the applicant is reducing. Commissioner Barry asked if anything else could be made pervious. Director Tom Sullivan said that the new driveway is interlocking pavers. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification about existing conditions. Associate Planner John Livingstone said that the lot currently has 57 percent lot coverage. The applicant is removing approximately 5,000 square feet of this coverage. While 35 percent coverage was the goal, the applicant inadvertently based their percentages on gross instead of net. Staff is supportive since the applicant in theory could just leave it as is since it is an existing condition. Commissioner Barry asked for clarification that some of the new square footage is on the first floor. Associate Planner John Livingstone replied yes, about 500 square feet. The remaining 1,000 square feet is a second floor. Commissioner Nagpal asked for clarification that the applicant does not have to meet lot coverage standards with such a remodel. Associate Planner John Livingstone said not if it is an existing situation. It is considered to be a legal non-conforming situation that is not being made worse. Commissioner Nagpal said that the lot coverage is actually improving from 57 to 42 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 12 Director Tom Sullivan added that it cannot be allowed to get worse per Code. Acting Chair Zutshi opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Mr.. Mark Robinson, Project Architect: • Said he was available for any questions. • Said they have tried to do whatever possible regarding excess paving. • Pointed out that most of the addition is second story with a small first floor addition at the back of the house. Commissioner Zutshi asked whether pavers could be incorporated around the pool. Mr. Mark Robinson said that planned material is flagstone. Acting Chair Zutshi closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Barry said that understanding the issues, she is fine with the proposal. The design is articulated and interesting. She will support it. Commissioner Nagpal supported the comments of Commissioner Barry. Commissioner Schallop did also. Acting Chair Zutshi said that the applicant has done a wonderful job. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #03-092) to add 1,504 square feet to an existing 3,169 square foot home on property located at 19554 Three Oaks Way~by the following roll call vote: AYES: Barry, Nagpal, Schallop and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Garakani, Hunter and Uhl ABSTAIN: None ~~~ DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Nagpal reported that Phyllis from the Heritage Commission is seeking volunteers for the Mustard Walk. COMMUNICATIONS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of January 28, 2004 Page 13 ., There were no Communications Items. AD OURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Barry, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Acting Chair Zutshi adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of February 11, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • ITEM 2 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No. #04-002 -Rezone various parcels from R-1- 40,000 to R-1- 20,000 for General Plan consistency Location: 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue, 20170 Bonnie Brae, 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane, 14931 Vickery Ave., 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Ave Applicant/Owner: Initiated by the City of Saratoga/Various Own s Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, Assistant Planner, AICP~~ Date: February 11, 2004 517-22-004, 517-20-016, 517-20-021, 517-19-082, 517-19-083, 517-19- 084, 517-19-085, 517-18-018, 517-12-020, 517-12-022, 517-12-021 //, • -N- 0.12 mi • Shaded Parcels are zoned R-1, 40,000 but have a General Plan Designation of RLD The RLD General Plan designation allows 2.18 DU per acre or a 20,000 square foot lot, which is consistent with R-1, 20,000 zoning. Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 ~~~~~~ Discussion A Zoning Ordinance amendment is proposed for the above referenced parcels to maintain consistency between the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. The above referenced parcels are designated as RLD Residential Low Density, 2.18 dwelling units per acre in the General Plain map, which was adopted by the City in 1987. These parcels are currently zoned R-1, 40,000, which requires a minimum lot size of 40,000 square feet. The RLD designation in t]ze General flan dictates a minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet. Rezoning these parcels to R-l, 20,000 will restore consistency with the General Plan. Consistency between the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is mandated by Section 65860 of the California (Jovernment Code, which requires Zoning Ordinances to be consistent with the adopted General Plan. In addition, the California Constitution and Section 65800 of the California Government Code gives to cities the power to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. Section 65300 of the California Government Code requires cities to adopt a comprehensive, .long-term General Plan for the development of the city and any land outside the city, which bears relationship to the city's planning. In terms of CEQA, the proposed zoning map amendments are not exempt from. CEQA. If the Planning Commission approves the proposed rezoning, an Initial Study and Negative Declaration will be prepared prior to review by City Council. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends adoption of the Resolution for Application # 04-002 iri order to comply with the state mandate that the Zoning Ordinance follow the dictates of the General Plan. Enclosures: 1. Adopted General Plan Map Qune 1987) 2. Adopted Zoning Map ~~June 1987 with revisions to October 1996) Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 ~®fJ~®2 • L....J RESOLUTION NO. APPLICATION # 04-002 RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOMMENDING THAT CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTER 15 OF THE CITY CODE TO REZONE VARIOUS R-1, 40,000 PARCELS TO R-1, 20,000 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga is responsible for making recommendations to the Ciry Council of the City of Saratoga with respect to the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance with respect to rezoning the following Assessor's Parcels: 517-22-004 517-20-016 517-20-02'1 517-19-085 517-19-083 517-19-084 517-18-018 517-19-082 517-12-020 517-12-022 517-12-021 WHEREAS, the above noted Assessor's Parcels are located at the following addresses: • 20152, 20161 Hill Avenue • 20170 Bonnie Brae • 28010, 28020, 28021, 28011, Audrey Smith Lane • 14931 Vickery Avenue • 20500, 20550, 20568 Lomita Avenue WHEREAS, the California Constitution and Section 65800 of the California Government Code gives to cities the power to adopt and administer zoning laws, ordinances, rules, and regulations. WHEREAS, Section 65300 of the California Government Code requires cities to adopt a comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the development of the City and any land outside the City, which bears relationship to the Ciry's planning. WHEREAS, Section 65860 of the California Government Code requires that a Zoning Ordinance be consistent with the adopted General Plan. WHEREAS, the matter was considered at a duly noticed public hearing on February 11th 2004 at which time all members of the public were afforded an opportunity to comment on the proposed changes Rezoning R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 ~K.l~~~~ nin Commission hereb recommends the THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Plan g y Zoning Ordinance Map for the City of Saratoga be amended to change from R-1, 40,000 to R-1, 20,000 the zoning designation of following assessor's parcels: 517-22-004 517-20-016 517-20-021 517-19-082 517-19-083 517-19-084 517-19-085 517-18-018 517-12-020 517-12-022 517-12-021 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, State of California this 11th day of February 2004, by the following vote. AYES; NOS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: L_._J Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission • Rezoning R-1, 40,000 [o R-1, 20,000 ®~~~®~ t Attachment 1 • ~~~~~5 •i R-1-2 3 _ I D •. ~s .~ .. ~~ J' .~ "IIa. ``~: •i jr-- .~ i; f Zoning Map June 1987 with amendments to October 1996 Fµ.,, .._. ,. ; j .:. S_.. ~, •.. i --+ ~ „,_ ®Q~~~~ •~ Attachment 2 • ~~~~~~ ~-' r t- ., ~; , ~ ...titer, ~,.,.r. R p;-, , \. % ~ ~ d h~ `/ err ~~ *,'4't` .~ ~ ,~ r =~ . `.. :~4:; ~ ~• ~ '~.`~ y ~ x..,'15 ,.~~ r~ 1 O~ f t ~.~,. :~ ~ "t \ :" ¢. .~ `, ... i .' .~, .-' ~ .. ~. __ - 4 i F )~ ~ - QPF .. RLD' \. \ - _ ._ :. ... ,. . __...__ , _.. _- _- r ~ ~ ~ f i ,; ~. /~ ri ~ i ~ / ~ / ~ ~ ^/ ~: ~ ~ - - r General Plan Map June 1987 •i •' Q~'~~~~ MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL JANUARY 7, 2004 The Cit Council of the City of Saratoga held a Joint Session with the Finance Y Commission in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. The following Finance Commissioners were present: Chair Richard Allen, Simon Chin, Jim Hughes, Ajay Narin, Bart W. Rubenson, Alex Tennant, Norma Siegler, and Jesse Baloca, Staff Liaison/Administrative Service Director. Director Baloca presented a brief overview of the City's current financial situation. Director Baloca stated that as a result of Governor Davis' pulling the VLF trigger in late June 2003 the City lost an estimated $375k of its current 2003-04 operating budget. Currently, the State considers the reduction of our current year revenue stream a loan that will be repaid in 2006. Director Baloca stated on November 17, 2003 Governor Schwarzenegger rescinded the VLF increase to vehicle owners. The attempt to make local government whole has thus far been unsuccessful in receiving the approval of the Legislature. Director Baloca stated that as a result the City estimates that an additional loss of $945k until the end of this fiscal year. Director Baloca explained that on the average, the City of Saratoga receives Discussion took place in regards to how the Finance Commission could help the City monitor the budget and educate the community. approximately $145k a month in total VLF revenues. The City's VLF receipts for December 2003 were reduced to $31k. The VLF revenue stream supports approximately 21.5% of the City's general fund. On December 18, 2003, the Governor re-stated his intention to distribute the VLF to cities. Mayor Waltonsmtih thanked the Finance Commission for attending tonight's Joint Session. The City Council met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 6:3 0 p.m. Conference with Legal Counsel -Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (2 potential case) Conference with Legal Counsel -Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference With Legal Counsel -Existing Litigation: i (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) `~ Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Escamilla (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. 1-03-CV-0053) MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:00 p.m. Mayor Waltonsmith reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Waltonsmith called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Stan Bogosian, Norman Kline, Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Ann Waltonsmith ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director Tom Sullivan, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Morgan Kessler, Civil Engineer Cay Bloomquist, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 7, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of January 7, 2004 was properly posted on December 18, 2003. COMMUNICATIONS FORM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak. COMMUNICATIONS FORM COMMISSIONS Richard Allen, Chair/ Finance Commission, noted that prior to the City Council meeting the Finance Commission met with the City Council. Chair Allen briefly explained the Finance Commission's Mission Statement and provided the names of the members of the Commission. Chair Allen listed their recent focuses have been: • Review Financial Performance and Budgets • Develop City Metric • Develop Reserve Polices • Develop Plan for Financial Communication to Residents 2 Chair Allen pointed out the highlights from the joint meeting with the Council stating that Director Baloca and City Manager Anderson explained provided an overview of the City's budget and possible risk that might be created by the State's budget. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR ~~ ~J lA. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES -DECEMBER 9, 2003 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM DECEMEBR 9, 2003. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1B. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve check register. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1 C. BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY ACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-001 3 Gayle Tiller, Planned Parenthood Representative, requested that item 1C be removed from the Consent Calendar. Ms. Tiller stated that Planned Parenthood urged the City Council to adopt the resolution. Ms. Tiller stated that the Budget Accountability Act is a comprehensive reform initiative designed to end state budget gridlock, reduce the annual political posturing in Sacramento, and deliver a timely and responsible State Budget. Ms. Tiller noted that Proposition 56 would be on the March 2004 ballot. Ms. Tiller explained what the Act would do: • Require the legislature to stay in session until the budget is done • Hold legislators and the Governor accountable by withholding their pay if they fail to meet the constitutional deadline for passing the budget • Require a 55% vote to adopt the budget and any related tax legislation • Create a "rainy day" reserve fund to protect services in bad times • Include summary of budget expenditures in the voters pamphlet Refemng to the last paragraph of the resolution, Councilmember Streit stated that his issue is with the proposed 55% vote to pass the budget. Councilmember Streit stated that he is not willing to support the resolution because he feels that 55% is too low. One particular party on either side could control it. The current 66 2/3 keeps the balance Councilmember Bogosian stated that the legislature and the previous governor were not fiscally responsible. Councilmember Bogosian noted that he does support the accountability provisions of the resolution but cannot support the resolution because of the 55% vote to pass the budget. KLINE/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT THE BUDGET ACCOUNTABILITY ACT. MOTION PASSED 3-2 WITH BOGOSIAN AND STREIT OPPOSING. 1D. SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN OVERLAY ZONE FOR DRIVE- THROUGH SERVICES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt ordinance. ORDINANCE: 227 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO CREATE AND OVERLAY ZONE FOR DRIVE-THROUGH SERVICES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. lE. ADDITIONAL STRIPING WORK IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE 2003 PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve change order amount. 4 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE CHANGE ORDER IN THE AMOUNT OF $55,000 FOR ADDITIONAL STRIPING. WORK ASSOCIATED WITH THE 2003 PMP. MOITON PASSED 5-0. 