Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2004 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, May 12, 2004 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Garakani called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Hunter, Garakani, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Schallop and Uhl Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous and Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of April 28, 2004. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Zutshi, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of April 28, 2004, were adopted as submitted with corrections to pages 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15 and 16. (5-0-2; Commissioners Schallop and Uhl were absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director Tom Sullivan announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on May 6, 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). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 2 *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #03-254 (397-03-004) HO, 14289 Sobey Road: The applicant requests design review approval to construct a new two-story residence on a vacant lot. At maximum height, the proposed residence will be 26 feet. The proposed residence, including garage, will be 5,230 square feet. Materials and colors include a tan stucco exterior and red tile roof. The gross lot size is 47,045 square feet. The property is zoned R-1-40,000. (CHRISTY OOSTERHOUS) Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review approval to allow a new two-story residence on a vacant lot. The home would have a maximum height of 26 feet and consist of approximately 5,200 square feet, including garage. The materials include tan stucco and a red tile roof. The architectural style is Italian Renaissance with the entrance accentuated by columns. • Described the lot as 47,000 square feet within an R-1-40,000 zoning district. • Informed that no trees are proposed for removal while one Oak tree is proposed for relocation on the property. • Stated that initially staff had concerns regarding several of the proposed architectural features, believing that the design lacked integration into the hillside. The fire turnaround was troubling for staff. Since that time, the applicant has addressed several of the architectural features and alternatives have been found for the fire turnaround. • Said that after driving throughout the area, staff found that there were several two-story homes. Additionally, staff feels that not even a single-story home could preserve the views to the north. • Recommended approval with conditions. An alternative to approval this evening could be to refer the project back to staff for further work. • Added that staff has forwarded copies of all correspondence to the Commission regarding this project. Commissioner Zutshi questioned how the natural grade for the site is determined. Director Tom Sullivan that to measure the natural grade, one takes both the high side and low side at the building’s edge and averages the two. Commissioner Zutshi asked how the three-story element could be justified. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that initially staff had the same concern. However, technically, according to Code, if 80 percent of the basement is subterranean, as is the case with this project, that area is not counted as a story. Reminded that while this is a hillside lot it is not zoned as Hillside Residential. Commissioner Zutshi asked if a geotechnical report has been prepared for this project. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes but that it had not been included in the report. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the City’s Residential Design Guidelines apply. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 3 Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if staff and the applicant had evaluated alternative building pad locations at all. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the stairway feature goes up to the roof over the second floor, as it appears to do. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied correct. Commissioner Rodgers asked if that deck area would also be considered a floor. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied no, Commissioner Hunter asked why there is no landscape plan provided. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous said that the applicant refused to provide one despite her having requested one continually during the review process. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the Commission typically requires a landscape plan during the Design Review process. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied absolutely, adding that unless it is done at that time, landscape plans don’t often trigger public review. Commissioner Hunter asked if staff did not feel it had the “teeth” to require this landscape plan from the applicant. Associate Planner Christy Oosterhous replied that the applicant would be limited to the scope of work for which they receive an approval by the Commission. Director Tom Sullivan said that the landscape plan would need to be brought before the Planning Commission at a later date. Commissioner Hunter said that she would like to see this requirement for a landscape plan inserted into the Conditions of Approval. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Jim Stroupe, Project Architect: • Informed that the roof deck has no walls and an open railing. • Stated that if he had been told he should not come before the Commission without a landscape plan, he would have provided one. • Added that their plans for the landscaping are depicted on the site plan itself. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 4 • Said that they plan to remove the natural grasses on the site since Mr. Ho is allergic. They will replace them with an alternate native grass to which Mr. Ho would not be allergic. Additionally, they will plant four fruit trees beyond the rear terrace and plant annuals near the front entry. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Jim Stroupe about interactions with the back neighbors. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Reported that his client, Mr. Ho, had met with the Herringers regarding screening for privacy. • Added that Mr. Ho had shown his plans to all the neighbors. • Assured that Mr. and Mrs. Ho are happy to plant trees as necessary to mitigate privacy impacts for the Herringers. • Pointed out that Mrs. Priscilla Ho has resided in Saratoga since the 60s. Mr. and Mrs. Ho have lived in Saratoga since the 90s. They are not new to the area. • Advised that the house would not be visible from Sobey from one direction and barely visible from the other. • Acknowledged the concerns over loss of privacy by the rear neighbors. • Requested revisions to the Conditions to allow the planned 2,712 square foot open terrace that is proposed as impervious hardscape. Additionally, they want to move the wrought iron fence back to the necessary front setback in order to keep it at its current six-foot height. • Reminded that they would not be removing any major tree but would relocate one Oak tree. However, their Arborist has told them that there is a low chance of survival for that tree. Instead, they ask that they be allowed to remove that tree outright and replace it with a similar tree. • Expressed that they appreciate Christy’s help in working with Fire so that they would be allowed to have a circular turnaround in front. They are proposing to place a fountain in the center of the turnaround. • Said that they have made many modifications per the requests of Christy Oosterhous, which have greatly improved the design. • Advised that they have tried to minimize the amount of grading and that the only retaining walls are near the Oak at the drive. They have tried to keep the drive at grade. • Pointed out that no garage is visible from the front of the house. • Explained that his clients had asked him to design a home with large level floor areas, with no steps or split levels. An elevator is provided. He has designed a fairly thin house that wraps around the site. Commissioner Hunter asked whose bedroom is located on the second floor. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied that this would be the master bedroom. Commissioner Rodgers questioned the purpose of the sundeck. Mr. Jim Stroupe said that this rooftop deck feature was a specific request of Mr. and Mrs. Ho. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Jim Stroupe how big the basement would be. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied 2,000 square feet, adding that there was no basement space beneath the garage, living and dining rooms. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 5 Commissioner Hunter asked for the ceiling heights. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied 10 feet, 10 feet 6 inches for the second floor. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Mr. Jim Stroupe for the time spent at the site visit. Asked what efforts have been made to integrate this project into this hillside and whether any alternative building site area on the property had been considered. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied no, a second building site was not considered. This is the only logical place on a hillside that is quite steep. They must locate this house at the top of the site to build this home as Mr. and Mrs. Ho want. Commissioner Nagpal questioned why other possibilities were not considered for the placement of the house on this property, as she wants to have some understanding of the flavor of where they were coming from. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Said that an important feature was a useable rear yard. • Stated that he had told Mr. and Mrs. Ho that the best place to build is where they are proposing. It would be worse if they tried to place the house on the far side of the hill. If it were placed lower on the property, more grading would be required and they have tried to limit grading as much as possible. • Reminded that the cut for the basement is not considered grading. • Assured that they have tried to meet all requirements under the Residential Design Handbook. • Restated that they are willing to plant screening as necessary. • Pointed out that Saratoga is one of the only communities in the area where a country setting can still be found. Chair Garakani questioned the disadvantages of grading. Mr. Jim Stroupe: • Said that they would be cutting off three feet in the terrace area to create a flat area. The rear yard area offers views of the hill. • Said that contours and retaining walls would be required. • Said that they did not want to place the garage so that it faces the front of the house. Additionally, the garage has been placed at the same level as the main living area to avoid steps when bringing in groceries into the house from the garage. • Added that if the house were to be lowered on the site closer to Sobey Road, they would not have any views of the hillside. Mr. and Mrs. Ho have bought this property for views of hillsides. • Assured that the main level of the house needed to be where it is. • Restated that they have met all design standards and almost all policies. • Reminded that the house wraps around the hill and is long and thin and that they are close to meeting 90 percent of the City’s standards. Commissioner Rodgers stated that Policy 2 requires integration with the hillside so that a house does not interfere with a ridgeline where other folks can see it. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 6 Mr. Jim Stroupe disagreed that their house is located on the ridgeline. Commissioner Nagpal said that it does indeed seem to be on top of the hill. Mr. Jim Stroupe argued that what they are proposing is exactly what is asked for in Design Guideline Policy 2, adding that no one will see this house except for two rear neighbors. They are not precluding views of the mountains for others. Director Tom Sullivan pointed out that there are major ridgelines in the City of Saratoga that are prominent from the Valley floor. This is not a ridgeline but rather a hilltop. Mr. Jim Stroupe pointed out that Policy 4 calls for plantings along a property line to mitigate privacy impacts. Added that there is an approximate 80 foot setback from the homes below. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the existing ranch house was built in the 1940s and does not impose on the ridgeline. She asked how tall the rooflines would be. Mr. Jim Stroupe replied 24 feet, 9 inches with a 100 foot rear yard setback. He added that they are happy to install screening trees but that it may be better to figure out where to plant these trees once the house is built. Mr. Jeff Ho, Applicant and Property Owner: • Expressed concern about the questions to consider relocation of the house on the site. • Pointed out that they went through an extensive process with the City and that they were encouraged by the City to move as little dirt from the site as possible. • Added that this process has already taken 18 months. Commissioner Hunter explained to Mr. Jeff Ho that lots of letters from his neighbors have been received that have indicated concerns. She added that the process would be faster if no concerns had been raised. Commissioner Nagpal expressed her regrets that Mr. Ho feels he has undergone a bad experience with this process. Added that just because there is a large house next door does not mean that he can do the same. Mr. Jeff Ho said that he was influenced by the neighbor’s house. Commissioner Rodgers said that she was glad to hear that the architect feels this design has been improved due to staff recommendations. Asked for information about the plans for the sundeck. Mr. Jeff Ho explained that he and his wife had seen many sundecks in homes in the Tuscany region. They wanted to recreate that. Explained that they have decided to build an ADA compliant house for his wife, who has had a number of back injuries over the years. Commissioner Zutshi asked Mr. Ho if he had considered a one-story design. Mr. Jeff Ho pointed out the high cost of the land. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 7 Commissioner Zutshi said that the deck could be dangerous. Mr. Jeff Ho agreed that a deck could be dangerous. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Ho if he would be willing to remove this deck. Mr. Jeff Ho replied that he is flexible within reason, explaining that he has lived in Saratoga for 20 years and wants to be a good neighbor. However, he also knows that he cannot please everyone. Commissioner Rodgers suggested the elimination of the stairway leading to the deck. Mr. Jeff Ho pointed out that the deck is small, only five feet by six feet. Mr. John Herringer, 18803 Hilltop Way, Saratoga; • Advised that he and his wife, Eileen, oppose this proposal. • Urged denial of this project as currently designed due to this house being a massive two-story that is out of scale, lacks integration into the area and provides significant interference in his privacy. • Said that the project is out of scale with the neighborhood since others are single-story homes. This homes’ maximum height is 26 feet, even though it is located at the top of a hill. • Said that this project violates regulations and does not follow topography. • Said that privacy impacts should be resolved with the design of the home and not be mitigated after construction with landscaping to ensure privacy. • Stated that this home should blend in and not project out from the hillside. The structure should be located in such a way as to minimize impact. • Stressed his belief that this design violates City policies. • Restated that two-story homes are not a part of this direct neighborhood. • Suggested that the charge of the Planning Commission is to enforce the City’s Residential Design Policies. • Urged the Commission to deny this project as proposed, requiring the project to limit its height, incorporate into the hillside, be placed lower down the hill and with the provision of a landscape plan. • Informed that Mr. and Mrs. Ho had told him that they like to use a telescope to look at the stars. • Stated that his backyard is his private sanctuary. Chair Garakani asked Mr. John Herringer how many of his concerns he had shared with the applicants. Mr. John Herringer said that they had shown him their plans in November and asked him to sign a form indicating that they had done so but that the plans were not discussed in detail. He reminded that policy states that landscaping is not supposed to mitigate privacy impacts. Mr. Ian Crayfield, 18070 Hillside, Saratoga: • Expressed his opposition to this proposal for four reasons: loss of privacy, bulk, failure to conform to Design Guidelines and no overall landscape plan. • Said that he had moved his pool to avoid impacts down the hillside and instead placed it in a valley where only one neighbor can see it. • Assured that he is not planning to replace his grasses although he is sorry if Mr. Ho is allergic to it. • Said he is sorry that they want a flat house. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 8 • Stated that minimizing visibility impacts from Sobey is not important since many large homes are visible along Sobey. • Informed that he has spent two and a half years landscaping his rear yard and has done everything possible to make his property non-invasive to his neighbors. However, with this project, his deck and pool area privacy would be destroyed. • Said that the 26 foot height and bulk of this structure concerns him. • Stated that no natural screening is possible. It would take 40-foot high trees right next to this house. • Said that several requirements under the Residential Design Guidelines have not been met. The house does not minimize the perception of bulk. With no landscape plan, it does not integrate with the environment. The minimum fence height is not met. The project does not avoid interference with the privacy of neighbors. The project does not preserve views and access to views. • Summarized his recommendation that this project be sent back for reconsideration to come back with something that results in less of an impact on the area, impact Sobey Road rather than the rear neighbors’ properties. Ms. Priscilla Ho, Applicant and Property Owner: • Said that she grew up in Saratoga and is very familiar with the community. • Stated that their home as designed goes around the contour of the property. • Added that they like light and did not want to build into the side of the property. They are actually 35 feet off the top of the hill and the garage comes around to the side. Mr. Jeff Ho, said that while they have done everything possible to work with staff, they might not have met all requirements. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she feels for Mr. and Mrs. Ho as she has been through this process herself. • Pointed out that planning staff and the Planning Commission can sometimes have different perspectives. • Told the applicants that the Commissioners are their neighbors and volunteers. • Said that despite what the Architect is saying about grading, she still sees lots of trucks leaving sites with soil from the basement. • Questioned the belief of the Architect that Saratoga easily accepts mitigation of privacy impacts with trees. She added that this is not the message of the Commission but rather landscaping to mitigate for privacy impacts is a last resort and not a first line of defense. • Said that the house needs to follow the contours, minimize bulk and use muted colors. • Stated that she does not yet know how she feels about Sobey Road. • Stressed the importance of providing a landscape plan. • Suggested the elimination of the staircase to the top deck. • Said when comparing front versus back property impacts, the impacts from the front would be less than to the back. • Said that she thinks this would be a better project if compromises were reached. Commissioner Rodgers: • Said that she has many of the same thoughts. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 9 • Expressed concern about the sunroof as this feature adds a third story that will overlook the neighbors and is at maximum height. There are three neighbors directly behind. • Said that this is a great precedent. • Agreed that following the contours is important. • Stated that since Sobey Road has big, grand and ostentatious homes, impacts would not be as great as they would on the rear neighbors. • Said that her preference would be to have the house lowered on the back and terraced down the hill. • Reiterated the need for a landscape plan as she does not want to approve this project and see things coming in later. • Suggested the inclusion of fire-resistant native trees. Director Tom Sullivan said that there is existing policy requiring drought tolerant material but not fire resistant. Commissioner Rodgers said that she would like to see that requirement included. Commissioner Hunter: • Stated that it is difficult when a vacant lot is developed within an existing neighborhood. • Pointed out that the two houses on either side are well integrated into the hillside. • Said that this design has to go back for further study and be located lower on the hill. • Agreed that there is not a problem with the house being visible from Sobey as it is preferable to the impacts on the rear neighbors if it were to be placed right at the top of the hill. • Agreed that screening would be difficult because of the topography. • Said that the stairway to the roof is difficult for the neighbors to accept. • Added that she is unsure how to obtain fire resistance in landscaping. • Stressed the importance to putting more thought to screening and dealing with the neighbors’ concerns. • Reminded that this is one of the last lots in this neighborhood to be developed. Commissioner Zutshi: • Agreed with the comments of Commissioner Hunter. • Said that this project has a big impact on the neighbors and that the staircase with a landing on the roof is not private for the rear neighbors. • Expressed concern with the idea of fencing higher than 6 feet. • Said that something must be done before she can support this project. • Pointed out that dirt must be removed anyway from the site for the basement. Chair Garakani: • Clarified that the applicants are not asking for fencing above 6 feet in height. They just propose to move their existing 6-foot wrought iron fence so that it falls within the required setback to allow it to remain at the 6-foot height instead of being lowered to 3.5 feet as required where it is currently placed. • Agreed that the project requires more study and that the staircase to the roof deck is an issue as the neighbors would suffer a loss of privacy as a result. • Said that balancing interests must occur and that the height should be reduced. Director