Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-09-2007 Planning Commission PacketROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA AGRNDA 1. APPLICATION #07 -143 P:\PC SITE VISITS\Site Visitsl2007\SVA 010907.doc CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SITE VISIT AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 9, 2007 3:30 p.m. 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 Silverstein 19896 Park Dr. 2. APPLICATION #07 -205 Martin 14261 Springer Ave. The Site Visit Committee is comprised of interested Planning Commission members. The committee conducts site visits to properties that are new items on the Planning Commission Agenda. The site visits are held on the Tuesday preceding the Wednesday hearing, between 3:30 p.m. and 5:00 p.m. It is encouraged that the applicant and/or owner to be present to answer any questions that may arise. Site visits are generally short (10 to 20 minutes) because of time constraints. Any presentations and testimony you may wish to give should be saved for the Public Hearing. During the Site Visit, the Planning Commission may only discuss items related to the project. The agenda does not allow any formal votes or motions on the proposed project or other matters. The Site Visit is a fact finding meeting where the Commission may discuss the item and ask questions from or hear statements from members of the public attending the Visit. No comments made during the Site Visit by the Planning Commission are binding or required to be carried through to the formal public hearing where actions will be taken on the proposed project. CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION AGENDA DATE: Tuesday, January 9, 2007, 5:00 p.m. PLACE: Administrative Conference Room located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting ROLL CALL REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 4, 2007. 1. Prioritization of Ordinances The study session is an information meeting for the Planning Commission. No decisions will be made at this meeting. Adjournment To Regular Planning Commission Meeting Wednesday, January 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 1 DATE: Wednesday, January 10, 2007 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting ROLL CALL: Commissioners Manny Cappello, Joyce Hlava, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Yan Zhao and Chair Linda Rodgers PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of December 13, 2006 ORAL COMMUNICATION: 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. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS- PLANNING COMMISSION DIRECTION TO STAFF: REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA: Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 4, 2007. 40 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). CONSENT CALENDAR: None PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. Applicants /Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the Public may comment on any item for up to three minutes. Applicant /Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes maximum for closing statements. 1. APPLICATION #07 -143 (510 -01 -030) Silverstein, 19896 Park Drive; The applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission at their July 27, 2005, hearing, which consisted of demolition of a residence and construction of a one -story, single family, residence with a total floor area of the 4,828 sq. ft. The proposed modification would change exterior materials and colors. The gross lot size is 28,750 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1 20,000. (Therese Schmidt) 2. APPLICATION #07 -205 (503 -27 -068) Martin, 14261 Springer Avenue; The applicant requests an appeal of an Administrative Decision to Approve a Minor Modification of Approved Plans, granted by the Director of Community Development. The Administrative Decision pertains to a concrete walkway adjacent to trees. (Kate Bear) P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 011007.doc DIRECTORS ITEM: None COMMISSION ITEMS: None COMMUNICATIONS None ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Wednesday, January 24, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers /Civic Theater 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 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@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). Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Abby Ayende, Office Specialist for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga was posted on January 4, 2007 at the office of the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us If you would like to receive the Agenda's via e-mail, please send your e-mail address to planningAsaratoga.ca.us P:\PC Agendas\2007\Agn 011007.doc DATE: Wednesday, December 13, 2006 PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Rodgers called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: Commissioner Nagpal Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Therese Schmidt, Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of November 8, 2006. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of November 8, 2006, were adopted with edits to pages 21, 23 and 26. (5 -0 -1; Commissioner Nagpal was absent) ORAL COMMUNICATION There were no Oral Communications. MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION 40 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on December 7, 2006. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Rodgers announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 2 CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #06 -214 (503 -24 -034) Graff (Conoco Phillips/Tosco Marketing, 14395 Big Basin Way; The applicant requests approval and a variance to construct an illuminated freestanding gasoline price sign. The site is located in the Commercial Historic (CH -1) Zoning District. Sign Permit approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 30.060. (Suzanne Thomas) This item is continued to a date uncertain. Chair Rodgers advised that this item is to be continued to a date uncertain and asked for a motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN a Sign Permit and Variance (Application #06 -214) for an illuminated freestanding gasoline price sign on property located at 14395 Big Basin Way, by the following roll 'call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #07 -130 (389 -34 -014) Sigler /Haas, 13641 Ronnie Way; The applicant requests modification of plans. Changes include construction a full wall on the front facade of the existing covered porch. (Shweta Bhatt) The applicant has withdrawn this project. Chair Rodgers advised that this application has been withdrawn and no action is required. PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT: The City of Saratoga Community Development Department is proposing text changes in Chapter 15; Zoning Regulations Chapter of the City Code. The purpose of text changes is to require projects on lots on protected waterways to incorporate Guidelines and Standards for Land Use Near Streams. These Guidelines were developed by the Santa Clara Valley Water Resources Protection Collaborative, a group of Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 3 municipalities, agencies and stakeholders within the Santa Clara Valley. (John Livingstone) This item is continued to a date uncertain. Chair Rodgers advised that this item is to be continued to a date uncertain and asked for a motion. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Zhao, the Planning Commission CONTINUED TO A DATE UNCERTAIN a Sign a Zoning Text Amendment to Chapter 15, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 4 APPLICATION #07 -136 (386 -10 -049) Hans /Kato, 1777 Saratoga Avenue. The applicant requests modification of plans. Changes include the generator model and a different configuration for the sound barrier. Shweta Bhatt) Assistant Planner Shweta Bhatt presented the staff report as follows: Reported that the applicant is seeking modifications to approved plans for an emergency generator to be located at the corner of Lawrence Expressway and Saratoga Avenue. Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a different model generator and configuration of the sound wall that was approved in October 2005. Stated that this generator would only be used for emergency purposes in the event of a power outage in order to provide power to the Verizon Wireless facility located on this property. Described the zoning as Professional- Administrative Office. The site borders San Jose. Said that a Noise Assessment Study was completed and recommended an eight -foot high sound barrier to surround a seven -foot high generator on three sides. Said that as proposed, this would be ,located on the front setback. Code permits variation from standards such as setbacks subject to issuance of a Use Permit if certain findings can be made. Added that staff finds this is warranted given the triangular configuration of the property, the proximity of the site to a major arterial street and the existing uses on the property. There is vegetation along the property line abutting Lawrence Expressway. Stated that the generator is not expected to be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare. Said that the required findings can be made and recommended approval and the adoption of a resolution. Said- that_th_ e_applicant is present and ;available for questions. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 4 Mr. Roger Haas, Representative for Verizon: Stated that they accept the imposed conditions. Said he is available for any questions. Commissioner Kundtz thanked the applicant for his respect for the process. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4. Commissioner Cappello said that this is a very straightforward request and he has no objections. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving modification of plans (Application #07 -136) regarding a generator and sound wall on property located at 1777 Saratoga Avenue, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 5 APPLICATION #07 -116 (517 -08 -079) Cinnabar Vineyards Winery, 14612 "A" Big Basin Way: The applicant requests approval for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a retail shop (selling Cinnabar Vineyards wine and related retail products) with a tasting bar and fee -based wine education seminars in the CH -2 Zoning District within the Village. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Reported that this request is for a new Use Permit for a vacant commercial structure located in the Village in a CH -2 Zoning District. Said that the proposed use would include selling alcohol with a minor educational. component. Both of those uses require a Use Permit. Said that the new business would be the retail facility specializing in Cinnabar Vineyards products. In addition to retail and tasting uses there would be occasional evening events. Recommended approval. Commissioner Hlava asked if there should be a more specific closing hour for this use outside of the proposed closing of 5 to 6 p.m. with occasional special events. Planner Therese Schmidt said that the Commission could elect to add a closing time to the conditions. She clarified that just tasting would occur. This will not be a drinking establishment. There will be no live entertainment. Commissioner Hlava clarified that she has no problem with the proposed use but thinks it would be cleaner to limit operations to a more specific 10 or 11 p.m. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 5 Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a fair point and suggested that this be discussed further with the applicant to see what might be reasonable for their operations. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Ms. Suzanne Franz, General Manager, Cinnabar Vineyards, 23000 Congress Springs Road: Explained that Mr. Tom Mud founded Cinnabar Vineyards in 1981. In 1986, their renouned Santa Cruz Mountain Cabernet Sauvignon was established. Cinnabar is well known for its wine, Mercury Rising, that is a red wine blend. Said that the Cinnabar Vineyards Winery is located down a 2.5 -mile dirt road. The winery is only open four times a year to the public during the Santa Cruz Mountain Winery Association's Passport Days. Reported that supporters have asked repeatedly why not open a retail shop and tasting room. Saratoga was their first choice location due to their long history and involvement in the community including the street dance, Saratoga schools and Rotary art fair. Said that the retail shop will sell only Cinnabar produced wines, wine related items and tasting for a fee. The fee is $5 for four one -ounce pours. This is regulated by their ABC (Alcohol Beverage Control) license. Assured that they are dedicated to responsible hospitality and their staff is professionally trained. The shop will sell wine ansi provide wine and food educational opportunities and events that will be conducted for a fee. Staffing will consist of a full -time manager and part-time staff. Stated that 70 percent of the space will be used for retail and 30 percent for non retail use that includes a storage room, break room and restroom. Said that approval of this Use Permit will make Cinnabar a destination business and further establishes wine tourism for the wineries of Saratoga and the Santa Cruz Mountains. Said that establishing a cap on the operational hours would be fine and requested that the cap be 11 p.m. Explained that events would be over between 10:15 and 10:30 p.m. Closing at 11 p.m. will allow staff sufficient time to clean up,' lock up and leave. Stated that they are aware of nearby residents and cognizant of their neighbors. They want to be very good neighbors. Commissioner Kundtz asked if activity would occur on site prior to the proposed 10 a.m. start time. Ms. Sharon Franz replied that staff arrives at 10 a.m. Commissioner Cappello asked if the retail hours are proposed between 11 a.m. and 5 p.m. seven days a week. Ms. Sharon Franz replied yes. She said that general tasting would not go beyond 6 p.m. and special events to 11 p.m. This is the industry standard. Commissioner Cappello asked what percentage of the business would be retail. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 6 Ms. Sharon Franz replied that 70 percent of the floor space is retail space. Sales of wine related items equals about 35 percent while the remaining 65 percent would be wine sales. Commissioner Cappello: Pointed out that the City is trying to enhance the revitalization of its Village. Added that foot traffic is a big part of that. Stated that a lot of foot traffic occurs in the evening and that it would be nice to have the shop open in the evenings. Said that closing at 5 p.m. does not help with foot traffic. Ms. Sharon Franz assured that their special events would help generate foot traffic. Commissioner Cappello asked about the frequency of these special events. Ms. Sharon Franz said that a guess would be about 50 per year. Commissioner Cappello that means about one per week. Ms. Sharon Franz replied yes. She added that the attendees would also patronize other businesses in the Village. Chair Rodgers asked if there are any plans to tie in this use with the concerts held at Mountain Winery. Ms. Sharon Franz said that she had not given that any thought although Cinnabar wines are available at Mountain Winery. She cautioned that a tasting room might not be a draw for attendees going to concerts but she would give that concept further thought. Mr. Nahm Lee, Resident on Big Basin Way: Explained that he lives in the next building in one of two condominiums that shares the parking lot. Expressed a concern about parking impacts and suggested more restrictions on parking and traffic rules. Pointed out that it is often difficult to get out of the condo parking and he is concerned about being blocked in. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Nahm Lee if he has a Big Basin Way address. Mr. Nahm Lee replied yes. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Nahm Lee if his is the brick condo behind. Mr. Nahm Lee replied yes. Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Nahm Lee if there are garages for each condo. Mr. Nahm Lee replied yes and one visitor parking space per unit also. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Hlava asked Mr. Nahm Lee if visibility is impacted by parking that occurs on Big Basin Way. Mr. Nahm Lee replied yes and said that it is pretty dangerous. Commissioner Cappello sought clarification that there is one garage and one visitor space per condo unit. Mr. Nahm Lee said that the visitor parking is not specified with a sign but the owner has offered to put up a sign. Commissioner Zhao asked Mr. Nahm Lee if such a sign would help with anticipated parking problems. Mr. Nahm Lee said that this sign would at least warn visitors to the retail use that this parking is reserved for residents. He said he simply wants to warn the public. He reiterated that there is no such sign so far. Char Rodgers -asked if his condo has the -same- landlord as this Cinnabar tenant space. Mr. Nahm Lee corrected that he is the owner of his condo unit. Chair Rodgers asked what owner has offered to install signage dedicating residential visitor parking spaces. Mr. Nahm Lee replied the commercial building owner. Mr. Paul Hernandez: Explained that he runs the Saratoga Oaks Lodge. Expressed support for this new business. Said that it would be good for the community. Mr. Bill Cooper, Big Basin Way: Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez: Welcomed Cinnabar to the community. Agreed that this use would help with the revitalization of the Village. Expressed support. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Lea An'n Hernandez if they experience any problem with the use of the Lodge's parking. If not, what is the deterrent that they use to avoid such problems? Ms. Lea Ann Hernandez said that they have a vigilant manager. She reported that the nearby mortgage business was using their parking for a while. She added that at night most people recognize that it is private property. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December13, 2006 Page 8 Stated that he is very supportive. Said that Cinnabar has worked with the neighbors and held a reception. Assured that they understand the neighbor's concern. Pointed out that this is a designated retail space. Ms. Sharon Franz: Agreed that parking is always an issue. Said that by closing between 5 and 6 p.m., they will free up parking for restaurants. Said that they will be respectful of the neighbor's concern to preserve their private parking and will highlight the public lots and street parking for their retail clients. Added that they will put up signs and have staff park in such a way as to prevent in and out traffic where the neighbor was concerned. Expressed appreciation for the support expressed this evening. Commissioner Zhao asked if it might be appropriate to condition posting the necessary sign to reserve two visitor parking spaces for the two adjacent condo units. Ms. Sharon Franz said that she cannot speak for the owner but does not think it would be a problem to post a sign to designate private parking. Commissioner Kundtz asked Ms. Sharon Franz to take the initiative to speak to the property owner directly about this sign. Ms. Sharon Franz said she would be happy to do so. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 5. Commissioner Kundtz said that he is happy to see activity moving up to 6 Street. He said that he envisions that after tasting Cinnabar patrons might move on to dinner in a nearby restaurant. Commissioner Hlava: Said that she is really enthused about foot traffic on that end that will be beneficial to all. Agreed that parking is always an issue. Stated her appreciation for the applicant's willingness to speak with the owner about signage for the private parking. Said that she would like closing time limits. Suggested that the tasting room be closed to retail business by 10 p.m. Employees can stay later. Stated that she is thrilled with this new business. Added that she is a big fan of Cinnabar wines and this will be a great addition to the Village. Commissioner Kundtz said that he recalls the applicant saying her employees would be told not to park on site. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 9 Ms. Sharon Franz said that she would encourage them to park in back on weekends to avoid in and out traffic that was of concern to the neighbor. Chair Rodgers asked about a closing hour of between 10 and 11 p.m. Commissioner Cappello: Stated that he likes this project and feels it is a good fit for the Village. Added that it is a high -end, upscale organization that fits the ambiance. Said that being located at the upper end of Big Basin Way it will help liven up the entire Village. Said that he wants to see extended hours even if just the retail. Agreed that there are often conflicts with having residential behind commercial. Said that employees parking back there could help prevent in and out traffic from occurring. Stated that he would like to see as little restrictions as possible and rather supports anything to make this viable. Commissioner Zhao: Said she agreed that this is a good addition to the Village. It will add foot traffic. Suggested hours being limited to 10 p.m_ on weekdays and to 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Chair Rodgers: Reminded that this building was set up for retail use. Stated that one could not have found a better use. Cinnabar will be a wonderful fit and offers a perfect solution for the vacancy in that building. Said that parking is an issue for retail use. However, the people who bought residential units here should have known of the retail space up front. Stressed the need to accommodate Cinnabar. Said that it is a wonderful solution to have Cinnabar's employees park there. Supported the 11 p.m. closure time. Welcomed this use to the Village. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that the applicant's request is to close at 5 p.m. with occasional closures at 10 p.m. Planner Therese Schmidt replied correct. Commissioner Hlava said that she is willing to allow different hours for weekday versus weekend use. She suggested 10 p.m. closure to the public on weekdays, 11 p.m. on Fridays and Saturdays. Commissioner Kundtz said that he cannot draw a distinction between weekends and s weekdays but r consistent_ operational hours- daily. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Zhao said that 10 p.m. closure on weekdays would be sensitive to the nearby neighbors. Commissioner Hlava reminded that closing time to the public does not include clean up by staff after closing. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested the added text to the end of Condition 2, and the allowed hours of retail operation shall be from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m. except to 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday." Chair Rodgers asked about the issue of designating any permanent conditions. Commissioner Cappello said that he believes that designating permanent conditions relates more to Design Review conditions. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer agreed that it does not apply to this situation. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a Conditional Use Permit (Application #07 -116) to allow Cinnabar Vineyards Winery to operate a retail shop (selling Cinnabar Vineyards wine and related retail products) with a tasting bar and fee -based wine education seminars on property located at 14612 "A" Big Basin Way with the modification of operations hours (Condition 2) to 10 p.m. weekdays and 11 p.m. on Friday and Saturday, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 6 APPLICATION #07 -161 (503 -24 -027) Blue Rock Shoot Cafe, 14523 Biq Basin Way: The applicant requests approval for Design Review to construct a major remodel to an existing structure and for a Conditional Use Permit to operate a restaurant in the CH -2 Zoning District within the Village. (Therese Schmidt) Associate Planner Therese Schmidt presented the staff report as follows: Explained that the applicant is seeking the expansion of an existing Use Permit for which the last action taken occurred in 1999'. Added that the applicant is proposing to expand the restaurant, which requires Design Review approval. Said that the restaurant, Blue Rock Shoot, will add a three -story element to the rear of the parcel with an attached three -story elevator shaft. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 11 Reported that staff initially had design and compatibility issues but after working closely with the applicant, staff is now happy with the results. Informed that the applicant has incorporated features to reduce bulk. It blends in nicely with the public parking lot and is sympathetic to the adjacent Saratoga Inn. Said that one will not be able to see much of a change from Big Basin Way except for the removal of an existing awning and a change out of poles for the front porch. Advised that in the packets, the wrong plans for the porch were provided. Correct plans have been posted this evening. Said that the garbage area would be enclosed. Said that one complaint was received about an air conditioning unit and that unit will be relocated. Recommended approval. Commissioner Hlava asked if there are restricted hours for the current Use Permit. Planner Therese Schmidt said that only that coffee roasting is restricted between 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that this site does not abut residential. Commissioner Cappello said that he does not recall any complaints. Planner Therese Schmidt said that there has been no indication that the hours would be changing from the current. Commissioner Kundtz asked if a liquor license was part of the Use Permit. Planner Therese Schmidt replied yes, it was part of the 1999 Use. Permit. Chair Rodgers questioned the hours for coffee roasting and asked if there have been complaints. Planner Therese Schmidt replied no. Commissioner Zhao questioned why a new Use Permit is necessary. Planner Therese Schmidt explained that it is required with the expansion of the business by 1,600 square feet. Chair Rodgers asked if parking for this location was considered when the Parking Ordinance was amended. Planner Therese Schmidt reported that this applicant purchased two additional spaces in 1996. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 12 Suggested adding to Condition 9, "This permit merely supplements but does not supercede 94- 008.1, which shall remain in full force and effect except to the extent that this Use Permit provides otherwise." Added that this does not take away the existing right to sell alcohol. Chair Rodgers opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Charles Cunningham, Applicant: Said that he has reviewed the report and has no issues. Stated that he is available for any questions. Mr. Shawn Massihpour, Applicant: Reported that there has been no coffee roasting on site for at least six years and no plans for it to occur. Said that the addition to be located on the back of the building is within the limit of 35 feet in height. Added that a new trash enclosure would be installed. Commissioner Hlava asked what kind of restaurant would be establishing here. Mr. Shawn Massihpour said that the plan now is simply to expand the coffee shop although La Fondue might relocate here. Commissioner Hlava asked if the rustic sign would remain. Mr. Charles Cunningham replied no. Chair Rodgers asked any consideration has been given to preserving the sticks that spell Saratoga. Mr. Charles Cunningham said if anyone wants it, they could have it. He stated that it has been a pleasure working with Planner Therese Schmidt. Ms. Phyllis Helmydt: Said that she has lived for 22 years on Big Basin Way. Reported that she has been going to Blue Rock Shoot for three years and looks forward to open microphone night. Said that artists feel at home here and that she hopes to see live music in the future. Mr. Richard Adoradio: Explained that he is the founder of Thriving Artist. Thanked Mr. Cutler for creating Blue Rock Shoot 10 years ago. Said that Blue Rock Shoot is the heart and soul of Saratoga Village. Stated his thanks to the current owners who have continued live entertainment there. Reported that acts from all around the world come here. They are tremendous performers. Said that he hopes that Saratoga continues to be a live entertainment venue for all ages. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 13 Thanked the Commission for its time. Chair Rodgers closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Planner Therese Schmidt said one correction to Condition 1 is required changing the date to December 13, 2006. Commissioner Hlava said that she goes to Blue Rock Shoot all the time in the morning. She asked for clarification that entertainment is not required. Planner Therese Schmidt said that nothing was indicated in the 1999 Use Permit. She would have to research earlier permits to see if live entertainment was ever approved. However, this applicant is not asking for it. Commissioner Hlava questioned whether the applicant might not want to have it added. Commissioner Cappello said that even if added the applicant would not be required to use it. Commissioner Kundtz said that an issue could be raised in the future if no live entertainment permit has ever been issued. Commissioner Cappello reminded that while this applicant did not ask for live entertainment, it might simply have been overlooked. He added that he prefers putting it in now. Chair Rodgers re- opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 6. Mr. Shawn Massihpour said that they are not asking for live entertainment specifically. However, if this is a legal issue, it should be added since live entertainment has been going on for years. The owner does not object to adding conditions to allow live entertainment. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer suggested adding additional language at the end of Condition 9 to read, "Under this permit, live entertainment is allowed." Chair Rodgers said that she is happy to see this and supports this application. Commissioner Hlava: Said that she too supports this application although she is sorry to see the funky look gone. Added that Blue Rock Shoot is one of a kind and she is glad it is going to be staying in use. Reminded that there have been no complaints regarding live entertainment. Stated that the engineering solution will be lovely. Commissioner Cappello said that he is happy to see that relaxing the parking requirements is resulting in a project like this expansion that contributes to the revitalization of the Village. Commissioner Zhao echoed that comment and said she supports this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 14 Chair Rodgers said she appreciates the addition of stairs from the parking lot to Big Basin Way. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that upon consultation with the Community Development Director he is concerned that the live entertainment language may be too broad. He suggested that it be limited to live music and poetry. Chair Rodgers said that comics also perform and that microphones are used. Director John Livingstone said that this language is very broad and reminded that Use Permits change hands. He suggested calling out music, poetry, readings and comic routines to narrow this down a little bit. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer added text "or other activities subject to approval by the Community Development Director." Commissioner Hlava asked if just one Resolution is required for both the Design Review and Use Permit approvals. Chair Rodgers replied yes. She added that the Commission must identify any permanent conditions. Commissioner Cappello said that he believes all conditions for Design Review should be permanent. Chair Rodgers cautioned that if so, any change at all would need to come back to the Commission. Director John Livingstone added that it also requires being recorded on the deed. Any change means that the applicant comes back to the Commission and then must un- record the original and record the updated conditions. Chair Rodgers said that this seems quite 'severe. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said that this requirement is usually more in context with residential approvals. Commissioner Hlava said that she does not agree with the requirement for recording conditions, especially for something as simple as changing a paint color from cream to beige. She said that she does not think that any of these conditions need to be permanent and that recording them on the deed does not make sense. Chair Rodgers said that Council expects this Commission to be judicious about using recording of permanent conditions. Commissioner Cappello argued that that if conditions are imposed than they should be permanent. If not, why bother imposing those conditions? Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 15 Commissioner Hlava said that conditions and /or approved plans are permanent but don't need to be recorded. She added that she is not sure what recording does for the City. Director Jonathan Livingstone said that the majority of conditions of approval are geared to development. Staff makes sure all conditions are done prior to final occupancy. Chair Rodgers said that this is a very intelligent businessman who is concerned about bringing business into the Village. Commissioner Cappello agreed that he has no problem in this issue but expects conditions of approval to reflect how a building is to be built and remain. The benefit of recording is realized if a property changes hands. He added that he is okay without recording permanent conditions of approval this time around. Commissioner Zhao said that the issue of permanent recording of conditions needs to be considered on a case -by -case basis. Some conditions need to be permanent but not all of them do. There is nothing in this case that needs to be recorded and it is too harsh a process if not- necessary. Commissioner Hlava said that if there is a new owner a new Use Permit would be required. Director John Livingstone corrected that, the Use Permit runs with the land not the operator. He explained that the Planning Commission retains jurisdiction over Conditional Use Permits. Minor changes to Design Review approvals can be handled at staff level while major changes would be brought forward to the Planning! Commission. Chair Rodgers clarified that each time now, the Commission will need to evaluate the need for any of the conditions of approval to be deemed permanent and recordable. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Cappello, the Planning Commission adopted a Resolution approving a granting Design Review and Conditional Use Permit approvals (Application #06 -161) to allow a major remodel to an existing structure and to allow the operation of a restaurant at 14523 Big Basin Way, with the amendments to Conditions 1 and 9, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: Nagpal ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes for December 13, 2006 Page 16 There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Discussion on a Joint Study Session with City Council scheduled for December 20, 2006: Director John Livingstone advised that this joint session has been moved to June 2007. Commissioner Hlava advised that she and Commissioner Kundtz completed their Ethics training in Oakland. COMMUNICATIONS, ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Cappello, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, Chair Rodgers adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m. to the next Regular Planning Commission meeting of January 10, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne. A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07 -143; 19896 Park Drive Type of Application: Modification of Design Review Approval Owner: Silverstein (Applicant/Owner) r Staff Planner: Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner��i�`�" Date: January 10, 2006 APN: 510 -01 -030 Department Head:)Z ivin stone �AICP Director Livingstone, ctor Lands of Silverstein w ithin 500 ft. of subject property 19896 PARK DRIVE Item 1 Application No. 07 -143; 19896 Park Drive CASE HISTORY: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Application filed: 10/17/06 Application complete: 11/16/06 Notice published: 12/27/06 Mailing completed: 12/19/06 Posting completed: 01/04/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests a modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005, which consisted of demolition of a residence and construction of a one story, single family, residence with a total floor area of 4,828 sq. ft. The proposed modification would change exterior materials and colors; however, would not change the architectural design, height, or bulk of the approved structure, nor require removal of additional trees or result in additional grading. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve the Modification to a Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. 2 Application No. 07 -143; 19896 Park Drive STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R -1- 20,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: RLD (Residential Low Density) MEASURE G: Not Applicable PARCEL SIZE: 28,750 square feet (gross) and 25,000 square feet (net) SLOPE: 6% GRADING REQUIRED: The proposed modification would not require grading above and beyond the amounts originally approved. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed modification would not require environmental review. The approved Design Review was 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. PROJECT DISCUSSION: The applicant is requesting a modification to the Design Approval granted by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005. City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)(2) requires modifications to plans approved by the Planning Commission be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. The applicant received approval for the new home to be painted beige with a textured stucco exterior, white trim, brown shutters, wood garage door painted dark brown/black, and white washed brick accents. The approved elevation illustrating various materials has been attached as item No. 5. The approved materials board will be available for review at the January 10, 2007, Planning Commission hearing. Condition No. 4 of the approving Resolution prohibits staff from allowing downgrading of the exterior of the residence. Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. The applicant is requesting the following changes: 1. Stucco paint color change from "Beige" to "Taupe." 2. Color of windows and doors: change from "White" to "Bronze." 3. Window Accents: change from Dark Brown/Black wide plank shutters to limestone trim. 4. Color of Garage Doors and Columns: changed from Brown/Black to natural driftwood color. 5. Whitewashed Brick: Removed 3 Application No. 07 -143; 19896 Park Drive 6. Front Doors: Replace glass front doors with solid wood doors. 7. Front Fence: Materials changed from brick to stucco. 8. Entrance Columns: Remove one pillar and change design of other column to a wood pole. Proposed materials board will be available for review at the January 10, 2007, Planning Commission hearing. While the removal of the brick, shutters, and entrance columns will change the appearance of the structure, the proposed building materials are sympathetic to the approved architectural design. The proposed materials would blend into the existing neighborhood. Neighbor Correspondence The applicant has submitted seven (7) completed Neighborhood Templates, none of which have expressed issues or concerns (See Attachment No. 3). Trees The proposed modification would not require removal of, or cause negative impact to, additional trees. General Plan Findings The proposed modification would not impact the original General Plan Findings and the proposal would still be consistent with the City's General Plan. Design Review Findings The proposed modification is consistent with all the following Design Review findings stated in City Code Section 15- 45.080: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Changing the exterior building materials and color .would not change the original approvals findings regarding views and privacy. (b) Preserve Natural Landscape Changes to the approved landscaping are not requested. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The Modification will not affect Native and Heritage trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior of the building, window trim and roofing materials. The project will incorporate varying rooflines and limestone accents to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The applicant is not requesting a change to the approved bulk or height of the structure. 4 Application No. 07 -143; 19896 Park Drive (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed modification would not change the approved grading or alter erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed modification conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Conclusion Staff has concluded that all of the Design Review findings can be made in the affirmative and the proposed modification is consistent with the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Planning Commission find the application exempt from CEQA and approve the application for Modification to Design Review Approval with required findings and conditions by adopting the attached Resolution. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution of Approval. 2. Affidavit of Mailing Notices. 3. Neighbor Notification Letters. 4. Letter from the Applicant to the Planning Commission dated October 14, 2006. 5. Reduced Plans illustrating proposed changes, Exhibit "A." 6. Reduce Elevations approved July 27, 2005, Exhibit "B." 5 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. Application No. 07 -143 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA Silverstein —19896 Park Drive WHEREAS, the applicant requests a Modification to a Design Review Approval granted by the Planning Commission on July 27, 2005, via adoption of Resolution No. 05- 033, consisting of demolition of a residence and construction of a one story, single family, residence with a total floor area of 4,828 sq. ft.; and WHEREAS, The proposed modification would change exterior paint colors and building materials; and WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 16- 05.035(c)(2) requires modifications to plans approved by the Planning Commission be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; 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 proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to;three single family residences; and WHEREAS, the proposal is consistent with the original General Plan Findings approved in Resolution Number 05 -033: WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support the required findings set forth below for said application for Modification to Design Review Approval: (a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. Changing the exterior building materials and color Iwould not change the original approvals findings regarding views and privacy. Application No. 06 -270; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma (b) Preserve Natural Landscape. Changes to the approved landscaping are not requested. (c) Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. The Modification will not affect Native and Heritage trees. (d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk. The applicant is proposing a neutral color pallet for the exterior of the building, window trim and roofing materials. The project will incorporate varying rooflines and limestone accents to reduce the perception of excessive bulk. (e) Compatible bulk and height. The applicant is not requesting a change to the approved bulk or height of the structure. (1) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed modification would not change the approved grading or alter erosion control methods. (g) Design policies and techniques. The proposed modification conforms to all of the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook in terms of compatible bulk, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above and staff report. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the application, site plan, architectural drawings, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the application for modification to Design Review approval as conditioned below is hereby found exempt from CEQA and in compliance with the required findings set forth above and based thereon is granted subject to the following conditions: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. The development shall be located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date stamped December 12, 2006, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the Community Development Director's approval. 2. Four sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Arborist Report, dated April 5,. 2005 shall be included on the plans submitted to the Building Division for permit plan check review. 2 Application No. 06 -270; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma 3. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final occupancy inspection. 4. Any changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. No downgrading in the exterior appearance of the approved residence will be approved by staff. Downgrades may include but are not limited to garage doors, architectural detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway materials, etc. Proposed changes to the approved plans are subject to the approval of the Community Development Director and may require review by the Planning Commission. 5. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: "Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans." 6. A storm water retention plan indicating how all storm water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New Development and Construction Best Management Practices, shall be submitted along with the complete construction drawings. 7. Water and/or runoff from the project site shall not be directed toward the adjacent properties. 8. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500 surplus balance at all times. In the event that ,the balance is less than $500, all staff work on the project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum of $500. CITY ARBORIST 9. All recommendations contained in the City Arborist Report dated April 5, 2005 shall be followed. 10. Tree protective measures, as specified by the City Arborist, shall be installed and inspected by Planning Staff prior to issuance of City Permits. 11. Prior to issuance of City Permits, the applicant shall submit to the City, in a form acceptable to the Community Development Director, security equivalent to $74,370 to guarantee the maintenance and preservation of trees. 12. The City Arborist shall inspect the site to verify compliance with tree protective measures. The bond shall be released after the planting of required replacement trees Application No. 06 -270; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma (if applicable), a favorable site inspection by the City Arborist, and payment of any outstanding Arborist fees. FIRE DEPARTMENT 13. The applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions. CITY ATTORNEY 14. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the, City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. Section 2. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other Governmental entities must be met. Section 4. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. 4 Application No. 06 -270; 14360 Paul Avenue/Ma PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, this 10th day of January 2007 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP 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 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, Denise Kaspar 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 19 day of December 2006, that I deposited 49 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 250 feet of the property described as: Address: 19896 Park Drive APN: 510 01 030 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. �4- 9 /47 Denise Kaspar Advanced Listing Services December 18, 2006 500' Ownership Listing Prepared for: 510 -01 -030 DAVID S BARBARA SILVERSTEIN 19896 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 510 -01 -012 W HACKETT 15400 SUVIEW DR LOS GATOS CA 95032 -5762 510 -01 -016 MARIA D M KHOUJA OR CURRENT OWNER 15211 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01 -019 BETTY J CHRISTIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15100 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 510 -01 -022 CARL P MARIE NELSON 385 JAMES BOWIE CT ALAMO CA 94507 -1437 510 -01 -026 JAMES A PARDEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15141 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423 510 -01 -029 JOHN M LORI WORTLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 19897 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -032 ERIC LISA WARMENHOVEN OR CURRENT OWNER 19852 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -035 IRA B REGINA OLDHAM OR CURRENT OWNER 19861 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -013 FRANCIS L EDYTHMAE STUTZMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15195 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 510 -01 -017 GEORGE A BARBARA ROUPE OR CURRENT OWNER 19921 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -020 ROBERT G BERNADINE LARSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15070 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 510 -01 -024 OTIS P TESSIE YOUNG OR CURRENT OWNER 15101 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423 510 -01 -027 HUGH B UNDERWOOD OR CURRENT OWNER 19853 PARKDR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -030 DAVID S BARBARA SILVERSTEIN 1479 BULLION CT SAN JOSE CA 95120 -1745 510 -01 -033 MYRA REINHARD OR CURRENT OWNER 15185 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6424 510 -01 -036 MOHSEN S BEHNAZ SALEK OR CURRENT OWNER 19891 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -015 ELIZABETH P SPEER OR CURRENT OWNER 15181 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6464 510 -01 -018 ALLEN PATRICIA DON OR CURRENT OWNER 15150 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6463 510 -01 -021 DONALD C MAUREEN LIGHTBODY OR CURRENT OWNER 15060 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 510 -01 -025 JEAN C KLEIN OR CURRENT OWNER 15121 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423 510 -01 -028 HAROLD BETTY HODGES OR CURRENT OWNER 19875 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6445 510 -01 -031 GRASSMAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19874 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -034 DOUGLAS MICHELE HELMUTH OR CURRENT OWNER 19831 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -037 LEON RABINOWITZ OR CURRENT OWNER 19921 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6428 510 -01 -038 ANDREW LINDSAY OR CURRENT OWNER 4 0 A PARK DR TOGA CA 95070 -6444 510 -01 -046 DAVID E ANNE NEALE OR CURRENT OWNER 15081 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6423 510 -02 -006 VAHID MARITA LAHIJANIAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19910 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 510 -02 -009 RICHARD E BOCKS PO BOX 2130 SUNNYVALE CA 94087 -0130 510 -03 -005 HELMUT A URSULA MOESSNER OR CURRENT OWNER 15200 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461 *3 -008 JAMES W PAMELA FRANKOLA OR CURRENT OWNER 15140 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6450 510 -52 -002 JOHN R JANICE TRAVIS OR CURRENT OWNER 15245 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -52 -009, 010 MICHAEL S PLINER OR CURRENT OWNER 15257 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -01- 043,044 DAVID R FRANCES FRANKLIN 15177 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6421 510 -01 -047 T S KALPANA RAMAKRISHNAN OR CURRENT OWNER 15020 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6422 510 -02 -007 PARTHA SRINIVASAN OR CURRENT OWNER 19880 ROBIN WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -6429 510 -03 -003 JAMES B GAIL BARTON OR CURRENT OWNER 15260 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461 510 -03 -006 RICHARD D VIERRA OR CURRENT OWNER 15180 PEPPER LN SARATOGA' CA 95070 -6450 510 -03 -009 JAMES ELEANOR PERAZZO PO BOX 2222 SARATOGA' CA 95070 -0222 510 -52 -003 MARTIN C ROBINSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15281 HUME DR SARATOGA'' CA 95070 -6415 510 -52 -011, 012 GEORGE W GEORGETTE LAMPROS OR CURRENT OWNER 15168 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6451 510 -01 -045 JAMES R SHERRIL KENNY OR CURRENT OWNER 15052 PIEDMONT RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -6458 510 -02 -005 FREDERICK W REGINA SCHWERTLEY OR CURRENT OWNER 15300 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6417 510 -02 -008 BYRON J LYNDA ANDERSON OR CURRENT OWNER 15281 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6425 510 -03 -004 ROBERT JULIANNE MICHAELS OR CURRENT OWNER 15230 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6461 510 -03 -007 DAVID M AMY WILLIAMS OR CURRENT OWNER 15160 PEPPER LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6450 510 -52 -001 DANIEL J CHARMAINE WARMENHOVEN OR CURRENT OWNER 15223 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 510 -52 -007 HAROLD D MARY LONG OR CURRENT OWNER 15269 HUME DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -6415 CITY OF SARATOGA ATTN: THERESE SCHMIDT 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Attac ment 3 Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date: PROJECT ADDRESS: J 9� 7 Applicant N ame:be' 1JJ Y" 1//e/ Application Number: 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, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. Signature: nf.Qnrninofl '&y below certifies -the- following: I have reviewed the- project plans;1 understand scope of work; and 1 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; 1 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): T G l 1 Neighbor Name: y pt✓ 1 2.006 to cso of SA rvr Neighbor Address: ..,1 d465 4 Neighbor Phone 351 5-3* Printed: Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT d rY 1 Date: O Applicant Name: j 3 Application Number: 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 a ll 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 o Saratoga. U My signature below certifies -the- following: I have reviewed the Project plans; 1 understand the scone of work; and I do NOT ba eany concerns or issues wbicb need to be address by the applicant prior to the City's public ublic bearing on the proposed prof ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after discussion witb the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Signature: n{.Cnrn Printed: Neighbor Name: 6'ore a ra en Neighbor Address: ark Neighbor Phone fur 1 1 'e- (Ju p gsf 73h Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for (171./161 Development Applications Date: 7, PROTECT ADDRESS: I L V Q Applicant Name: G( .&TAB' -1 Application Number: 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. their concerns Commission �whed solicited by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice 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. L i y ignature below certifies -the- following I have reviewed the project plans; understand the scope of work; and 1 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; understand the scope a work; and a notbe been concerns, which after discussion addressed Myconcern are the following (please with the applicant, attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: r';t,, n f.Cn rn lnon Neighbor Address: /9 a 647 5, /el/ qr Signature: Printed: Neighbor Phone 33-1 Planning Department nf. Grntnolt Neighbor Notification Template for //ll Development Applications Date:v U PROJECT ADD 3 Applicant Name (i)1 p a` &17� //e 4 Application Number: $4 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, you may reserve the right to amend your opinion at a later date and communicate it to the City of Saratoga. Printed: 2K My signature below certifies the- following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the scope of work; and 1 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; 1 understand the scone of work; and I have issues or concerns, which after with the applicant, have not been addressed. My concerns are the following (please attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Narne: e id; 7 J a (-7C--tvve\r—) Neighbor Address: G'l0..) ��i -3512 Neighbor Phone Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications Date. PROJECT ADDRESS: L Applicant Name: Application Number: 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 ave neighbors take this opportunity to express any eo=�� eume�t u repre taiive fall to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on 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 o Saratoga. My signature below certifies the following: 1 have reviewed the project plans; 1 understand the scope of work; and I do NOT have any concerns or issues si ned _to_be address by the applicant prior to the City's public ublic hearing on the ropo project. ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; 1 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: Neighbor Address: 6014 a Signature: nf.Cnrntnc/! Neighbor Phone Printed: 351- 7/4 Planning Department Signature: Neighbor Name: le 0 �f Neighbor Address:. Neighbor Notification Template for Development Applications PROJECT ADDRESS: Date: /C' 9 r 4 Applicant Name: Q1 /l6 /11(W Application Number: The Saratoga Planning Commission requires applicants to work with their neighbors to address issues and concerns regarding development applications prior to the evening o the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Comm u� when not look by favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their concerns and applicants prior to the public hearing. Staff and the Planning Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity to express any concerns or is t he y may ha d ectly to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on this document 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. X Iy 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 scone 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): )C}Neighbor Phone Printed: oc-\ Planning Department Neighbor Notification Template for Development Ap s lications Date� '79b' PROJECT ADD S Applicant Name: Application Number: to The Saratoga Planning Commission rdin development applications prior the even rig of address issues and concerns regarding evelo P the public hearing on the proposed project. The Planning Commission does not look favorably upon neighbors who fail to voice their nd the Plan ng Commission prefer that neighbors take this opportunity a licants prior to the public hearing. have dtrectly PP to express any concerns or issues they may to the applicant. Please ensure the signature on o o �the opinion expressed below, residents residing on your property. f 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; 1 understand the scone of work; and I do NOT City's hearing on the proposed project. to be address by the applicant prior ❑My signature below certifies the following: I have reviewed the project plans; I understand the sco a of work; and I Have issues or concerns, concerns e following (please with the applicant, have not been addressed. My attach additional sheets if necessary): Neighbor Name: Neighbor Address: �P1 1 a !'it., nf .Cnrntno0 Neighbor Phone Printed: Signature: )w& l -ei l /(72_,_ Planning Department Attachment 4 Ladies and Gentlemen: December 13, 2006 ECllU DEC 1 9 2006 Li CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT A previously scheduled trip prevents me from attending the hearing, but this will serve to explain the reasoning behind the proposed changes to the new residence of Dr. and Mrs. Silverstein. Dr and Mrs. Silverstein came to the conclusion once they saw the size of the expanse of brick approved at the front of the house, that in spite of the whitewash treatment approved, it would still be a very dominant feature. Landscaping would help in time, but it would take quite a while to soften that long expanse. I was asked to draw alternative elevations to explore different treatments for the front of the house in order to mitigate the visual impact of the elevation from the street. After reviewing proposed changes, they approved the plans in front of you for submittal. This is the essence of the changes approved by Dr. and Mrs. Silverstein: 1. The brick has been eliminated from the front of the house in favor of "old world" stucco which will be changed from white to an earth tone to allow it to blend better with the proposed landscape. Fenestration has been changed from a more reflective white to a bronze color to blend better with the earth tone of the stucco. 3. To provide a pleasant transition between window and wall, a simple window surround in limestone is being proposed. The design allows for subtle plays of light and shadow. Further, the limestone will work better with the proposed stone walks and seat walls in the approved landscape. 4. Once Dr. and Mrs. Silverstein saw the large expanse of the approved all -glass entry door assembly, they became concerned with privacy. The new entry door assembly is now a more traditional pair of wood doors with glass sidelights, which addresses privacy concerns to their satisfaction. Although the structure of the residence has remained exactly the same, the changes proposed in the finishing materials will reduce the visual impact, making the house blend better with its own environment and with the general feel of the neighborhood. The changes do indeed soften the elevation and as the landscape grows and matures the effect will be one of further softening. Dr. and Mrs. Silverstein have consulted their neighbors regarding these improvements and they inform me the changes have been greeted with great enthusiasm. I regret that I will not be there to answer questions, but Dr. and Mrs. Silverstein can certainly do that. Sin Sergio E. Rama z S E. irez B Prlrci a iz Assoc. s October 14, 2006 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA.95070 DEC 1 2 2006 J CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Dear members of the Saratoga Planning Commission, I, David Silverstein and my wife Barbara, are the owners of record of the residence located at 19896 Park Drive, Saratoga, California. APN 510- 01 -30, Lot 4 Tract 128 (4M- 30 -31) We are applying for a modification to existing approved plans. These modifications are not structural, but to materials only. We have made these changes in order to have our house blend into the natural landscape by using earth tones and natural stone. David and I have undertaken this project with great respect for our neighbors and the environment. We have had our house deconstructed rather that demolished, to avoid the addition of non biodegradable waste to the landfill and have donated all the materials to a non profit organization to be used to build homes for people less fortunate. We have also installed photovoltaic cells to produce electricity from solar energy. We have made sure to install these in a recessed part of our roof so as to be unobtrusive to our neighbors. We have a wonderful relationship with our neighbors who have expressed how much they are enjoying watching our new home being built. We have made these changes because;we would like our home to better blend into the landscape, to replace the harsher white stucco and window trim with earth tones. The changes are as follows: 1. Stucco paint color: changed from WHITE to a TAUPE EARTH TONE. 2. Color of windows and doors: changed from WHITE to BRONZE TONE. 3. Window surrounds: Dark Brown/Black wide plank shutters replaced with natural limestone surrounds. 