1F. MEASURE B - A BALLOT MEASURE TO CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARIES STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-002 BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION SUPPORTING MEASURE B - A BALLOT MEASURE TO CONTINUE SUPPORT FOR SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARIES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 1G. PARKING VIOLATION PENALTY INCREASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-003 Councilmember Bogosian requested that item 1G be removed from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian asked if there were any documents to support the cost to recover the tickets in order to show the costs have increased to this level. Councilmember Bogosian stated that if there is no proof, he would not support an additional fee without public participation Steve Prosser, Community Service Officer, explained that recently the City moved to an electronic ticket writing process, which in turn caused the increase the contract costs. Councilmember Bogosian asked if the increase was total cost recovery. Community Officer Prosser responded yes, it is full cost recovery with no excess. BOGOSIAN/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF FINE REQUIRED FOR A PARKING VIOLATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS 2. RESOLUTION ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; close public hearing; adopt resolution. RESOLUTION: 04-004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk presented staff report. City Clerk Boyer stated that the attached resolution represents the second step in Saratoga's Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program administered by the County Fire Marshall. The County has sent owners of the parcels requiring weed abatement notices informing them that the weeds must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notice also informed them that they may present objections at tonight's public hearing. City Clerk Boyer pointed out that representatives from the County Fire Marshall's Office were present this evening to answer any questions Councilmembers may have on this topic. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. BOGOSIAN/KING MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ORDERING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE BY REMOVAL OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. FIVE YEAR (2001-2006) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (CIP) FY 03- 04UPDATE -ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENTS &CIP BUDGET PRIORITIZATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report; conduct public hearing; adopt Environmental Assessment; adopt resolution amending the 2001-2006 CIP Budget reflecting Council direction from the 11/5/03 City Council meeting. RESOLUTION: 04-005 John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone briefly explained the CIP process and the environmental assessment. Director Cherbone stated that staff recommends that Council adopt the Environmental Impact Assessment and the Environmental Checklist Form for 2003-04 CIP Update, except for the Odd Fellows Trail Project and the Norton Road Fire Access Project. Director Cherbone noted that at the December 17th City Council meeting, Council directed staff to provided an analysis of the projects in the five-year CIP, which could be placed on hold or postponed until the City's financial situation stabilizes due to the States take away of the Vehicle License Fee (VLF) revenue. • 6 Director Cherbone noted that projects for postponement were prioritized based on the following: 1) Projects funded by outside sources 2) Projects with safety elements 3) Maintenance 4) Projects that ate ongoing Director Cherbone noted that staff has identified $4,121,204, which meets the minimum requirements directed by the City Council. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. KL1NE/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING THE MULTIPLE YEAR CIP BUDGET AND ADOPT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT REPORT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 4. ORDINANCE ENABLING CITY MANAGER AND CITY ATTORNEY TO APPROVE CLAIMS FILED $3,000 OR LESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open public hearing; waive first reading; direct staff to place on next agenda for adoption. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that State law and the Saratoga City Code require that the City be given an opportunity to review a claim against the City before the claimant pursues the matter in Superior Court. City Attorney Taylor noted that currently all such claims are heard by the City Council. Government Code section 935.4 allows the City Council to delegate to City staff claim review and payment authority for claims under $50,000. Because many claims are small and do not raise major policy issues, staff recommends that the City Manager be authorized to process minor claims with the concurrence of the City Attorney. This will speed processing of claims and reduce the administrative burden to applicants and to the City Council. City Attorney Taylor noted that the attached ordinance would authorize the City Manager to accept, settle, or reject claims against the City of $3,000 or less with the concurrence of the City Attorney. Staff would retain the discretion to seek Council review for claims that are less than $3,000 and would be required to seek Council review for claims that are more than $3,000. The figure of $3,000 was selected as a threshold because it appears that claims below this amount a generally minor and non-controversial in nature. Councilmember Kline asked how the Council would be kept abreast of claims that fall under this ordinance. 7 City Attorney Taylor responded that a line could be added to the ordinance stating that within 10 days of claim resolution Council would be notified. Mayor Waltonsmith opened the public hearing and invited public comments. Seeing none, Mayor Waltonsmith closed the public hearing. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AS AMENDED; WAIVE FIRST READING; PLACE ITEM ON NEXT AGENDA FOR ADOPTION. MOTION PASSED 5-0. OLD BUSINESS 5. NORTON ROAD FIRE ACCESS -UPDATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the December 17, 2003, City Council meeting, Council directed staff to provide an update to Council regarding the Norton Road Fire Access issue. Director Cherbone briefly provided Council with the background of the issue. Director Cherbone noted that the AdHoc Committee met with members of the Montalvo Association on October 22"a and November 18th. Director Cherbone stated that at the second meeting Montalvo submitted an alternative route going through their property, which begins on Norton Road and exits in their upper parking lot near their water tank. This route bypasses the Artist in Residency area. The negative aspect of this route is it would be more expensive than the Artist in Residency route. Staff is currently performing a cost analysis of the new route. Director Cherbone noted that Montalvo staff would be submitting the new alternative route to their board for approval in late January. A status report would be forthcoming to City Council in February. Dave Dolloff noted that he has been involved with this project since the beginning. Mr. Dolloff stated that at the last meeting Montalvo agreed that there is a need for the emergency access road. Mr. Dolloff stated that the City should be weary of Montalvo prolonging the process with the hope that the project would not get done. Mr. Dolloff stated that the road is for the benefit for over 400 residents on the hillside and to allow all vehicles a safe route to egress safely in an event of an emergency. Ed Ferrell noted that he concurred with Mr. Dolloff. Mr. Ferrell stated that Montalvo's alternative route is too expensive. Mr. Ferrell requested that the Council not support their alternative. Mr., Ferrell stated that Bohlman Road has to be left open for emergency vehicles in case of an emergency. Greg Prow noted that he was the current President of the Montalvo Board. Mr. Praw stated that the Montalvo Board has a fiduciary duty to the State in regards to the 177 acres. Mr. Praw stated that Montalvo is a part of this community and wants to be a good neighbor. Mr. Praw stated that Montalvo is willing to work with the City on the process although they are not obligated to do anything. Councilmember Kline asked Mr. Praw what he meant by the comment that Montalvo did not have to do anything. Councilmember Kline asked if he was talking from a legal point of view. Mr. Praw stated that the property is held in a trust and ultimately owned by the State of California. Vice Mayor King asked Director Cherbone if he had an approximate cost for the access road. Director Cherbone noted that the original cost was approximately $110, 000. Director Cherbone noted that after discussing the issue with Montalvo, another $50,000 would need to be added to address aesthetics concerns. Councilmember Bogosian stated that this issue has been going on for the past few years. Councilmember Bogosian stated that the Council has the constitutional obligation to provide for the health and safety of the community. Councilmember Bogosian stated that it is his belief that this obligation supercedes a fiduciary duty on the part of any organization or property owner if there is a safety concern. Councilmember Streit stated that he feels that the City needs to keep working with Montalvo and go through the public process and look at all the options. Councilmember King concurred with Councilmember Streit. Councilmember Kline noted hat he concurred with his colleagues, but this is not a new issue. Councilmember Kline suggested that staff come back to Council within 30 days and start the public process. Councilmember Kline stated firmly that the City cannot allow a safety issue like this to continue. Vice Mayor King asked if the SFPD could give the City in writing their opinion on all of the options. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to return with all of the options for the access road at the March 3ra City Council meeting, notice every involved party, and request an opinion letter from the SFPD in regards to each option. 6. LAFCO FIRE PROTECTION SERVICE REVIEW STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report. 9 City Manager Anderson noted that the draft countywide fire Protection Service Review report was issued on November 18, 2003. The Service Review is required by the State and specifies that LAFCO conduct service reviews prior to or in conjunction with the five-year mandated sphere of influence updates. There view of fire services in Santa Clara County is first in a series of such service reviews. This Service Review includes all fire service agencies in the County including seven city fire departments and four fire protection districts. City Manager Anderson explained that the report includes a special in-depth report on regional fire protection alternatives for Saratoga and surrounding areas. This special area of study was initiated because of a concern with duplication of service with two separate jurisdictions providing fire and EMS response in the City of Saratoga. Fire and I:MS protection in the City of Saratoga is provided by the Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District and by the Saratoga Fire Protection District. Each covers approximately half of the City. Service levels and cost are different between the two Districts as detailed in the report on page 111. A Boundary Drop Agreement, however, has alleviated many of the on-going operational issues. The report presented four alternatives related to possible governmental reorganization of the fire service delivery, including: 1) Dissolution of the Saratoga Fire Protection District and annexation to County Fire 2) The City withdrawing from both Districts and making a decision about a unified approach to service delivery within the City 3) Expansion of the Saratoga Fire Protection District into the County fire area of the City 4) Continuation of the current approach with/without additional service improvements. City Manager Anderson stated that LAFCO is soliciting comments from the affected agencies and the public by January 7, 2004. LAFCO is willing to accept input from Saratoga. on January 8, 2004 incorporating tonight's comments. City Manager Anderson noted that this item was placed on the Council agenda this evening mainly to receive comments from Saratoga residents that would be passed along to LAFCO along with the City Council's comments. David Dolloff noted that he was the Chair of the FACT (Fire Fighters & Citizen Task Force). Mr. Dolloff stated that the LAFCO report identified the same findings that the FACT group came up with over two years ago. Referring to the report's findings, Mr. Dolloff noted that without County's help, the SFPD would a non-viable fire district. Mr. Dolloff stated that if there is a major fire or earthquake; a situation where you need manpower, the boundary drop situation would leave us without adequate coverage. County would provide two pieces of equipment and seven firefighters. County would serve the people that they are contracted with and take care of them first. In conclusion, Mr. Dolloff stated that the people in the SFPD must receive the same safety level as the rest of Saratoga and also need to have the resources for one of the prime areas for a major fire disaster. 10 " Ed Ferrell stated that three years ago, Art Marshall, a firefighter with County Fire, performed a sales pitch, in which he presented reasons why County Fire would provide better fire protection for the Saratoga Fire District than the Saratoga Fire Department can. Mr. Ferrell pointed out that his arguments are now familiar - theyhave 14 firehouses, and provide 4 fire engines and 14 firefighters at every structure fire, and 4 and 14 more if a 2na alarm is called. Mr. Ferrell stated that Mr. Marshall contrasted this with Saratoga Fire's one firehouse, two engines, and 5-7 firefighters, depending upon the shift. These are compelling arguments, but they represent only one side of the story. Mr. Ferrell suggested that the City Council should hear the other side. Mr. Ferrell suggested that the Saratoga Fire Department should be invited to rebut Art Marshall's claims and promises, and present reasons why its service is actually better. Mr. Ferrell stated that the Saratoga Fire Department's leaders have, from time to tome, offered off-the-cuff responses. These include the suggestion that 14 firefighters is "overkill", and that "The Saratoga Fire Department is custom- designed to the unique needs of the Saratoga Fire District", whatever that means. I believe that the Fire Department can and should do better. They should present a reasoned, articulate, and detailed set of arguments, explaining why the fire district is in better hands with them then under County Fire. The City Council can encourage such an effort. Mr. Ferrell stated that the Saratoga Fire Department was up and running decades before County Fire. Saratoga Fire Protection District was built into its modern incarnation virtually from the ground up by Chief Kraule and the Fire Commissioners, who have devoted a lifetime to the protection of our homes, businesses, and lives. Mr. Ferrell stated that it would be appropriate for the City to express its gratitude for, and commend their outstanding public service. Mr. Ferrell stated that it is equally appropriate for these venerable men to accept this gratitude and commendation and also to acknowledge that the upstart County Fire is now more capable of delivering modern, comprehensive fire protection, and to facilitate a transition to County Fire. Bob Egan, SFPD Commissioner, stated that they have given the City a copy of the information to clarify the original copy of the LAFCO Report that contained incorrect information. Mr. Egan pointed out that the SFPD has been evaluated many times by many different groups and they have always come out with flying colors. Mr. Egan pointed out that these evaluations have shown that the SFPD can provide the highest level of service for the community. Mr. Egan stated that they have developed the type of fire and life safety service just for this community with Early Warning system, fire resistant roofing, ambulance service out of the fire station, central location for the new fire station, and a boundary drop program. Mr. Egan stated that the citizens of the Fire District are very pleased with the level of service that has been provided. Mr. Egan requested that the City leave the Fire District alone and leave the decisions of fire service delivery to the experts. 