Tom Sullivan: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 10 • Reminded that the 1,000 cubic yard limitation for cut is for the Hillside District and that this property is not zoned Hillside Residential. Chair Garakani suggested that the applicant work further with the Planning Department. Commissioner Hunter expressed concern about the visibility of a red tile roof and suggested that a tan tile would integrate better with the environment. Chair Garakani proposed that the Commission give further instruction to staff. Director Tom Sullivan assured that staff has plenty of information and suggested that the Chair poll the applicant to determine if they prefer an outright denial or a continuance. Chair Garakani reopened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 1 and asked the applicant his preference. Mr. Jim Stroupe said that they prefer a continuance and said that they would incorporate all concerns and ideas raised this evening by the Commission. He added that it is very easy to understand what is wanted. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission continued consideration of a Design Review request for a new house to be located at 14289 Sobey Road (Application #03-054) to a date uncertain, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #04-096 (CITYWIDE): A Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment that regulates the placement of standby or emergency generators and the placement of heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment. Generally, the amendment would disallow the placement within any required setback area. (TOM SULLIVAN) Director Tom Sullivan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that both the Planning Commission and Council heard concerns that were raised by a resident as a result of noise impacts from a standby generator. Both the Commission and Council decided that a specific Ordinance regarding placement of such a generator needed to be developed. • Explained that this would be added to the Accessory Uses and Structures and would also regulate the placement of HVAC units. • Suggested adding text, “A noise assessment study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical consultant for all proposed generators.” • Pointed out that Saratoga’s requirements are more stringent than other communities. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 11 • Added that a Use Permit would be required for placement of an emergency generator and that these units could not be located within a required setback. Commissioner Zutshi suggested that the word “setback” be added to the end of the sentence reading “No…required front, side and rear yard.” Director Tom Sullivan explained that since the sentence begins with “no,” the word setback is not required. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the Ordinance covers just noise or also fumes. Director Tom Sullivan replied it was just noise. The whole complaint was based on noise. Commissioner Rodgers asked if this applies just to residential zoning. Director Tom Sullivan replied yes. Chair Garakani said that he felt this Ordinance amendment is good. Chair Garakani opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Chair Garakani closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Commissioner Hunter said that this was fine with her. Commissioner Zutshi asked how this requirement would be advertised. Director Tom Sullivan said that an announcement could be printed in the Saratogan. Commissioner Hunter asked if neighbors would be notified of a potential installation. Director Tom Sullivan said yes. The processing requires a Use Permit. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hunter, the Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment (Application #04-096) to regulate the placement of standby or emergency generators and heating, ventilation and air conditioning equipment, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Schallop and Uhl ABSTAIN: None *** NON-PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 12 APPLICATION #04-019 (397-09-009) GUDAPATI AND MEKA, 19170 Monte Vista Drive: The applicants request that the Planning Commission review the City Arborist Report prepared for this application and provide guidance on the design of the proposed home. (LATA VASUDEVAN) Assistant Planner Lata Vasudevan presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that staff is requesting that the Planning Commission study the Arborist Report and provide guidance regarding the proposed site plan in relation to impacts to trees. • Said that the applicant is proposing to construct a new home. • Stated that the Arborist Report recommends a revised home footprint to protect three trees while the applicant wants to adhere to their plan. • Added that this is a non public-hearing item tonight. • Said that she was available for any questions. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the Arborist is recommending removal of Trees 15 and 16 in lieu of Tree 4. Commissioner Zutshi pointed out Trees 8 and 9. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that these are Cedar trees and that the house would be close. Commissioner Nagpal clarified that the Arborist is recommending revised plans to 20 feet. Planner Lata Vasudevan said that the plans show a distance of 12 feet and that a pier and beam foundation could be used. Mr. R. Gudapati, Applicant and Owner, 19170 Monte Vista Drive, Saratoga: • Advised that their plans have been revised so that their home would be 12 feet from Trees 8 and 9 and that they also changed to a pier and beam foundation. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Gudapati if he agrees that these Cedars serve as a nice barrier between this house and the neighbor’s. Mr. R. Gudapati replied yes. He advised that six Cedar trees would stay on the property. Commissioner Hunter asked about the two California Buckeye Redwood trees (Trees 15 and 16). Mr. R. Gudapati: • Said that he would like to retain one but remove Tree 16 as without that removal they would not be able to construct a decent house. • Pointed out that this is a multi-trunked tree, a triple Redwood. • Added that there are a lot of trees at the back fence to buffer noise. Commissioner Zutshi asked what would replace Tree 4. Mr. R. Gudapati said that they plan to replace it with four 36-inch box Oak trees. Chair Garakani asked Mr. Gudapati if his Arborist is expected this evening. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 13 Mr. R. Gudapati: • Replied yes, their Arborist was expected to arrive any minute now. • Advised that Tree 4 has a rating of less than 50 and that the canopy of that tree is off to one side. Mr. James Scott, Certified Arborist: • Said that Tree 4 is healthy in color of leaves, size and distribution. However, there is an asymmetrical crown that leans over the existing structure. The growing point grows over the roots. • Added that this condition often results in summer branch failure. When temperatures get over 85 degrees, branches can just give way. • Cautioned that anyone visiting the site should use care as there is one branch of concern on one of the Cedars that is in danger of falling. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. James Scott whether the removal of the leaning portion of this tree would allow the rest of the tree to compensate. Mr. James Scott said doing so would be in violation of ISA regulations as it would equal the removal of more than twenty percent of the tree. Commissioner Hunter again asked if the tree could compensate once cut back. Mr. James Scott said that it could result in lots of new shoots and put the tree into growth mode. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. James Scott about the plans for pier and beam foundation near the Cedars. Mr. James Scott said that this is a good idea. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that the City Arborist recommends a 20-foot distance while the applicant is proposing a 12 foot distance. Mr. James Scott: • Stressed the importance of construction fencing for two-thirds of the drip-line. This is needed to prevent storage, walking over, etc., and should equal a 14.5 foot vertical clearance. • Added that if this area must be crossed over, it must be mulched with eight to ten inches of wood mulch. Additionally, during the summer months of construction, a watering program must be enacted that provides 75 gallons per tree every ten days to help relieve stress. Director Tom Sullivan advised that these requirements are in the City’s Ordinance as well as within the recommendations of the City Arborist. The City’s regulations go beyond ISA standards. Commissioner Nagpal thanked Arborist James Scott for coming this evening. Commissioner Zutshi stated that she did not mind the removal of Tree 4 as long as it was going to be replaced. Commissioner Nagpal said that she prefers to maintain Trees 15 and 16 and have the applicant mitigate Trees 9 and 18. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 14 Commissioner Rodgers said that she agreed that Tree 4 is not worth keeping but that Trees 15 and 16 are worth retaining. Commissioner Hunter: • Said that Tree 4 is young and located in a shady area. • Agreed that the Buckeye Redwoods and Cedar are superior trees to keep. • Expressed support for keeping the house where the applicants want it and to utilize the pier and beam foundation. Chair Garakani pointed out that this is a long lot with a lot of trees and that he does not mind losing Tree 4 to accommodate this house as long as it is replaced with four 36-inch box trees. Commissioner Nagpal thanked staff and the applicants for being so pro-active. Director Tom Sullivan said that he believes that there is sufficient consensus and guidance from the Commission to move forward. Commissioner Hunter thanked Mr. James Scott for his expertise. *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Heritage Preservation Commission: Commissioner Hunter advised that she was able to attend the recent Heritage Preservation Commission. Road Maintenance Committee Chair Garakani advised that he and Commissioner Nagpal participated at a recent Road Maintenance Committee meeting. This Committee is trying to find a way to get public help, perhaps even a parcel tax, to cover costs of road maintenance. Commissioner Nagpal pointed out that all property taxes paid by Saratoga residents does not come back to the City. Director Tom Sullivan reported that the City receives about 3.5 percent. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that schools get the greatest percentage. Commissioner Zutshi advised that other cities get a larger percentage, like 6 percent. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of May 12, 2004 Page 15 Director Tom Sullivan reminded that Saratoga is not a full service city as it contracts out for Sheriff and Fire services. Added that the State of California has recently taken funds away from cities. Chair Garakani said that another meeting is pending of this Road Maintenance Committee. Commissioner Hunter reminded that the City used to have a utility tax that has since expired. COMMUNICATIONS Minutes from the City Council meeting held on April 7, 2004. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Zutshi, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Garakani adjourned the meeting at 9:22 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of May 26, 2004, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk