Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-28-2004 Planning Commission PacketCITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: Wednesday, Apri128, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani Absent: None Staff: Planner Welsh, Director Sullivan ~ Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 14, 2004. (APPROVED 6-0-1, ZUTSHI ABSTAIN) 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 regardingOral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 22, 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. L APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) - Appellant DLIVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (ToM SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ONAPRIL 14, 2004) (APPEAL DENIED 5-2) APPLICATION #04-041 (APN# 393-36-026) WU/CHEN, 19708 CRESTBROOK DRIVE; - The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two-story home. The parcel is zoned R-l, 20,000 and the General Plan designation is RLD, Residential Low Density. The height of the structure is proposed to be 25.86 feet. A two car attached garage with a two car carport is proposed for the site. The existing circular driveway is to remain and the swimming pool is to be demolished. (ANN WELSH) (APPROVED 7-0) APPLICATION #03-218 (APN# 503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road, South of Villa Oaks Lane; -The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28-acre property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul- de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC, Hillside Conservation and is zoned HR -Hillside Residential District. (ANN W1=LSx) (CONTINUE TO STUDY SESSION 7-0) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Memo from Tom Sullivan regarding noticing requirements COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on April 9, 2004 ADJOURNMENT AT 11:50 PM TO THE NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 12, 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, April 13, 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, APRIL 28, 2004 • ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGENDA 1. Application #04-041 - WU / CHEN 19708 Crestbrook Drive Item 2 2. Application #03-218 - HO Item 3 Mount Eden Road South of Villa Oaks Lane 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 visits are generally short (5 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, Apri128, 2004 - 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Michael Schallop, Mike Uhl, Ruchi Zutshi and Chair Mohammad Garakani PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 14, 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 staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Planning Commission direction to Staff. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 22, 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 ctclerk@saratogaca.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 #03-140 (403-27-049) - Appellant DLIVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive; -Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) (CONTINUED FROM MEETING ONAPRIL 14, 2004) 2. APPLICATION #04-041 (APN# 393-36-026) WU/CHEN, 19708 CRESTBROOK DRIVE; - The applicant proposes to demolish an existing two-story home and construct a new 4,492 square foot, two-story home. The parcel is zoned R-1, 20,000 and the General Plan designation is RLD, Residential Low Density. The height of the structure is proposed to be 25.86 feet. A two car attached garage with a two car carport is proposed for the site. The existing circular driveway is to remain and the swimming pool is to be demolished. (ANN WELSH) APPLICATION #03-218 (APN# 503-13-067) WILLIAM WAI YAN HO, Mount Eden Road, South of Villa Oaks Lane; -The applicant proposes to subdivide a 29.28-acre property into five clustered lots with an average lot size of 1.73 acres. The remaining 19.49-acre portion of the property is to remain in open space with a pedestrian, equestrian trail winding through the open space. Access to the property is to be via a cul-de-sac, which egresses onto Mount Eden Road. An emergency access road is proposed from Vista Regina Road to the cul- de-sac. The property has a general plan designation of RHC, Hillside Conservation and is zoned HR -Hillside Residential District. (ANN WELSH) DIRECTORS ITEM - None COMMISSION ITEMS - Memo from Tom Sullivan regarding noticing requirements COMMUNICATIONS WRITTEN - City Council Minutes from Special Meetings on Apri19, 2004 ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING - Wednesday, May 12, 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 a-mail, please send your e-mail address to planning@saratoga.ca.us C o~ MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, April 14, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ~~ Chair Hunter called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl Absent: Commissioner Zutshi Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan INTRODUCTION OF NEWLY APPOINTED COMMISSIONER LINDA RODGERS Chair Hunter introduced and welcomed the newest member of the Commission who is participating in her first meeting of a four-year term as Planning Commissioner. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ELECTION OF A NEW PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR Commissioner Garakani placed his name for consideration as Chair. Commissioner Nagpal asked if Commissioner Hunter could be re-elected. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Municipal Code prevents a Planning Commission Chair from serving consecutive terms. Motion: Upon motion and second, Commissioner Garakani was selected to serve as Chair. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Chair Garakani nominated Commissioner Nagpal to serve as Vice Chair. Commissioner Nagpal recommended that Commissioner Zutshi be nominated for Vice Chair. Director Tom Sullivan said that Code does not preclude the Vice Chair from serving two consecutive terms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 2 Motion: Upon motion Chair. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: i and second, Commissioner Nagpal was selected to serve as Vice . Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl None Zutshi None APPROVAL OF MINUTES -Regular Meeting of March 10, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Barry, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of March 10, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 3. (5-0-1-1; Commissioner Zutshi was absent and Commissioner Rodgers abstained) REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 8, 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), except for Item No. 2 for which the Planning Commission action will be final. ORAL COMMUNICATION Ms. Emma Wykoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Suggested that the City consider ways to improve and enhance their notification process. • Said that recently, she was not properly notified of an approval for which she had general concerns. The City has old mailing information for her property although this information had been updated with the County Assessor's Office. • Suggested that notices be sent to the physical address even if the database has a different address for the owner. • Thanked the Commission for hearing her concerns. Commissioner Hunter asked Director Tom Sullivan if his staff is aware of these questions. Director Tom Sullivan said that the County sells the City of Saratoga the information used for mailings. Both City Ordinance and Government Code require that these mailings go to the owner's address included on the Assessor's roles. In many cases, there are absentee property owners. Commissioner Uhl asked how often this information is updated. Director Tom Sullivan replied once a year. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 3 Commissioner Schallop asked why not mail both to the site and the owner's address, if they are different. Director Tom Sullivan replied that this would double the mailing. Commissioner Schallop suggested that this be done only if the two are different. Chair Garakani said that Planning Department staff would look into this issue further. *** CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO.1 APPLICATION #03-140 (403-27-049) -Appellant DUVALL, Site Location - 18325 Swarthmore Drive: Appeal of an Administrative Decision to DENY a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swarthmore Drive to remove a large Redwood tree. The tree in question is a 161-inch, mature Redwood and is located next to the driveway. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the appellant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit for property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, seeking reversal of that denial. • Stated that the request for the removal of a Coastal Redwood was reviewed and denied administratively on February 11, 2004. The appellant appealed that decision on March 2, 2004. • Reported that the Planning Commission considered an appeal of another Tree Removal Permit application for this same tree that had been approved administratively. The Commission granted that appeal, overturning the administrative approval. • Explained that since that time, the City has adopted a new Tree Ordinance. As a result of the new Ordinance, the City Attorney felt that there were sufficient changes in the required criteria that the City could allow this property owner to re-apply for a Tree Removal Permit. • Stated that when staff looked at the criteria under the new Tree Ordinance, it was determined that most of the required criteria could not be met in order to support approval of this request. • Said that the City's Arborist reviewed this tree and submitted a report in which options were offered for dealing with the repaving of the driveway, which has been greatly damaged by the tree's root system. One option would be to use standard base course material and the other would be to use structural soil mix, which allows the roots to go down deeper. Either option would work. Option 1 would last about 10 years and Option 2 would last about 15 to 20 years. Commissioner Schallop asked if staff is surprised by the different assessment offered by the City's Arborist and the report provided by the property owner's Arborist. • Director Tom Sullivan replied no. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Schallop asked if the property owner could be required to provide a replacement tree if this one were to be removed. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Commission could do so. Commissioner Rodgers asked staff if the goal to preserve and protect is the starting point of the Tree Ordinance. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that seven of nine criteria could not be met and wondered how many must be met in order to approve such a request. Director Tom Sullivan replied that the Tree Ordinance does not set a minimum number of criteria that must be met in order to support an application to remove a tree. Commissioner Schallop asked if the same criteria are considered when removing a tree for new construction. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. He added that it could be suggested that a proposed structure be relocated on a site to preserve a tree instead of removing it. Commissioner Rodgers asked whether the age and number of trees on a property are taken into account and whether a removal might be approved if there was overcrowding of trees. Director Tom Sullivan answered that if there are sufficient trees so that the removal of one would not severely impact the property it could be a basis for approval. He added that this property has two large Redwoods in the front yard, one at the mid point and the second at the street, adjacent to the driveway. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mrs. Gunde Duvall, Appellant and Property Owner, 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has owned this property since 1968 and is proud to live in this beautiful City. • Explained that this large tree is located right next to the driveway and is on top of sewer and gas lines. • Said that she understands the importance of trees and loves trees as much as anyone else. • Informed that she worked for years in the fields of property management and real estate. • Reminded that the City had originally given permission for the removal of this tree but that her neighbor, Mr. Tom Corson, appealed that decision. • Pointed out letters from PG&E and Valley Concrete and advised that she could lose her insurance coverage for this property as a result of potential hazards as a result of this tree. • Said that the tree's roots are beneath the driveway and must be removed as it is causing a risk of having people fall and get hurt. • Stated her hope that the City could give her the answer she needs before anything happens. • Asked for the Commission's help with this. Commissioner Uhl asked Ms. Gunde Duvall if she has any documentation from her insurer to support her concerns about loss of insurance coverage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 5 Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied no but said that there is a good chance that they will cancel. Commissioner Nagpal asked if her insurance company is aware of this situation. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied that her agent is aware but the main office is not. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist is present this evening. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied that the Arborist is out of town for 10 days. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist had reviewed the recommendations of the City's Arborist. Mrs. Gunde Duvall said that many different people she consulted advised her that taking this tree out is the only solution. Commissioner Hunter asked Mrs. Gunde Duvall if her Arborist saw the two options outlined in the City Arborist's report. Mrs. Gunde Duvall reported that the crack in her driveway continues to grown larger. Commissioner Nagpal stated that the City Arborist's report states the belief that some roots can be removed without causing mortality of this tree. Did Chris Hall, her Arborist, see that report. Mrs. Gunde Duvall replied no. Chair Garakani pointed out that Chris Hall wrote his report just three days ago. Miss. Elizabeth Mercado, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that she is six years old and would feel bad if this tree got cut down. • Presented her drawing of the tree to the Commission. Ms. Mary McGuire, 18336 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Declared the fundament issue being that this tree impacts the entire neighborhood. • Stated that it is a beautiful tree and a landmark and that she would like to see it preserved. • Pointed out that the gas pipe is only atwo-inch pipe. • Cautioned that a petition that will be turned in was presented to people for signature without telling them the facts. She was able to explain the other side to one person who had signed it. • Asked for help in keeping this neighborhood beautiful. Chair Garakani welcomed the next speaker and advised those in attendance that Ms. Lisa Kurasch worked on the updated Tree Ordinance as well as having served on the Planning Commission. Ms. Lisa Kurasch, 18665 Ravenwood Drive, Saratoga: • Said it was nice to see the Commission this evening. • Urged the Commission to take staff's recommendation seriously as this is an issue of properly using and interpreting the new Tree Ordinance. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 6 • Stated that this application is for a new driveway and does not represent a safety problem, adding that she has sufficient confidence in City staff that if this were a safety issue, they would have information to that effect. • Took issue with the fact that the nine criteria cannot be met in order to support the removal of this tree. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Lisa Kurasch if she has seen this driveway. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied yes. • Added that there are alternative methods available for installing a new driveway on this property. • Recommended that staff's decision be looked at seriously and upheld. • Suggested that perhaps the gas main could be moved. • Expressed her pleasure that the new Ordinance is coming up for a test here. • Reminded that this is a 161-inch circumference tree, a landmark tree. Chair Garakani: • Asked how Ms. Lisa Kurasch would look at this request if there were danger involved. • Reminded that the property owner is concerned. She is willing to pay to fix the situation but not for the potential consequences if someone were to be injured on the property as a result of the current conditions. • Asked how Mrs. Gunde Duvall can be assured that if this tree falls, it is not her fault. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied that there are no guarantees anywhere. • Reminded that the required criteria to support removal have not been met and that there are alternatives to removal of this tree. • Said that more information in support of the stated safety concerns raised are needed. Commissioner Schallop asked Ms. Lisa Kurasch about the equivalent value in replacement trees being required to allow the removal of this tree. Ms. Lisa Kurasch: • Replied that the tree is valuable to the community and would be difficult to replace. • Said that the context needs to be considered. This is an exceptional tree. People value this tree. Commissioner Uhl asked about moving the gas line. Director Tom Sullivan said that this is PG&E's gas main line for this neighborhood but it would be physically possible to relocate it. Mr. Jim Dillinger, 18326 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that a lot of people are present and there is a big concern in dealing with feelings and emotions of one side of the issue versus the other. • Pointed out that this property owner is trying to alleviate a problem and that the main issue is not the driveway. • Said that this tree's roots are branching off in every direction. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 7 • Reported that the Arborist drilled only in one area when evaluating this tree. • Said that Mrs. Gunde Duvall is not just concerned with fixing the driveway. The damage caused by the roots of this tree are impeding the water flow down the street. Water stays puddled with no place to go. The curb is damaged. Who pays to fix it. • Stated that no one is protecting Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Advised that the yard is a mess with roots above grade. • Pointed out that the solutions offered by the City's Arborist provides a 15 to 21 year solution for Option 1 and a 20 to 25 year solution for Option 2. Therefore, he believes that someone else will have to deal with this issue again in 15 to 20 years. • Stated that this is a street issue and a yard issue. It is the City's mandate to protect the citizens of Saratoga. • Said that the top half of this tree is almost baron. It is stressed per one Arborist's report. • Pointed out that the only one who gets some shade from this tree is Mr. Tom Corson and he has three other trees in the area providing him with sufficient shade. • Stated that this is not a heritage tree as it was planted about 45 years ago by a homeowner. • Declared that the big question for staff is what changed in the criteria whereby they could approve a removal of this tree a year ago but could not support the same request now. He read some of the criteria from the previous staff-approved Tree Removal Permit. At that time, the City wanted this tree out and only changed its position when others complained. • Stated that Mrs. Gunde Duvall is asking for your help not for any type of monetary gain but simply because this tree is a hazard. Commissioner Nagpal asked whether PG&E's letter outlines potential damage to the gas main by this tree. Mr. Jim Dillinger: • Replied no. • Elaborated by adding that this two-inch gas pipe is located directly beneath this tree. • Cautioned that with 30 years in fire service, he warns that no one wants to see a natural gas fire. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this gas main is impaired. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no. As of this moment it is not impaired. However, the potential problem is of concern. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this tree is the same age as the house. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied no, the house is slightly older. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Dillinger how long he has resided on this property. Mr. Jim Dillinger replied approximately 13 months. The situation is twice as bad as when he first moved in. He added that he moved onto the property with the understanding that the tree would be removed and the driveway replaced. Right now, he cannot use this driveway. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that preventative steps could have been taken in years past and asked why they did not occur. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 8 Mr. Jim Dillinger: • Explained that Mrs. Gunde Duvall had applied for and received a Tree Removal Permit but it was overturned upon appeal. • Added that since that time, he put barrier tape up and parks his truck over a crack to prevent anyone from tripping over it. • Said that Mrs. Gunde Duvall wants to deal with the entire problem, the potential impacts on the gas main, the water runoff issue and the uneven grade in the front yard. Mr. Mo Tajik, 18312 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Identified his property as being across the street. • Agreed that when it rains the water puddle sits there. • Said that he loves trees. This one is beautiful and he looks at it every day. • Expressed his opinion that the potential hazard supercedes the beauty of this tree. • Stated that the removal of this tree would not take away from the beauty of this street as there is another lovely Redwood tree located close by on this property. Chair Garakani questioned whether the roots of that second Redwood tree might not be compromised should this tree's roots be dug out after it is cut down. Mr. Mo Tajik replied that this second tree is further from the street and curb. Mr. Julio Bermudez, 18360 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Explained that the reason he bought a home in this area is because it is beautiful and picturesque. • Said that it is unfortunate that this tree was planted in this particular location. • Stated that this tree creates a potential City liability if someone should trip and become injured. • Said that there are a couple of good options. Chair Garakani said that he too is concerned about liability. Mr. Wayne Garrahan, 18422 Clemson Avenue, Saratoga: • Asked staff for a definition of a heritage tree. Director Tom Sullivan said a tree is designated as being a heritage tree by the City Council. This is not a heritage tree. The Heritage Preservation Commission reviews trees under consideration for heritage tree status and than forwards a recommendation on to Council. Council can so designates a tree as being a heritage tree. Mr. Wayne Garrahan: • Identified himself as the Vice President of the neighborhood Homeowner's Association. • Stated that it was a big mistake to plant this tree in this poor location. • Said that there are two large trees on this property and that this one is creating problems including standing water, where mosquitoes can breed, and tripping hazards. • Declared his love of trees too. • Cautioned that he is loath to plant any new trees on his own property for fear that he would be prevented from removing it in the future should the tree become a problem. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 9 • Suggested that this tree be looked at and that the Commissioners put themselves in the shoes of this property owner and come up with a reasonable solution. • Stated that if there were 10 Arborist reports, there would be 10 different recommendations. • Described his experience when living in Campbell whereby one large tree on a neighboring property lost two large limbs, one of which fell onto his house while the second just missed the gas main. • Said he understands the emotional appeals for the retention of this tree but that the property owner has offered a replacement tree. • Appealed to the Commission to use good sense. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Wayne Garrahan if his comments represent the HOA or his own views. Mr. Wayne Garrahan said that he is representing himself as a local homeowner. Ms. Doris Livezey, 1107 Little Oak Circle, San Jose: • Said that she resides in San Jose and is a representative of Our City Forest. • Stated that trees are a wise investment for the community. • Agreed that this driveway is an atrocious sight but that it can be properly corrected without removal of this tree. • Agreed that this tree was planted in a poor location. • Said that trees are beneficial, offering cooling, sound attenuation and habitat for birds and squirrels. • Suggested that this tree can be saved. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Doris Livezey if the pruning of roots for this tree would create a stability issue for the tree. Ms. Doris Livezey replied that a large portion of this tree's roots are under the driveway. However, if done properly, there would not be a stability issue for this tree. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Doris Livezey if she is an Arborist. Ms. Doris Livezey replied no. Chair Garakani pondered whether an Arborist would provide liability for their work. Ms. Doris Livezey commended the City for its Tree Ordinance. Commissioner Hunter asked Ms. Doris Livezey if the Coastal Redwood is native to the area. Ms. Doris Livezey said she did not know. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Coastal Redwood has a very large taproot and is one of the least likely species to come down. Ms. Doris Livezey agrees that it has one of the deepest taproots around. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 10 Mr. Larry Clark, 1217 Autumnsong Way, San Jose: • Identified himself as a friend to Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Said that this tree was located without any foresight about how large it would grow. • Suggested that the bottom line here is liability. • Advised that he used to work for Valley Concrete and gave an anecdotal account of seeing a tree fall over after having had its roots removal and even though the process had been supervised by the City of San Jose's own Arborist. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark what species of tree that was. Mr. Larry Clark said he was not sure but that it was an older tree. Commissioner Rodgers wondered about the qualifications of the supervising Arborist in that situation. Mr. Larry Clark reminded that it was the City of San Jose's own Arborist. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the age of the tree has been verified and how long the driveway has been in this condition. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark if he pours concrete driveways. Mr. Larry Clark replied that he used to. Commissioner Rodgers asked Mr. Larry Clark for the general depth of a driveway. Mr. Larry Clark said that it ranges between five and five-and-a-half inches in depth with base rock and a four-and-a-half inch slab. Mr. Richard Williams, 18396 Purdue Avenue, Saratoga: • Said he is present to speak on behalf of this property owner, Mrs. Gunde Duvall. • Stated that this situation is unfair to the tenant on this property and to the property owner. • Suggested that someone look at both reports. • Pointed out that atwo-inch gas line can do a great damage to the general area. • Informed that the driveway is unusable right now. • Stated that this is a fairness issue. Mr. Chris Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said that this issue should not be about a few neighbors but the whole neighborhood, using good use and common sense. • Stated that this tree continues to cause damage and any steps recommended only offer a temporary solution. • Declared that this tree was improperly located on this property and that its roots must be damaging the utilities beneath it. • Suggested the benefits of having the City foster an environment whereby trees are evaluated for their appropriateness prior to planting. • Said he was concerned about the opposition to this request as having self-interests as opposed to this owner's interests. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 11 Ms. Georgeann Wiles, 18363 Purdue Drive, Sazatoga: • Said that trees aze needed to provide photosynthesis and aesthetic appeal. • Questioned what assurances could be offered that there is a long-term solution available. • Stated that there is life-threatening damage that has occurred. • Wondered who would be willing to assume the liability if Mrs. Gunde Duvall cannot get insurance for her property. • Said that if the City has any liability, that means she personally does too as a taxpayer. Commissioner Nagpal asked Ms. Georgeann Wiles where Purdue is in relation to this property. Ms. Georgeann Wiles replied that her street is the second street from the north. Ms. Emma Wyckoff, 18660 Paseo Lado, Saratoga: • Stated that during the last public hearing on this particulaz tree, she spoke before the Commission. • Said that she has planted 16 trees on her own property. • Pointed out that many mature evergreen trees have just disappeared in the neighborhood as well as the canopy of a large magnolia. • Expressed concern over the declining number of trees in the neighborhood. • Suggested that the City coach homeowners on how to best locate trees on a site. • Said that if there is a way to save this tree, to go with that path. • Agreed that it is a tough call. • Pointed out that this particular homeowner owns several properties in the neighborhood and that some speakers may support her for that reason. However, she herself has no vested interest in this property. Ms. Angie Fredrick, 18377 Purdue Drive, Saratoga: • Said that she has lived in the area for 46 years and is a past school administrator and member of the Sazatoga Public Safety Commission. • Said that her prime concern is the safety of people and that a hazardous condition should not be retained. • Expressed her support for this property owner who should be allowed to remove this tree. Mr. Paul Moms, 18325 Vanderbilt Drive, Saratoga: • Expressed his support for this property owner. • Questioned if this tree stays, what is the plan for the street and curb repairs. • Said that roots on the street side would also probably have to be shaved back too. • Stated that he would like to see this property owner prevail. Ms. Elizabeth Lara, 18872 Devon Avenue, Sazatoga: • Informed that Commission that she resides within an adjacent subdivision but had the opportunity to grow up on this street, having spent her first 18 yeazs there. • Stated that this tree has been subject to 25 years of benign neglect. • Reminded that the original application last year was for the removal of both of these Redwood trees. • Gave a list of reasons to retain trees as well as identified a list of organizations devoted to the preservation of trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 12 • Said that we need to find a way to co-exist with these mature trees and that liability is not a valid argument here. • Said that she lived for 10 yeazs among the Redwoods in Santa Cruz and that they don't just fall down. • Pointed out that the Arborist says this tree is stable. • Said that she spoke with PG&E and was told that a gas line is easy to move. • Provided photographs of neighborhood trees. • Asked the Commission to review its options and consider extending the life of this tree. Chair Garakani asked whether Ms. Lara would be willing to help this property owner with the liability. Ms. Elizabeth Lara countered that this owner has neglected the tree. Commissioner Nagpal stated that this is the wrong location for this tree and asked Ms. Elizabeth Lara what species of tree she would plant there. Ms. Elizabeth Laza said she would defer this question to her father, standing beside her this evening. Mr. Olegario G. Lara, 18324 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Stated that nothing could replace this tree. Ms. Elizabeth Laza: • Advised that her father is 83 years old and has lived in Saratoga for 60 years. • Added that another neighbor, Mr. Tajik, removed six trees illegally. • Stated that a tree is a living thing and that a neighborhood without trees is a dead neighborhood. Mr. Tom Corson, 18337 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he previously submitted a letter. • Questioned being chazged by a previous speaker with having ulterior motives. • Advised that legal issues have come up and that the local homeowners association has been disbanded by the Superior Court. • Opined that Mr. Dillinger has nothing invested in this neighborhood. • Said that this issue was previously reviewed and that there aze no new facts here. • Said that the biggest issue is the gas main and that this is a real slippery slope that could be precedent setting. • Said it would be wrong to overturn this action since the Planning Commission previously determined that this tree must stay. • Added that the updated Tree Ordinance is supposed to protect trees and that this tree deserves protection. Mr. Ivan Burnett, 18468 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga: • Said that he has been in the azea for 42 years and has seen a lot of changes in the azea. • Said that he himself lost four or five trees. • Reported that most of the soil is adobe, which does not allow roots to go down through that. All of the roots of this tree are way up high. • Said that if these roots are cut, there would not be enough left to hold this tree up. • Argued that cutting its roots off cannot repair this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 13 • Added that the issue of puddled water is that it breeds mosquitoes. • Stated that no one can park in this driveway as it is too dangerous. Mr. Jim Dillinger, speaking in rebuttal for property owner Mrs. Gunde Duvall: • Stated that the support for Mrs. Gunde Duvall is ten to one. • Rebutted Mr. Corson's charge that he is just passing through. • Said that maybe he won't stay in this house forever, but he is here in the community to stay, having moved here from Oregon. • Added that attacking an individual has nothing to do with this issue. • Asked the Commission to please look at the liability. • Assured that no Arborist would be willing to assume the liability for what may or may not happy following their cutting of a tree's roots. • Thanked the Commission for doing this hard job. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Hunter: • Implored the audience to not let this tree divide a neighborhood. • Said that so many of them have lived there for so many years. • Agreed that this is a difficult discussion and the Commission made it last summer. • Pointed out that she has a standing water issue on her own property. • Thanked the representative from Our Urban Forest for attending this meeting. • Said that the loss of trees will affect all of us. • Stated that everyone has some level of liability. • Suggested that pervious pavers are an alternative for the driveway. • Said that this is a beautiful tree that looks healthy. • Advised that she will support staff's recommendation since the City has awell-qualified Arborist and his recommendations were clear. • Added that people are much smarter now about trees and taking care of them. Commissioner Schallop suggested focusing on the criteria rather than the competing experts. Asked if a safety issue was raised in the PG&E letter. Director Tom Sullivan reported that since the last Planning Commission action lots of discussion has occurred regarding the issue of the gas main between himself, PG&E and Mrs. Gunde Duvall. The gas main can be moved if it is a concern. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that this is a tough situation. • Pointed out that the City's goal is to preserve its trees. Trees are assets and not liabilities while driveways are liabilities and not assets. • Stated his desire for a stronger argument that all possible efforts have been made to preserve this tree and his belief that not all of the possible efforts have been taken. • Said that due to the need to preserve trees, he is supporting the City staff recommendation to deny this request to remove this tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 14 Chair Garakani said that if roots are cut on two sides of this tree, the driveway side and the street side, he questions whether this tree could survive. Expressed concern for the potential for danger. Commissioner Uhl said that this owner could have taken every effort to preserve this tree. Reported that he personally had to cut a portion off of his own roof to accommodate a large Oak tree that is growing right next to his house. Commissioner Nagpal: • Pointed out that the Arborist recommends cutting back the roots only on the driveway side. It does not need to be done on the street side as the Arborist did not review that option. • Suggested the need for a more detailed technical review. Commissioner Rodgers said that the applicant needs to remove the roots to fix the driveway that is in appalling condition. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that on Bohlman Road ditching was done on both sides of a row of trees. These trees remain in great shape today. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that the Arborist's solutions are 10 to 20 year solutions and suggested sending this back for further review. Commissioner Hunter asked whether the street would be resurfaced as a way to address its current condition. Director Tom Sullivan said that the existing rolled curb could be removed. . Commissioner Schallop asked if a replacement tree of equal value is a viable option. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the Tree Ordinance calls for protecting Coastal Redwoods when possible. She added that it would be difficult for a new tree to become established in this type of soil. Commissioner Nagpal expressed concern that nothing has been done in an attempt to deal with this situation over the last year. Chair Garakani reminded that the remedy for this property owner was to cut down this tree. Mrs. Duvall is worried that this tree could fall. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the City of Sunnyvale makes it a practice to pull up concrete and look below. Perhaps that step should be required of this driveway to better assess the situation. Commissioner Uhl supported that idea, saying that the Commission does not have a complete idea of all options available. Commissioner Nagpal said that even if they are not able to save this tree, at least all efforts would have been attempted. Pointed out that tonight's is a completely new hearing. Agreed that this tree was planted in the wrong location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 15 Chair Garakani stated that this driveway is a liability and it should be totally removed. Director Tom Sullivan: • Reminded that per the Arborist's report the roots can be removed from beneath the driveway without mortality of this tree. • Reiterated that with the change in criteria under the recently adopted Tree Ordinance, staff changed its position from last year as now there are alternatives to removal. Chair Garakani reminded that the root removal is recommended for the driveway side only while there are root problems from every direction. Director Tom Sullivan said should the Commission elect to continue action on this item to the next meeting, staff will need specific direction on what additional information is desired. Commissioner Schallop supported the idea of coming to a decision this evening with the applicant having the option to appeal to Council. Stated that soliciting more reports would simply equal a battle of the experts. Commissioner Hunter said that with the removal of the one Redwood tree by the driveway, there is also the potential for the second nearby Redwood to be compromised. Commissioner Rodgers stated that there are acceptable methods of repairing this driveway per the Arborist and pointed out that the applicant's Arborist's report is not as detailed as the City's. Commissioner Uhl pointed out that this owner could appeal a denial to Council. However, the owner needs to demonstrate that she has done everything possible to preserve this tree. Chair Garakani: • Questioned the wisdom of sending something to Council if the Planning Commission can work to solve this situation. • Stated that he is here to make sure the City of Saratoga's residents are best served. • Advised that he looks at this situation from a perspective of what would he want to do if this tree were in his yard. • Said that he came to serve on the Commission due to the issue of trees. • Suggested that more data be provided to allow the Commission to make a decision. Commissioner Schallop reminded that staff would require more specific direction on what is required. Commissioner Hunter asked if anyone has a motion. Commissioner Uhl said that it would be important to establish a replacement value in the event that this tree cannot be saved. He said he wants to see along-term solution and not just a 10-year solution. Commissioner Nagpal asked what the Arborist and staff should be instructed to provide. Commissioner Hunter cautioned that it is extremely expensive to send the Arborist out and that it costs approximately $2,500 to remove a tree of this size. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 16 Commissioner Nagpal said that information that is important is which roots could be trimmed while retaining the tree's stability. Commissioner Hunter suggested that the existing driveway be pulled up so that the Arborist could reassess the situation. Director Tom Sullivan advise that there would be a lot of expense for the property owner without knowing what the Planning Commission and/or Council is going to do. Commissioner Uhl said he would like more facts for the Planning Commission to consider at the next meeting or to send this matter on to Council with a denial and let the Council make the decision. Chair Garakani said that more facts are needed. Commissioner Rodgers asked what type of information. Chair Garakani said whether the roots in the other directions must also be removed. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission voted on whether to accept staff s recommendation to DENY an Appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140) to allow the removal of a 161-inch Redwood tree on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hunter, Rodgers and Uhl NOES: Garakani, Nagpal and Schallop ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None The motion failed to reach a majority and an amended motion was made: Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Uhl, seconded by Commissioner Schallop, the Planning Commission CONTINUED consideration of the Appeal of an Administrative Decision, denying a Tree Removal Permit (Application #03-140) to allow the removal of a 161-inch Redwood tree on property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive, to the next regular meeting on Apri128, 2004, with the request that the City staff pursue additional information: 1. Longer term solutions for the condition of the driveway in order to support retention of the tree; 2. Establishment of a replacement value if the tree is to be removed, 3. Evaluation of whether the removal of one tree will jeopardize the viability of the second nearby Redwood tree and 4. Establishment of a compliance schedule and timeline, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 17 PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.2 **~x APPLICATION #04-042 (386-41-040) Appellant CHIN, Applicant KENIGSBERG, 20067 Karn Circle: Appeal of an Administrative Design Review Application, which proposes to construct a 225 square foot ground floor addition and a 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square foot two-story home at 20067 Karn Circle. The property is 13,120 square feet and is zoned R-1- 12,500. Appellant Chin, owner of an adjacent property, has filed an appeal of this application pursuant to Municipal Code Section 15-45.065(c) after receiving a "Notice of Intent to Approve." (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that a Notice of Intent to Approve was mailed to the owners within 250 feet of 20067 Karn Circle on February 19a'. • Stated that a neighbor appealed this action based upon privacy impact concerns. • Said that staff had required the applicant to use an obscured glass on the proposed new bay window for the remodeled master bathroom to eliminate privacy impacts from that window onto the neighbor's property, however, the appellant was not satisfied that this would eliminate the impacts on his property. • Advised that staff visited the neighbor's property and finds that there is sufficient landscape buffering in place between the two properties. There are no unreasonable impacts on the privacy of the neighbors and this project meets all required findings. • Informed that a letter of support was provided by the Greenbrier Homeowners Association for this remodel and addition. • Recommended that the Commission adopt a Resolution denying this appeal and approving Application #04-042 with conditions. • Reminded that the Commission's action is final. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Mr. Paul and Elaine Chin, Appellants, 20052 Seagull Way, Saratoga: • Thanked the Commission for its time and visit to his property. • Said he is a former director of the Greenbrier Homeowners Association. • Expressed concern over the massiveness of an imposing structure invading open air space and creating a negative and crowded feeling equaling visual pollution. • Stated that this addition is too much, too close, too high and too near. • Said that this imposition of excessive bulk should not be imposed upon him. • Said that the separation between properties is a critical factor in establishing the flavor of a neighborhood. • Asked that the Commission help keep Saratoga, Saratoga. • Said that this project would have negative impacts on his home and neighborhood. • Worried that this addition would result in privacy issues, as the result of overlooking into his yard. • Suggested that the motivation for this addition is simply to enhance the sales price of this home. Commissioner Hunter advised the Chins that she went into the neighbor's master bedroom. These neighbors just want to enhance their master bath and closet, which is very tiny right now. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 18 Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that this is the master bath that is being extended. Mr. Paul Chin reiterated his concern that it's more, close and high. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Chins had looked out to their home from this one to see what the view would be. Mr. Paul Chin said that he feels guilty appealing this request but this is the proper way to object. He added that these are nice neighbors. Commissioner Rodgers complimented the Chins on their beautiful yard. Chair Garakani pointed out that the large Magnolia tree is already larger than this structure will be with the addition. Mr. Paul Chin explained that this tree was put in by a previous owner and is only partially effective as a screen. Chair Garakani said he tried and determined that it would take a real effort to see around this tree. Asked if the Chin's issue is the enjoyment and use of their yard. Mr. Paul Chin replied the use of both the yard and house, the overall ambiance. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that varied rooflines are proposed which offers better articulation of this house. Chair Garakani reiterated that this addition would not be visible from the Chin property as a result of the Magnolia tree and that the upstairs is an already existing condition of the neighbor's home. Asked Mr. Paul Chin what is upstairs in his home. Mr. Paul Chin replied the master bedroom and a study. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Chins are already looking at a two-story structure from their home and that a mature hedge is in place as well as another screening tree, a Yew. She added that the use of an obscured glass, fixed bay window instead of a functioning clear window would not affect privacy on the Chin property. Mr. Paul Chin said that he has resided on this property since 1990 and always sees their house. Commissioner Uhl asked Mr. Paul Chin if he could offer any suggestion for a compromise. Mr. Paul Chin replied he wanted no perception of bulk and therefore no addition to this neighbor's house. Commissioner Nagpal asked staff if the setback requirements have changed in the last 10 years. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 19 Planner Lata Vasudevan replied that about two years ago the Ordinance was amended regarding side yard setbacks for second stories, which extended the required setback. Will and Linda Kenigsberg, Applicants, 20067 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Advised that they had offered the Chins the opportunity to go over their proposed plans and to view their house from their second story but were unsuccessful in doing so. • Said that Mr. Chin told them he does not want any modifications to their home. • Informed the Commission that they ran their plans buy the other neighbors and obtained a letter of support from the Homeowners Association, which represents 159 of the 176 families. • Said that their home is the same model as the Chin home. It is a beautiful house but the master bath does not match the rest. They want a larger closet in their master bedroom and an exercise room downstairs. • Stated that they have resided in their home here since 1971 and plan to live there for the remainder of their lives. They have zero intentions of selling despite what Mr. Chin claims is their motivation. Their children will likely live there after them. • Rebutted the points made in the Chin's written statement. • Regarding the charge that this addition results in visual pollution, their home right now is a two- story with flat walls. Their new design offers more character and articulation and is fully within required setbacks and design guidelines. • Pointed out that they are adding about 370 square feet to the existing 2,900 square foot total. The second floor addition will be setback. The height of the extension will be lower than the maximum height of the house. • Regarding the Chin's charge of environmental pollution, he explained that at the time he and his wife purchased this home, they had the option to buy a larger model but elected not to. • In response to the issue of property values, they said that they cannot understand that argument by the Chins. As the value of this home improves, so does the value of their home. Their neighbors will not suffer by their improving this home. • Stated that the Commissioners looked through their bathroom window and could see that no view is available into the Chin yard as a result of the magnolia tree. With this modification, only one window will face the Chin house and it will be obscured glass on a fixed window. There will be less opportunity than there is currently with the existing operating window. Ms. Linda Kenigsberg: • Said that they retained an architect to design their addition and he did an excellent job. His design will add beauty to the home and neighborhood. Mr. Will Kenigsberg added that they wanted an aesthetically pleasing addition to their home that did not look like an add on. Commissioner Nagpal thanked the Kenigsbergs for allow the Commissioners to go upstairs and see the view from their upstairs window overlooking the Chin property. Mr. Tim Evjenth, 20068 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Stated that he has been a broker for 32 years and is a neighbor. • • Said that he too owns the same floor plan and has lived one year in this neighborhood. • Advised that any addition on this home adds value to the neighborhood and that no other neighbors are concerned about this proposed addition. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 20 • Added that if he could, he would do the same but does not have the necessary setbacks Ms. Marylee Hoiness, 20031 Karn Circle, Saratoga: • Identified herself as a representative and former president of the Greenbrier Homeowners and Taxpayers Association. • Stated that this proposal was discussed by the HOA this past week. • Advised that as there is no Variance required or any view impediments, there is no reason not to support this application. Mr. Paul Chin thanked his neighbors for their excellent points and stated his chief concern being the perception of bulk, explaining that his is the only house impacted. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that there is good screening on site and a fair amount of articulation with this addition. • Agreed with the staff report and recommendation to deny this appeal. Commissioner Hunter: • Agreed. • Said that since 1971, things have changed and people expect to have a lovely master bath today. • Supported the denial of this appeal as this is a legitimate addition with good screening provided and therefore no problem. Commissioner Rodgers: • Also agreed. • Suggested that the view of this home from the Chin property will actually be better. • Stated that the second layer of setbacks does not create any impact. • Pointed out that there is a magnificent screening magnolia. • Stated her intent to vote with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Uhl: • Said that compromise is usually sought. • Stated that everything possible has been done to minimize bulk, height and size of this addition and equals a good compromise. • Expressed his support. Commissioner Schallop also agreed. Chair Garakani: • Said that he does not like bulk and mass himself but with sufficient screening and articulation this project can be supported. • Stated that staff looked at this proposal very carefully and he would be supporting the staff recommendation for approval of this addition. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal. seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission denied an Appeal of an Administration Design Review Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 21 approval (Application #04-042) to allow a 225 square foot ground floor addition and 167 square foot second story addition to an existing 2,900 square foot two-story home at 20067 Karn Circle, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: None Director Tom Sullivan advised that this is a final action on the part of the City. The only recourse for the Chins would be to file a civil action within 90 days with the Superior Court. *** PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM N0.3 APPLICATION #04-014 (397-13-047) HURRAY, 14330 Chester Avenue: The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a new .steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single story residence. Both the additions and the new roof will be greater than 18 feet in height; therefore the project requires Planning Commission approval. The maximum height of the proposed roof and additions is 22.5 feet. The proposed residence including garage will be 5,482 square feet. Materials and colors include a beige stucco exterior and brown the roof. The gross lot size is 42,776 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000 (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Commissioner Nagpal advised that she resides within noticing distance and will have to recuse herself • from this item. She left the dais to sit in the audience. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for aone-story addition with a new steeper roof pitch that is greater than 18 feet in some areas, which requires Planning Commission approval. • Provided a technical correction to the staff report whereby the maximum height is 22.5 feet. • Described the house as approximately 5,300 square feet and using pale yellow stucco and a slate roof. The trees on site would be retained. The lot is 41,000 square feet and located within an R-1- 40,000 Zoning District. • Stated that staff is supportive of this application and is recommending approval. Chair Hunter sought clarification that the higher roof is on the main part of the house and the additions would have shorter roofs. Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Scott Cunningham, Applicant's Representative: • Stated that the steeper pitch is sought to achieve the Province/Normandy style of architecture desired by the property owners. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 22 Commissioner Hunter said that she has no problem. This is a nice design that is well done and she is supportive. Chair Garakani said that this addition will match the area and will look better with these additions. The design looks good. Commissioner Rodgers said that the only concern was the removal of impervious materials beneath Trees 8 and 9. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter. seconded by Commissioner Uhl, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #04-014) to construct a new steeper roof and one-story additions to an existing single-story residence at 14330 Chester Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Rodgers, Schallop and Uhl NOES: None ABSENT: Zutshi ABSTAIN: Nagpal *** Commissioner Nagpal returned to the dais following the conclusion of Public Hearing Item No. 3. DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Director Tom Sullivan asked Chair Garakani to stop by the office to sign the Resolution for Item No. 2 in order to start the clock on the 90-day time frame during which any Court action would have to be filed. COMMISSION ITEMS Commissioner Hunter advised that she attended the Heritage Preservation Commission and that there are two new members of that Commission with one vacancy to be unfilled until October. Commissioner Nagpal expressed appreciation to Commissioner Hunter for her leadership as Chair over the past year. Chair Garakani congratulated Commissioner Rodgers for her marvelous job done tonight at her first meeting as a Commissioner. COMMUNICATIONS Verbal Staff reminded that the City is currently advertising for volunteers for a Citizen Advisory Commission for a General Plan Land Use Element Update. It is anticipated that the committee will meet over atwo- year period with monthly or bi-monthly meetings. Interested persons should contact the Planning Department for more information. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of April 14, 2004 Page 23 Written Letter from Vini Sarup regarding neighbor's fence color: Commissioner Hunter asked whether the Commission should consider an Ordinance to regulate the color of houses and fences on the Hillside. Director Tom Sullivan said that if a color is approved under a Design Review Approval, the owner must obtain an amendment in order to change the approved colors. However this home did not go through a Design Review process. Additionally, there are no regulations about fence colors. Size, materials, height and setbacks are covered by Ordinance as well as how much fence enclosed area is allowed in Hillside Zoning Districts. There is nothing on colors. Asked if the Commission feels that such a regulation should be developed. Commissioner Rodgers asked how this would be implemented. Director Tom Sullivan said that an amortization schedule could be set up, however, this could create a huge Code Enforcement issue for the City. Commissioner Schallop suggested that it be limited to homes on the Hillsides that are visible from the valley. Commissioner Uhl questioned whether other cities have such rules. Commissioner Schallop suggested establishing benchmark communities. Mr. Vini Sarup, 12906 Pierce Road, Saratoga: • Advised that he had discussed his neighbor's pink fence with him and the neighbor later painted his house trim and garage door the same pink as the fence. Chair Garakani suggested this issue be added to a future agenda. Director Tom Sullivan advised that it would be a while before it comes up. Chair Garakani reminded that he wanted to include the issue of security cameras, which he talked over with Council. They suggested that this issue also be agendized for the Commission in the future. AD TOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 10:47 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk • • • • ITEM 1 • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #04-050 Location: 18325 Swathmore Drive Applicant/Owner: DWALL Type of Application: Continued Appeal of a Tree Removal P 't Denial Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Developme ec ~ Date: Apri128, 2004 APN: 403-27-049 C~ • i~ rrn ~. 18325 Swathmore Drive OOOdO~:` • PROJECT DESC~~ON to consider an appeal of a Staff ssion continued the hearing ,I.he planning Go~nission On Aprfi 12, 2003 the Planning Gommi Removal Permit to remove a large C oast beds °Od denial of a Tree re nested specific information to be provided by e tY q . Tree Inventory Table information . Suggested type of replacement trees od b the driveway negatively unPact the other existing Suggested location(s~e Redwo me y gees Will the removal of or root runingbe Redwood? ears and min P . Gan the raised curb bCl emwithout risk ~ he tree? the accomplished by t ~' to be provided by Commission requested specific >r~o~an°n The Planning llant. ~,pplicant/ApP Timetable to accomplish removal and imprpVements. he requested infoTTnation is included in the attachments. T STAFF REGOMMENDp-TION ~ ~~ findings by adopting the attached Resolution. Deny the ApPe A1`'fACHMENTS Arborist Report supplemental report 1. City hcant and letter f rom PG ~ E 2, Letter ~ S~ Report and Attachments 3. Ongin C~ • • Attachment 1 • 000003 ... sY;e"..k... "` ARBOR RESOURCES ,,. „ „ Prufussiounl Arhuricultural Currsulting ~tC Trec. Care • April 20, 2004 Mr. Tom Sullivan. Director Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: COAST REDWOOD at the Duvall Property 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga Dear Mr. Sullivan: t have received and reviewed your letter, dated April ] 5, 2004, regarding the Coast Redwood (Scc~uaiu xem~~ervirens) at. the above-referenced site. Information regarding tree size, condition tlnd monetary value is summarised on the attached Tree lnventoty Table. My responses to your questions arc presented below. Trcc Replacement(s) find that one tree of 48-inch box size would be an appropriate replacement sire to install in the hunt yard, at least 30 feet from the adjacent Coast Redwood and outside from beneath the canopy of the neighboring Chinese Flm ((Ilmr~,spart~ifolia). A suitable species includes Coast rive Oak ((}uerc~~s ai,~rifalia), Holly Oak (~r~c~rcu,~ ilex), Cork Oak (~i~trcrrs .~zihcr), Southern hive Oak (~)uc~rcus vir~iruana) or Red Oak (~~uc~rerrs a7iher), Impacts to the Adjacent Redwood The removal of the subject tree is not expected to adversely impact the adjacent Coast Redwood. To achieve this, the removal of roots between the trunks must be limited to those found within the two pronounced mounds immediately west and northwesrt of the subject tree's trunk, These areas should be marked prior to gy-inding. The stump and roots must be ground rather than pulled up using an excavator. tolled Curb and Gutter Replacement I believe the existing curb/gutter could be removed and replaced at any time without significantly impacting the tree. The site and amount of roots that would require pruning need to be verified once the hardscape is removed. Please note that the curb/gutter would be potentially subject to damage within 10 to 1.5 years following its reinstallation. Sincerely, ~~ David I... k3abby, CA Consulting Arborist Attachment: 'Tree lnventoty 'fable P,O, Box 25295, San Mateo, California 944(12 Email: arborresourccs;u~earthlink.ncl Phone: 6~U.G~4,335T • Fax; C~SO,G54,3352 • T.,icensed Contractor #796763 000004 Z00'd tiZ0~90 ~0/ZZ/~0 ZSEE ~S9 0S9 sa~.ino~~~y .loq,ly ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboric.ultural Consulti-fb• cYc Tree Care TREE INVENTORY TA~3L1; U -. R ~ P ~'? +n /1 V N 'J Cam) ~ v ~~ ~• ~ y C ~ v ~ F+, O I ~ ' '~ ~ o I b ` CJ ~ ~ ~ V ~ ~ f G 'FILM:H o ° y a, ~., Q '~ m ` ~ Ib " ` ._' ~ q ' eu ;: w ~' < N[) TREL•' NAME ~ ~ ~ ~ v ° ~ ° a i A ~ . ~ . O ~ ~ C.oatif ati.1 1 ~m I ao 175"/ I to~)~~ I Gaxl I - I xi~.~ocl RF.Pf.ACR1dRN9' TRAI+ V,11,lai~ • ] 5-gnllai - 5120 24-i~k:h box - 5420 ±ri-inch lw+x - 51 =2t1 ak-inch Mix - xS,IN10 52-itwh box • S7,<W0 72-i~x:h Iw.e ~TSI5,000 Si-e: 183.'5 SNnrfhmnre nrive, .Sa-atnRa Prr.~orrd firr; Cul' ~jSurru~~ga ('mm~ua'niN PrvrJupnu:nf /)rpartnun! /'repar~d bp. David !_ !lobbp. KC:A sm0•d dzm~s0 toiizit0 zsse tss oss ilpril20.:UU•1 000©OS sao.~nosaz{ .aoq,t~y • Attachment 2 • ~Q~o®~ Adelgunde Duvall 18372 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 379-4413 April 20, 2004 City Of Saratoga Mr. Tom Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: 18325 Swarthmore Coast Redwood Dear Mr. Sullivan, In your letter dated April 15, 2004, you stated that the Planning Commission requested a timetable for the tree removal and driveway repairs if permission of removal is granted. The timetable is subject to adverse weather conditions or any unforeseen issues and based on the contractors current work load: Remove & dispose of tree & roots, stump grinding, removal & disposal of existing driveway concrete, preparation of driveway base/form construction, to pour & finish the new driveway. Approximately 60-90 Days Be assured that it is my endeavor to complete this project as quickly as possible in order to remove the current unsafe conditions. Thank you for your consideration and time spent on this project. Sincerely, ~- . ~' w 'l~s%v'~ ~ ~ ~ ~ D U 6 A. Duvall AP U R 2 0 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA `~MIMITV nFVR1 n~~ • Hand delivered Time/Date O~U~~~ April 15, 2004 Mr. Thomas eorsor>r 18337 Swarthmore Drive, ~ ~ Saratoga, CA 96070 Dear Mr. Corson: My name is Yang Xiao, and l over9ee the gas distribution system in your neighborhood. I was referred by Mr. Gene t~owe t+D idMow upon your oonoems regar+dirig tfle redwood trees ~ your area. 1 would Ir7ce to address those concerns at this time. You inquired about the cost of rerouting our gas fadlRy around the. redwood. tree loaded at 18325 Swarthmore Dri~ie. The relocation will cost appro~amately $15,000, gnren the signific~rrt offset reyuaed to dear the tree roots. Flowever, PGB~E does not recommend rerouting at this time. Aphot~ it is riot a desired scenario tD haves ~chyood tree above our gas main ~n tt'tQ poterarlydl risk, d does rid pose an immediate hazard to the pubes Qur patrol records show no indication oi' the tree adFecting our gas line, and we viriil continue to monitor the sihmtion and take appropriate action should the conditions change. H you still wish to e~itiiate this relocation now, please contact me and we w~! prepar+e a detailed cost estimate and design. You also e~ressed corioems about a tree possibly impeding the gas one at your resider>ce, 18337 Swarthmore Drnre. Upon inspection, we have determined that there is r'la conflict between the tree on your property and our gas line gnren the adequate separation. Alffiiough the root structure may encroach on our faality, it should not present a potential r~k Rest assured PGBE wiN continue to moraitcx the irategrity ~ its fadlities and take appropriate acxion to ensure safe and reliable energy delivery to its uisbdrner5. • Y N~• Yang XiaO. t'E Gas Dion Engineer c: Ms. Gundy DuVaH ~ f~~C~~d~ lI U A ~R 2 1 2004 CITY OF SARATOGA ~`~MI INITV r1FVFt n~* • ~~ry0Q8 • Attachment 3 • ~.~~®~~ ITEM 1 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No.: #04-050 Location: 18325 Swathmore Drive Applicant/Owner: DtJVALL Type of Application: Appeal of a Tree Removal Permit Denial Staff Planner: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development Director Date: April 14, 2004 APN: 403-27-049 • • 1 rrn ~C/7T 18325 Swathmore Drive C 000010 • • PROJECT DESCRIPTION The appellant is requesting the Planning Commission reverse a Staff denial of a Tree Removal Permit application. The Appellant submitted a request to remove a mature Coast Redwood (161 inch circumference) on February 11, 2004. This request was reviewed in conjunction with the criteria found in Section 15-50.080 and was subsequently denied on February 20, 2004. The property owner submitted the appeal on March 2, 2004. 15-50.080 Determination on permit. (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal pruning or encroachment permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. The tree appears to be healthy. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. While the tree roots buckle the driveway there are acceptable methods of repairing the driveway without removing the tree. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. The topography is not an issue. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This tree and its companion in the front yard is a neighborhood landmark. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. There are other healthy and large trees on the property. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. There are alternative methods of repairing the driveway that do no require the removal. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The provisions of 15-50.010 of the Tree Regulations do not support the removal of the tree. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfaze and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. No other relevant information has been provided at the time of the preparation of this StaffReport. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. Arguably this criterion can be met. The Planning Commission previously denied a tree removal permit for this very same tree. The City Attorney has determined that a sufficient number of changes had been made to the Tree Regulations to allow a new application to be accepted for processing. d®U~~~ • • Staff denied the application for a Tree Removal Permit principally because there are alternative methods of repaving the driveway that do not require the removal of the tree. The attached Ciry Arborist Report supports this position. Mr. Babby has provided two alternatives for the applicant to consider using. Within the report the Ciry Arborist gives detailed instructions on how to implement either alternative. "(~nri~n nne (Standard Rase C'rnirse MarPrialsl This option involves using standard base material and would likely yield a 10- to 20-year compatibility with the tree's roots growing against and beneath surrounding hardscape. Overall, this option would require the least installation time and be the most cost- effective." "O Srn~ctLral Snit 1VIix_l This option involves using CU-Structural Soil as a base material. It would likely provide a longer range of compatibility (estimated at 15- to 25-years) but is more time consuming, costly and labor-intensive. It involves extracting and replacing soil around existing roots to a minimum two-foot depth so roots could grow away from the driveway surface, minimize uplift of the hardscape and achieve the required proctor density." STAFF RECOMMENDATION Deny the Appeal with findings by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. City Arborist Report 3. Tree Removal Permit Application 4. Correspondence from neighbors lJ 0®®©12 • • Attachment 1 • 0~~~$~ • • • RESOLUTION NO.04- CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of a Staff Denial of a Tree Removal Permit at 18325 Swathmore Drive; 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 appellant has not met the burden of proof required supporting said appeal, and the following findings have been determined: • The proposed removal of the mature Coast Redwood is not consistent with seven of the nine criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080 (Determination on Permit) of the Tree Regulations. Only criteria #5 and #9 could be met in the affirmative. NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: The Appeal of Staff denial of a Tree Removal Permit for a mature Coast Redwood located at 18325 Swathmore is hereby DENIED. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Ciry of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, April 14, 2004by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: Secretary to the Planning Corrunission ~OaOg4 L' Attachment 2 ©®®15 ~: ~ • .t~ . ~~ ~~ ,A-.R~~ RESaLi cEs R .. „. l'rufcssiunal Arhvriculnrral (:nnsa/tinR r4r Tree ('crrc npril S, 2004 Mr. Tom Sullivan, Director Community Development Department Clty Of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE; CU-STRUC'fllRA1. SOIL at the DuVali Property 18325 Swarthmore Drive, Saratoga Dear Mr. Sullivan: 1 have evaluated t1,e damaged driveway at above-referenced site to determine feasible options for its reinstallation while preserving the adjacent Coast Redwood (,Setluc~iu a~c~n~pNrvirerrs). ~ My observations reveal the existing driveway is substandard and highly vulnerable to shrink/swell and heaving by roofs. Beneath the surface, there appears to be a four-inch root and several smaller ones causing an estimated 90-percent of the visible damage. l believe these few roots could be removed without resulting in tree mortality or instability, provided the lawn and srtreet side roots remain viable. 't'his letter presents two options that would achieve a reasonably high assurance of tree survival and stability, one using standard base course materials and the other engineered struct~iral soil ntix. Recommendations are also provided for establishing a driveway setback, mitigating damage to the rolled curb/gutter located against the trunk's base, raising the lawn grade between the large surface roots, and providing supplemental water. Option One (Standard Base C'ottrse Materials) This option involves using standard base materials and would likely yield a 10- to 20-year compatibility with the tree's roots growing against and beneath surrounding hardscape. Overall, this option would require the least installation time and be the most cost-et~'ective. General guidelines t'or this option are ati follows; • Remove the existing driveway surface. Starting closest to the trunk, manually dig all soil to the required driveway grade, which should not exceed asix-inch depth beneath existing soil grade (the approximate grade of the lawn). • At 8 to l0 inches from the trunk's base, cleanly severe all roots within the top six-inch soil layer. The freshly cut ends of roots > 1-inch in diameter should be immediately wrapped in a plastic bag secured by a rubber band. • Compact the subgrade it' necessary. To help suppress future root growth for possibly a three- to four-year period, a root deterrent, such as Biobarrier°u, can be laid on the soil subgrade, A plastic barrier and/or l3iobarrier can also be placed vertically against the cut roc-ts. • install tl~e subbase materials and compact to the required levels. • lnstall a heavily reinforced driveway that is to code or stronger. P.A. Box 252')x. San M:~tco. (:alirorni:r ')4402 • F.mail, arborresourccs(ii,';carthlink.nct Phone: G5U.G54.335 t Fax: GSU.6j4.3352 • LiCCnscd C:onlriClor it79(i7G3 aaaa~s Z00' d CE0 ~ L0 t0/S0/b0 ZSE6 bS9 0S9 ae~.lno5e~y .~oq.iy ~'~ • •~ ARC RESOURCES .~ _ . Pro jessiona! Arhoricr~llrrral C.vnsrilrin~,~ c!i• 7'rccr (:are April 5, 2004 15325 Swarthmore Drive page 2 Option Two (Strt~cturat Soil Mix, This option involves using C:IJ-Structural Soil"+ as a base course material, It would likely provide a longer range of compatibility (estimated at 15 to 2S years) but is more time consuming, costly and labor-intensive. It involves extracting and replacing soil around existing roots to a minimum two-foot depth so roots could grow away from the driveway surface, minimize uplift ~f the hardscape, and aclticvc the required proctor density. General guidelines for this option arc as follows: • Following driveway removal, prune visible roots located immediately beneath the surface using the same guidelines specified for Option Une. • Extract soil beneath the entire driveway surface to a two-foot depth by manually digging or using a pneumatic air device. Roots % 2 inches in diameter must be retained during the process (excludes those visible immediately beneath the driveway surface). • Immediately after the roots are exposed, moistened burlap sacks should be laid on the exposed roots and remain continually rttoist until the soil mix is installed. The subgrade should not be compacted; however, the structural soil can be at t 9U%. The structural soil should be installed the ssme day it is delivered and must remain continually moist. The mix should be used beneath the entire driveway surface and will require beinK manually installed around roots that are retained. Equipment and/or vehicles should not travel over or park on exposed roots. General Recommendations These recommendations would apply to both options and arc as follows: • The new driveway should be designed at least 18 inches from the trunk's base. • The rolled curb and glitter should be modified to reflect a slight bow at toast six inches from the trunk's bese and should be reinforced within five feet of the trunk. Furthermore, the entire lengnh of the curb along the property should contain a lip that is t.wo inches higher than the existing lawn grade. • The "valleys" of the lawn can be Clled in using non-compacted soil or sand. F..quipment and/or vehicles must not travel over or park on unpaved soil. • Provide water to this tree two weeks before and two weeks after the project is performed, 1 suggest supplying approximately 350 gallons by deep-root injection: • The removal of all }tardscape should not damage the trunk or roots. All work should be performed under direction of an 1SA Certified Arborist. Sincerely," ~~~ v David L. Babby, CA Consulting Arborist P.O. Aox 25295. San Malco. California 94402 Email: arborresourccs~ir;carihlink.r-cl Pl~o~c: GSU.G54.33~1 . Frx: GSU,G~4.3352 • l.iccnscd Contr;rctor #79G7G3 X00017; . E00' d flEO ~ L0 b0/S0/~0 ZSEE ~S9 0S9 sao,anosaa ,ioq,iy • • • Attachment 3 ®'~~g8 .. . / ." ' Oate Received: !~ ~ ` O~T emovaUPruning Permit Ap ation Permit NoQ~~~~ Permit Cost : $25.00 Expiration Date: _ Property Owner: ~~ , ~ i,~. ~~~~ Phone:(hm)~40d~~ ~7A - 4y I.lwk) 3-1a - ~t-u 3 Mailing Address: I ~` 3 'T ~ 5~.~~v~i~'v>~.~,r~ ~'~`+ S~`t~~,~'~~-r ~ /~ ~1 ~ ~' 7 ~' , Address where tree(s) to be removed: I~'3 ~ '~ Svc~~Z~r'~1~v~+ E«u: ~fti S,~~li~~' • Nearest cross street: ~' Fiyv~,5~r-/t,. Company to remove tree(s) 1,~ ,Zti-;K.t...Fn%!,t%+~.tik~~ I understand that the tree(s) may be removed only if found to be with in the criteria as established by . Artic1e15-50.080 of the City code acid that by signing this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed is/are solely on my property. )n{ n //~ ey/y r~I ~ {ail ` l~A lJ LI~~^ ~ . Signature of Property Owner Tree Removal permits are required for the removal of the following trees: Native Trees with a DBH(diameter at breast height) of 6" or greater (19" in circumference measured 4 % feet above the ground). Other Trees with a DBH of 10" or greater( 31" in circumference measured 4 % feet above the ground). Any street tree (tree within a public street or right of way) regardless of size. )?lease c_. _tt ........, a., t.e ,.e..~nvPA in t1,P t~1,1P 1tPlnw 1JJ~ Yi1 wvv.a .v v. ~...- - -- --- --- SPECIES - ---- - - - SIZE REASON FOR REMOVAL n .~ v ~i~ ,-~_ ~ /~~, ' ~+ a~ Location of Trees ,,~-' Prepaze a small site plan the area below,showing all trees to be removed from the property; include dimensions from property lines and existing structures. ,~.~v~~- za ~'~~. FEES PAID: ~~ J~~ Q)~-~cYau~; RECEIPT NO: i~~~~ Tree Removal Permits will beheld for a period often days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code section 15-90.050(a) for any interested party to appeal the administrative decision to the Planning Commission. ~~~~19 • CITY OF SARATOGA• Tree Removal Permit # D ~ b 3 ~ Applicant: ~~ U~ '`-- Address Where Tree(s) Are To Be Removed l ~3 7 ~ ~/ _ ~ ~m wL To Be Completed By A Field Inspector This tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Code based on the following. Meets Criteria Does Not Meet Criteria The tree is DEAD ^ The Condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to the structures and interference with utility services. ^ ~]/ uy The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to i mprovements or impervious surfaces on the property. The topography of the land and the effect of the removal upon erosion, soil retention and th di i d fl vers e on or increase ow of surface waters. The number, species, size and location of the existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion t l d h l f con ro , an t e genera wel are in the area. The age and number of healthy trees on the property is able to support according to good forest practices. Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on a protected tree ^ Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose or intent of Article 15-50 ^ (~/ ~ J The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to th l ^ e remova . Conditions of Approval • Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. The City will re-inspect to ensure compliance with all conditions of approval. This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons: ~e, rl`~ ~l~J'~ ~..1 ~}-1v~C v~- PERMIT EXPIRA ION DATE: Signature of Inspector Date of Inspection 2~2{j ~G~ Effective Date of Permit ~~~~2~ • O ' ' 4 o ~~~~ 0 • • o~ ~ `~~ ~~ 13777 FRUITVALE AVENITF • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • (408) 868-1200 IncorporaxedOctober22, 156 COUNCILA9L•'MBF.I2S: ' Stan Bogosian Kathleen .King ' Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann Wa/tonsmith NOTICE OF APPLICATION FO~2 TREE REMOVAL Project Description The Homeowner is proposing to remove a tree(s) on the property at: ~3a ~ ~1iya yfyi i~o~ ~~ v~ - Type of tree(s) and location: Public Review Details of the tree removal permit are available at ~ the Community Development Department located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Thursday. All concerned parties will have ten days from the date on the bottom of this form /n which to review or appeal the application per Zoning Code Section 15-X15.065. We invite you to review and comment during this period. For more information please call 408.868.1240. i1 a Date Community Development Department ~~U~~ ., BP.BAK. RAISSI or Current Owner 18353 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ~-nEVIN J & BETTY HAYS or Current Owner 18395 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL G OCCHIPINTI • or Current Owner 18367 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 GERARDO A & NILDA RETAMOSO or Current Owner 18409 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DEAN O & DONNA HORNER or Current Owner , 18381 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 • RUDOLF & DIANA GUJER or Current Owner 18423 MCCOY AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JON M & MELODY GARLIEPP BUFFY&SPARACINO BAIL GARY & CARLA GELLMAN or Current Owner BONDS INC or Current Owner 18437 MCCOY AVE or Current Owner 18396 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 18408 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVE P & MICHELLE GULESSERIAN or Current Owner / 18348 S WARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 KARL CLEMONS or Current Owner 18349 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 MARY B & DANIEL MCGUIRE or Current Owner 18336 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 RYAN MARI.INGHAUS or Current Owner 18385 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 THOMAS W & THOMAS CORSON or Current Owner 18337 SWARTHMORE DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ~. • E-~~~22 • • • Attachment 4 • ~~~~~23 r •~ • • April, 5, 2004 To: Planning Commission City of Saratoga California Re: Redwood Tree at 18325 Swarthmore Dr. Dear Commissioners, My name is Karl Clemons, and with my wife Lynda Treat-Clemons, reside at 18349 Swarthmore Dr., two houses to the west of the redwood tree. We are unable to be present at the April 15 meeting because of previous business travel commitments. Thus, we are writing this letter to voice our opinion concerning the destruction of the above referenced redwood tree. As each of the Commissioners is aware, removal of this tree was denied last summer and only a change in the laws of Saratoga has allowed for the current appeal to be filed. We are not in favor of destroying this tree merely because of damage to a driveway. The tree provides a wonderful aesthetic value of an established neighborhood as well as ambiance. Removal of the tree downgrades both of these aspects in our neighborhood and moves our area one step closer to the appearance of an unestablished, poorly landscaped, tract development. Reasons to remove the tree have been presented as the damage to the driveway, exorbitant costs of driveway maintenance, and potential rupture of the natural gas utility running underneath the tree. We believe the owner should get additional estimates concerning driveway repair and maintenance, as well as seek the advice of professional arborists. With regard to the gas line, given the age of the line (ca. 40 years) and its placement, then all trees and hedges on the North side of Swarthmore Drive within 10 to 20 feet of the line should likely be removed as potential hazards or possible causes of a gas line rupture. For our own property this would include a 40 foot wide juniper hedge and a magnolia tree, neither of which would we like to see destroyed. We believe that a reversal of your previous ruling in this matter (denial of tree removal) to a vote allowing the tree to be removed sets a precedent of ignoring directives from the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga, which the property owner has done in this instance from the previous appeal. Namely, fix the driveway without damaging the tree, which has not been done to date. We do not dispute the need for the repair of the driveway and view it as an eyesore in the neighborhood as well as a serious safety hazard. On February 19, 2004 we sent an email to Mr. Tom Sullivan with a suggestion for a course of action. We believe this to be a very reasonable and logical suggestion. The text of this suggestion is quoted below. We are sure that Mr. Sullivan could provide you the full text of the email if need be. ~®~®~~ '. • ~ • "In addition, I would like to make a suggestion that could obviate any need to destroy the tree and may in fact save the owner money. It is obvious to all of us that the concrete driveway is severely cracked and presents a serious hazard for tripping and such. Were this my own property I would approach the situation as follows. I would have the old broken driveway concrete removed in order to determine what actually caused it to break. The current presumption is the tree's roots, but that has yet to be proven by anyone. It may well be that it is a single root causing the problem or it could also be that a depression has developed in the soil underlying the driveway that also contributes to the problem. The old concrete driveway needs to be removed regardless and before a new driveway could be installed. Why not do the removal of the old driveway first? With luck there would be a simple fix, which allows the tree to remain and a new driveway to be installed, which should save some money for the owner and solve all of these problems." Once again, we ask that the appeal to remove the tree be denied and that the owner be directed to seek alternatives for repairs of the driveway without damage to the tree Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, ~~i L~ . Karl V. Clemons, Ph.D. ~~ Cl.~.. Lynda Treat-Clemons, Ph.D. Homeowners at: 18349 Swarthmore Dr. Saratoga, CA 95070 • ~3~J~25 • • Olegario Lara 18324 Swarthmore Drive • Saratoga, CA 95070 April 2, 2004 Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear City of Saratoga: I have lived in Saratoga for 60 years. 40 of those years I have lived directly across the street from a roughly 110-foot majestic California Redwood tree that is in perfect health & beauty. I am 83 years old and do not understand why, for the second time in a year, the City of Saratoga is contemplating to even discuss the removal of this tree. From our last hearing on this, Ms. Gundy, the owner of this house (who happens to not live at that address) never even bothered to make attempts to remedy the situation. The problem is that the TREE is NOT the problem; the problem is that Ms. Gundy would rather focus all her time & money on removing it then to work on continuing to allow this tree to be a vital enhancement to our neighborhood. I believe that Ms. Gundy is going for shock value by taping up her driveway with crime scene tape rather than looking for options that many of my neighbors have already presented. Any reasonable person would have already removed the broken slab in order to prevent the hazard that she showcases. I have had a wondertul certified arborist who came to my house to prune my Persimmon Tree make a suggestion. He said he has seen other Saratoga residents preserve these trees so close to their driveway and streets by removing the concrete driveway, removing the offending roots and then re-pouring the driveway in sections OR better yet, use pavers or bricks that have shown to be much more forgiving for the roots. Swarthmore Drive continues to lose many of its older trees due to careless homeowners who just do not want them. For example: Last year I lost six 45 foot trees on my property line due to a new homeowner who illegally removed these trees without any permits. This real estate agent, Mo Tajik, removed them so he could maximize the lot size to build his brand new house. Mo Tajik never suffered any a®~1®2~6 • • consequence from his actions. It is obvious he does not like trees and only cares about maximizing his dollar worth rather than our Saratoga neighborhood. However, due to his actions, I lost my privacy and shade which no one but myself seems to care about. I hope that the City of Saratoga insists that Ms. Gundy focus her time and attention to beautifying all her rental properties including the house across the street from me. She had 20 years to care for the redwood trees at this house and now due to her negligence, she instead points fingers at the tree as though it is to blame. Olegario G. Lara of Swarthmore Drive ~ c~r~-~~ • • ®~0~~' • Thomas W. Corson 18337 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 370-6910 April 6, 2004 HAND DELIVERED Planning Commission City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Commissioners, This letter is in support of the Community Development Director's decision to deny a tree removal permit for the rental property located at 18325 Swarthmore Drive owned by Gundy Duvall. First, I would like to formally note our objection to re-hearing this matter at all. This matter was decided last year, there are no new facts, and it was clearly stated that this matter was resolved with finality when this Planning Commission decided to grant my appeal and preserve this tree. We were told (correctly) that that decision was final and relied on that. There are no new facts or circumstances here, only the owner's stubborn refusal to do anything other than destroy the tree. Nothing in the new law speaks of its provisions being retroactive and there is nothing in the public hearing minutes to indicate that there was any intent to make the new law retroactive. Nevertheless, we find ourselves dealing with this again and so I shall. The criteria for removal are set out below. I will address each item in turn. (7) The condition of the free with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. The tree is completely healthy. It is in no danger of falling. It is not near an existing or proposed structure. There has been a claim by the landlord that it interteres with utility services, namely PG&E's gas line, but that claim is completely unsubstantiated and speculative. This criterion is not met, and even if it was with respect to PG&E, there is a readily available alternative, namely for PG&E to move the gas main. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. The only legitimate claim that can be made regarding this tree is that it has damaged the driveway. However, it is the owner's negligence and inattention to the problem for the better part of 10 years that has caused the problem to escalate to the degree that it has. The tree should not have to pay the ultimate penalty of her negligence. Furthermore, there are readily available alternatives for fixing the driveway without removing the tree (two of which are found in the staff report). Therefore, it is not necessary to remove the tree to fix the driveway and this criterion is not met. • • 0®428 ~ PBge 2 • ,2004 3 The to o ra h of the land and the efl`ect of the tn~e remov~u n erosion, soil retention () P g P Y Po and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This criterion is non-applicable. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing tnees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This is the largest remaining tree in Sunland Park. Its loss would be a tragedy. It shades several homes, including my own. It is a magnificent specimen and greatly enhances our property values. This criterion for removal is clearly not met. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. There seems to be some debate as to the meaning of this criterion and it is indeed poorly written and in need of clarification. I suggest to you that it can only mean that if there are too many trees on a property, then some can be removed. That is clearly not the case here. The existing two redwoods are doing just fine. I believe staffs interpretation is that if there are enough other trees on the property or in the neighborhood, then some can be removed. I believe this is incorrect. First, the criterion says "property" and nothing else. Even if one were to include the entire street, we are by no means well treed. I have lost three huge conifers adjacent to just my own home. The property can clearly support the two redwood trees currently there. Therefore, I suggest to you that this criterion for removal is not met. (6) Whether or not there are any altematives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. As described in the staff report, there are several viable alternatives for repairing the driveway as well as dealing with other speculative issues such as the PG&E line (they can move it, after all, it is simply a 2" pipe). In addition, I refer you to the property at 14760 Farvvell, with identical circumstances, namely a large redwood in potential conflict with an adjacent driveway. As you will see, the pavers are working just fine. Furthermore, the city has established correct precedent when it determined in July 2003 to deny a permit for the removal of that tree. Accordingly, this criterion for removal has not been met. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. The stated purpose of Article 15-50 Tree Regulations is as follows: 15-50.010 Findings; purposes of ArtiGe. The City Council finds that the City is primarily a residential community; that the economics of property values is inseparably connected with the rural attractiveness of the area, much of which is attributable to the wooded hillsides and the native and ornamental trees located throughout the City; that the preservation of such trees is necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City in order to preserve scenic beauty, prevent erosion of topsoil, protect against flood hazards and the risk of landslides, counteract pollutants in the air, maintain the climatic balance and decrease wind velocities. OQ~0~9~ ~ Page 3 • ~, 2004 To compliment and strengthen zoning, subdivision and other land use . standards and regulations, while at the same time recognizing the privileges of private property ownership, the City Council adopts this ordinance to establish basic standards and measures for the maintenance, removal, and replacement of trees. Thus, this ordinance is designed to provide a stable and sustainable urban forest to preserve and protect significant historic heritage values, and to enhance the unique aesthetic character and environment of this City. This says everything in favor of preserving the tree and nothing in favor of removing it in favor of a certain style of driveway (slab) or speculative conflicts with pipes. The only possible property ownership privilege argument that could be made is °I have the right to neglect the problem with the driveway for 10 years. I then have the right to come to the city and point out what a huge risk that has caused. I further have the right to destroy the tree because I refuse to utilize (or even consider) pavers and insist on a slab driveway°. That is hardly the intent of the tree ordinance. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of Phis ordinance as set forth in section 15-50.010. The only safety issue presented by this tree is the danger posed by its removal. PG&E said themselves they will have to shut off service. A crane will have to be brought in. Public safety is best protected by leaving the tree just as it is. Everything else in 15-50.010 is clearly in favor of preserving the tree. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when • there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. There is absolutely no necessity to remove this tree for the economic (or any other) enjoyment of the property. It is a rental property. Tenants are living there right now, despite the tree, or the driveway. These same tenants could easily have chosen one of the other rental properties that Gundy owns. She has four on Swarthmore Drive alone. Mostly, they sit vacant for months and sometimes in excess of a year at a time. The tenants picked this home despite the tree or driveway. It was in fact these same tenants who provided the original impetus for stopping the first permit and the resulting appeal. The wife approached me on the day before the tree was to be cut down, told me of its impending demise, and stated that she and her husband were appalled that Gundy was going to cut them down (she initially intended to cut down both redwoods). That was the triggering event that gave rise to my appeal to save the tree in the first place. Furthermore, this criterion clearly states that there must be no other feasible alternative for removal. Clearly, in this case there are alternatives, as amply described above and in the staff report. This criterion for removal is also not met. Therefore, I ask that you find that the criteria are not met for removal and deny the appeal. Finally, in the unfortunate event that you decide to remove this tree, I request that at the very least that it be replaced at full value and the performance thereof secured by the appropriate bond. Anything less than this would be unconscionable. 000030 ;.. ~ page 4 • Respectfully, ~j J • Thomas W. Corson 18337 Swarthmore Drive • C7 ~, 2004 0~~©.~1 Mary McGuire Dan Mercado S 18336 Swarthmore Drive Saratoga, CA 95070 Apri15, 2004 , City of Saratoga Planning Commission Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to support the decision of Tom Sullivan and request that you spare the life of the redwood at 18325 Swarthmore Drive. Our home is located across the street .from the property in question. One of the unique and special things about living in Saratoga is the rural feeling with the mature trees, wide streets, and lack of sidewalks. We recently lost several trees on the block to chainsaws, and fear that we may be about to lose that which is special about our neighborhood. We do not want to lose another, especially one so beautiful and majestic, when it is entirely preventable. We discussed this with you at length last spring/summer, and nothing has changed since than. The property owner, who has never lived in the home, has refused to take any remedial action, as she has been waiting for the tree ordinance to take effect so that she had another opportunity to appeal to you. You will hear a lot of smoke and minors about what the tree "might" do, but it is without substance and/or evidence. The PG& E person is a personal friend of Ms. Duvall, and does not speak as a PG&E employee as he purports to, but as her personal friend. There is no evidence whatsoever that this tree's roots have damaged anything except for the driveway....there is no evidence that they have impacted the gas line and/or represent a danger to the neighborhood. PG&E admitted this in a conversation with Neighbor Corson. I want to emphasize that this is not an attempt to vilify Ms. Duvall. She is not in the best of health, and she has many rental properties, including this one, to manage. However, the fact of the matter is that the damage to her driveway is so severe precisely because she let the problem go unchecked for at least 8 years. (I can only speak to that amount of time, as it has been cracking the driveway since we moved to the block in March of 1996.) If you find that you must vote to remove the tree, we ask that it be replaced with one of equal value. Thank you for helping to keep our neighborhood beautiful. • _._ _- ----_ _._ _.. _._G1Q3~®.~~-_ • Regards, i /l C' ary McGuire Dan Mercado 18336 Swarthmore Drive • • • ©Q®033 • • • ITEM 2 • • REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: Applicant/Owner: Staff Planner: I Date: APN: #04-041/ 19708 Crestbrook Way Chen/Wu Ann Welsh, AICP -Associate Planner Apri128, 2004 393-36-026 Department Head: 19708 Crestbrook Drive EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 3/02/04 Application complete: 3/25/04 Notice published: 4/14/04 Mailing completed: 4/16/04 Posting completed: 4/07/04 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposed to demolish an existing two story single family dwelling and construct a new two story single family dwelling on a 20,173 square foot parcel located at 19708 Crestbrook Drive in the R-1, 20,000 zoning district. The proposed home with attached garage is 4,518 square feet which is the maximum allowable floor area for this lot. The impervious coverage on the lot will be 36.3% which is less than the maximum of 45% for the R-1, 20,000 zoning district. The existing pool is to be removed. The new home is to be constructed on an expanded footprint of the existing home. The proposed height of the home is 25.5 feet. The style of home is contemporary with a low pitched two story, brown shake the roof and beige plaster walls. A cultured stone foundation is proposed along the front facade. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Subdivision application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application # 04-041. ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Arborist Report prepared by David Babby, dated March 16, 2004 3. Saratoga Fire Department Report dated March 16, 2004 4. Neighborhood Notification Returns 5. Affidavit of Mailing 6. Plans, Exhibit "A" prepared by Fang Design dated 2/27/04 with revisions to 4/5/04. ~~~®®2 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R-1-20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD -Low Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIZE: .20,173 square feet AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is 4.3% GRADING REQUIRED: No significant grading is proposed ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of demolition of an existing home and construction of a new home 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. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and consists adding to a single family house with attached garage MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The exterior of the house is to consist of beige plaster walls and brown shake the roof with tan cultured stone foundation. • OQ~03 • R-1- 20,000 Proposed Code Requirements Impervious 7,330 sq ft or 45% Coverage: 36.36% Floor Area: First Floor: 2,347sf. Second Floor: 1,656 sf. Garage: 489 sf. Total: 4,518 sf. 4,518 sf. Setbacks: Front: 38 ft. 30 ft. Side: First Floor L-20.5 ft./ R-30 ft 15 ft. Second Floor L-33 ft/R-56 ft 20 ft Rear: First Floor 55.37 ft. 35 ft. Second Floor 55.37 ft 45 ft Height: 2 story / 25.5 ft. Max. 26 ft. ~~~~4 • • • PROJECT DISCUSSION Design Review The applicant proposed to demolish an existing two story single family dwelling and construct a new two story single family dwelling on a 20,173 square foot parcel located at 19708 Crestbrook Drive in the R-1, 20,000 zoning district. The proposed home with attached garage is 4,518 square feet which is the maximum allowable Iloor area for this lot. The impervious coverage on the lot will be 36.3% which is less than the maximum of 45% for the R-1, 20,000 zoning district. The existing pool is to be removed. The new home is to be constructed on an expanded footprint of the existing home. The proposed height of the home is 25.5 feet. The style of home is contemporary with a low pitched two story, brown shake the roof and beige plaster walls. A cultured stone foundation is proposed along the front facade. Necessary Findings The Zoning Ordinance, Section 15-45.080 identifies the following findings as necessary for granting Design Review approval. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations and placement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. (b) Preserve natural landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure, in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region, will minimize the perception of excessive bulk and will be integrated into the environment. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties and their ability to utilize solar energy. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. (f) Design policies and techniques. The proposed main or accessory structure will conform to each of the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook. ~~~~®s Actual Findings Design Review The following findings have been made regarding the proposed new construction. (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The height, elevations andplacement on the site of the proposed main or accessory structure, when considered with reference to: (i) the nature and location of residential structures on adjacent lots and within the neighborhoods; and (ii) community view sheds will avoid unreasonable interference with views andprivacy. The proposed home replaces an existing 2,800 square foot two story structure with a new two story 4,518 square foot structure. The new structure proposes a 1,656 square foot second story while the existing house has an 800 square foot second story. Given that the setbacks for the are greater than the minimum required for the R-1, 20,000 zoning district and the presence of other two story structures in the neighborhood, the proposed dwelling does not appear to unreasonable interfere with views and privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. The natural landscape will be preserved insofar as practicable by designing structures to follow the natural contours of the site and minimizing tree and soil removal; grade changes will be minimized and will be in keeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The natural landscape is preserved since the new home would overlay the existing footprint . The plan retains all existing trees. In this manner the natural landscape is preserved. (c) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The proposed main or accessory structure in relation to structures on adjacent lots and to the surrounding region will minimize the perception of excessive bulb and will be integrated into the environment. The proposed new home although about 160% larger than the existing home takes measures to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The home is setback from the front, side and rear yards more than the minimum required setback. The entry way is low profile and does not dominate the streetscape. (d) Compatible bulk and height. The proposed main or accessory structure will be compatible in terms of bulk and height with (i) existing residential structures on adjacent lots and those within the immediate neighborhood and within the same zoning district; and (ii) the natural environment; and shall not (iii) unreasonably impair the light and air of adjacent properties to utilize solar energy. The proposed structure appears compatible in terms of bulk and height with residences on adjacent lots. The neighborhood contains a mixture of single and two story structures. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development or grading plan incorporates currentgrading and erosion control standards used by the Ciry. ~'~~~6 • The proposed development does not involve significant regrading of the site. The applicant will be required to submit a grading and drainage plan which reIlects the Ciry's policy of retaining as much storm water runoff on-site as possible. (~ Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques set forth in the Residential Design Handbook.. The proposed project complies with Residential Design Handbook Policies to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials &r colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade. The policy to preserve the natural landscape is upheld since tree retention is maximized. Thus the above analysis concludes that all the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. PUBLIC COMMENTS In terms of input from the adjacent neighbors, the property owner located at 19722 Crestbrook Drive has objected to the size of the house. Their concern was that the house size would be out of scale with the homes on the street. The comments of the neighbor are provided in the attachments. • The Saratoga Fire District and Ciry Arborist have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval C O M M UN I T Y D F' V E L O P M FN T 1. Fireplaces -Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling. The applicant should indicate compliance with this on the plans. 2. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be furnished prior to final zoning clearance. 3. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. • ~~Q~~~ FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this plan on March 15, 2004 and their requirements are identified as follows. 1. Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standard established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) 2. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages including any workshops or storage areas within the garage which are not constructed as habitable space. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.070) Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) ARBORIST REPORT The Ciry Arborist reviewed this plan on March 16, 2004 and the recommendations outlined in the arborist review are to be incorporated in the conditions of approval. 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts (galvanized), driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The fencing shall be located precisely as shown on the attached map. It shall be placed at or beyond the outermost canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch). Where this is not practical, it shall be placed no further than five feet from the existing pool patio and two feet from the existing and proposed driveway. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. The plans must be revised to reflect the following minimum grading and drainage setbacks: 15 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7, and 25 feet from tree #8's trunk. ~~~~~ . 4. Prior to commencing gading activities, the applicant or his or her representative shall stake the limits of grading and review those locations with the grading contractor. 5. Where beneath the tree canopies, the proposed sediment rolls shall be placed on top of the soil surface and not require soil excavation for their establishment. 6. From March thru September, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #6, 7 and 8 during the entire construction process. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter every three to four weeks. The water should be supplied through soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at the mid- to outer-canopies. 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 8. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.com/arborists/arbsearch.html. 9. Any new underground utilities shall be established outside from the fenced areas. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 10. Underground utility plans and an irrigation plan should be reviewed for tree impacts and approved prior to issuing permits. 11. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be placed no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. The installation of bender board or rototilling should not occur beneath a tree's canopy. 12. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. The combined appraised value of inventoried trees is $53,160. In accordance to the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote the trees' protection. CONCLUSION Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the condition that the issues identified in all departmental reports are addressed in the final plans. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Revise the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the resolution.for application number 04-041. ~~~~~~ Attachment 1 I.J ~.i©Q~~~ RESOLUTION N0.04 -_ APPLICATION N0.04-041 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA WU/CHEN 19708 CRESTBROOK DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to demolish an existing two story home and build a new 4,518 square foot two story home located at 19708 Crestbrook Drive 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 project 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. The site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure and involves an addition to a single family structure; 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 1, Minimize the perception of bulk The proposed project minimizes the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline and facade with architectural features, which break up massing. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms with the policy to integrate structures into the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete the roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy The plan retains existing tree canopy, provides additional setback and eliminates a rear upper floor deck these elements minimize interference with privacy. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views Since the tree canopy is retained neighbor's privacy will be protected and the impact on views will be minimized. ~Q~~1 Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by retaining existing trees to control winter and summer exposure to the sun. 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 by Philip Wu and Chyong-Tyne Chen for Design Review is granted subject to the conditions identified below. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" prepared by Fang Design dated 2/27/04 with revisions to 4/5/04 shall be revised to reflect the conditions outlined in this report. 2. Prior to submittal for Building Permits, the following shall be submitted to the Planning Division staff in order to issue a Zoning Clearance: Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: a. The site plan shall be stamped and signed by a Registered Civil Engineer or Licensed Land Surveyor. b. 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. Fireplaces: Only one wood- burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling. The applicant should indicate compliance with this on the plans. 4. Grading and Drainage Plan - A grading and drainage plan shall be furnished prior to final zoning clearance. S. A storm water retention plan shall be provided 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. • ®Q'Q®g~ FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this plan on March 15, 2004 and their requirements are identified as follows. 1. Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standard established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) 2. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages including any workshops or storage areas within the garage which are not constructed as habitable space. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.070) 3. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) • ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this plan on March 16, 2004 and the recommendations outlined in the arborist review are to be included in the conditions of approval. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts (galvanized), driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The fencing shall be located precisely as shown on the attached map. It shall be placed at or beyond the outermost canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch). Where this is not practical, it shall be placed no further than five feet from the existing pool patio and two feet from the existing and proposed driveway. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. The plans must be revised to reflect the following minimum grading and drainage setbacks: • 15 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7, and 25 feet from tree #8's trunk. ~4~~13 4. Prior to commencing grading activities, the applicant or his or her representative shall stake . the limits of grading and review those locations with the grading contractor. S. Where beneath the tree canopies, the proposed sediment rolls shall be placed on top of the soil surface and not require soil excavation for their establishment. 6. From March thru September, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #6, 7 and 8 during the entire construction process. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter every three to four weeks. The water should be supplied through soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at the mid- to outer-canopies. 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.comlarborists/arbsearch.html. 9. Any new underground utilities shall be established outside from the fenced areas. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. 10. Underground utility plans and an irrigation plan should be reviewed for tree impacts and • approved prior to issuing permits. 11. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be placed no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. The installation of bender board or rototilling should not occur beneath a tree's canopy. 12. Irrigation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Irrigation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Irrigation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. 13. The combined appraised value of inventoried trees is $53,160. In accordance to the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote the trees' protection. CITY ATTORNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the Ciry 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. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the ~~®®~,~ • violation, liquidated damages of $250 shall be payable to this City per each day of the violation. Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months 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 28ch day of Apri12004 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NAYS: 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 • ~~~~~,5 • Attachment 2 • ~~~~s ARBC~ RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care A REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED ADDITION AND REMODEL TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 19708 CRESTBROOK DRIVE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA OWNER'S NAME: WU/CHEN APPLICATION #: 04-041 APN #: 393-36-026 Submitted to: Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Prepared by: David L. Babby, RCA Registered Consulting Arborist #399 Certified Arborist #WE-4001A March 16, 2004 P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 • Email: arborresources@earthlink.net Phone: 650.654.3351 • Fax: 650.654.3352 • Licensed Contractor #796763 ~Q~101,'7 David L. Babby, Registered Coting Arborist • March 16, 2004 SUNIMARY • The proposed project exposes 10 trees regulated by City Ordinance to potential impacts. They include five Coast Live Oaks (#1-3, 9 and 10), one American Sweetgum (#4), one Silver Maple (#5), one Black Acacia (#6), one Canary Island Pine (#7) and one Italian Stone Pine (#8). All trees are planned for retention. Trees #1-3, 9 and 10 are located on neighboring properties. They were inventoried for this report as there are vulnerable to root damage from construction activities. - t%i By implementation of the proposed grading and drainage design, trees #6 7 and 8 would be adversely affected. To minimize the impacts, I recommend setbacks of 15 feet from the ,. - .:.. trunks of trees #6 and 7, and 25 feet from tree #8's trunk. ~;;;_:_:-_ ____.- -' The tree protection bond is required to equal 100% of the appraised value of trees planned for retention, which is $53,160. INTRODUCTION The City of Saratoga Community Development Department has requested I review the potential tree impacts associated with the proposed addition and remodel to an existing single-family residence 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga. This report presents my findings; provides protection measures; identifies each tree's condition, species, size and suitability for preservation; and presents tree appraisal values. Data compiled for each inventoried tree is presented on the table attached to this report. Plans reviewed for this report include Sheets Al (Fang Design, 2/27/04), C-1 (James C. Chen, 2/23/04) and L1.0 (Fungshi Chu Landscape Design, 2/22/04). The attached map was created from Sheet C-1 (Grading and Drainage Plan) and identifies each tree's number, location and canopy perimeter,2 as well as the recommended locations for protection fencing. Trees #1, 2 and 3 were not shown on plans reviewed. Their trunk locations were plotted by me on the attached map and should not be construed as being surveyed. ' The trunks of trees #9 and l0 were inaccessible. As a result, their trunk diameters aze estimates derived from information on the attached plan. ~ The canopy perimeters for trees #6, 7 and 8 have been redrawn to reflect their actual canopy size. Wu/Chen Property, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga Page 1 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~~~~~ David L. Babby, Registered Coring Arborist • March 16, 2004 RECOMI~~NDATIONS 1. Tree protection fencing shall be installed prior to any grading, surface scraping or heavy equipment arriving on site. It shall be comprised of five- to six-foot high chain link mounted on two-inch diameter steel posts (galvanized), driven 18 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 12 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The fencing shall be located precisely as shown on the attached map. It shall be placed at or beyond the outermost canopy edge (i.e. the furthest overhead branch). Where this is not practical, it shall be placed no further than five feet from the existing pool patio and two feet from the existing and proposed driveway. 2. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the fenced areas (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not limited to, the following: grading (both soil fill and excavation), surface scraping, trenching, storage and dumping of materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 3. Thee ans must fio,revised to reflect the following minimum grading and drainage setb ks: 15 feet from the trunks of trees #6 and 7, and 25 feet from tree #8 s trunk. 4. Prior to commencing grading activities, the applicant or his or her representative shall stake the limits of grading and review those locations with the grading contractor. 5. Where beneath the tree canopies, the proposed sediment rolls shall be placed on top of the soil surface and not require soil excavation for their establishment. 6. From March thru September, supplemental water shall be supplied to trees #6, 7 and 8 during the entire construction process. I suggest an application rate of 10 gallons per inch of trunk diameter every three to four weeks. The water should be supplied through soaker hoses placed on the existing soil surface at the mid- to outer-canopies. 7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath canopies. Herbicides and pesticides used beneath canopies must be labeled for safe use near trees. 8. The pruning of trees must be performed under supervision of an International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist and according to standards established by the ISA. Information regarding Certified Arborists in the area can be obtained by referring to the following website: http://www.isa-arbor.coin/arborists/arbsearch.html. 9. Any new underground utilities shall be established outside from the fenced areas. Where this presents a conflict, I should be consulted. • Wu/Chen Property, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga City of Saratoga Community Development Department Page 2 of 3 ~~~0~9 David L. Bobby, Registered Coming Arborist • March 16, 2004 10. Underground utility plans and an irrigation plan should be reviewed for tree impacts and approved prior to issuing permits. 11. Stones, mulch or other landscape features should be placed no closer than one-foot from a tree's trunk. The installation of bender board or rototilling should not occur beneath a tree's canopy. 12. Imgation trenches planned parallel to a trunk shall be no closer than 15 times the diameter of the closest trunk. Imgation trenches installed radial to a trunk can be placed no closer than 5 times the diameter of the closest trunk and at least 10 feet apart at the canopy's perimeter. Imgation spray shall come no closer than five feet from a tree's trunk. Please note trenches dug for electrical lines should be installed by the same guidelines. TREE PROTECTION BOND The combined appraised value of inventoried trees is $53,160. In accordance to the City Ordinance, a bond equivalent to 100% of this value is required to promote the trees' protection. The appraised tree values shown on the attached Tree Inventory Table are calculated in accordance with the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9''' Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Attachments: Tree Inventory Table Site Map (Copy of the Grading & Drainage Plan) :7 • • Wu/Chen Property, 19708 Crestbrook Drive, Saratoga Page 3 of 3 City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ ~.~ J~20 ARBO, RESOURCES ~ Professional Arboricultural Consulting & Tree Care TREE IlWENTORY TABLE .. .. ° ,. 3 ~ ~ ~~ a ~ .5 ,. C g ~ ~b N 0 ~' ib ~ ~ a ~~ ~G~! o "' a '8 ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ M w~ ~~ ~~ ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ c ~ ~, ~ TREE NO TREE NAME ~ ~ ~ 3~ ~~ ~ ~ >x ~ ~ ~ . [-~ x v x :, ~ ~ O ~ ~ C Coast Live Oak 1 ( uercus a ri olio) 13 25 30 ] 00% 25% Fair Hi 5 X X 51,910 Coast Live Oak 2 ( uercus a ri olio) 13 25 20 75% 25% Fav High 5 X X S1,590 Coast Live Oak 3 ( uercus a ri olio) l8 40 35 l00% 75% Good Hi 5 X X 54,990 American Sweetgum 4 (Li uidambars ci ua 12 35 30 100% 25% Fair Moderate 5 51,260 Silver Maple S (Ater saccharinum) 28 45 50 l00% 50% Good Moderate 5 53,010 Black Acacia (Acacia melano lon) 22, 20 45 45 ] 00% 25% Fair Moderate 2 9 Canary Island Pine 7 (Pinus canariensis) 27.5 95 35 75% 100% Good Hi 2 511,100 Italian Stone Pine 8 (Pinus inea) 42.5 50 65 ]00% ]00% Good Hi 2 $15,200 Coast Live Oak 9 ( ercus a ri olio) 24 35 40 ] 00% 25% Fair Hi 5 X S6,700 Coast Live Oak 10 ( uercus a ri olio) 20 35 40 l00% 25% Fair Hi S X 54,770 • REPLACEMENT TREE VALUES 1 S- allon = 51 SO 24-inch box =5420 36-inch box = 51,320 48-inch box = 55,000 52-inch box = 57,000 72-inch box = 5] 5,000 Jab: J3fIl R'ooriwoel Dri-r, S~otop I'rspmed joy: C5y ojSwaroso Cornnuu~ity Devalopmsnt Dqt Prepord by: De~iJL Bobby, RG Dfineb If, IIM ~!~~~J21 . ,,. i -, . _ (~ "~~ ~ IYaT - -:: '- ~ - ~ wMi H+v _ ~L,~~ w :~ l0 9~ s bid f'/ ~ I ~ ~ + 4 8 ~,~y*>~~, f ~, _ ~~, \ ~ t O '..,1 -r, Ck 7 ~c ~,' ,.Y' d' -~'. th '. y 1. `r~ d~-i- - . ~ A I tti / r ~ r.L Vii. ....... ~ 1 '. . '~ ~ 1 ~ \(Ell~ta)wws Mlall~ I I rr ~i1: Yy J.+'0' t •T ~p-~ ~ 1~' I t~ TD , r3EHMA1'.s 1 I.Zb•_I. .T ~\ ~'1 1 ~ '3 --~ TREE PROTECTION FENCING ? ~~ ~~ ~ $°~°`~ '~ a -~~ ' ,a ~ tm eF Re-wvsp rt~Y ~ f ~ I IL) Cd1G RuttO 4. 1'bc°'~. _... ~ ~ ~~ 1 I~j' SL ~q ~ T'a' 1 ~ TO at'1sIN. ~~: ^-•. .._.. 1 ~t tc qa ~ '~ ""k' - ~ i c3uveavD-: ~ = is I • ssL .: ~~ 1 i ~S .j:t3o~ ~i 6` B ~..,bo- i~aae6 0;1-}}. f~ "'~ sa 1 1 ~ ~ ~ 1 '..J 9 ' f ~-~)~..~ ~ .L .-3 .. ,. ~ i.~ i l ~~w d' :: I"F"4y~D v^' r j ~ DEa ovFrau~D ~i'~~t i ~.:,~. .3;~,'I~- o p lo^r-smME ~ I s-,. - --------------- ---- ,p ~ - $ -RrwRtBP 3 ~ ~ ~ ~j!' ~ ~'~ ~--' - ._ _..... 2NO STORY OVERH NG b ~d" e•[uLO , " • ,. ~ m~ ~~ . _. ax+a .._~_ d' .craz - 4 it y c~^F' r !E)HOUSE TO BE REMO VED ~ + d ~ t+~ ~MN FBI FL ~ 99.00 HOUSE PAD AREA ~~ J/ ~+ ~ C~ a 1813 s h ~' W INIk2-LAGR111S G4R tORT -P.4D. 96-.-50' a ~ ~- WvF1ENT / y, e° - I.!n'ARSn j txultaMY <~>° ~-__ ~ f o.leacre ~ ~~ - - "'I ~+ war. • .-~ p ~y .- -.L~ C --~ \ ~4'i ~ INSU4L L~ IIREM~KYOLx14F~._ - `. o • ~ 1 " I ~ ~. „Y13 I~ ~ C] ~ ~ ~ ~ 47'.OOr 10.-i?fEl~i ~p ~ . q'Qw TREE PROTECTION FENCING " + t ' -.. ~/r'~ f.rr//i///~Q` /mod •l~a~ ~' ; +' '~ / / /!/It]ravYn aRIV19MY / ,/~ /a .. ~~ i \ 1 %/ // / ~/ 4_G/~.~/~-~~.r}~~~ f ~ ~/P,aVEPiNT1 ~~\ ~, - ~ / • ; ~ ~ ~ 1;/f.~~~ 4 O ,~ 1~'i s` "~ ~,~.~V 5 all//~~~-_,- Q~PT s _ .' Y ,~~ _~~ 1 ' t ~). / / / ~ ~~~ s'eF t ~ ., ~ : rfil •. ~S'~~JTL i ~~ ~ !I // /~ ` ,t • ~ ~ ~~ ~ aa.~i •ri • ~~ J '~'~14t--- 1 ~\ //~ I r 519'1110" 1 ~ (~/1~ ~~C' ~'~+t,,,,~r.^~'~ .. 4 y' 1S 8F'.~ ,t fi ~ / ~f ~L'~'~ <, _ f''4 ° i.'° ~,,C c ' '~ ~:: u ~`~:~ ` ~ -~ (EI pR/Yf b@Y APrrOACH . .. _ Sc!' `~ 1L3 REFWN _ ~ ~ ITO RRFEfMMY MIt0401 '4c ~•4 -SS- ..56 ~~ -SS ~S2;._ _. 5`.. ~.. ... ... .. ... -SS S .r Site Address: 19708 Crulbrook Drive, Saratoga - Prepared for: City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ O O I{ D R Prtpared By: N9SS;f: MapidentifiulOtreesofOrdinanasiu. ARBOR RESOURCES Map has been reduced in siu and is not to scale. p, ~,,,t"".t.trenrlr"Irae.t c•","111"a a Y... a.. ~ ~ C Canopy perimeters are approximate. P.O. no.. 33193 An x/rno. CA 91102 ~ _ Panic: 16301631.3131 • Firoil: arb9rnawrwle:euWiak.aa 1. Contractor al j2g!!i: March 16, 2001 ;c "' So11^ Lnglna a. Ho pouela ' Gf~1DING f.~ DRAINAGE PLAN "i1v1C1i' ~~~®2~ r.r,lttad~am SCALE r I"= lo' thro rr1e.Y. • Attachment 3 • ®~~©23 Fw 19708 Crestbrook Drive plan review From: Kristin Borel . Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 6:54 AM To• Ann Welsh Subject: Fw: 19708 Crestbrook Drive plan review --original Message----- From: Harold [mailto:hal@saratogafire.com] sent: Monday, March 15, 2004 3:33 PM To: Kristin Borel subject: 19708 Crestbrook Drive plan review SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA 14380 SARATOGA AV. SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 Telephone: 408-867-9001 Fax: 408-867-2780 www.saratogafire.com <http://www.saratogafire.com> PLAN CHECK REVIEW TRANSMITTAL FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT FILE #: 04-041 DATE: March 15, 2004 # OF LOTS: One APPLICANT: Wu/Chen LOCATION: 19708 Crestbrook Drive PR07ECT: New 4,492 sq ft dwelling 1: Property is not located in a designated hazardous fire area. 2: Roof covering shall be fire retardant and comply with the standards established for Class A roofing. Replacement less than 10% total roof area shall be exempt. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.080) 3: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages including any workshops or storage areas within the garage which are not constructed as habitable space. An NFPA 13D sprinkler system with 2 heads per car stall and 2 head calculation is required. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. The designer/architect is to contact the appropriate water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to Saratoga Fire District for approval. The sprinkler system and underground water supply must be installed by a licensed contractor. (City of Saratoga Code 16-15.070) 4: Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (CFC 901.4.4) APPROVED: HAL NETTER PLAN CHECKER: HAL NETTER Page 1 • ~~~~24 Attachment 4 • Q~~~25 Iv~ hbor Notification Tem late g P Development Applications Date: D 1 3l 2e~ PROJEC DRESS: ~ ~ 7 ~ ~ Cre~~' b i-c-o ~ '~ r i ~ ~ ~h~l~~~ Applicant Name: ~ ~ - ~ ~ Application Number: li L~ ~ (~ L' ~, l ~~, VJ ~c ~ C~~ y~ n~ --C~ u ~ C~~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires ajplicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below, .you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ~ My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): ~ _ ~~ ~~~ ~~~'~~,~ ~~~ --~~`` ` i ~ ~Zlw Q O O t 5 -~ , ~~ ) ~- n f-r~-c-•-~ Neighbor Name: c~ia ~Z d L /~r/~/e ~ Neighbor Address: ~~'~,.. ,:~.., ~ ~ Neighbor Phone #: ~4 ~J ~w7` OS 7~ Signature: Printed: ~~~~ 7- ~ J~ ~5~ City of Saratoga Planning Departr~e~t l~~ghbor Notification Template Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: ~~' ~o ~' ~!~ k , r i 1!~ Applicant Name: ii ~ - -1~ ~ l ue Application Number: C~ L1 - U L~ The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below,youu may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~-~ ~~ 1\ ~S i Neighbor Address: ~~,_ ~ I ~ossyn~erc C't . J ~ o Neighbor Phone #: ('4'08) ~~ ~~ ~-~ o ~ 3 a Signature: Printed: . ~ ii_ ~~k~ L~-LIri Ils~eh City of Saratoga Planning Department l~ghbor Notification Template Development Applications Date: 0 2 I ~ k~ c~ r J PROJECT ADDRESS: i97~ ~ C~~TU~ o~=~ ~ ~~Y ~. Applicant Name: P!1 i ~ ~ p ~'U L4 ~ ~1 `~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ `/ U ~ C~ ~ t~ Application Number: U The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening of the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and issues when solicited by applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or issues they may have directly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document is representative of all residents residing on your property. Irrespective of the opinion expressed below,.youu may resarve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. i My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues which need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public hearing on the proposed project. ^My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: ~ ` ~ ~~~ ~ J _ "" ~ ` l ~ ~ ~ So vl Neighbor Address: I q~ ~ ~{ Cues-~~~~k flr. ~~~o q ~ gSa~O ~pg-$~2-(S23 Neighbor rhone ~. Signature: Printed: C ~ c~~~+ • • W ~ ~ I ~ G W~Se~ 1~ Q~U~28 ~~~ ~„ ~~ City of Saratoga Planning Department • Attachment 5 +~~Da929 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES . STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) SS. COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA ) I, ,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 2004, that I deposited in the United States Post Office within Santa Clara County, 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) that said persons are the owners of said property who are entitled to a Notice of Hearing pursuant to Section 15-45.060(b) of 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; that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. Signed C, ~~~'®~0 JAMES E & JULIE STALLMAN ' or Current Owner 19740 BRAEMAR DR TOGA CA 95070 EUGENE G & MARY BROWN or Current Owner 19688 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner SCVWD or Current Owner CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner DARLENE G & GLENN GRANT or Current Owner 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SHERRY H & JOHN MC COLLUM or Current Owner 19810 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LINDE J & HENDRIKA VAN DER or Current Owner 19802 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ~ATRICE F SCHMIDT urrent Owner 19794 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 STEVEN F & REBECCA SKOLNIK or Current Owner 19722 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CURTIS M & MARTHA MORVEC or Current Owner 19672 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner or Current Owner THOMAS B & JOANNE KENNEDY or Current Owner 19747 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 GLENN D & DARLENE GRANT or Current Owner 19814 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT L & LOIS RUSSELL or Current Owner 19806 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LINDE J & HENDRIKA VAN DER or Cun ent Owner 19802 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 BEATRICE F SCHMIDT or Current Owner 19794 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner PETERSON or Current Owner PARISH W ST ANDREWS or Current Owner PO BOX 2789 SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner EUGENE L CHANG or Current Owner 19765 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CALIFORNIA STATE OF or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN L & SHERRY MC COLLUM or Current Owner 19810 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT L & LOIS RUSSELL or Current Owner 19806 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LEUNG LAU or Current Owner 19798 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 ~~3~®31 MINA FARHAMAND or Current Owner SHIN D CHEN or Current Owner 19766 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 MARTHA V NORTHRUP or Current Owner 19694 CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 LI-LIN & DAITZ HSIEH or Current Owner 13671 ROSSMERE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner TR DUBBIN or Current Owner 19704 CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 CAROLINE B MUNCE or Current Owner 19722 CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 HELEN M PURER or Current Owner 19680 CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner QUENTIN H & SHIRLEY ROLFE C & SHOLEH BURDEN ANDERSON or Current Owner or Current Owner 13685 ROSSMERE CT 13690 ROSSMERE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 RALPH T & FLORA YOSHIDA or Current Owner 13701 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TR LEUNG or Current Owner 19872 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner KUO-WEI LEE or Current Owner 19799 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner VNIAN O SCHEMBER or Current Owner 19807 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 ROMAN CATHOLIC WELFARE SARATOGA CITY OF CORP OF S or Current Owner or Current Owner SARATOGA AVE 13724 SARATOGA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SARATOGA CA 95070 CHUNG-NAN LYU or Current Owner 19782 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 SANTA CLARA COUNTY or Current Owner SARATOGA CA 95070 PHILIP L WU or Current Owner 19708 CRESTBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 TR WENZEL or Current Owner 13665 ROSSMERE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 • MICHAEL F & CAROLE ATKIN or Current Owner 13680 ROSSMERE CT SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner KEN K & YALI LIU or Current Owner 19816 BRAEMAR DR SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES & AZITA ASHE or Current Owner 19797 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 r~ BILLY B & MARTHA TIPPIN or Current Owner 19811 MERRIBROOK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 or Current Owner ®®~©32 M~ W ~` 1 0 : YMplOilllf0'YOOlYtlYB 3AItlO flootl8183tlD BOLBI o ~ ~ NJIS3a CJNd~ 30N341S3t1 M3N d ! ~ ~ ~ 1 a r~ r~ • ~ ~~ ~ • ~ .4.a... IN.1 '~'Yity£ N'd1~ viNYOli~vo'vDO~trMVS ~xtua H o o 'f1 e ,~ '~ N1..'Y. 'Nef N.. aoeo. .N •o w ~ ,~ /11/i1 Jkg N.. 344NI1y21a aaisad~ sote~ o AM ~~7~Hd ~r't~~ ~ ~ '~~ '~~ M rv O _ J ~ Q O ~ j ~ ! 1 ttt V d ~ ~,~,;,~ * p an,r gn~odz~ i~#1H6tiS3!! MAN v ~ ~ ~ i ~ a ~~~I ~~ lip I ~] ~ ' Q ~ 1ty~ ~ V ,1 2' F ~ ~ V J t r ~ ~ w .1 ? o ~ p W ~ O = Z ~ ~ ~ W ~ F4. \ 4 u, \ 'Y4 ~ C J a r J D_ ~ '4F 1 ) _. _`^. ~ Q y ? ~! ~ ~ w ~~ opt z j .~ ~ 'p'~ ~ u w 1- r- ` ~ 1 F- ~ Y 0 Y ~. A O .~ ~ V~ ,~ ~ w ~ v ~ `~' w i ~ 7i ~ q ~~66 I• ~I ~ '~ A . 4 I ~ /~ :;~ i ~y ,~o. r~ t 1 Z• ,P 4 ~ ~. o s=~ ~ I I I ;~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~4111 1 ~4 4 i r[. ~~ J s, -~ ~ . t ~i f ' f ~i-- -- ~- -- - - 4. I~~ ~ ' , ~~ ~ a 1 ,.: ~ ~ _ !, ~~ I ,, ''\ I "~. ~~y° / ~ ~ ~ <~ ~' ~ ~ ~ /~ ~/ ~ .~ sa ,SE~ 1 4 ', %t, !; `tt` 8~ . 3 -~ ~~~~ ~~3~ ~+a rrW .,,:4p, O !Y a W ~W~ W ti Z ~~ 8 e H N ~~ '7 n Y ~ 0 ~1 ~ 4 Q 0 ~ ~~ ~I ~ - U ~- ~ LL k Y o p ~ S ~ s ,~ ~" 2_$ ~ t 4 ^1 rn r ,} ~ Q II a- Q o ,~ LL xe O ~ N lL ~ X d ~ au u ~~ x ,~ ,' ~ ~ _ H j ~, II Q H J1 Od v l ,, t~ 6 _._~ •. .. ~. G' i ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ,, ~; ~~ ~ ~~~~ ,S~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ter' ~ ~ `: 1 ~~~ / N .~ ' ~, F ~ ~ r~.r, ~;~ .. ~~ ~. ~~ e j ~~ ~~ ~\Y",, > f ~ ~ ~ :. ..; -~ ~~ W s , ~ ~ :~~ ~ :. a r~ , ~° ~ 4 ~~- ~ _ i ~\ p x ~ \ \ ~ ~ ~ " n ~~ ~ ~~~~= ;~1 y- ,, ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ _ ~ -rte 9 , ~ ~ rJ ~~~ ~~~ ~ I~~ 6n ~ l ~. \ ~'-~- - --~ I<n 1 n~H ~ ~~ ~ 4 c ~ H 0 O+ 5~ u ~. .~" ~ g ~ g' ° 8 . r >. R ~ '~. d ~,e a M 0 4 .( d 9 N ` h gu .~ ~~$ >. ~ ., ^ f e"~~ y e .'"i ~ g~ ~ ~g~ i~ ~~ ~N~ g> ~k ~N4 $~ S~ 0 z ~~ ,W~~ z Z_ ~h v f. .e ~ ~. O ~ ~ \ O O (~ e ~ _ ~S ~ ~ ~ c ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~~~ ~ o x ~ ~ ~ g a ~ W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o~~~~ wW~~~~~~ a ~ J~U~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ e 1 • • • ya1 J ~ 1 ~. "~-._ ~~~~~ SL'K-I - M ~8S~8io85 3 J vNWOaN'ri~ 'v0011ItlV8 HAINO HOOY91lil1~ SoL61 0 J ~I~A !~N'V~ AM d1~iHd 'SaW ~ '~!W ~ao~ ~ 4 ~~ ~JN341fiii M3N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~- T- ~- a ~` u , ~_ ,~_. oooc~~~~ ~ _. _ .. ..__ , ~ v~uo~utw~ 'vooivwt annw ~ooratsaua wu- ^ ~ nN- ~-nHa •sbw ~ •brr n~o~ a ~ M N~JiS3a JNd~ aaKSais~a s~ v ~ ° ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a i • • • l~ . v~ao~ivo 'vooivaw aqua ~oowts~ voce ~ ~ ~' .D ^ ~~~~,,,°~ f1M d111Hd •saw ~ •dw ~~+ ~ _u M er ~ N~IS30 JNb~ 3~N841S8l1 M8N d ~ ~ ~ ~ ~aa `- ... ..~. C { : vnwo~ivo 'vootvuva aniua ~oowisaao •ott~ ^ ~~~ nN- an~Ha •s~w ~ •bw =~ a ~ ~i NJIS3a JNdd sat~a~ssa M~ r r - " ~ ~ ~ ~ I a • • • 't1O 'yOO1b'ab'S O ~ '~AI~1O ~1OOaelS3a0 SOL6l ~~ ~ ~ flMdi~IHd 'S~1W'8 '~IW ~ ~ ~ ~ Z~ Q o ~ ~ ~ ~ : ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ a a ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g ` ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~& ~ ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ II ~ ~ ~ A d A ~, ~ A ~ ~ A .'~ 5 5 u+ 3 i i i i - r- -- -- - ~ ~O ` ~ ~ ~ - -- __ i ~ ~~ ~~I ~~~ ~~ ~ ~Ll ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ i~ ~~`~'- i ~~~,~ Ii -t-- ~~ ~ rI ~ ~ • ~.. ,\ ~ . ~~ • l.ll U Q Z ~- U Z 0 U 4 • COMMISSION ITEM City of Saratoga Community Development Department ~ MEMORANDUM TO: PLANNING COMMISSIO FROM: Thomas Sullivan, AICP Community Development D' r DATE: Apri128, 2004 RE: Notification At the April 14, 2004 Planning Commission meeting allegation of impropriety were leveled against City Staff regarding notification of Emma Wyckoff of an Administrative Design Review. It was stated that Staff did not properly provide notification. Staff informed the Commission that it purchases property data from the Santa Clara County Assessor. Ms. Wyckoff indicated that the County's mailing list was different from the Assessor's property owner list. The City is required to notify property owners by use of the latest Assessor's Equalized Assessment Roll. Please review the following: Chapter 15 ZONING REGtJLATIONS Article 15-45 DESIGN REVIEW: SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING 15-45.060 Requirement for design review; public hearing. (b) A public hearing on the application for design review approval under this Article shall be required. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the boundaries of the site which is the subject of the application. Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once in a newspaper having general circulation in the City not later than ten days prior to the date of the hearing. (Amended by Ord. 71.98 411,1991; Ord. 71.113 410,1992; Ord. 71- 179 41,1998; Amended by Ord. 2214 2 (part), 2003) 15-45.065 Administrative design review. c) If the Community Development Director intends to approve the application, a "Notice of Intent to Approve" will be mailed to all property owners within two hundred fifty feet of the subject property and to others as deemed appro rip ate• All interested parties will have fifteen calendar days from the date of the "Notice of Intent to Approve" in which to review the application and provide written comments to the Community Development Director. The Community Development Director shall approve or deny the application within fifteen days of the close of the review period and shall mail notice of the decision to the applicant and to any party that has requested a copy of such notice. The Community Development Director's decision is appealable to the Planning Commission within fifteen calendar days of the Director's decision to approve the application. The Planning Commission at a public hearing will review any appeal. Notwithstanding, Section 15-45.110 or Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal shall be final and not subject to appeal to the City Council. Chapter 15 ZONIi~?G REGULATIONS Article 15-90 APPEALS 15-90.060 Review by Planning Commission. (a) Schedule of hearing; notice. Upon receipt of the notice of appeal and payment of the filing fee, the Secretary of the Planning Commission shall schedule the matter for hearing at the next available regular meeting of the Planning Commission to be held within thirty days after the date on which the notice of appeal is filed. The Secretary of the Planning Commission shall give notice of the date, time and place of the hearing to the appellant, and to the applicant if other than the appellant, not less than ten days prior to the hearing, unless such notice is waived by the party entitled to receive the same. If a public hearing is conducted on the appeal, notice shall be given in accordance with Section 65091 of the Government Code, except that such notice shall be mailed or delivered to all persons shown on the latest available assessment roll as owning anneal property within five hundred feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearin . Staff has attached a copy of the Noticing procedures established in Government Code section 65091. It is clear from the Saratoga City Code and the Government Code that the latest Equalized County Assessment Roll is the preferred source of addresses to use in order to mail notices. It is clear that the most efficient method of notification is to consistently use the method described in various City Code sections and 65091 of the California Government Code. Staff currently can use computerized data to prepare mailing labels. It was suggested that we sent to both the physical address as well as the address shown on the Assessor's roll. This would require hand checking each property that is being noticed. Staff has also reviewed the past two County Equalized Assessment Rolls and determined that Ms. Wyckoff's mailing address is: P O BOX 391338, MOUNTAIN VIEW CA, 94039-1338. • ".,~ ~ ,"' - ~~. ~~ r :~ ~l`."'"~r w w, t <i5, ~' ?. YN'" ~~ `,film the blind, aged, and disabled communities in order to facilitate their cram # participation. The Legislature finds that access restrictions t o n shall not commercial establishments affecting the blii:d, aged, or disabled is a m with its critical statewide problem; therefore, this subdivision shall be ;nt program applicable to charter cities. [Amended, Chapter 785, Statues of 2000] i r 65091. Notification procedures ~ trlp ~ (a) When a provision of this title requires notice of a public hearing to be given pursuant to this section, notice shall be given in all of the following ways: tto prior to } (1) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to pis chapter, 4 the hearing to the owner of the subject real property or the owner's duly authorized agent, ve] demand ~ and to the project applicant. subdivision ~ (2) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to ! the hearing to each local agency expected to provide water, sewage, streets, roads, schools, or other essential facilities or services to the project, whose ability to provide those facilities and services may be significantly affected. Ater 444 of (3) Notice of the hearing shall be mailed or delivered at least 10 days prior to ~ ctes to ~ the hearing to all owners of real property as shown on the latest equalized assessment roll ~ within 300 feet of the real property that is the subject of the hearing. In lieu of utilizing ~ to ~m existing the assessment roll, the local agency may utilize records of the county assessor or tax nnin and collector which contain more recent information than the assessment roll. If [he number ~ g of owners to whom notice would be mailed or delivered pursuant to this paragraph or nonstration t later than 1 paragraph (1) is greater than 1,000, a local agency, in lieu of mailed or delivered notice, may provide notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one-eighth page in at ~ least one newspaper of general circulation within the local agency in which the proceeding ~ is conducted at least 10 days prior to the hearing. t (4) If the notice is mailed or delivered pursuant to pazagraph (3), the notice sir Quality shall also either be: Health and (A) Published pursuant to Section 6061 in at least one newspaper of general of Section d circulation within the local agency which is conducting the proceeding at least 10 days •ogram, for ~ prior to the hearing. 4 (B) Posted at least 10 days prior to the hearing in at least three public places } within the boundaries of the local agency, including one public place in the area directly { affected by the proceeding. (b) The notice shall include the information specified in Section 65094. (c) In addition to the notice required by this section, a local agency may give notice of the hearing in any other manner it deems necessary or desirable. (d) Whenever a hearing is held regarding a permit for adrive-through facility, ring to be or modification of an existing drive-through facility permit, the local agency shall 6061 in at incorporate, where necessary, notice procedures to the blind, aged, and disabled ;al agency communities in order to facilitate their participation in any hearing on, or appeal of the here is no } denial of, adrive-through facility permit. The Legislature finds that access ys prior to I restrictions to commercial establishments affecting the blind, aged, or ncy. disabled, is a critical statewide problem; therefore, this subdivision 94. shall be applicable to charter cities. give [Amended, Chapter 785, Statutes of 2000) 65092. Request for notification ion or zcilities, t When a provision of this title requires notice of a public hearing to be given dunes t o pursuant to Section 65090 or 65091, the notice shall also be mailed or delivered at least 47 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING APRIL 9, 2004 Mayor Waltonsmith called the Council meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Councilmembers Norman Kline, Nick Streit ABSENT: Councilmember Stan Bogosian ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Laurie Smith, Sheriff Dennis Bacon, Commander John Hirokawa, Captain Terry Calderone, Lieutenant Naomi Tsurumoto, Director of Administrative Services Alan Minato, Fiscal Officer REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR APRIL 9, 2004 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of Apri19, 2004 was properly posted on Apri12, 2004. Sheriff s Contract Pricing for FY 04-05 • 2004-2005 proposed budget includes an 18.3% ($521k) increase over the 2003-2004 contract. • The Sheriff's contract is about $3 million, which is the most expensive part of City's budget of $8.5 million. • Increase is due to increase in pensions, medical plans, workers compensation and contract negotiations. • FY 03-04 eliminated one Traffic Officer and included no merit increase. • Sheriff Smith provided a per capita comparison of police budgets from other Santa Clara County cities that showed the Sheriff's Office provides services at a very low cost. • Sheriff's Office does not charge contract cities for special teams or special enforcement. • Sheriff's Office only charges contract cities for detectives and deputies on the street. • Sheriff Smith suggested that eliminating three positions -DARE Officer, • School Resource Officer, and one Traffic Deputy -would have the least impact on the service in the City of Saratoga. • Council expressed concern in regards to cutting school based programs. COUNCIL DIRECTION Direct Sheriff s Office to prepare cost analysis in regards to eliminating the DARE, School Resource Officer and one Traffic Deputy. 2. West Valley Substation Location Options • West Valley Substation located in the Saratoga Village is inadequate to house the Sheriff's Office. • Active search over the past four years to find an alternate location in Saratoga. • In 2004, a Cox Avenue site was in negotiations, but the deal fell through. • Sheriff Smith explained the breakdown of services rendered out of the West Valley Substation: 0 30% Saratoga 0 50% Cupertino 0 20% Unincorporated and Los Altos Hills • Sheriff Smith suggested that the Sheriff's Office split the West Valley Substation in two. • Sheriff Smith stated that there is an available site in Cupertino (AAA building) on DeAnza Blvd that fits the needs of the entire substation. • Sheriff Smith stated that the owners of the Cox Avenue property offered to build the Sheriff's Office a building if the City would waive the parking requirements. • Discussion in regards to moving the Senior Center and the Adult Care Center to the North Campus and bring the Sheriff's Office to the Community Center. COUNCIL DIRECTION Direct Sheriff Smith to discuss construction of a building with Cox Avenue property owner. Direct City staff to report back to Council estimated cost to rehabilitate the Community Center for use as a substation and North Campus as a Senior Center and Adult Care Center. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business Mayor Waltonsmith adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. and thanked everyone for attending the meeting. Respectfully submitted, Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk • 2