11 Kevin Schott stated that he was a Saratoga resident and firefighter. Mr. Schott stated that the Boundary Drop Agreement, which was executed a few years ago, is a "band-aid on a larl;e wound". Mr. Schott pointed out that the agreement has a sunset clause. Mr. Schott stated that if this Boundary Drop is lost one half of the City would continue to receive a high level of service while the other does not. Mr. Schott suggested that the Council tell LAFCO what the City of Saratoga needs as a hole. Not half the City, but the entire City. Jay Geddes, SFPD Commissioner, stated that the boundary drop agreement is working very well. The SFPD is responding into the County' area about the same time they are responding into ours. About 90% of the time the extra engines are cancelled before they arrive to the area. Mr. Geddes suggested that if the City wants to evaluate the cost issues, SFPD costs are substantially below the County's on a per man basis. Mr. Geddes stated that this means is the Saratoga Station would be staffed with fewer people if the County assumed control over it. Consensus of the City Council to recommend the following to LAFCO: 1) Property owners within the Saratoga Fire Protection District boundaries pay an additional assessment to fiance the bond issued to construct the new fire station. This tax rate should be added to the Tax Rate Table on page 112. 2) The City Council recommends that an additional option be added on page 113. Option (5) Saratoga Fire protection District contract with Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District for service. 3) Expressed concern with Option (1) on page 113 that if the District was absorbed into Central Fire, ownership of the fire station be retained by the City of Saratoga or that an agreement be signed stipulation that the building be used as a fire station in perpetuity or would revert to the City if the use of the building was to change. 4) The City Council would also like to urge LAFCO to address comparisons between the two districts regarding hillside fire capabilities. 5) Without a permanent long-term boundary drop agreement the city of Saratoga desires a single agency providing fire protection within the City of Saratoga. 7. GRANT WRITER SERVICE PROVIDER REPORT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly Cary Bloomquist, Administrative Analysis, presented staff report. 12 Analyst Bloomquist stated that at the June 6, 2001 Council meeting, staff . presented a report regarding professional Grant Writing Services for the City and also how other Cities in the area apply for grants. At that time Council directed staff to send out a Request for Proposal (RFP). On September 5, 2001 Council selected National Grant Services to perform grant writing services for the City. Analyst Bloomquist noted that recently, Council directed staff to further research options in an attempt to locate a more proactive Grant writer with grater initiative, who would aggressively research grant opportunities for the City. Analyst Bloomquist noted that the list of providers remain the same from the list provided in 2001 with one additional provider. Analyst Bloomquist noted that a second option would be to create a staff position (contract or regular) to perform these services. In conclusion, Analyst Bloomquist stated that if Council desires, staff could send out a RFP to seek out the services of a professional grant writer or explore other options. Councilmember King stated that she requested this item be brought to Council because she feels we are not getting the opportunities that we potentially could for grants. Consensuses of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a RFP for grant writing service. NEW BUSINESS 8. BUDGET ALTERNATIVES IN RESPONSE TO FUNDING REDUCTIONS PROPOSED BY THE STATE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Jesse Baloca, Administrative Services Director, presented staff report. Director Baloca briefly explained the background of the VLF and the current situation with the new Governor's actions. Director Baloca explained the fiscal impacts effects on the City and explained budget scenarios depending on the effects of the State's budget and loss of VLF revenue. Mayor Waltonsmith thanked Director Baloca for his report. • 13 9. PARHING STUDY FOR SARATOGA PUBLIC LIBRARY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Morgan Kessler, Civic Engineer, presented staff report. Engineer Kessler stated that per Council's request, the City Traffic Engineer conducted a parking occupancy survey at the Saratoga Library. The purpose of the study was to determine the number of parking spaces that would be available during peak hours, and accordingly the number of people that could be accommodated at the Library's Community Meeting Room during peak hours of use. Engineer Kessler explained that the surveys were conducted on a Sunday afternoon and a Monday afternoon. Based on the data obtained, it was found that the parking lot would be able to accommodate during peak hours an additiona165 to 70 people in the Community Room on Sundays, and 60 additional people on Mondays. Engineer Kessler noted that after 7:00 p.m. on Mondays, the Fire Code would likely limit the number of occupants in the room. City Attorney Taylor reminded the City Council that the City owns the building; the Library is responsibility to look at how the parking lot is used. The lease makes it clear that the City is the landlord and the Library staff's responsibility to manage the services. Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to present a copy of the study to the Saratoga Library Director. AGENCY/COMMISISON ASSIGNMENTS None CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian requested a response back in regards to the alleged code violation on the garage band. City Manger stated that he would report back to Council. OTHER None CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None C 14 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor Waltonsmith noted that this meeting was being adjourned to Closed Session at 10:30 p.m. in memory of Kaitlyn Langstaff. Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned Closed Session at 11:05 P.M. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • • 15 i• i• • ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: Date: APN: App # 03-187/ 20200 Hill Avenue Toby Long AIA/Vincent Borelli John F. Livingstone AICP, Associate Planner ~~._ February 11, 2004 517-22-003 Department He~'~ l ~, ~ - ~~ 1 ~ Q Hill Ave 20200 500 ft radius ~ ~ Hill Ave 20200 0 Hill Ave 20200 parcels w Rhin 500 ft I N H, - n. s ~ ~~ . ont o Aso 0o so 0 0 1 1 20200 Hill Avenue ~t~U~-o1 CASE HISTORY Application filed: Application complete: Notice published: Mailing completed: Posting completed: PROJECT DESCRIPTION EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 08/27/03 12/18/03 01/28/04 01/27/04 02/05/04 Request for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two story house to a one story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve the Modification of Building Plans application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution with conditions 2. City Arborist Reports (3) 3. l~lotice, Noticing Affidavit and Noticing Labels 4. Applicant's Plans, Exhibit "A" • 0~~~%0~ File No. 03-187,' 20200 Hill Avenue STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-40,000 (Single Family Residential) GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RVLD (Residential Very Low Density) MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: 80,586 sq. ft. gross, 77,003 sq. ft. net AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: 3% GRADING REQUIRED: The applicant will be required to obtain a grading permit. The applicant is proposing 293 cubic yards of fill and 1,233 cubic yards of cut. The basement is not included in this calculation. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences. Proposal Code Requirements r~ • Lot Coverage: Maximum Allowable 23% 35% Building Footprint 7,402 sq. ft. Driveway Pavers 6,930 sq. ft. Patios, Pond and Walkways 3,532 sq. ft. TOTAL 17,864 sq. ft. 26,951 sq. ft. Floor Area: Maximum Allowable First Floor 7,402 sq. ft. 6,740 sq. ft. with a 10% (Basement) not counted (3,086 sq. ft.) secondary unit bonus TOTAL 7,402 sq. ft. 7,414 sq. ft. Setbacks: Min. Requirement Front 70 ft. 30 ft. Rear 126 ft. 50 ft. Left Side 34 ft. 20 ft. Right Side 56 ft. 20 ft. Height: Maximum Allowable Residence 22-1/2 ft. 26 ft. Detached Garages Existing N/A 15 ft. C:\MyDocuments\Project Modifications\Hill Ave 20200 S[aff Repo Modification.doc ~VVVOV File No. 03-187,' 20200 Hill Avenue '~ PROJECT DISCUSSION Background The original structure was approved as a two-story 6,730 square foot house with a 1,780 square foot basement on March 26, 2003. The applicant has been issued the building permit for the original design and has started site grading and some foundation and basement work while waiting for approval of the project modifications. The major difference between the approved project and the proposed project is the removal of the second floor and increase in the size of the basement. The applicant is also proposing a secondary dwelling unit in the basement and has added a third garage parking space. As part of the secondary unit the applicant is requesting a one time ten percent increase in allowable floor area based on a deed restriction that only allows the unit to be rented to below market rate households. The deed restriction also allows the Community Development Director to wave the garage parking requirement and allow the second unit to use an open parking space. The Director denied the applicant's original plans to provide an open parking space for the unit and recommended the third garage space be proposed. The third garage parking space contributes an additiona1200 square feet of floor area to the proposed design. Design Review The applicant is requesting a Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two-story house to a one-story house 7,402 square foot residence with a 3,086 square foot basement. The neighborhood consists of both one and two-story residences with varying architectural styles. The proposed home will complement the architectural style of the home on the left side of the project with a similar country style. Due to the size of the lot and setbacks the proposed project will be in harmony with the new two-story Mediterranean style house on the right side of the lot and the newly remodeled home across the street. The proposed house will be set back further from the street than the existing house on the left side of the property and have approximately the same setback as the new two-story Mediterranean on the right. The proposed exterior finish will be a combination of stucco and a stone veneer. The windows will have a dark green trim with mullions. The roof will be a slate tile. Color and material samples will be available at the public hearing. The proposed project implements the following Residential Design Guidelines policies. • Policy 1,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will have varying roof elements to visually reduce the height and bulk of the structure. The inset dormers and windows will provide additional articulation and C:U~tyDocumentsU'roject Modifications~Iiill Ave 20200 Staff Repo ModiEicationdoc O6 ~~Y"~~~ File No. 03-187,' 20200 Hill Avenue .. break up the facade creating interest and reducing mass. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will break up the elevations of the building. Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone to accent the front facade with a dark gray slate roof to blend in with the existing tree canopy. The applicant is also maintaining the numerous Oak trees throughout the site in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan around the property. • Policy 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to the providing an extensive landscape plan. The proposed project also provides substantial setbacks from the adjacent neighbors to the side and rear of the property. Policy 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping and an existing Oak forest in the rear of the property. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Ef ficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The existing mature trees will provide shade and wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The design also contains sofitted eves that create additional shade and stone siding that provides thermal mass. Parking The Saratoga Ciry Code requires each residence to have at least two enclosed parking spaces within a garage. The applicant is proposing athree-car garage with ample open parking provided in the circular driveway. Trees There are approximately 100 trees on the site of which 68 are considered protected. The original application proposed removing 14 trees on the property. The modified application includes the removal of six additional trees. The City Arborist has recommended replacement trees. The applicant is proposing 24-replacement trees of which six are 48" box, 15 are 36" box, one 24" box and nine 15-gallon trees. The applicant is also proposing 85 Herteromeles Arbutifoha (California Toyon) which can be a considered a tree or shrub. The Arborist report only recommends six replacement trees. The City Arborist reports dated January 5, 2004, December 23, 2002 and October 10, 2002 (attached) contain C:~IviyDocuments~Project Modifications~Hill Ave 20200 Staff Repo Modification.doc ~~~~~~ File No. 03-187,' 20200 Hill Avenue '- recommendations for the protection of existing trees on the site. The Arborist's recommendations shall be conditions of project approval. A certificate of deposit is also required as a condition of project approval for tree protection. The original application preserved tree #73 a 26-inch Coast Live Oak rated in excellent health and condition. The applicant who has started construction based on the original plans feels that the tree is now in danger due to the amount of excavation near the tree. The City Arborist has reviewed the construction process and feels the trees stability has become significantly compromised and recommends removal. The City Arborist has also recommended replacement trees having twice the value of the tree, which the applicant is proposing. The applicant has shown tree #73 as being removed on the proposed plans. The City Arborist has also noted that tree #73 is in exceptional condition and irreplaceable in size. The original project approval included a special condition for the maintenance of tree #73. Staff is recommending that every attempt be made to maintain the tree and has added a condition of approval requiring the tree to be maintained. Fireplaces The applicant is proposing all gas fireplaces. Correspondence No ne ative comes ondence was received on this application at the date that the staff g P report was distributed to the Planning Commission. The applicant has shown the proposed plans to the adjacent neighbors as documented by the applicant. GENERAL PLAN CONFORMITY Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Lase Element Policy S.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the center of a large lot with over 100 existing trees on the site and the applicant will provide approximately 100 additional trees to the site. The applicant is exceeding all setbacks for the structure that maintaining the rural character of the street and reducing the visual impact of the structure. The design of the structure will be consistent with the rural feel of the neighborhood and compatible with the adjacent surroundings with its French style windows and doors, slate roof and stone siding. C:~IvlyDocuments~Project Modifications~I-Till Ave 20200 Staff Repo ModiEicationdoc ~ ~U~~ 6 ~ File No. 03-187,' 20200 Hill Avenue Conclusion The proposed project is designed to conform to the policies set forth in the City's Residential Design Handbook and to satisfy all of the findings required within Section 15- 45.080 of the City Code. The residence does not interfere with views or privacy, preserves the natural landscape to the extent feasible, and will minimize the perception of bulk so that it is compatible with the neighborhood. The proposal further satisfies all other zoning regulations in terms of allowable floor area, setbacks, maximum height and unpervious coverage. The proposed secondary dwelling unit meets all requirements in Section 15-56. The proposed one bedroom secondary unit will have a floor area of 810 square feet. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the application with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. G:\MyDocuments\Project ModificationsU-lill Ave 20200 Staff Repo Modificationdoc ~~~~®~ • Attachment 1 ®~~®8 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Borelli; 20200 Hill Avenue WHEREAS, the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Modification of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two-story house to a one-story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The project also includes an 810 square foot secondary unit in the basement of the structure. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1- 40,000; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and WHEREAS, the proposed project consisting of construction of a new single-family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single-family residences; and WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined: Policy I,"Minimize Perception of Bulh" The project meets this policy in that the proposed house will have varying roof elements to visually reduce the height and bulk of the structure. The inset dormers and windows will provide additional articulation and break up the facade creating interest and reducing mass. The applicant has proposed a landscape plan that will surround the house with trees that will reduce the visibility of the home from the public and adjacent neighbors. The proposed house will also have varying rooflines that will breakup the elevations of the building. • Policy 2, "Integrate Structures with the Environment" The proposed project meets this policy in that the applicant has chosen a natural stone to accent the front facade with a dark gray slate roof to blend in with the existing tree canopy. The applicant is also maintaining the numerous Oak trees throughout the site in addition to providing an extensive landscape plan around the property. ODUUOy • Polity 3, "Avoid Interference with Privacy" The project will protect the privacy of the adjacent properties by maintaining the existing Oak trees that surround the property in addition to the providing an extensive landscape plan. The proposed project also provides substantial setbacks from the adjacent neighbors to the side and rear of the property. • Polity 4, "Preserve Views and Access to Views" The proposed house is not in a view corridor and will not have an adverse affect on neighbor's views. The proposed home will be located in approximately the center of the lot surrounded by landscaping and an existing Oak forest in the rear of the property. • Policy 5, "Design for Energy Efficiency" The project meets this policy in that the location of the proposed house has not altered the solar access of adjacent properties. The existing mature trees will provide shade and wind protection. The house will meet the State Energy Guidelines through the use of wall insulation and high-energy efficiency heating and cooling appliances. The design also contains sofitted eves that create additional shade and stone siding that provides thermal mass. WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said application for Design Review approval, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies: Conservation Element Policy 6.0 Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the visual impact of new development. Land Llse Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. The proposed new house is consistent with the above General Plan Policies in that the proposed project will be located in approximately the center of a large lot with over 100 existing trees on the site and the applicant will provide approximately 100 additional trees to the site. The applicant is exceeding all setbacks for the structure that maintaining the rural character of the street and reducing the visual impact of the structure. The design of the structure will be consistent with the rural feel of the neighborhood and compatible with the adjacent surroundings with its French style windows and doors, slate roof and stone siding. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application of Vincent Borelli for Design Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions: C~ ~~~~~~ COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 12, 2003, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. The following shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for the building and grading permit plan check review process: a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: i. A maximum of one wood-burning fireplace is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be gas burning. ii. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Licensed Land Surveyor. iii. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the RCE or LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 3. The final landscape plan submitted during the building permit plan check review will need to meet all of the requirements outlined in Section 15-47 of the City Zoning Ordinance. 4. No retaining wall shall exceed five feet in height. 5. FENCING REGULATIONS - No fence or wall shall exceed six feet in height and no fence or wall located within any required front yard shall exceed three feet in height. Any existing fences or walls not meeting the zoning ordinance standards shall be removed prior to the project being final. 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on-site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction -Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot be retained on-site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note shall be provided on the plan. 7. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to water pollution. 8. Where feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. Q~-U01~: 9. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hadscaped area. 10. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. 11. Existing native trees, shrubs, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible. 12. Proper maintenance of landscaping, with minimal pesticide use, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 13. The height of the structure shall not exceed 22-1/2-feet as defined in Section 15-06.340 of the City Zoning Code. 14. The applicant shall be responsible in contacting the City Staff to make arrangements for the City Arborist to be on site during critical construction activities that may impact any protected trees on site as determined by the Community Development Director. 15. The applicant shall work with the City Arborist to take all measures necessary to ensure the survival of tree #73. 16. The applicant shall record a deed restriction for the secondary dwelling unit that restricts it so that it may only be rented to below market rate households. PUBLIC WORKS 17. The applicant or its designated representative shall apply for and secure a grading permit. 18. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall review and approve a letter prepared by JF Consulting, Inc., dated December 30, 2002, with subject Supplemental Geotechnical Evaluations, as well as all Geotechnical aspects of the final development plans (i.e., site preparation and grading, site drainage improvements and design parameters for foundations) to ensure that the plans, specifications and details accurately reflect the consultants' recommendations. The Project Geotechnical Engineer shall specifically evaluate the sump and pump system for basement drainage. The results of the Geotechnical Plan Review shall be summarized by the Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to issuance of a Grading Permit. • ~0©®1,2. 19. The Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer shall inspect, test (as needed), and approve all Geotechnical aspects of the project construction. The inspections shall include, but not necessarily be limited to: site preparation and grading, site surface and subsurface drainage improvements, and excavations for foundation construction prior to placement of fill, steel and concrete. 20. The results of these inspections and the as-built conditions of the project shall be described by the Project Engineering Geologist and Project Geotechnical Engineer in a letter(s) and submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval prior to finalization of the Grading Permit. 21. The owner (applicant) shall pay any outstanding fees associated with the City Geotechnical Consultant's review of the project prior to project Zone Clearance. 22. The owner (applicant) shall enter into agreement holding the City of Saratoga harmless from any claims or liabilities caused by or arising out of soil or slope instability, slides, slope failure or other soil related and/or erosion related conditions. 23. The property owner shall be responsible for drainage improvements and or damage to the existing drainage swale in the public right-of-way as determined by the Public Works Director. CITY ARBORIST 24. All recommendations in the City Arborist's Reports dated January 5, 2004, December 23, 2002, October 10, 2002 and October 11, 2002 shall be followed and incorporated into the plans. This includes, but is not limited to: a. The Arborist Reports shall be incorporated, as a separate plan page, to the construction plan set and the grading plan set and all applicable measures noted on the site and grading plans. b. Five (5) ft. chain link tree protective fencing shall be shown on the site plan as recommended by the Arborist with a note "to remain in place throughout construction." The fencing shall be inspected by staff prior to issuance of a Building Permit. c. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall park or be stored within the dripline of any ordinance protected trees on the site. 25. Prior to issuance of a Building, Grading or Demolition Permit, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security in the amount recommended by the City Arborist to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees on the subject site. • ~~~~~,3 26. Prior to Final Building approval, the City Arborist or Staff shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. Upon a favorable site inspection by the Arborist and, any replacement trees having been planted, the bond shall be released. 27, The applicant shall submit one complete set of plans with the Building Permit submittal to be routed to the Ciry Arborist for review of the final landscape; irrigation and grading plan and any special provisions need for the maintenance of tree #73. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT 28. The roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class "A" prepared or built-up roofing. (Reference Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City Code 16-20:210). 29. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in the newly constructed garage (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not, constructed as habitable space. To insure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect shall contact the San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (Ciry of Saratoga Code 16-15.090[I]). Automatic sprinklers are also required for the residential dwelling (including the square footage of the basement). Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. A four head calculated sprinkler system is required. A licensed contractor shall install the sprinkler. 30. All driveways shall have a minimum width of 14 feet plus 1-foot shoulders. 31. Slopes form 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. 32. Provide an Early Warning Fire Alarm System throughout all portions of the structure, installed per City of Saratoga standards. 33. Provide parking for two emergency vehicles at he proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire District. 34. The width of the security gate shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on the plans. CITY ATTORNEY 35. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 0®U©14 Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 24 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 11th day of February 2004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary, Planning Commission This permit is hereby accepted upon the express terms and conditions hereof, and, shall have no force or effect unless and until agreed to, in writing, by the Applicant, and Property Owner or Authorized Agent. The undersigned hereby acknowledges the approved terms and conditions and agrees to fully conform to and comply with said terms and conditions within the recommended time frames approved by the City Planning Commission. Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date • ~~~~~.~ • Attachment 2 • ~i~G~~ls ---} ~~`~ ARBOR RESOURCES ~. ti-' ~'~ Professional Arboriculture! Consulting & Tree Care ~i • January 5, 2004 John Livingstone Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: BORELLI RESIDENCE, 20200 Hill Avenue, Saratoga Dear John: I have reviewed the most recent set of revised plans for the development at the above referenced site. My findings and recommendations are presented below. 1. The plans indicate the following trees of ordinance size will be removed: #4, 67-69, 73-75 and 82. These are in addition to those already removed, which include #5, 11, 49-52, 55, 70-72 and 81. 2. To my understanding, tree #73 is recommended for retention. As such, the plans require revision to reflect this, and should include no surface scraping, grading, soil compaction or trenching within 25 feet of its trunk (where outside two feet from the proposed home footprint). The patio/courtyard proposed within this distance shall be established on top of existing grade, be fully pervious (including the subgrade material) and require no excavation or compaction of the existing soil surface. The subgrade material may be compacted but not by more than 70 to 80 percent. Tree protection fencing must also be established around the trees' canopy, and a root zone buffer (as described in the City report dated October 10, 2002) must be established where working space is required around the home. Great care must be taken to avoid excavating beyond 18 inches from the intended footprint. Recommendations presented in the October 10, 2002 City report must also be followed. 3. The proposed Landscape Irrigation Plan (Sheet L-4) appears adequate for protecting trees planned for retention. I find trees #35 and 36 will be most affected but aze expected to survive. I recommend trenches proposed beneath these and all other canopies of protected trees aze dug using hand tools. All roots two inches and greater in diameter must be retained during the process. 4. The proposed "Rock Rip Rap Apron" shown on Sheet C3 must be excavated using hand tools and all roots two inches and greater in diameter shall be retained. P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 ® Fax: 650.654.3352 Licensed Contractor #796763 O®o®~~ `~' ~r~ ~~ ~ ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care January 5, 2004 John Livingstone page 2 5. If tree #73 remains, the required replacement trees equivalent to twice its appraised value are not required for installation. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist • C P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.64.3352 ® Licensed Contractor #796763 ~~~~U~~ E ~E ~,_ BARRI E D. CO <:; ~~ ~'`i~~ and ASSOCIATES `= ~,~~.k., `~~ ` Horticutural Consultants ~ :, ~ -~ 23535 Summit Road ~ ~;:`~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353-1052 December 23, 2002 John Livingstone Assistant Planner City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Borelli Property, 20200 Hill Ave., Job #]0-02-190 A • Comments: This is to document a meeting on site with Mr. John McClure, the contractor of the project, on December 2, 2002. e propose of this meeting was to review the tree preservation procedures recommended in my report dated ~tober l0, 2002. The story poles were still in place during this site visit. I emphasized that the proposed plan will be highly risky for some of the trees at this site, especially the coast live oak Tree #73. The proposed new building is so close to the trunk of this tree that it is conceivable that this tree would not survive. However, I believe Tree #73 can survive in reasonably good condition depending on how well the recommended mitigation procedures are enacted at this site. For this tree, there will be no room for error. Mr. McClure and I reviewed the risks to Trees #4 and 82. It does not appear that Tree #4 will survive the stabilization of the roadbed for the driveway and it is highly questionable whether or not Tree #82 would survive this procedure. In the event of significant damage to these trees, replacements are recommended. The risks to the neighboring Trees #3 and 9 by the grading of the Swale for drainage was discussed. As I stated in my report 10-10-02, an alternative to this drainage Swale must be used. No additional recommendations are required at this time as a result of this meeting and of the story pole observation. Respectfully submit, is ael L. Bench,~ssoc~ate Ba ~e D. Coate, rinc~ipa~~ ~_ MLBJsI.. ~~~~~~ • e - ;.~ BARRI E D. C~ TE E ~,`~~~_ and ASSOCIATES ~" `~`~ ~'i_~`- Horticutural Consultants ~" „r.\ , 23535 Surnrnit Road ~;4 t,.~ Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~•~ ' 408{353-1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist October 10, 2002 Job # 10-02-190 Plan Received: 9.25.02 Plan Due: 10.27.02 ~ Nov o s Zoo2 ~U) • • CITY OF SARATUGA ,IMMUNITY DE,VF-,nnn~~*.' • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMTvIENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA ss~gnment the request of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to construct a new residence on a vacant lot in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans prepared by Korth Sunseri Hagey Architects, San Francisco, Sheets AO.1-A3.04, dated 9-19-02; the Landscape Plans prepared by Laderbaugh Associates, Sunnyvale, Sheets Ll, L2, dated 7-25-02; and the Preliminary Grading Plan prepared by Kier and Wright, Civil Engineers, Santa Clara, Sheet C2, dated 9-12-02. Summary This proposal may expose up to 86 trees to some level of risk by construction. Seven trees would be removed by implementation of this design. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Seventeen trees would be severely damaged, but procedures are recommended to mitigate the damages to acceptable levels. Fourteen additional trees would be at least moderately damaged by proposed landscaping hardscape. Mitigation procedures are recommended to reduce the damage to acceptable levels. combination bond is recommended to assure the protection of the existing trees that would be retained. Observations There are approximately 100 trees on this site, but only 68 trees meet the size requirement to be protected by the Saratoga tree ordinance. In addition, there are 18 trees located on neighboring properties adjacent to the property boundaries that may be at risk of some level of damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these 86 total trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number for identification in the field. The trees are classified as follows: Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia) Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii) English Walnut (Juglans regia) Deodar Cedar (Gedrus deodara) Incense Cedar (C'alocedrus decurrens) Tan Bark Oak (Lithocarpus dens~ora) Silver Wattle (Acacia dealbata) Chestnut species (Castanea species) Monterey Pine (Pirrus radiata) Italian Stone Pine (Pines pinea) • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~i~~~~ • , TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 2 The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are • provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent -Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 86 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: Exceptional S ecimens Fine S ecimens Fair S ecimens Marginal S ecimens Poor S ecimens 9, 22, 60, 73 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 17, 2, 4, 8, 10, 12, 11, 23, 25, 29, 21, 28, 53, 77 24, 30, 36, 41, 13, 14, 15, 16, 31, 47, 49, 52, 42, 43, 48, 50, 18, 19, 20, 26, 55, 59, 71, 72, 54, 56, 57, 58, 27, 32, 33, 34, 81 61, 62, 63, 64, 35, 37, 38, 39, 65, 67, 68, 69, 40, 44, 45, 46, 70, 76, 80, 82, 51, 6b, 74, 75, 83, 85, 86 78, 79, 84 Exceptional specimens must be retained at any cost and whatever procedures are needed to retain them in their current condition must be used. Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. 1Vlarginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Poor specimens cannot significantly improve regardless of care. For any which are considered hazardous, removal is recommended. For those retained, mitigation may not be typically requested. Trees #3, 9, 16, 21, 22, 24, 27, 30, 31, 33, 61, b3, 64, 66, 76, 78, 79, and # 80 are located on the adjacent properties adjacent to the property boundaries. I recommend that these must be treated as Exceptional regardless of condition. This is because of the fact that the importance or significance of a tree to a neighboring property owner, in my experience, cannot be presumed. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction Seven trees (#5, 50, 51, 55, 71, 72, and 81) are in conflict with proposed construction. These trees would be removed should this plan be constructed as proposed. At least thirty-two trees would likely suffer moderate to severe damage, mostly root loss, by proposed construction. These trees are listed as follows with a notation of the damaging feature or procedure. In addition, these are listed in order of severity from the highest risk to the lowest risk of health and survival. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 1Q 2002 ~~1~~~~. • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 3 ~ees #4 and 82, coast live oaks in Fair and Fine condition respectively, would be damaged by grading and construction of the proposed driveway. These trees would lose an estimated SO% of their root system and would not be expected to survive. Tree #4 is a multi-stem tree with trunk diameters of 12, 10, 10-inches at 2 feet. Tree #82 has a trunk diameter of 24-inches at 2 feet. Mitigation does not appear feasible for Tree #4 given this design, but does appear feasible for Tree #82. Tree #70, a coast live oak in Fine condition, would be damaged by trenching for the footing of the residence grading to assure surface drainage away from the residence, and soil compaction from construction activity in the root zone. The estimated root loss would be 35-45% -too severe to expect survival. Tree #70 has a trunk diameter of 10-inches at 2 feet. Because of its small size and because of its location in competition with Tree #69, a fine 16-inch diameter coast live oak, I recommend that Tree #70 be replaced. Otherwise, in all likelihood, this tree will grow toward the residence, require severe pruning with the passage of time, and will decline significantly as a result. Tree #73, a large (27-inch trunk diameter at 2 feet) coast live oak in Exceptional condition, would be damaged by trenching for the footing on 2 sides of the root zone, grading to assure drainage away from the new residence, grading to create a swale on the east side of the root zone, canopy loss resulting in reduced food production from reduced photosynthesis, pruning wound damage from canopy loss, which would result in an energy shift from growth to damage control, a complicated process of protection. The wounding damage alone may be severe depending on the volume of canopy loss. Soil compaction as a result of construction activity in a major portion of the root zone may also be a major risk factor. The damage from all contributing elements would be severe. Tree #73 would not be expected to survive the long-term. Mitigation ~Iay be feasible, assuming the canopy loss would not be too severe, but each and every recommended mrtlgating procedure would have to be done diligently and carefully. However, it is not possible to accwately access the potential canopy loss to Tree #73 without the use of story poles. If large limbs must be removed or if 1/3 of the canopy or more must be removed, Tree #73 would likely decline, particularly given the fact that some root loss is inevitable. Both root loss and canopy loss cannot be considered separate unrelated events. Both forms of loss are considered as a whole. Because of the size and the complexity of this proposed project and because of the number of people that would likely be involved (contractors, subcontractors, and workers), the risk to this tree would be very high even if mitigation procedwes to preserve this tree are feasible. Trees #2, 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10, all coast live oaks, would all be exposed to root loss, likely severe, by the proposed grading to construct the drainage Swale on the East side of the proposed residence and driveway. Many people assume that oak trees have deep roots and that surface grading does not harm them. At most locations the soil being the distinguishing factor), the opposite is true for both assumptions. Any or all of these trees may decline severely, but I do not expect that any would die. Considering the fact that these six trees provide valuable screening between this property and the adjoining property, I believe an alternative to this swale must be planned. Tree #49, a California black walnut in Marginal condition, would suffer major root loss as a result of trenching for a drain across the root zone. This tree would not be expected to survive, but, in my opinion, would not be a significant loss. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 '~~~~~~ • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA tl Tree #11, a multi-stem English walnut, is in an extremely vulnerable location considering the scope of work that would be done and the equipment likely to be used. This species typically responds poorly to damage, especially at developed locations. This tree's value is low, and the cost to preserve it would likely exceed its value by a large margin. I recommend that this tree be replaced. Tree #12, a coast live oak in only Fair condition, would suffer severe root loss from trenching for a drain, and grading over much of its root zone. The proposed pathway, which typically involves a trench (4-6 inches in depth and approximately 4 feet wide) across its root zone would also contribute to the root loss. This tree may survive if given exceptional care. Grading is proposed across the root zones, or a portion of the root zones of Trees #48, 49, 52, 83, and 84. The root loss depends on the extent of grading and the equipment used. For example, the contour 568 is shown to alter the grade inside the driplines of Trees #82, 83, and 84. This contour is not fully shown on the Grading and Drainage Plan. Thus, I am uncertain about the extent of the work that would be done and the equipment that would be required to achieve this work. However, any grading that would change the grade of more than 3-inches may be severe. The proposed backyard pathway is proposed to cross the root zones of Trees #12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 54, 57, 60 67, 68, 69 and 75. The construction of a pathway typically involves a trench (4-6 inches in depth and approximately 4 feet wide). This would likely result in minor root loss to many of these trees, but may be a fairly severe root loss to Trees #35, 36, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, and b9. If the soil excavated from the basement were spread inside the driplines of trees, this would have the effect of reducing soil gas exchange, especially oxygen, and reduce moisture penetration. Typically trees decline and sometimes die as a result. Thus, soil must not be piled under the canopies of trees or used for landscape contours inside the driplines. In order to install any undergound utilities across the root zones of trees, it will be essential that the trenches must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Trenching for landscape imgation is often highly damaging to established trees, but few landscape contractors are aware of this risk to established trees, in my experience. Because there are so many trees on this site, it will be a formidable challenge to design the landscape irrigation without significant damage to the existing trees. Recommendations 1. If either or both of Trees #4 and 82 would be preserved, the proposed driveway must constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade within 12 feet of Tree #4 and within 18 feet of Tree #82. No soil cuts must be made in these areas. Also, the Grading and Drainage Plan would have to be revised so that no soil cuts would be done inside the driplines. Fill soil may be used inside the dripline, but the soil must be thoroughly porous, such as cleaned gravel or sand. No base rock containing granite fines or similar material may be used, because this material is not sufficiently pervious once compacted. • PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ~;~~~2~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECO•ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 5 2. I recommend that story poles be erected on the west side of the proposed residence in order for the City Arborist to access the potential canopy loss to Tree #73. It appears that construction as proposed is feasible if the following mitigating factors are feasible for Tree #73: a. The total canopy loss must be limited to a maximum of 15%-20%. If this is feasible following assessment, I recommend that this pruning be supervised by the City Arborist. b. No large limbs (12 inches in diameter or larger) may be removed. The removal of lazge limbs usually cannot heal in time to prevent cavities. A cavity typically results in a structural weakness, which over a period of many years often results in a total failure. Thus, in my opinion, the removal of a large limb on an Exceptional specimen must not be permitted. c. The footing and the foundation of the proposed residence within 25 feet of the trunk must be constructed by an engineered pier and beam design plan. d. There must be no grading within 25 feet of the trunk. Thus, the Grading and Drainage Plan must be revised so that an alternative to the proposed drainage swale on the east side of the trunk is done. e. The root zone must be protected by a root buffer during the entire construction period. f. The tree must be adequately irrigated and thoroughly mulched during the entire construction period. 3. I recommend that an alternative to the proposed drainage swale located across the root zones of Trees #2, 3, 6, 7, .8, and 10 be redesigned in order to prevent decline to these trees that provide valuable screening. If tunneling is feasible in this area, this method is recommended provided the drain could be tunneled so that the top of the tunnel would be at a minimum depth of 4 feet. It would also be feasible from a tree protection standpoint to install a drain by an open trench method under the proposed driveway, but in this event, Tree #4 would be lost by this trenching unless the trench were 12 feet from the trunk. 4. I recommend that Trees #11, 49, and 70, which have relatively low values, be replaced in lieu of costly protections that would not likely be effective for practical reasons. 5. I recommend that the Grading and Drainage Plan be revised so that there would be no grading inside the driplines of Trees #48, 83 and 84 by more than 15% on one side of the canopy. The percentage can be calculated by using the driplines as presented on the attached map. 6. In order to protect Trees #12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 22, 23 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 42, 43, 54, 57, 60 67, 68, 69 and 75 from potential decline, I recommend that the proposed backyard pathway and any other hardscape inside the driplines of trees be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade. Fill soil may be added to the edges of the proposed pathway to "blend" the elevation of the pathway with the existing grade. In this event, the fill soil must not extend more than 2 feet from the edge of the pathway. 7. I suggest that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached root buffer PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER ~0, 2002 ~~'~~~~ • N RECO~ENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILI, AVENUE SARATOGA 6 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATIO map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 8. I recommend that a root buffer be required between the trunk of Tree #73 and the residence as shown on the attached map. A root buffer consists of 6 full inches of coarse bark chips (shredded redwood is not acceptable for this purpose due its compressibility) be spread over the existing grade, which must immediately be covered by 1 inch plywood (full sheets), tied together, and secured to prevent slippage. I recommend that the buffer be 8 foot wide (the length of plywood sheets) adjacent to the foundation. This allows for an 8 foot work space on top of the root buffer. Protective fencing must be in contact with the root buffer on the side opposite the foundation. This buffer is sufficient for workers on foot using hand carried tools. This buffer must be installed in conjunction with the protective fencing and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. At the time of the construction of the drain adjacent to the foundation, two feet of the root buffer nearest the foundation may be removed, but the remainder of the buffer must remain until given final approval. 9. I recommend that the backyard pathway and hardscape be constructed after .the construction of the residence is completely finished. This would allow for the removal of the protective fencing to construct the pathway and hardscape. However, in this event, any concrete would have to be pumped from the street, and no vehicles (including cars, pick-up trucks, tractors, skid steer tractors), may be driven across the landscape unless protective fencing were to be re-installed at the direction of the City Arborist. 10. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed), unless specifically indicated on plans reviewed by the City Arborist. Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 11. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 12. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to Trees #4 (if retained), 1-10, 12, 73, 82, 83, 84, 85, 2-10, 12, 48 and 69 during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall). Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline for the entire canopy circumference. 13. A full 4-inch layer of coarse wood chips must be spread over the entire root zones of Trees #4 (if retained), 73 (that portion unprotected by the root buffer), 1-10, 12, 82, 83, 84, 85, 2-10, 12, 48 and 69. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 14. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 15. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER;10;'2002 :" ~. ®~~~~ TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA 7 Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. 17. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunks of trees. Further, spray irrigation must not be designed to strike inside the driplines.of oak trees. 18. Lawn or other plants that require frequent watering must be limited to a maximum of 20% of the entire root zone and a minimum distance of 7 times the trunk diameter away from the trunks of oak trees. 19. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. 20. I suggest that the species of plants used in the root zones of oak trees be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. 21. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 22. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #5, 50, 51, 55, 71, 72, and 81 would be removed by the implementation of this plan. These trees have a value of $2,695, which is equivalent to 2-36 inch boxed native specimens. If Trees #4, 49, 52, and 70 were to be removed, they have a combined value of $2,943, which is equivalent to 2-36 inch boxed and 1-24 inch boxed native specimens. Replacements are suggested. Bear in mind that 36 inch boxed specimens and sometimes 24 inch boxed specimens a may not be available at the end of the project unless the trees are secured with a grower at the onset of construction. I recommend that it be required that replacement trees be secured within 60 days of the issuance of permits. Growers will hold trees upon request. Thus, delivery may be scheduled after construction is completed. I suggest a combination bond equal to 100% of the value of Tree #73 ($10,746), equal to 25% of the value of Trees # 1-10, 12, 48, 69, 82, 83, and 84 ($64, 971= bond of $12,994), and equal to 15% of the total value ($193,701= bond of $29,055) of all of the other the trees to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak - Quercus agrifolia Valley oak - Q~ercus lobata PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10; 2002 `~~~~~ • TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE BORELLI PROPERTY 20200 HIl.I. AVENUE SARATOGA Big leaf maple - Acer macrophyllum California buckeye - Aesculus californica Coast Redwood -Sequoia sempervire»s Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Associate MLB/sl.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map 8 • • ~.J PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST OCTOBER 10, 2002 ®®~~C7 ~~ BARRIE D. CO~ AND ASSOCIATES • ~,. Horticultural Consultants .~,;~ (408) 353-1052 - Fax (408) 353-1238 ~'~° `~~~ 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 ~; GLOSSARY Co-dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown -The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar - A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Recurrent - A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in around-headed tree. Excurrent - A term used to describe a tree crown in which a strong central leader is present to the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively decrease in length upward from the base. Girdling root - A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots. which could restrict growth and downward movement of photosynthates. Included bark -Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments of two or more stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments are weakly attached and subject to splitting out. i Kinked root - A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar -The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader -The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem -The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. Temporary branches - A small branch on the trunk or between scaffold branches retained to shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. These branches are kept small and gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Parts Trunk -The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches - In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb - A major structural part. Branch - A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch. Branchlet - A small part, attached to a branch. Twig -Avery small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf- The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. ~~~~~~ Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Meas urem erks Cond ition Pru nlna/Cablln a Nee ds PesUD iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . "? ,~ COATS BARRIE D ~ W . ~ Z ~ ~ ~; and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~, o ~ ~ ~; ~ o ~ (40813531052 ~ ~ wi _ '? ~ (7 ~ a ~ ~ ~ {~~ t S ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ g ~ ~ J o nsns~aaaao.a e ~ ~ ~ ~ w Z ~ ~ ww ~ ~ Z w ~ ~ ~ U Q ~ ~' ' Lae Gdoe, G !5030 ~ j p t5 ~ ~ w z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i ~ `? ~ ~S ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ W o ? B B _ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g g z z d ~ ~ m o = ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Key # Plant Name ~ O 1 Deodar Cedar 14.0 x 13.0 15\1 45 30 1 2 3 Cedrus deodara 967 X sP• class 70% _ $4,177 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,759_- X loc. 60% _ $ 2 256 in _ $ 5 in 221 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value 2 Coast Live Oak 19.0 20 35 35 2 2 4 Ouercus a rifolia 651 X sp. lass 100% _ $7,851 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,739 X loc. 65% _ $ 3 730 in _ $ 7 in 283 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value 3 Coast Live Oak 28.0 30 40 60 1 2 3 in 615 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 16,617 X sp. class 100% _ $16,617 X cond. 90% _ $ 14,955 X loc. 70% _ $ 10469 . Total Value 4 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 9.0 716 12 30 30 2 2 4 10110 in 160 X $27/eq. in. _ $ 4,320 X sp. class 100% _ $4,320 X cond. - 75% _ $ 3,240 X loc. 65% _ $ 2106 . Total Value 5 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x 7.0 918 20 20 1 3 4 890 XSP• does 100% _ $1,890 Xcond. 75% _ $ 1,418._ Xloc. 50% _ $ 709 _ $ 1 in in 70 X$27/sq , . . . Total Value 6 Coast Live Oak 13.0 14 35 25 1 2 3 . in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,224 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 934 Total Value 7 Coast Live Oak 11.0 12 30 15 1 2 3 565 X sp: doss 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X bc. 60% _ $ 1385 _ $ 2 in in 95 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value /.'e~ `b . ~; REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal a S36 15-gal = $120 !~ 24"box =$420 36"box = $1,320 1=BEST, 5 ~ WORST 48"box ~ 52"box a $7,000 ~ . 72"box = Pa~ 13 , u Job T~Borelli Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue Job # 1 1~ ~'` 0/02 Meas urem erns Cond ltlon Pru ninglC ablln a Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATS BARRIE D s ~ . Z , and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~; ~ ~ ~? W (408)3531052 ~ ~ _ `? a Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ o p _ ° ~ % ~ ~ w ~ 3353SSunniRa~d H L l i:U u? w D = ~¢ ~ Z o w ¢ Z w ~ ~ ~ V Q la Cata,CA 95030 ~ y ~ ~ ~ z O ~ ~ ~ ~ w Z O _ w ~ ~ Wo ~ ~ ~ f ~ LL ((// ~~ ~ a W J t Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ Q O u+ O W Q `r ~" ~ ~ S ~ V, ~ _ ~ 8 ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ Z Z ~ Key # Plant Name S o B Caast ive Oak 25.0 28 40 45 2 2 4 247 X sp. lass 100% _ $13,247 X cond. 75% _ $ 9,935_ X loc. 65% _ $ 6458 _ $ 13 in 491 X $27/sq i , . . . n Total Value 9 Coast Lure Oak 23.0 24 45 40 1 1 2 in 415 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 11,212 X sp. class 100% _ $11,212 X cond. 100% _ $ 11,212 X loc. 65% _ $ 7 288 . Total Value 10 Coast Live Oak 19.0 x 15.0 \1 40 55 2 2 4 . in 373 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 10,071 X sp. Bass 100% _ $10,071 X cond. 75% _ $ 7,553 X loc. 65% _ $ 4 910 Total Value 11 E Bah Walnut _ 8.0 x 8.0 4.0 12 15 25 3 1 4 J lane is in 82 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,214 X sp. days 30% _ $664 X cond. " 75% _ $ 498 X ~• 'a°~ _ $ 1 ~ . Total Value 12 Coast Live Oak 18.0 19 35 55 2 2 4 in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. loss 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,150 X loc. 75% _ $ 3863 . Total Value 13 Coast Live Oak 18.0 19 40 35 3 1 4 . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,150 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 605 Total Value 14 Coast Live Oak 14.0 15 35 25 2 2 4 in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,116 _ X loc. 60% _ $ 1 869 . Total Value 4~,J REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = S36 15-gal = $120 24"boa = $420 36"box = $1,320 ~~48"box = $5,000 52"box = $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 2 of 13 Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru nlna/C ablln e Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . °? ,2 COATS BARRIE D ~ "? ~ n . ~ Z ~; ~ Q ~ and ASSOCIATES W d ~ "' ~ °' ~ ~ ~ ~ ` ~ o ~ ~_ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ o ~? -- W ~ ~poe-3~,oss ~ ~ ~ a z z z ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ a ~ w ~ o 13535funn~8o~d C ~ H ~ ~ w ~ ¢ W Z F, w Q d w w ~ ~ ~ $ g 3 LL o. LaeGatae,G 95030 U rr~ ' ~ o: ~ ~ tj ~ ~ ~ Z (9 to ~ S52 ~ g ~ ~ ~ , , ~ ~ ~ ~i J ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ w °a ~ g g ~ ~ c 7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ° ~ ~ 8= ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z o: K # Plant Name ey ~ ~ o = m = c 5 5 0: U _ 15 Coast k 15.0 16 35 25 2 2 4 769 X sp. lass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,577 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 788 in _ $ 4 in 177 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value 16 Coast live Oak 18.0 19 40 35 2 1 3 in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,180 X loc. 50% _ $ 3090 . Total Value 17 Coast LNe Oak 16.0 18 40 30 1 2 3 426 X sp. class 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,883 X loc. 50% _ $ 2442 in _ $ 5 in 201 X $27/sq , . . . 18 Coast LNe Oak 13.0 15 35 30 2 2 4 in 133 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. loss 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,686 X loc. 50% _ $ 1343 . Total Value 19 Coast Live Oak 15.0 16 35 35 2 2 4 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X oond. 75% _ $ 3,577_ X loc. 50% _ $ 1 788 Total Value 20 Coast LNe Oak 17.0 19 40 40 2 2 4 In 227 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,125 X sp. loss 100% _ $6,125 X cond. 7544 = $ 4,594 X loc. 50% _ $ 2297 . Total Value 21 Incense Cedar 22.0 24 65 15 4 1 5 Calocedrus decurrens . in 380 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 10,258 X sp. class 70% _ $7,181 X cond. 60% _ $ 4,309 X loc. 50% _ $ 2 154 Total Value ,, Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES - :~ rrgal = $36 15-gal = $120 1=BEST, 5 =WORST . ~ 24"box = $420 36"box @ $1,320 48"box @ 52"box = $7,000 ~ 13 Pa 72"box = ~ Job Ti~orelli job Address: 2~Hi11 Avenue job # 1 190 ~~- 02 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru ninalC ablin a Nee ds PesUD lseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . ~ ~ COATE BARRIE D s . Z ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ 4813531052 ~' ~ '? a Sz ~ Z ~ ~ ~ l ~ 5 ~ ~ _ ~ ~ > ~ ~ ~ J o q 8 Z3535WaniRad C ~ ~ '^ ~ ¢ Z w ¢ w _ ~ ~ ~ q los Catae, G 95030 ~ Y ~}u ~ q r' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? w Z ~ v) ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r? Gi ~ a ~ ~ o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w w a ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ w t~ ~ ~ ~ j ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Z Z Key l1 Plant Name o ~ ~ O 2 x r n (7 ~3 C 22 st ive 26.0 28 40 50 1 1 2 . in 531 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. class 100% _ $14,328 X cond. 100% _ $ 14,328 X loc. 75% _ $ 10 746 Total Value 23 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 11.0 15 35 30 3 2 5 . in 143 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,861 X sp. class 100% _ $3,861 X cond. 60% _ $ 2,317 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 158 Total Value 24 Deodar Cedar 10.0 12 40 20 1 1 2 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. doss 70% _ $1,484 X cond. 100% _ $ 1,484 X bc. 65% _ $ 964 Total Value 25 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x 6.0 9V 30 25 3 3 6 . in 64 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,728 X sp. doss 100% _ $1,728 X cond. 45% _ $ 778 X bc. 60% _ $ 467 Total Value 26 Coast LNe Oak 9.0 10 30 30 2 2 4 in 63.6 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 1,717 X sp. doss 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X bc. 60% _ $ 773 . Totes Value 27 Coast Redwood. 35.0 38 70 35 3 2 5 S uoia sem 'yens 964 X sp. lass 90% _ $23,367 X cond. 60% _ $ 14,020_ X ioc. 70% _ $ 9 814 _ $25 in in 962 X $27/sq , . . . Total Value 28 Tan Bark Oak 10.0 11 25 10 3 4 7 Lfthoca us denaiflorus in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. Gass 50% _ $1,060 X cond. 30% _ $ 318 X loc. 40% _ $ 127 . Total Value ®REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal m $120 W 24"box = $420 36"box Q $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box @ $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page 4 of 13 ,~ i Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Mees uram erhs Cond Won Pru nina/ Cablin a Nee ds PesUD isees e Prob lems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (40613531052 235358unniRad LaOat~e,U 95030 Key # Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w } ~ 7 ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ w _ w ~ ~ ~ ~ w _ 4 ~ w ~ ~ ~ Sz ~ ~j °z 8 ~ ~ f' ~ ~ ~ Z ;5 Z Z ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z w ~ ~ ~ ~ w Z ~ U ~ v O ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ W ~ ~ w ~ ~ ° ~ } U ~ j ~ '~? 0 W ~ D: ~ p ~ ~ ~ p R' g $ p ~ ; W a 3 ~ z ~ ~ ~i ~ z ~ QY, n 29 st L.ive Oak 12.0 13 30 30 3 2 5 . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. class 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,831 X loc. 50% _ $ 916 Total Value 30 Coast Live Oak 15.0 16 30 35 2 ~ 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 790 Total Value 31 Coast Redwood 26.0 x 8.0 36 60 25 3 2 5 . in 556 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 15,012 X sp. days 90% _ $13,511 X cond. 60% _ $ 8,106 X loc. 6096 = $ 4864 Total Value 32 Coast Live Oak 13.0 x 7.0 5.0 17 35 35 2 2 4 . in 162 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,374 X sp. lass 100% _ $4,374 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,281 X loc. 65% _ $ 2132 Taal Value 33 Incense Cedar 27.0 x 24.0 49 70 40 2 3 5 . in 799 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 21,573 X ep. class 70% _ $15,101 X cond. 60% _ $ 9,061 X bc. 70% _ $ 6342 Total Value 34 Coast Live Oak 10.0 11 30 20 2 2 4 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. Gass 100% _ $2,120 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,590 X loc. 60% _ $ 954 Total Value 35 Coast Live Oak . 15.0 x 12.0 109 16\11 30 45 1 3 4 1318 . in 306 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 8,262 X sp. class 100% _ $8,262 X cond. 75% _ $ 6,197 X loc. 65% _ $ 4 028 O. ~, Q REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal Q $36 15-gal = $120 ~~ 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box = Pa 13 • Job T~Borelli Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue Job # 1~-190 ~,. ~j0/02 Meas urem ents Cond ltlon Pru nina/C eblin a Nee ds Pest/D lseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . °? ,2 BARRIE D COATS ~ v . ~ ° z uj w ~ ~ < ' 1 and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ °' ° ~ ~ W ~ ~ 2f.S35fimm7Raad C w ~ vj ~ ~ a ~ = W ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ V + a w I.asG~es,Ul5030 } ~ Z Z O ~ -- ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ - $ ~ ~ LL ~ uF1 ~ ° t d' ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z - U Y H J = ~ ~ Z N ~ W Q ~ ~ W Q ~ g g W ~ ~ ~ ~ W f-- o o ~5 U ~ ~5 ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z Key # Punt Name ] o x m 2 m O x 36 Coast L 17.0 x 16.0 33 35 50 1 2 3 . in 328 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 8,858 X sp. loss 100% _ $8,856 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,970 X bc. 70% _ $ 5 579 Total Value 37 Coast LWe Oak 11.0 13 30 15 2 2 4 . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. loss 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,923 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 154 Total Value 38 Coast Live Oak 9.0 10 20 20 2 2 4 . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. lass 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X loc. 60% _ $ 773 Total Value 39 Coast live Oak 14.0 x 12.0 23 40 45 2 3 5 . in 211 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,697 X sp. loss 100% _ $5,697 X cond. " 60% _ $ 3,418 X bc. 70% _ $ 2 393 Total Value 40 Coast L1ve Oak 16.0 x 13.0 15\1 40 55 2 2 4 . in 268 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,236 X sp. loss 100% _ $7,236 X cond. 75% _ $ 5,427 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 799 Total Value 41 Coast Live Oak 16.0 x 12.0 20 40 50 1 2 3 . in 258 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,966 X sp. class 100% _ $6,966 X cond. 90%" _ $ 6,269 X loc. 75% _ $ 4 702 Total Value 42 Coast Live Oak 16.0 17 35 35 1 2 3 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,883 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 418 Total Value .: ~~~ .. REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ® 5-gal = $36 15-gal ffi $120 24"box = $420 36"box a $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box m $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 6 of 13 • LJ Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Mees urem e~rts Cond ftlon Pru nina/ Cablin a Nee ds Pest/D lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . "? ,~ BARRIE D COATS ~' 0 v v . ~ ~ ~ a W and ASSOCIATES ~ ` ~ ~ ( ~ a ~ ~ (40813531052 ~ W LL ~ L ~"' ~ Z Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ I d! ~ U ~ °? ~ 8 0 a' N J ~ ~i 23535WnniRaad ~ ~ ~ vj w Z u~. Z w w ~ ,? ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ 6 LosOde,G 95030 } ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ U ~ ~ ~ W Z C9 cn ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~S ¢ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O u { ~ Z ~ W Z F F ~ ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ = a = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ U ~ ? ~ o ~ i z K # Plant Name gY O o t n 43 Ive Oak 14.0 15 40 25 1 2 3 . fn 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. lass 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,739 X loc. 60% _ $ 2 243 Total Value 44 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x B.0 7~6 9\8 30 30 2 3 5 8\7 . in 109 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,943 X sp. days 100% _ $2,943 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,766 X bc. 60% _ $ 1 059 Total Value 45 Coast Live Oak 15.0 17 40 35 2 1 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. lass 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 65% _ $ 2 790 Total Value 46 Coast LNe Oak 12.0 14 40 25 2 1 3 . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. loss 100% _ $3,052 X cond.' 90% _ $ 2,747 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 648 Total Value 47 E lash Walnut 8.0 x 8.0 7.0 12 20 25 3 3 6 . in 95 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sP• c~ 30% _ $770 X oond. 45% _ $ 346 X bc. 30% _ $ 104 Total Value 48 Coast Live Oak 16.0 18 30 35 1 1 2 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. lass 100% _ $5,426 X cond. 100% _ $ 5,426 X loc. 65% _ $ 3 527 Total Value 49 E lish Walnut 14.0 16 40 45 3 2 5 . In 154 XX $27/x. in. _ $ 4,154in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 60% _ $ 2,493 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 246 Total Value e REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-ga1.= $36 15-gal ~ $120 24"boz _ $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 ~ WORST 48"box ~ 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box = P~f 13 " • • Job TBorelli ~.. REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 48"box = $5,000 52"box m $7,000 72"box = $15,000 Job Address: 2~ Hill Avenue Job # 1~1~ 10/10/02 Meas urem er>ts Cond ition Pru ninq/Cebiln q Nee ds Pest/Diseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . °? ,2 BARRIE D COATS ~ 0 v w J . d ~ ° W v and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ ,~ ~, W ~ ~ ~ ~ a Z Z Z } o: o! w o 735355naniRad iO r ~ „ w ~ a w ? ai ~ z w ~ ~? ~ U g Q ~ o. LosGdb,G 95030 ~ rn ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ W Z m o= ~ ~ Z~S{ ~ c 3 LL ~ ~ ~ W ~S o J ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ W O Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = J = ~ U_' ~ Q ~ Z ~ O f 07 ~ ~ W Q ~ ~ ~ W W m ~ ~ ~ 2 a x ~ O g U ~ U U ~ U ~ ? ~ ~ ~ Z Z Key # Plant Name p ~ i 50 Coast ive Oak 13.0 14 35 30 1 2 3 . in 133 X $27lsq. in. _ $ 3,582 X sp. class 100% _ $3,582 X cond. 90% _ $ 3,224 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 612 Total Value 51 En lish Walnut 11.0 x 9.0 16 20 35 2 2 4 . in 127 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,429 X sp. class 30% _ $1,029 X cond. 75% _ $ 772 X loc. 40% _ $ 309 Total Value 52 California Black Walnut 10.0 12 35 30 3 2 5 Ju lens hindsii . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. class 10% _ $212 X cond. 60% _ $ 127 X loc. 40% _ $ 51 Total Value 53 E Iiah Walnut 8.0 12 20 10 4 4 8 . in 50.2 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,356 X sp. class 30% _ $407 X cond. 15% _ $ 61 X loc. 40% _ $ 24 54 Coast LNe Oak 14.0 x 8.0 17 30 35 1 2 3 . in 179 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,833 X sp. class 100% _ $4,833 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,350 X loc. 60% _ $ 2 610 Total Value 55 Silver Acacia 8.0 x 8.0 14 30 30 1 4 5 Acacia dealbata . in 75 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,025 X sp. class 10% _ $203 X cond. 60% _ $ 122 X loc. 50% _ $ 61 Total Value 56 Coast Live Oak 8.0 x 6.0 10 25 25 1 3 4 .in 64 XX$27~.in.= $ 1,728in._ $ 1,728 Xsp.class 100% _ $1,728 Xcond. 75% _ $ 1,296 Xloc. 50% _ $ 648 Total Value 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST Page S of 13 • • ~q ~+ _ `. p..3~ ~. Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Meas urem ents Cond ition Pru nina/ Cablin a Nee ds PesUD lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . ~ ~ ~ COATE BARRIE D ~ 0 v . w ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ W ~, ` ` (40813531os2 ~ ~ rT ~ ~ 5 o w o ~ ~ $ o ~ ~ ~ a z ~ z ~ ~ w ~ } ~ ~ n555smmiewd ~ ~ ~ W ~ ~ -- u .~ ' ~ z w ~ ~ ~ v g ~ Q ~ _ LosOda,G 95030 ~ ~ ~ Q c S H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ LL ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ - ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ O Y -- ~ ~ ~ ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w ~ y W ~ ~ ~ ~ S W Key # Pient Name ~ ~ ~ o x U x ~5 ~ c 5 ~ o: U ? f- ~ z z 57 st Live Oak 18.0 19 30 35 1 1 2 . in 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,867 X sp. class 100% _ $6,867 X cond. 100% _ $ 6,867 X loc. 65% _ $ 4464 Total Value 58 Coast LNe Oak 7.0 x 3.0 4.0 8\6 25 25 1 2 3 . in 49 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,323 X sp. lass 100% _ $1,323 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,191 X loc. 60% _ $ 714 Total Value 59 California Black Walnut 10.0 11 20 30 3 3 6 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X sp. class 10% _ $212 X cond. 45% _ $ 95 X loc. 80% _ $ 57 Total Value 60 Coast LNe Oak 16.0 x 14.0 23 45 50 1 1 2 . in 278 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 7,506 X sp. class 100% _ $7,506 X ~. ~ 100% _ $ 7,508 X loc. 75% _ $ 5630 Total Value 61 Coast Live Oak 11.0 13 45 30 1 2 3 . in 95 X$27/sq. in. _ $ 2,565 X sp. class 100% _ $2,565 X cond. 90% _ $ 2,308 X loc. 50% _ $ 1 154 Total Value 62 Coast Live Oak. 10.0 x B.0 3.0 11\1 30 35 1 2 3 . in 108 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,916 X sp. class 100% _ $2,916 X cond. 80% _ $ 2,624 X loc. 65% _ $ 1 706 Total Value 63 Coast Live Oak 15.0 16 40 40 1 2 3 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% . _ $4,769 X cond. 90% _ $ 4,292 X loc. 65% _ $ 2,790 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 24"box = $420 36"box = $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = 52"box = $7,000 72"box = ~ Pa 13 „ • l~1 u Job T~ Borelli job Address: Hill Avenue Job # -190 « 0/02 Mea surem ents Con dklon Pru nlna/ Cablin a Nee ds Pest/D lseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES woe-s~,oss 13s35wan~Raod Laslata,G 95030 Key # Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g w } ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ x ° ~ U ~ ~ ~ x ~ W ~ ~ m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q ~ ~ ~ x • ~ ` U ~ U ~ Z ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ y w ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~? a ~ ~ U ~ ~ z w W ~ ~ ~ W y Z ~ U ~ o ~ O z ~ ~ ? m ~ ~ '~ W o ~ o: U W ~ ~ ~ ~ } U ~ ~ ~ ~ `" ~ 8 ~ g ~ ~ -- a ~ ~ g ~ ~ a ~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ z ~ ° ~ ~ a ~ ~ 84 st k 14.0 15 30 25 1 3 4 . in 154 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,154 X sp. class 100% _ $4,154 X cond. 75% _ $ 3,116 X loc. 60% _ $ 1 869 Total Value 65 Coast Live Oak 10.0 11 35 25 1 2 3 . in 78.5 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,120 X ep. class 100% _ $2,120 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,908 X loc. 60% _ $ 1,145 Total Value 66 36.0 48 80 35 2 1 3 . in 1017 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 27,469 X sp. class 90% _ $24,722 X cond. 90% _ $22,250 X loc. 70% _ $ 15 575 Total Value 67 Coast Live Oak 15.0 x 9.0 15\11 35 35 1 2 3 . in 209 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,643 X sp. class 100% _ $5,643 X cond. ~ 90% _ $ 5,079 X bc. 65% _ $ 3 301 Total Value 68 Coast LNe Oak 15.0 x 14.0 24 35 50 1 2 3 . In 254 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 6,858 X sp. class 100% _ $6,658 X cond. 90% _ $ 6,172 X loc. 75% _ $ 4 629 Total Value 69 Caast Live Oak 15.0 16 25 35 1 1 2 . in 177 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 4,769 X sp. class 100% _ $4,769 X cond. 100% _ $ 4,769 X loc. 70% _ $ 3 338 Total Value 70 Coast LNe Oak 8.0 10 25 15 1 2 3 . in 50.2 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,356 X sp. class 100% _ $1,356 X cond. 90% _ $ 1,221 X loc. 50% _ $ 610 Total Value ®REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES ~ gal = $36 15-gal g $120 "box = $420 36"box ~ $1,320 "bo»c ~ $5,000 52"box ~ $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1=BEST, 5 =WORST Page 10 of 13 • Job Title: Borelli r' Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 Mea surem ents Con dttlon Pru nina/ Cablln a Nee ds Pest/D iseas e Pro blems R ecom mend . BARRIE D. COATS and ASSOCIATES (409)3531052 Y3535funntRmd LaeGalae,G 95090 Key # PIeM Name ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W a O w x ~ m ~ ~ ~ x ~ W ~ .~ w s ~ Q Zx O pz 8 , Z o a o: ~, x ~ _ ~ G Z ~ Z ~ ~ W ~ ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W Z ~ ~ o ~ ~L W ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ w z ~ ~ p ~ W ~ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ Y C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ v ~_ o ~ ~ ~ ; ~ a z W N ~ W ~ z ~ ~ . 