4. Color of Garage doors and columns: Changed from Brown/Black to natural "driftwood" color 5. Whitewashed brick section will be' changed to textured stucco with limestone surrounding the windows. 6. Front Doors: Our entire front entrance was glass doors. To afford us more security and greater privacy, we have replaced the two center glass doors with wood doors. We have discussed these changes with all of our neighbors. They have seen these changes on the elevation as well as the colored rendering. Our neighbors have reviewed these changes and have no concerns. We have included Neighbor Notification letters signed by each of the affected neighbor's. Please contact David and Barbara Silverstein on all matters relating to this project. We request that the City send us copies; of all documents produced by the City in regards to this submittal and application. David Silverstein 1479 Bullion Court San Jose, CA 95120 Phone: 408 997 2032 Cell: 408 656 2045 Fax. 408 997 2059 David an Barbara Silverstein Date: October 14, 2006 Attachment 5 ii ii ii i l l I!, il il I: 1 I I 1 i 1 11 ilf 6 —4 1 -21 I 1 11 I H i lc _IL_ it 1 7 1 •6510 (800 xej 6C10 (8017) qd UMW 00O56 el told 90 1 an. Panf MEW %91 „A ammo 71 mug-Imam 3J� O pas A OL056 e 8OJ V Alvd 96861 aouamsow NoN u1 PIA% 7 651036£ (8017) Yxl 600-56£ (8017) 9d OMNI 0£056 E9 'Ma sOI MIMI 7aags mulsay3 y saluposse ag- zpeq- zaatmea lava o aas gm M ULUS6 ei 'e801ultS anuany Ind 96861 aauapisal trioN umsaanps pines •s ryAI 28 •aQ 6SIO (804) iceJ 6£10 (804) 4d 0.£056 ea soie 8 so1 lams s tnWsa4o 9I sappossa ag zrlt q- zaittu>;a now agbas OLOS6 e[uolgvp'e8olenS anuany Vec<96861 aouapisau uia;staAHS PIAIQ •saw a• aQ 6C19 WOO x3 6£14 S6£ (89h) 0£Q£6eo'met sot samosa own ittsmto ;491 zp zpotzazwita pin *pas 0 4 04056 etuo;geO `e8o1eies anuany xsud 96861 00110p1S nn 0 1 alliS MAga .says ?b' la 4 it 6S1 6£ NOV) xb KW-S& (SOP) qd 0£0S6 eo 'sold ead vans touvotiown sa eposse .1 zpvit aapuna /pima opas OLOS6 eIUO IWeD `eSoneies aquondd 96861 03a21480 maN Up3saaA fS '&118, 1vIod saner :A.a..- an>fi::annan2 l 4D 1 Attachment 6 APROVE D ELEVATIONS EXHIBIT B REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: 07 -205 14261 Springer Avenue Type of Application: Appellant/Owner: Staff Arborist: Staff Planner: Meeting Date: APN: Department Head: Appeal of Administrative Decision Yolanda Martin, Appellant/Paul Qian, Property Owner Kate Bear Shweta Bhatt January 10, 2007 503 -27 -068 John Livingstone, AICP ;2 Subject: 14261 Springer Ave/ APN: 503 27-068 500' Radius 14261 Springer Avenue Item 2 12/29/02 09:08am P. eel Tree oultibem.mrrespond to evalwdJoa dole. Moe iweVinlit EXITING SITE PLAN 05 4 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES 1211.18...11 (mama COP HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT CONSULTING ARBORIST Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the Qua Property, 14261Spinger Ave. Sandop Prepamd tar: City of Saratoga, Planning Depart/nod Date: November 21, 2002 Job 10-9944142 yMsf RESIDENCE 12/28/02 09209am P. 008 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES MI OM ew,G 1� HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT CONSULTING ARBORIST Trot Survey and preservation Raommudations at the Qien Property, 14261Sprinau Ave. Saratop Prepared for Qty of Saratoga, Planning Department Date: November 27, 2002 Job N 10.9944702 Trrr ..,.wM.f me.. nv,n4 m .,.h•lln■ Own. Application No. 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue, Qian CASE HISTORY Application Approved: 2/12/03 Issuance of Building Permit: 1/4/05 Project Completed/Final Inspection: 2/27/06 Administrative Decision to Approve Minor Modification to Walkway: 11/28/06 Appeal of Decision: 12/11/06 Notice Published: 12/27/06 Mailing Completed: 12/20/06 Posting completed: 1/4/07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The appellant is appealing the Community Development Director's decision to approve a minor modification to approved plans, granted on November 27, 2006, to allow a portion of the concrete walkway to remain underneath two olive trees while requiring removal of a portion of the concrete under an oak tree. The appellant lives next door to the subject property and the olive trees are located on the appellant's property. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal of the Administrative Decision to Approve a Minor Modification of Approved Plans, with required findings and conditions, by adopting the attached Resolution. STAFF ANALYSIS PROJECT DESCRIPTION: EXECUTIVE SUMMARY On February 12, 2003, the property owner, Mr. Paul Qian, submitted a Design Review Approval application to construct a 2,824 square foot two -story house with a 1,349 square foot basement to the Planning Commission. The Design Review Approval was granted on February 12, 2003 with a 5-0 vote with two Commissioners absent. No appeals were filed subsequent to Planning Commission approval. The "Exhibit A" plans show a concrete walkway on top of grade. However, the Conditions of Approval #8 under Community Development and #2 under the City Arborist section (see attached Resolution 03 -007) requires pervious materials for the walkway. One of the primary concerns during the design review process was potential damage to the oak and olive trees from construction of the basement and the foundation of the garage. 2 Application No. 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue, Qian Modifications to the design were made to accommodate the trees by changing the foundation for the garage and redesigning the basement to stay farther away from the trees. Prior to going to the Planning Commission, the architect was also directed to change the concrete walkway to pervious materials and to design it so that it remained entirely on top of grade. During final zoning clearance for issuance of Building Permit, it appeared that all of the main concerns with respect to trees were addressed in the final design, but the project architect did not change the walkway to a pervious material. Staff did not notice the discrepancy and a Building Permit was issued on January 4, 2005. Planning final inspection occurred on February 28, 2006 and building and arborist final inspection occurred on March 9, 2006 approving the project according to the Building Division plans. In November 2006, the appellant filed a complaint with the City that the walkway on Mr. Qian's property was not of pervious materials as required by the Planning Commission Resolution. Following the appellant's complaint, the property owner hired an ISA- Certified Arborist arborist, Mr. Mark Beaudoin, to inspect the walkway and the health of the trees. He provided a copy of this report to the City. His report concludes that the concrete should be replaced with pavers on sand underneath the oak tree, and the concrete portion underneath the olive trees may remain, as no negative impacts are expected from it. The City Arborist reviewed the report prepared by Mark Beaudoin and inspected the site following the appellant's complaint to the City. The City Arborist found both the oak and olive trees to be in good condition. The olives appear to be maintained more as bushes within a screening hedge than as individual trees. One has multiple trunks and both are crowded by other trees and bushes that grow to about the same height. The City Arborist concurs with Mark Beaudoin's report, that pervious materials should be placed underneath the oak tree and that it would be acceptable to leave the impervious concrete portion of the walkway underneath the olive trees. No roots were pruned on the trees in order to install the walkway since it was constructed on top of grade. Based on the two arborists recommendations that were provided after recent inspection of the site, the Community Development Director approved a minor modification to approved plans per City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)2, and directed the property owner to remove the impervious concrete walkway underneath the oak tree #7) and replace it with pavers on sand. The remainder of the walkway next to the olive trees #5 and #6) may stay as impervious concrete as the olives are not expected to be negatively impacted. This decision is consistent with the report submitted by Mark Beaudoin, and the opinion of the City Arborist. FINDINGS: The Administrative Decision does not conflict with the findings in the original Planning Commission resolution 03 -007, with the exception that it modifies Condition #8 under the Community Development section and Condition #2 under the City Arborist section to allow a portion of the walkway yto remain impervious next olive 3 Application No. 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue, Qian The proposed modification is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: Conservation Element Policy 2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. The proposal will retain and adequately protect the trees adjacent to the walkway. Land Use Element Policy 5.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. Based on the opinions of the two arborists, the development will be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. The proposed modification is consistent with the City Code, including the following sections: Section 15- 50.080(b) At the discretion of the Community Development Director, City Arborist review may be required before any tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit is issued or before approval of a project involving the removal of pruning of, or encroachment upon one or more protected trees is granted. The project was reviewed by the City Arborist following construction and the olive trees were found to be in good condition. The walkway was constructed entirely on top of grade so that no roots were pruned. The owner will be required to replace the portion of the walkway underneath the oak tree with pavers on sand per Mark Beaudoin's report. Section 15- 50.120 Unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority, no structure, excavation or impervious surface areas of any kind shall be constructed or installed within the root zone of any protected tree without mitigating special design, such as post and beam footings that bridge the roots. No parking, storing of vehicles, equipment or other materials shall be permitted within the dripline of any protected tree without special design considerations approved by the Community Development Director and City Arborist. The following mitigating design modifications were utilized to protect the trees during construction of the project: (1) The trees were protected by fencing during construction; (2) A post and beam foundation was used for the garage to mitigate damage to the roots; (3) Excavation for the basement was moved farther from the trees; (4) The walkway was constructed entirely on top of grade; (6) The owner is being required to replace the walkway under the oak tree with pavers on sand. CONCLUSION: Adequate protection of the trees between the properties at 14261 and 14251 Springer Avenue is the primary goal of the Community Development Director's Administrative Decision. The holder of the Design Review Approval has agreed to follow the recommendations of the report obtained from his arborist (concurred with by the City Arborist), and to replace the impervious concrete with pavers on sand underneath the oak tree. Because it does not appear that the olive trees will be negatively impacted by the impervious concrete walkway next to 4 Application No. 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue, Qian them, it is recommended that the Planning Commission allow it to remain as is. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution to deny the appeal of an Administrative Decision to Approve Minor Modifications of Approved Plans. 2. Appeal of Administrative Decision 3. Administrative Decision dated November 27, 2006 4. Email from Jana Rinaldi to Appellant dated October 26, 2006 5. Sheet A -1, Site Plan, of Approved plans from Planning Commission dated February 12, 2003. 6. Planning Commission Resolution 03 -007. 7. Minutes from Planning Commission hearing on February 12, 2003. 8. Arborist report dated October 23, 2006 by Mark Beaudoin 9. Arborist report dated November 27, 2002 by Barrie D. Coate and Associates 10. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Labels 5 Attachment RESOLUTION NO. 07-029 City of Saratoga Planning Commission STATE OF CALIFORNIA Paul Qian, Property Owner; 14261 Springer Avenue Yolanda Martin, Appellant; 14251 Springer Avenue DENIAL OF APPEAL OFADMINISTRATIVE DECISION WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission granted. a Design Review Approval for a project at 14261 Springer Avenue on February 12, 2003; and WHEREAS, the project received final approval as being constructed according to Building Division plans on February 28, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Property Owner's proposed modification to approved plans is not considered material in nature to the project per City Code Section 16- 05.035(C)2, so as to allow it to be approved by the Community Development Director, and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has rendered an Administrative Decision approving a modification to approved plans by requiring the impervious concrete walkway near the oak tree to be replaced with pavers on sand and allowing the impervious concrete walkway near the olive tree to remain so long as constructed on grade; and WHEREAS, the Appellant has appealed the Community Development Director's Administrative Decision; 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 Community Development Director's decision is consistent with the original Resolution with the exception that it modifies Condition #2 under the Arborist Section of Resolution 03 -007; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Director's decision is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies: C Element Policy 2.4 Through implementation of the Tree Preservation Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees. The proposal will retain and adequately protect the trees adjacent to the walkway. Land U Element Policy 5.0 The City shall use the design review process to ensure that the new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings. Based on the opinions of the two arborists, the development will be compatible with the adjacent surroundings. Now, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows: Section 1. After careful consideration of the staff report, plans and other exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, the appeal of the Administrative Decision to approve a minor modification to approved plans is denied. Section 2. 