71 hestnut S es 10.0 x 9.0 8.0 1119 30 40 1 4 5 Castanea s 10 . in 136 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,672 X sp. lass 70% _ $2,570 X cond. 60% _ $ 1,542 X tac. 50% _ $ 771 72 Chestnut S es 10.0 x 7.0 1118 30 20 1 4 5 . in 98 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,646 X sp. class 70% _ $1,852 X cond. 60% _ $ '1,111 X loc. 50% _ $ 556 Total Value 73 Coast Live Oak 26.0 27 40 50 1 1 2 . in 531 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 14,328 X sp. lass 100% _ $14,328 X cond. 100% _ $ 14,328 X loc. 75% _ $ 10 746 Total Value 74 Coast Live Oak 11.0 x 5.0 13 20 35 2 2 4 . in 105 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,835 X sp. loss 100% _ $2,835 X ~. ~ 75% _ $ 2,126 X loc. 75% _ $ 1 595 Total Value 75 E Ilsh Walnut 9.0 x 9.0 13 35 30 2 2 4 . in 96 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,592 X sp. loss 70% _ $1,84 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,361 X bc. 60% _ $ 816 Total Value 76 Monte Pine 40.0 41 70 35 1 2 3 Pinus radiate . in 1256 X $27/sq. in. _ $33,912 X sp. class 30% _ $10,174 X cond. 90% _ $ 9,156 X loc. 70% _ $ 6409 Total Value 77 Celifomia Bladt Walnut 13.0 x 12.0 15 20 25 4 4 8 . in 190 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,130 X sp. class 10% _ $513 X cond. 15% _ $ 77 X loc. 60% _ $ 46 Total Value QREPLACEMENT TREE VALUES r~-gal = $36 15-Sal = $120 ®24"box = $420 36"box ~ $1,320 1 =BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box @ 52"box = $7,000 ~ , 72"box m Pag~ 13 u `r ~ u Job T~orelli Job Address: 2~Hi11 Avenue Job # 1 190 ' `~ ~/02 Meas urem ents Cond ltlon Pru nlna/ Cablin a Nee ds PesUD lseas e Prob lems R ecom mend . ~ ~ BARRIE D COATS ~' 0 v v . o ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ °' ~ ~ °' ' ~ ~ ~ `~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ 8 0 ~ (40813531052 $ LL l -_ ~ z ~ ~ o _ > ~ ~ 235355uaniRmd ~ ~ ~{ S ~1 ,q ~ z < ~ z w a w ~ ~ '? ~ laeC~ae,G 95030 ~ } ~ p ~ ~ ~ ~ W a z ~ ~ t~ ~ ~ UT ~ ~ g ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ > p i J - Z ~ U W O Y Z ~ H ^ O Q 2 F J 2 S Q ~ ~ JQ W - ~ Q p ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1( 1~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ = = U v ~ ~ ~ d' U ~ ~ U Z Z C Key!! Plant Name O U V 78 Coast Oak 9.0 11 25 30 2 2 4 . in 63.6 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 1,717 X sp. class 100% _ $1,717 X cond. 75% _ $ 1,288 X bc. 70% _ $ 901 Total Value 79 Monte Pine 35.0 42 70 35 2 1 3 . in 962 X $27/sq. In. _ $ 25,964 X sp. days 30% _ $7,789 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,010 X loc. 70% _ $ 4 907 Total Value 80 Coast Live Oak 21.0 23 40 45 1 1 2 . in 346 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X sp. class 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 100% _ $ 9,347 X loc. 75% _ $ 7 010 Total Value 81 SINer Wattle 10.0 x 7.0 5.0 12H 30 35 1 3 4 . in 108 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 2,918 X sp. class 10% _ $292 X cond. " 75% _ $ 219 X loc. 60% _ $ 131 Total Value 82 Coast LNe Oak 21.0 24 40 55 1 1 2 . in 346 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 9,347 X ap. loss 100% _ $9,347 X cond. 100% _ $ 9,347 X ioc. 75% _ $ 7 010 Total Value B3 ttalian Stone Pine 24.0 27 50 40 1 2 3 Pious 'nea . In 452 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 12.208 X sP• class 70% _ $8,546 X cond. 90% _ $ 7,691 X loc. 60% _ $ 4,615 Total Value REPLACEMENT TREE V ALOES 5-gal = $36 15-gal = $120 j 24"box = $420 36"boot = $1,320 48"box ~ $5,000 52"box s $7,000 72"box = $15,000 1 ~ BEST, 5 =WORST Page 12 of 13 • Job Title: Borelli Job Address: 20200 Hill Avenue Job # 10-02-190 10/10/02 ~ ~ BARRIE D. COATS ~ ~ W W W ~ and ASSOCIATES ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~, $ ~ ~ W ~ V qq qq~ ~ N (408)3531052 ~ ~ wi '? Q ~ - z ~ Z d 2353Sfunn~Raad " w ~ w ~ ~ ~ Z ~ ~ Z z ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ¢ ~ LosCalae,U 95030 ~ v~i ~ ~ ~ ~j go_ ~~jj ~ ~ ~ W c7 "~ ~ ~ ~i t F F Cey # Plant Name ~ ~ ~ ~ o = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ? ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ z z oC 84 st ive 12.0 13 20 25 2 2 4 . in 113 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 3,052 X sp. dasa 100% _ $3,052 X cond. 75% _ $ 2,289_ X loc. 60% _ $ 1 373 85 Italian Stone Pine 29.0 34 50 30 1 2 3 . in 660 X 327/sq. In. _ $ 17,825 X sp. class 70% _ $12,477 ~ X cond. 90% _ $ 11,230__ X bc. 65% _ $ 7299 Total Value 88 Deodar Cedar 16.0 18 50 30 1 1 2 . in 201 X $27/sq. in. _ $ 5,426 X sp. class 70% _ $3,798 X cond. 100% _ $ 3,798__ X loc. 70% _ $ 2 659 Total Value ~ ~ REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 5-gal = $36 15-gal @ $120 24"boat = $420 36"box = $1,320 1=BEST, 5 =WORST 48"box = 52"box = $7,000 72"box = Pa~ 13 + ,. r~ • `•.,_ ~ ~ ~ ri . ~8 13 ~ 19 17 ,~_ 18 I ~~z - : ~. .,~ ~ '565.5:: _565.9 - ~ `~ 12 _ _ ~ .. ~ ~3.~ ,~. y.Z. i°'1 i1''~..1'7 •Z._ :~":II'Z... _.~.v F~ ~~•. TD) 76 ~n V ~~~"-ONC _ L ~ h F~'ti __ !P b leE"a0 '°°~ '~'~ X33.4- '?` . ; ~ ~ ~ ??~"" n"~n' ~''r'°- --.'y... ~•...{' .¢ -6 566'0 ' ' . nd ~` `b ~ ' ~ 2 2 "' ( - +, _ -'-~ - ~''.6h~ s.~.t';i~•-~*~.. ~ ~ ~ 46 95 ~) - 44 93 -y„ ~. v ~o ` • I_.. :-'h ~;~-.' ~ __`-.. i Y svunorr/ u- rY Nt i3- a~ '[F~ ~ ' e ~ -. -, +-o. .q~ ~ 56_~* _. ~ o ~ ,'~3u~~1-~1• _ r ~ ` ` . i. s . -i o~ . d ~ >>- ~+n - .Y 562.5 .~ 56Z6 •- , ` ~ 23 „, _ 1 ~ t 565.7 - T• I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ sr ~~~ --' • :.r; , • _ _~ H - 6a6Q7 •C . I v ~ 567: ~ ~ ;ur » z 97 e- J .u,~ p7 { I • • 6~ moon .! ..Y`- I ~,~o "~`~ s~ a I 'd 9 - + ° `, 7w 5 ~~ y~ ~ scc $ I - • 9 9 0 9 8 % n- n~ "C7 e' v I 567.9 ~" - o: - - ..,.. ~- F3 i eeeo°•+r ~ ''i 53 . 91 '~ +• •,•~ -- - -136 = - 'rte _ -~ s.: ss r - n +ro,ua r 'oNC 25 ~ ,J + ^ ~ .•~', _.-, ~ •~. - .`~. 50 • 51 $2 our , l '~~'.E~ ~. `y3 __ ~ _'T. ... .. i• ~ '-.-- ~ ~ /sw Ssi.~, ~~..~ ., a. P o ~ II.• r,ib~56i. ~ s 7a3 90 Y _ I, .. .,~ ~ .~ i 1 .;'.~rns-'-'------ -^'Yr 566.0 56 I I I m i ,~,7w 567.5 ,~ '1• „~ P.~. `U'el 9 55 ~ 1 i ~ ~ ~ +~ _ .~ ~ fn - --- d~B ~¢ ,~ .~-.: -•y -'Sic"Pe/' o n n~ .s Nr u' i •. • ~ ~ -~i,f-=?~ -... - -!c6r -,mac. _- - b #'. s~!o 1 fi - -- rs t CL1~~ ~s- de° ~~. ~. --- ~.--..- ' e i .-. - - b:. 7 ~i ' / ~ _.. _- ------ '~r d 57 oar a ! S-7_9- .d 1 - v I`°^ J_.. 85 .83' - s 71 •70 + x xs .8- ii ws ~ 27 yr ~.. i. - r ..+ .~ , cn ~ ~r 0 1 .. : r'< ,~- ~ • .q /~ s ~' i' ~4 7. 'nm r. 28 ' Ij ~ i '~ "' - ~58 I~ /W ~: j ~ ~ 7 9 ~ m 5 9 m. s ,ur ~ re. ' i -'~~ !r Z -~''~ / s ROO_ T BUFFER ~~ t 3 6 3 5 ]' 6 d' wY _ • _~r r. _ ~ ,~11 ~~,as6as 1 , , •29 i ~ ssa.3 + ~ O ~ ' 30 x ~ 68 a- , . 3a9~_nQ 9.5 h ~Vy 37 -f ~~ ' A ii .r;' ~re.i ~z--• Sii.~ ~ sios ~S°~a 37iT• / •. 67 i - ~ ~ f; ~ r._r_ ... r ~. s- ... f~ r• 75 i ~ / ' "- 31 77 62 ~ ~~ _/•.]• t bli ~ +ia' ~!r ~/ oar a' er,ua ~ k / ^~ : a . 11--~ -• ~q: ~rrr - .r •-#sis- ~,rr r_wcE ti ~!^ 69 _ / _6~ 32 ~~,« 4 ~z!L_E, +~ a: M - • x ~ N -18.3 W i 5% ,r ra • ~~S . ~ 80 ~ ~ 79 ~ .. - 78 76 ~~as. .~.. W ~ 6g ~ 61 ~ '~ s-ro-- ~• - - ^1 ~-- 66 .-.. 1a•Y' ~57•,m ni3;;;IL~ u 'S,! RI -$ ~ / ~ ~~ ...... ~ ~ - 33~ ..: ~' ~ PROTECTIVE FENCING ' '~~ .••••••. PROTECTIVE FENCING LF TREE iS PRESERVED W PRELIMINARY GRADDVG PLAN C2 l~inch Pl od and Wood Chi s Plam Buffer A ~b P for Areas Beneath A Tree Canopy which Must Be Used for Foot Traffic Prepared by: Barrie ~. Coate f~ Associates Horticultural Consultants {x.08) 353-1052 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 • ~~~~~~ • Attachment 3 ~®~~Qc~ r Current Owner tELLARMINE COLLEGE PREPARATOR 15001 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner ANNABELLE M FREDERICKSON 20270 CALLE MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 95070 • Or Current Owner ELGART 20301 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA CA 95070 Current Owner Or Current Owner Or Current Owner R & ELIZABETH CURRY RAYMOND & KIMBERLY JAMES W & LINELLE BELL J00 AUDREY SMITH LN ZAPATA 20090 MENDELSOHN LN ,RATOGA CA 95070 28001 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner ARING 20080 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner DAVID P & DENISE MOYLES PO BOX 3525 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner DANA O CHRISTIAN 20230 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner VICNENT R & SUSAN BORELLI 49 SPANISH BAY CIR PEBBLE BEACH CA 93953 Or Current Owner TA-HSIN & PYING-ING LIU 20125 WINN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner HENRYS & LISA CHANG 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner SHEAU-DONG & SEN WU 20150 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner WALTER J & CATHERINE FULDE 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner NORMAN C & ALLISON KLINE FAY R WEISLER 20121 HILL AVE 20161 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner JOHN H & JEAN LENAHAN 20261 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner NAI-TING & CHIN HSU 14900 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner MAUREEN C STURLA 20170 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner ROBERT H & HELENA SMITH 20152 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner HILBERT K & ROSEMARY ALBRECHT 20190 WINN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner LOUIS W & MARY BREITENBACH 20130 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner ANDREW T & LUNG YANG 16856 SE 58TH PL BELLEVUE WA 98006 Or Current Owner STANFORD M & DUCKHAM- SHO SHOOR 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner Or Current Owner JOHN T & KAREAN CHAPMAN GARDNER 22561 POPPY DR 815 KOZERA DR CUPERTINO CA 95014 SAN JOSE CA 95136 Or Current Owner SYLVIA R & LEONARD METZ 7280 BLUE HILL DR 1 SAN JOSE CA 95129 • • Or Current Owner DONALD R & SHEILA CALL 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Q®®®4~ I9r Current Owner 3CATON INVESTMENTS LLC X09 WASHINGTON ST 201 v1REY CA 93940 Current Owner ZMONS W & MARGARET )OGAN 120 HILL AVE ~RATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner ROBERT M PATTERSON 15195 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 • • Or Current Owner JOHN T & KAREAN CHAPMAN 20252 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner LARRY G & MARIA VOTTA 20100 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner NOORUDIN A & H BILLAWALA PO BOX 187 SARATOGA CA 95071 Or Current Owner PEGGY M & LEO SHORTING 15252 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~®~®~'~' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that. I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the ~ ~~ day of March, 2003, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at th.e addresses shown, to- wit: • (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the Ciry of Saratoga in that. said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 20200 Hill Ave; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. rlauii~i • I ~~--pp,, i ®ra.I~~~ ~ ~: City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 26`h day of March 2003, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. NO. 02-215 (517-22-003) - Borelli, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Design Review to build a new single-family 6,730 square foot two-story home with a 1,780 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 26 feet. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • Q~~~~ ~~ MAP NOT TO SCALE City of Saratoga Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on Wednesday, the 11`h day of February 2004, at 7:00 p.m. Located in the City Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Details are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 8:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. App. N0.03-187 (517-22-003) - Borelli, 20200 Hill Avenue; -Request for Mod;fication of Building Plans and Development Conditions to change the previously approved new two story house to a one story house. Increase the floor area from 6,730 square feet to approximately 7,402 square feet including athree-car garage and a 3,089 square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be reduced from 26 feet to approximately 22 feet 6 inches. The lot size is approximately 77,003 square feet net and the site is zoned R-1-40,000. nd be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a All interested persons may appear a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before the Tuesday, a week before the meeting. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out-of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. John F. Livingstone, AICP Associate Planner 408.868.1231 • ~~~~~® • Hill Ave 20200 500 ft radius Hill Ave 20200 Q Hill Ave 20200 parcels w Rhin 500 ft ;' ;°~ U ~, - ~~ - ~ r is i 20200 Hill Avenue • ®~0®s~ !' AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, John F. Livingstone, being duly sworn, deposes and says: that I am a citizen of the United States, over the age of 18 years; that acting for the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on the 27th day of January, 2004, that I deposited in the mail room at the City of Saratoga, a NOTICE OF HEARING, a copy of which is attached hereto, with postage thereon prepaid, addressed to the following persons at the addresses shown, to- wit: (See list attached hereto and made part hereof) s are the owners of said ro ert who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing that said person P P Y pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga in that said persons and their addresses are those shown on the most recent equalized roll of the Assessor of the County of Santa Clara as being owners of property within 500 feet of the property to be affected by the application 20200 Hill Avenue; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. ohn F. Livingston ICP Associate Planner • ®~~~~~. O `z, ~APN 51718021 or Current Owner W R & ELIZABETH CURRY APN 51719081 or Current Owner 28000 AUDREY SMITH LN SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 AGREEMENT T ARING APN 51720014 or Current Owner 20080 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID P & DENISE MOYLES APN 51720017 or Current Owner PO BOX 3525 SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ APN 51720020 or Current Owner VINCENT R & SUSAN BORELLI APN 51722003 or Current Owner 20200 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TA H L1U APN 51722008 or Current Owner 20125 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 HENRYS & LISA CHANG APN 51722012 or Current Owner 15050 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 SHEAU-DONG WU APN 51722048 or Current Owner 20150 BONNIE BRAE LN SARATOGA CA 95070 ~I'ER J & CATHERINE FULDE APN 51722103 or Current Owner 15164 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ANNABELLE M FREDERICKSON APN 51719024 or Current Owner 20270 CALLS MONTALVO SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 51719086 or Current Owner APN 51720015 or Current Owner APN 51720018 or Current Owner MAUREEN C STURLA APN 51720021 or Current Owner 20170 BONNIE BRAE WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 HELENA L SMITH APN 51722004 or Current Owner 20152 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 HILBERT K & ROSEMARY ALBRECHT APN 51722009 or Current Owner 20190 WINK RD SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 51722013 or Current Owner APN 51722057 or Current Owner APN 51722104 or Current Owner DAVID F & MARGARET ELGART APN 51719076 or Current Owner 20301 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 51720013 or Current Owner FAY R WEISLER APN 51720016 or Current Owner 20161 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 APN 51720019 or Current Owner APN 51720022 or Current Owner APN 51722007 or Current Owner ANDREW T YANG APN 51722011 or Current Owner 10398 SAN FERNANDO AVE CUPERTINO CA 95014 STANFORD M SHOOR APN 51722047 or Current Owner 15177 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 SCOTT L GARDNER APN 51722065 or Current Owner PO BOX 36290 SAN JOSE CA 95158 DONALD R & SHEILA CALL APN 51722105 or Current Owner 14930 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~53 .~ COUCH JOHN D TRUSTEE Fsr ET AL APN: 51718021 15001 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA, CA 905070 CHRISTIAN DANA O APN: 51720020 20230 BONNIE BRAE WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5900 LENAHAN JEAN D ET AL APN: 51720018 307 SEA VIEW AV PIEDMONT CA 94610 KLINE NORMAN C AND ALLISON A APN: 51720015 20121 HILL AV SARATOGA CA 95070-6310 BELL JAMES W AND LINELLE S APN: 51720013 20090 MENDELSOHN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6454 MEYER CARL AND MARINA APN: 51722109 20252 HILL AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070-6351 SCATONA INVESTMENTS LLC APN 51722108 or Current Owner 409 WASHINGTON ST 201 MONTEREY CA 93940 EMMONS W & MARGARET COOGAN APN 51722113 or Current Owner 20120 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT M PATTERSON APN 51722118 or Current Owner 15195 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 ZAPATA RAYMOND AND KIMBERLY P APN: 51719086 28001 AUDREY SMITH LN SARATOGA CA 95070 HSU NAI-TING AND CHIN HSIA TAMMY TRUSTEE APN: 51720019 14900 MONTALVO RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6328 BREITENBACH LOUIS W AND MARY K METZ SYLVIA R AND LEONARD J APN: 51720022 APN: 51722104 20130 BONNIE BRAE WY 7280 BLUE HILL DR UNIT 1 SARATOGA CA 95070-5954 SAN JOSE CA 95129-3624 APN 51722109 or Current Owner ROHRER T JONES APN 51722114 or Current Owner 20100 HILL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 NOORUDIN A & H BILLAWALA APN 51722110 or Current Owne~ PO BOX 187 SARATOGA CA 95071 PEGGY M & LEO SHORTING APN 51722116 or Current Owner 15252 MONTALVO RD SAR.ATOGA CA 95070 ~~~~~~