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 10 day of January, 2007, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Linda R. Rodgers Chair, Planning Commission ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Planning Commission Except as otherwise expressly provided in this resolution, all provisions of Resolution 03- 007 shall remain in full force and applicable to the project as modified by this resolution. Property Owner, Paul Qian, 14261 Springer Avenue Date Attachment 2 • s Dec 21 06 OS:07p gOW Appellant Name: Y() LAD M Atn N Address: 11 cS 1P Nfi AVG Telephone 3v$ o ls2 4 MS 3(07a Name of Applicant (If different than Appellant). Project file number and address: 1 42.6 1 S rK) Decision being appealed: M I Jcn f l o o i i Ci (5 P A" 3\kires arDi-tokmis TL�-Trie Grounds for appeal (Letter maybe attached): i4 kSF O (2_4 61 &JAIL RC2Qu.i ek-4 75 ®v wk w-0.24 iW rt7t- S •MlNiM57,t i /fir -r 13& 04(P5i G Applicant Signature: Date: 7 n Municipal C 4 Section 2- 05.030 (a) appeals: No Hearing $100.00 With Hearing $200.00 M unicipal Code Section 15- 90.010 appeals (Zoning related): Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning Commission $250.00 E Municipal Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related); Appeals from the Planning Commission to the City Council $250.00 n Date Received Hearing Date: Fee: Receipt 1: Ron Martin Request for a Continuance: First Request 2nd Request CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPEAL APPLICATION No Charge $250.00 Post -it" Fax Note 7671 To .r Co./Dept Phone Fax p (408) 868 -0183 p.1 Date From Co. Phone 'Fax r- (Pages• Attachment 3 Incorporated October 22, 1966 November 27, 2006 Mr. Paul_ Qien 14261 Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Og LigT off 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Aileen Km Kathleen King Norman Kline Nic c Strait Ann Waltonsmith Dear Mr. Qien, This letter is to let you know of the decision made by the Community Development Department with respect to the concrete walkway on your property. The City Arborist has reviewed the report you obtained from Mark Beaudoin, and concurs with his conclusions: that if the concrete is replaced with pavers on sand for the stretch of walkway by the oak tree, it will be adequately protected, and the olive tree is not potentially endangered by the concrete portion of the walkway. Therefore, per Section 15- 80.120(d) of the City Code, I am approving a minor modification to your approved plans. This approved change will require pavers on sand entirely on top of grade only adjacent to the oak tree, for approximately seven linear feet of the walkway. The portion of the walkway that is next to the olive tree may remain concrete. This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 days of the date of this letter, by filing an appeal application and the required filing fee, according to Section 15 -90 of the City Code. Once the appeal period ends, please contact Code Compliance Specialist Jana Rinaldi in order to finalize the schedule and arrange for final inspection. If you have any questions, please contact Kate Bear at (408) 868 -1276 or Jana Rinaldi at (408) 868 -1214, or I can be reached at (408) 868 -1231. Respectfully, John Livingstone Community Development Director Attachments: Appeal Application Copy of arborist report by Mark Beaudoin Cc: Yolanda Martin, 14251 Springer Avenue Jana Rinaldi, City of Saratoga Attachment 4 Kate Bear From: Yolanda.I.Martin ©wellsfargo.com Sent: Thursday, December 21, 2006 10:07 AM To: Kate Bear Subject: FW: Springer Tree /walkway Could you please add this e-mail from Jana in your attachments. Thank you Yo Yolanda Martin Compliance Consultant Regional Banking Compliance Risk Management MAC A0503 -072 408 995 -3672 Has an RBCRM team member gone that "extra mile" to help you? It's easy to recognize RBCRM Team Members by clicking on: <RBCRM Team Member Recognition Site From: Jana Rinaldi mailto:jrinaldi @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:45 PM To: Martin, Yolanda I. RBCRM) Cc: Kate Bear Subject: Springer Tree/walkway Ms. Martin, just wanted to give you a quick update. This morning I spoke with City Arborist Kate Bear who informed me that she received a call from Mr. Dien to let her know that he contacted a certified arborist to help with the removal of his concrete walkway and intends to replace it with pavers. Kate and I will continue to monitor the potential work. Mr. Dien is aware that he must have the work started within 30 days or request a hearing with the Planning Commission. Thank you. Jana Rinaldi Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga irinaldi@saratoga.ca.us 408.868.1214 Page 1 of 2 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at jrinaldi @saratoga.ca.us or telephone (408) 868 -1214. Page 2 of 2 Attachment 5 .vecumiave 'SAW lifilIDNIUNIS L Ill AJ t4fU y VSdOA113 3001S,R1 N/I s o a3J CQ[Z li d [•PSI S:•:•:• •:o i_. &•:i_� �:i_... :i i v :r�J.�:Y:�:�'��:I�.�:�:�:� �`.�.jI�1� 1152151115111MEMENINEEMBISE 1 U i L 40 AW.411.11:0:1:0:0 f�J A .W PM 11 a I Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. 03-007 APPLICATION No. 02421 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMLSSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA QIAN/YANG; 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 2,824 square foot two story dwelling with a 1,349 square foot basement; 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 construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets 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 upon revision will minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors. The design will provide a varied roofline and facade softened with different materials and textures creating horizontal proportions, which break up massing and minimize the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms to the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco /stone facade and concrete tile roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into, one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to ensure the retention of trees on the north side of the property, the plan will retain the tree canopy along the northern property line and therefore avoid interference with privacy of the neighbor to the north. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed home will impact the view of the neighbor north of the property to some extent. However, maintaining the existing trees along their shared property line will minimize the impact on views to a reasonable level. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by locating the main living areas of the home along the southeast elevation and locating the garage area along the north elevation. Retaining trees helps 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 Paul Qian and Suying Yang for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped February 5, 2002 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. a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map received December 26, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 3. 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." 4. The design shall be revised to provide a six -foot basement wall setback on the south side of the property and an eight -foot basement wall setback on the north side of the property. shall be revised to provide on-grade 5. The design p pier and beam construction as P necessary, in the vicinity of the root system of tree #6. 2 6. The elevation of the structure should be revised to provide the height as measured from the natural grade. 7. The base of the proposed home should have a stone foundation in order to visually anchor the structure and create a horizontal element to the facade. Elevations of the structure should be revised to reflect this change. 8. The proposed walkway around the structure should be on -grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees. 9. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist recommendation in terms of lawn area and compatible plantings. 10. Fireplaces: Only one wood burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. 11. A grading and drainage plan signed and sealed by a registered engineer shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 12. A geotechnical/soils report shall be reviewed by the City geotechnical consultant in order to approve the basement design. 13. Soil and Erosion Control Plans The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 14. The front facade windows should project a unified design element. The circular window should be modified to reflect the design of the three adjacent windows. 15. A Certified Arborist shall be present during the excavation of the basement for tree #7 to assure that necessary measures for preserving this tree are carried out during this process. This arborist shall document the process and forward a letter to staff verifying compliance with the necessary protection measures. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on June 28, 2002 and made the following comments. 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 3 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16 -60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16 -60 -E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To .ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer /architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this plan and the report was received on December 26, 2002. The recommendations of the arborist are hereby made a condition of approval and incorporated into the revised plan. The main areas of concern are as follows. 1. The north wall of the basement will interfere with the root system of trees #7 and #6. The face cut of the soil for the basement construction must be a minimum of seven feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. 2. The walkway proposed adjacent trees #6 and #7 is only feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material is a pervious material. 3. A small retaining wall is located on the north side of trees #1 and #2. In order to preserve Trees #1 and #2 a detailed design should be provided to address how this change in grade is to be addressed. 4. The demolition and removal of the deck adjacent tree #8 should be done by hand. 5. The demolition and removal of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage should be done without heavy equipment being operated inside the driplines of trees #8 through #11. 6. The landscape plan should be revised to include the following: a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed it will not be feasible to trench for a new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to trees #1,2,5,6 and 7. 4 b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of trees #9 and #10 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of trees #1 and #2. c. Plants planted inside the dripline of oak trees #1,2,7,9 and 10 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species. d. Irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunk of any tree on the site. f. Landscape irrigation trenches, inside the driplines of trees must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However radial trenches may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape hardscape must be done completely on grade without excavation and without severing of roots. 7. The combined value of the trees is estimated to be $32,694. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees or $16,347 should be retained to assure their protection. 8. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place immediately following demolition. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 9. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. Soils excavated from the basement must be removed from the site as it is excavated. 10. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 11. An ISA certified arborist should be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway. 12. A pre construction meeting shall be required prior to the demolition of the existing structures. The Project Arborist shall attend and shall give instructions to the contractors on how to prevent significant damage to trees 6 Clnt ArroizN 1. attorney's fees, incurred b hold City or rless From all costs and expenses, including held agrees City y y ty eld 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, 5 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 Section 2. Construction must be commenced within 24 months or approval will expire. Section 3. All applicable requirements of the. State, County, City and o ther 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 12 day of February 2003 by the following roll call vote: AYES: GARAICANI, HUNTER, JACKMAN, ROUPE AND ZUTSHI NAYS: NONE ABSENT: BARRY AND KURASCH ABSTAIN: NONE ATTEST: 6 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. t! (1 co Property Owner or Authorized Agent Date Attachment 7 MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Jackman called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi Absent: Commissioners Barry and Kurasch Staff: Director Tom Sullivan, City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer, Planner Lata Vasudevan and Planner Ann Welsh PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE •APFROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of January 22, 2003. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Roupe, seconded by Commissioner Garakani, the regular Planning Commission minutes of January 22, 2003, were approved as submitted with one correction to page 5. AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman and Roupe NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch ABSTAIN: Zutshi 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 February 6, 2003. .REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS A hair Jackman announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an ppeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15.90.050(b). Saratoga Planning Commissin Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 20 Commissioner Garakani pointed out that the balcony is rather small and does not serve as a place to sit down but rather as a way to watch over the children as they play in the yard. Commissioner Roupe agreed that it would not be a sun porch. Director Tom Sullivan stated that the Commission could condition additional landscaping to include plant material placed on the neighbor's property of species and size to be agreed upon jointly by the applicant, neighbor and the Community Development Director. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hunter, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval (Application #02 -038) to allow the construction of a new two -story home on property located at 13235 McDole Street with the added condition that screening landscaping be planted on the rear neighbor's (Schneider) property of a species and size to be jointly agreed upon by the applicant, neighbor and Community Development Director and installed prior to final occupancy, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #02 -121 (503 -27 -068) QIAN, 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE: Request for Design Review Approval to demolish a 712 square foothome, a 126 square foot accessory structure and a 232 square foot garage and build a new two -story 2,823- square foot home with 1,458- square foot basement. The maximum building height of the residence will be 18 feet, 11.75 inches. The lot size is 7,500 square feet and the site is zoned R- 1- 10,000. (WELSH) Planner Ann Welsh presented the staff report as follows: Informed that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval for property located at 14261 Springer Avenue within an R -1- 10,000 zoning district. Said that the lot is a non conforming 7,500 square foot lot. Stated that the proposal includes the demolition of three structures totaling 1,069 square feet and plans to construct a nearly 19 foot high, two -story residence consisting of 2,823 square feet with a 1,458 square foot basement. Described the architectural style as being Mediterranean. Said that the neighborhood consists of an eclectic blend of architectural styles and a combination of one and two -story homes. There is no unifying design theme in this neighborhood. Stated that the applicant has secured community support and that the four abutting neighbors have signed a petition of support. Said that two trees on the north side will be protected. —An -11 -inch Oak tree potentially could be impacted by the construction of the basement and an Olive tree could be impacted by the garage. Stated that the Arborist is recommending moving the garage and staff is recommending reducing the south side setback to six feet and increasing the north side setback to eight feet. Saratoga Planning Con m]ssIon ivtinutes of February 12, 2003 Page 21 Stated that pier and beam design is proposed near Tree #6. Suggested to minimize the appearance of bulk, that the base of the home has a stone base. Recommended that the front facade windows be consistent across the front elevation with the proposed round window changed to a matching square window. Said that the paths on the property should remain on grade and be made of pervious pavers. Stated that with conditions the necessary Design Review findings can be met. Commissioner Hunter asked if Tree #6 is the Olive. Planner Ann Welsh replied yes. Commissioner Roupe suggested that the portion of basement close to the Oak tree be hand dug. Planner Ann Welsh suggested that the Condition could be imposed that an Arborist supervise that part of construction to assure the health of the tree. Chair Jackman opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10:20 p.m. Mr. Paul Qian, Applicant and Property Owner, 14261 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: Said that his new two -story home would be just less than 19 feet in height whereas a two -story is normally between 23 and 24 feet high. Said he went to the Planning Office and got the Residential Design Handbook and has tried to follow its guidelines in designing his home. Stated that he has spoken with his neighbors. One neighbor did not want a window directly facing his window. Another wanted to retain trees. Said that he has selected a roofing material that matches the neighborhood. Sand that they will provide construction fencing to protect trees. Said that his property is not a flag lot. The neighbor immediately adjacent to him has property that is two feet higher than his property. Their property is then four feet higher than the next neighbor's house. Described this home as their dream house and that his family, including two children, needs more space as the current house is too small. Asked the Commission for its approval of his Design and thanked them for their consideration. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr: Qian if he agrees to the suggestion to change the round window proposed to a square window. Mr. Paul Qian said that is fine with him. Commissioner Hunter asked Mr. Qian if he is okay with the suggestion to move the house over by one foot. Mr. Paul Qian said he is fine with that requirement. Added that it has recently been determined that the 4111 0akin-question-is-actually_on_his neighbor's _property. Mr. Ron Martin, 14251 Springer Avenue, Saratoga: Saratoga Planning Commission 1vlinutes of February 12, 2003 Page 22 Stated that he has no problem with Paul Qian's residence and that his only concern is the protection of the two trees. Added that he will be before the City within a few years with his own addition request. Questioned whether a tree bond is necessary. Director Tom Sullivan said that the applicant will be held to the conditions imposed by the Arborist and that before the final occupancy is issued the Arborist will inspect all trees. If the trees are in good health, the bond is released. It the trees are not in good health, the bond is not released. Planner Ann Welsh added that the tree bond amount is $16,000. Commissioner Hunter pointed out that the oak is leaning toward Mr. Martin's house. Mr. Ron Martin stated that he is aware of that fact. Mr. Paul Qian asked for clarification as to who owns the tree. Commissioner Roupe said that it appears to have been determined by the survey that Mr. Martin does but that Mr. Qian will have the obligation to protect the health of that tree from impacts of his construction: Mr. Paul Qian thanked his and Planner Ann Welsh for their support. Chair Jackman closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3 at 10 :30 p.m. Commissioner Zutshi asked about how the fence height is calculated under these conditions. Director Tom Sullivan said that it would be measured on the low side of the property. Commissioner Roupe stated that this is a good design. Commissioner Hunter said that it is a nice project. Commissioner Roupe said that it keeps a low profile. Planner Ann Welsh said that it is 18 feet, 11 inches from natural grade. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Garakani, seconded by Commissioner Roupe, the Planning Commission granted a Design Review Approval (Application #02 -121) to allow the demolition of an existing residence and construction of a new single- family residence on property located at 14261 Springer Avenue with the added conditions to: Move the house over one foot to the south; Require an on -site Arborist to supervise construction on the north side of the basement; Require a pier and beam foundation near the Oak tree; and Change the proposed round window to a square window on the front elevation; by the following roll call vote: Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 12, 2003 Page 23 AYES: Garakani, Hunter, Jackman, Roupe and Zutshi NOES: None ABSENT: Barry and Kurasch ABSTAIN: None DIRECTOR'S ITEMS There were no Director's Items. COMMISSION ITEMS Mustard Walk/Business Development Meeting Commissioner Hunter: Advised that she attended the Mustard Walk and found it to be a wonderful event co- sponsored by the Arts Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission. Informed that she also attended the Business Development Meeting where she learned further details about the planned 600 -seat auditorium at Saratoga High School. Advised that this project does not come before the City's Planning Commission as schools are separate entities not under local jurisdiction. Expressed concern about the 56 foot building height so close to the street at Saratoga Sunnyvale Road and Harriman. Said that the building is an ultra modern contemporary building and that the back of the building is what will be seen from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road. Tall redwood trees will shield it somewhat. Stated that the funding is currently $2 million short. Added that despite any concerns she might have she believes about the building's height an proximity to the road that this will be a fantastic facility for the community. Library Tour Commissioner Zutshi announced a Library Tour set for March 5, 2003, at 11:45 a.m. and suggested that any interested parties RSVP to assure sufficient hardhats are available for those who want to tour the site. Commissions Meeting with Council Commissioner Garakani asked for details about the upcoming daylong meeting between Council and the City's Commissions. Director Tom Sullivan explained that this would be an all day event on a Saturday. Council is there all day and the Commissions will have the opportunity to meet with Council to discuss policies and goals, The date is April 26, 2003. Chair Jackman pointed out that there were observers present at tonight's meeting who are interested in applying to serve on the Planning Commission. Attachment 8 Ceattifi Arborist ordscope Arc hied '11C i 1419 TREE REPORT Cart. Artwork/ 1050 ciates 1 r setupe1Arct el: (408) 395-2862 (408) 656 -3580 iwbeoudoineyohoo.com Mork W. Beaudoin P.O. Box 2032 Son Jose, CA 95109 SUYING YANG AND PAUL QIAN 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 TEL. NO. 408-867-6512 On October 23, 2006, I inspected two trees at the Yang -Qian residence for impact from a project that constructed a new concrete walk along the north side of the residence. The walk was constructed adjacent to an existing olive tree and also an existing Coast live oak. Each tree was photographed to show the condition at this time. My findings on each tree are as follows: 1.QUERCUS agrifolia (COAST LIVE OAK) 12 inch diameter single trunk tree in good condition. This tree has a fairly good structure but is crowded by a number of other trees. The new walk is a safe distance from the tree trunk but more space is needed for root growth. I recommend that a 7. foot by 6 foot section of the concrete walk be removed and be replaced with interlocking pavement on a sand gravel base. 2. OLEA europaea (OLIVE) 10 inch diameter trunk in good condition. This tree species can take considerable root pruning and has little impact from the new concrete walk. No removal of concrete is required for this tree. The tree is currently dropping considerable amounts of black olives which stain the pavement Some of this fruit drop can be prevented by pruning overhanging tree branches. If there are any questions on this report, please call me on my cell phone at 408-65.6 -3 80. Mark Be: .oin Cert. Arborist WC 1050 0� ri 01. .it IT Hl T v. 0 44A lid JA, 'z, k d6-. W. tv­c, do k 60 It 20p, kio • _Ala M, io , IQ IV A EW lq� is till -WrV. ZA., F{ i3v • i • ONE "I'l gi Aft. 16 MIR 1% P-4 ; .11I 1, -Wall 7. MW ell n: IF ­ETA I kn!� AV. "Ok ",wAuvjt kl� Attachment 9 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408/353-1052 r TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Bore! Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 27, 2002 Job 10 -99- 247 -02 12129/02 29209am P. 005 1Z/23/02 09109am P. 008 TREE SUM' I' PRESER r•:477ON RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Community Development Department Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence, detached bedroom, and detached garage in order to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction. The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans dated September 24, 2002, Sheets Al -A6. The architect or designer is not identified on the plans provided. Summary This proposal may expose 11 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree 43 would be removed by implementation of this design. All of the other trees would survive in good condition provided all of the mitigation suggestions are adhered to. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 6 trees on this site, 4 trees on the adjacent properties, and 1 tree whose ownership is in question. Tree #8 is a large multi -stem coast redwood tree that is located on the property boundary between this property and the property toward the north. All 11 trees may suffer some damage by proposed construction The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The Trees 44, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 were not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations oi, the plans are approximate. The 11 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 7, 9, 10 Coast live oalc (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #3 Siberian elms (Ulmus pumila) Tree #4 Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Trees #5, 6 European olive (Olea europea) Tree #8 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #11— Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) The particulars regarding these; trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided: in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent Extremely Poor) on the data Allk sheets that follow this text The combination of health and structure ratings for the 11 trees are converted to wordescriptive ratings as follows: PREPARED BY MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST NO Vi4BRR 27, 2002 12/29/02 09s09am P. 007 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDA770NSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGERAVLWUE SAR,470GA Exceptional Specimens Fine Specimens Fair Specimens 1, 2, 5 -11 1 4 Marginal Specimens 3 Poor Specimens Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties whose canopies (and roots) extend onto this property should be treated as Exceptional regardless of their condition. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction This is a long narrow lot. It appears that this plan proposes to maximize the building space allowed for this lot The north and south sides of the new residence are shown 8 feet from the property boundaries. A basement is planned for virtually the entire footprint of the residence except for the garage. Construction of the walls of a basement typically require a cut 3-6 feet outside the location of the new walls. This space outside the wall footprint would be backfilled after the basement walls are completed and sealed. This means that the actual soil cut will be approximately 3 -5 feet from the trunk of the neighboring olive Tree #6 and approximately 1- 3 feet from the trunk of coast live oak Tree #7. In the case of both Trees #6 and 7, the root damage would be severe, although the olive would be considerably more tolerant of this root removal than the oak tree. A portion of the canopies of Trees #2, 6, and 7 are in conflict with the new residence. If large limbs would be removed and if more than 1/3 of the canopies would be removed, these trees may not survive the long term. The root loss from basement excavation and the canopy losses are not separate and unrelated. The total loss to both trees would be severe. The plan proposes a new concrete walkway adjacent to the trunks of Trees #6 and 7 (presuming these trees would be retained). This pathway would only be feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material were a pervious material. A small retaining wall (approximately 12 15 inches in height) is seen on the north side of Trees #1 and 2. The plan does not describe how the difference in elevation would be addressed. A new concrete walkway is planned within approximately 18 —24 inches of the trunks of these trees, but no new retaining wall is planned. The proposed construction of the front door pathway does not appear feasible without causing severe root damage to both Trees #1 and 2. Tree #3 is in conflict with the footing of the new residence and would be removed. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. PREPARED Br: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CON.SUL77NG ARBORI.ST NOVEMBER 27, 2002 12/29/02 09e09am P. 008 fra TREESURVETAND PRESERYATIONRECOM IENDATIONSAT THE QIANPROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA An existing deck circles the trunk of Tree #8. This tree may be significantly injured if this deck is removed by heavy equipment If the soil from excavation for the basement were piled over the root systems of trees or if a portion of this excavated soil were to be used to raise the soil grade where trees exist, the damage to the root systems may be severe. Consequently, it will be essential that the soil excavated from the basement must be removed from site as it is excavated. of the trunk of coast live oak The Landscape plan (Al) proposes to establish a new lawn within about 2 10. This�would expose these trees to root Tree 1, and around the root collars of coast live oak Trees #9 collar diseases. Also, the proposed turf over the root zones of Trees #1, 9 and 10 would expose these trees to the risk of watermold diseases. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant coast redwood trees under the canopies of coast live oak Trees 9 and 10. When pyramidal trees grow up and through the dome shaped canopies of oaks, the oaks are shaded out. These redwoods should be removed from beneath or near the oaks. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant an 'Aristocrat' pear within about 3 feet of the trunk of Tree #8, the large coast redwood. This is simply too close. The plans provided do not address drainage. I presume a drainage system would be planned for this residence: Trenching for drain lines would likely pose a significant risk to Trees #1, 2, 4, 5, and a severe risk to Trees #6 and 7. A drainage system may pose a moderate risk to Trees #8 and 11, but this is only an assumption in the absence of a proposed plan. It appears that all of the trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench location must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendation 1. In order to preserve Trees #6 and 7, the following mitigation must be adhered to: a. The cut face of the soil cut for the basement construction must be a minimum of 7 feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. This may require a redesign of the basement north wall. b. Any roots 2 inches or larger must be sealed immediately after the soil cut is made (See Recommendation 18). c. If a drain line is required on the north side of the house, the new drain line must meet the requirement of la. d: The new pathway must be installed completely on top of the existing_ soil_ grade without any soil cut. Fill material under the pathway may be used but the fill material must be thoroughly porous, such as clean NO «i4fAER27. ?AOI PREPARF.D 6Y: MICHAEL!. BENCH. CONSULTING AR11ORJST PREPARED BP: MICHAEL G BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST 12/29/02 09:09am P. 009 NOMIBER 27, 2002 TREE SURVEY PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATTONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTr 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SAR.4TOGA gravel or sand. Base rock with granite fines is not adequately porous after compaction and may not be used. The fill soil, if any, may be compacted to 80% maximum. e. The new pathway material must be porous such as interlocking pavers, but this installation would require that the manufactures specifications for stabilization of the soil may not be used, but instead meet the requirement here of l No trenching, including trenching for drainage or for landscape irrigation, may occur on the north side of the new building. g. The proposed strip of lawn adjacent to the building is not compatible with the cultural requirements of Trees #6 or 7. This strip of lawn must be replaced by a plant(s) that is compatible with a coast live oak tree culture (see 9c). h. Pruning must be limited to 25 30% of the total canopies of both Trees #6 and 7. 2. In order to preserve the trees at this site, I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan and an irrigation main line and lateral must be provided and reviewed by the City Arborist. 3. In order to preserve Trees #1 and 2, I recommend that a detailed design be required to address the differences in grade on the north side of the trunks of these trees. This must be done without significant root loss these two trees. I recommend that this detail design be reviewed by the City Arborist. 4. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. 5. 1 recommend that the demolition and removal of the deck adjacent to Tree #8 be done by hand 6. l recommend that the demolition of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage be removed without demolition equipment being operated inside the driplines of Trees 8 -1 1. A backhoe may, be used but the tractor must not enter the areas inside the driplines of these trees. 7. 1 recommend that an ISA certified arborist be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway, that exist inside the driplines of Trees #8- 11.1 recommend that the Project Arborist have the authority to supervise the demolition team in order to prevent significant damage to Trees #8-11. 1 further recommend that a pre- construction meeting be required, and that the agenda include instructions to the contractors by the Project Arborist. 8. I recommend that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be tempora moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 9. I recommend that the Landscape Plan be revised to include the following. a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed, it will not be feasible to trench for new imgati n ine (or other purpose) without- severe root to T-rees #1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. 12/28/02 OS:08am P. 010 TREE SURVEY AND PRESF.Ri'AT10N RECOMWENDA77ONS AT THE QIAN PROPER7714261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARA TOGA b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of Trees #9 and 10 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of Trees #1 and 2. c. Plants planted inside the driplines of oak Trees #!1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. d. I recommend that irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunk of any tree on site. f. Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. h. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. i. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 10. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 11. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, 1 suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 12. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 13. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to I all retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall) during construction. Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose, which must be located near the dripline not wrapped around the trunk for the entire canopy circumference. 14. A full 4-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #8, 9, and 10 immediately following demolition. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 15. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 16. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Western Chapter. Standards, 1998. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 27, 2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDAT10NSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE WAWA 18. Roots of Trees #6 and 7 exposed by this excavation must be managed as follows: a. Roots that are 3 inches in diameter or smaller may be severed, but they must be cut cleanly and sealed to prevent drying out. This can be done by painting the cut ends with a latex paint or by wrapping the cut ends with plastic. Sealing must be done immediately following severing. b. Roots that are 4 inches or larger must not be severed. In this event, the foundation on the North side must be constructed by a pier and on -grade beam design to adequately accommodate the large roots, which must include annual expansion growth for many years. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree 43 has a value of $397, which is equivalent to one 24 inch boxed native specimen. A replacement is suggested. The combined value of the trees is $32,694. I suggest a bond equal to 50% ($1 of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Valley oak Quercus lobata Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum California buckeye Aesculus californica Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens MLB /sl.. Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffet Map 12/29/02 09c0Sam P. 011 Respectfully submitted, Date, Princi PREPARED BY MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARSONIST NOYTMBER 27.2002 a H 0 2/29. OS:0Sam P. 001 (t- 0 Li NAOML 1tlA0W31 NWOO? WO= 2332111.11MA S033 (SI) As %09 '°°I X (s 3Sb3SIO )0100 inuomold (9-4) 03?33AOO utrnoo lO0 (5 mntu. IfYial4/3 (g-, M OV3 (s-4) 3svastC worm Balt (9-0 SIDESNI i (9 A.I.IbOlbc1 ONINflad 09039N s3'lsN ND iH013d 3AOW3k y oNisrea NMOa, f99'44 %06 =GP 'de X X sp. olasa 30% $569 111 %001 seep 'do X X ap. class 10% $1„325 NOLLb'aC NM08 6 DNI ONIP 1 uem, (6 OI (9. (Oil) ONLIV8 NOLL1ON00 el I (S y IVS 1c1: N l t 011(a ∎Warm ci H90 0 ""'O "ae4OY13 3 eon Pool anp0 ueedoJnal easdou a so101 etdoiN lol 6 101 wafikdcuosw J111 )1 6 411seo0 911 =0 $nWm LI3 ueliecus BARRIE D. COATE 'p and ASSOCIATES 0003531052 =H anellead laeda,u 19110 plant Name swops gooiest° 160 a^!l !aeon tri a H 0 2/29. OS:0Sam P. 001 E D c E Y e OPP WO Mn+Of d "MOWN 1VAO41321 ON3HWO03a 213ZI1LL213d SO33N (s N31b'MS033N (St) 3SVBSIO av'Iloo10Ot! (9 03213AO0 elf noOlOOM (s -A.,v o O )INntLL (s l) OOOM OYBO 3 SH3S10 NMO21O 33tLL (9-0 S103SNI L).umoIt1d ONINfId X 03033N S319V0 11-1OI3M 3AN3 001321 ONISNt� NMOMO _NO(1001S321 N1AO60 ONINNIIU NMOt1O ONIMG 10 NMO210 (6 ON1.1.tl21 OdY YH (01-0 ONLLVa NOLLIONOO 0-1)3t1N0f1 N (3 t) H1Tf3H 0V3adS V 1H013H ie 1334 z® 213t3wv10 ea 1.480 F O H90 g viruSAS•LLV1W epr46 enoge 2/1 H90 2 Ul x 1- r 0 q c r x 3 a 0 A a 12/23/02 09 1092m P. 002 Attachment 10 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests the appeal of an Administrative Decision to approve a minor modification to approved plans. The project included a concrete walkway along the side of the house adjacent to trees. The site is located in the R -1 10,000 zoning district. The Administrative Decision was made pursuant to City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)2. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information ..packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 2, 2007. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 10 day of January, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Yolanda Martin; 14251 Springer. Avenue/Paul Qian; 14261 Springer Avenue APN 503 -27- 068:` Kate Bear Arborist (408) 868 -1276 I, Denise Kaspar 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 20 day of December 2006, that I deposited 87 notices in the United States Post Office, 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 250 feet of the property described as: Address: 14261 SPRINGER AVE APN: 503 -27 -068 that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the addresses shown above. e 'se Kaspar Advanced Listing Services AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES ecember 18, 2006 vnership Listing repared for: )3 -27 -068 AO. QIAN 1261 SPRINGER AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 )3 -22 -042 HARON F HEDDEN R CURRENT OWNER )820 CANYON VIEW DR RRATOGA CA 95070 -5885 )3 -22 -045 )SEPH H OSEKOWSKY R CURRENT OWNER )790 CANYON VIEW DR RRATOGA CA 95070 -5808 )3 -23 -006 TAN BURGOS 1682 STONERIDGE DR ARATOGA CA 95070 -5745 „24 ARANGAN RANGACHARI R CURRENT OWNER )613 BROOKWOOD LN ARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 )3-23-033 E HORN R CURRENT OWNER )646 MARION RD ARATOGA CA 95070 -5832 )3 -23 -037 URT B VOESTER R CURRENT OWNER 1251 BURNS WAY kRATOGA CA 95070 -5804 )3 -23 -042 'AYNE LIU R CURRENT OWNER 1256 SPRINGER AVE RRATOGA CA 95070 -5824 L 045 A JANINE BELSHAW R CURRENT OWNER 240 SPRINGER AVE kRATOGA CA 95070 -5824 503 -22 -043 STANLEY F SALLY PERRY OR CURRENT OWNER 20810 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5885 503 -22 -087 YASHVANT J VARSHA PATEL OR CURRENT OWNER 20685 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5817 503 -23 -022 IAN HELEN WHITING OR CURRENT OWNER 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -23 -025 EVELYN JOHNSTON PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0053 503 -23 -034 JAMES P RENALDS OR CURRENT OWNER 20640 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5832 503 -23 -040 RICHARD MARCY LOTTI OR CURRENT OWNER 20636 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5832 503 -23 -043 JOHN R KETTMANN OR CURRENT OWNER 14250 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5824 503 -23 -046 MICHAEL KYMBERLEY MORGANSTERN OR CURRENT OWNER 14242 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5824 503 -22 -044 MARTY EMILIA CASSERLY OR CURRENT OWNER 20800 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 -5885 503 -22 -102 503 -27 -033 GARY L CAMPBELL OR CURRENT OWNER 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5890 503 -23 -023 EVELYN JOHNSTON OR CURRENT OWNER 20611 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -5831 503 -23 -030 LOGAN DEIMLER 280 2ND ST 270 LOS ALTOS CA 94022 -3636 503 -23 -035 SONNY C NG OR CURRENT OWNER 20650 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5832 503 -23 -041 MEHDI FATEMEH SHAHBAZI OR CURRENT OWNER 14231 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5804 503 -23 -044 CHANDER ANUPAMA SARNA OR CURRENT OWNER 14224. SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5824 503 -23 -047 HOWARD F CATHERINE EARHARh OR CURRENT OWNER 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 -5832 )3 -23 -048 AVID S SANDRA WILSON NT OWNER ON RD TOGA CA 95070 -5832 )3 -26 -052 .■E -MIN NEE R CURRENT OWNER 1352 SPRINGER AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5826 )3 -27 -021 RISCILLA F DONALD POOLE R CURRENT OWNER 1340 ELVA•AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 )3 -27 -024 MMES L HESTER R CURRENT OWNER 1310 ELVA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 )3 -27 -028 ARYJ &JUNOLIN R CURRENT OWNER 411LVA AVE IGA CA 95070 -5812 33 -2 -031 LEXANDER L GLENN IGNACIO R CURRENT OWNER 4230 ELVA AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 03 -27 -036 ABAK HASHEMI iR CURRENT OWNER 4241 PAUL AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 D3 -27 -039 URELIO JING BIOS R CURRENT OWNER 4271 PAUL AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 )3 -27 -042 RIC J CLAIRE KAZARNOVSKY R CURRENT OWNER 4301 PAUL AVE ,TOGA CA 95070 -5820 050 Q1NG MA R CURRENT OWNER 1360 PAUL AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 503 -26 -032 AMIT BAHL OR CURRENT OWNER 14362 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5826 503 -26 -054 BONNIE J WRIGHT OR CURRENT OWNER 14433 WILDWOOD WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 -5841 503 -27 -022 SHUN W QUON OR CURRENT OWNER 14330 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 503 -27 -026 ROBIN YEAMANS 1184 CAPRI DR CAMPBELL CA 95008 -6056 503 -27 -029 MOHAMMAD ESTAHBANATY OR CURRENT OWNER 14250 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 503 -27 -034 NIKOLAJS VIKTORS JANSONS 123 NEW YORK AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 -6111 503 -27 -037 BERNICE MCCABE 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 -1213 503 -27 -040 TAT C TINA CHOI OR CURRENT OWNER 14281 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 503 -27 -044 ROBERT SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI 14860 CODY LN SARATOGA CA 95070 -6018 503 -27 -051 SAM CARTMELL OR CURRENT OWNER 14350 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 503 -26 -044 SARATOGA CITY OF SARATOGA CA 95070 503 -27 -020 LLOYD G STEPHENS OR CURRENT OWNER 14350 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 503 -27 -023 CHESTER STANARO OR CURRENT OWNER 14320 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5814 503 -27 -027 YIT -SUN A WU OR CURRENT OWNER 14270 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 503 -27 -030 CARL K DIANA FARSAI OR CURRENT OWNER 14240 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 503 -27 -035 BARRIE R NOVAK OR CURRENT OWNER 14231 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 503 27 038 DALS OR CURRENT OWNER 14261 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 503 -27 -041 AMIN R NARJES GHAFOURI OR CURRENT OWNER 14291 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5818 503 -27 -045 BRUCE ROBERTA MARSHALL OR CURRENT OWNER 14341 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 503 -27 -052 MICHAEL LUBYANITSKY OR CURRENT OWNER 14340 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 3 -27 -053 CRY M NISHIMOTO t CURRENT OWNER it PAUL AVE TOGA CA 95070 -5821 3 -27 -056 kRYANNE NOLA t CURRENT OWNER 300 PAUL AVE ,RATOGA CA 95070 -5821 3 -27 -059 JEIHSIEN TSENG t CURRENT OWNER 270 PAUL AVE .RATOGA CA 95070 -5819 3 -27 -062 EPHEN A LINDA CALEBOTTA t CURRENT OWNER 240 PAUL AVE ,RATOGA CA 95070 -5819 3 -27 -068 kO QIAN t CURRENT OWNER 261 SPRINGER AVE .iATnGA CA 95070 -5823 3 -v -u ENNIS P MARY RYAN t CURRENT OWNER 325 SPRINGER AVE .RATOGA CA 95070 -5889 3 27 076 )BERT L WEINMANN 2 CURRENT OWNER 371 SPRINGER AVE ,RATOGA CA 95070 -5889 3 -27 -082 .MES R KATHLEEN ARENA t CURRENT OWNER 294 ELVA AVE .RATOGA CA 95070 -5812 3 -27 -100 .MUEL AIDA SCOTT 2 BICKNELL RD )S GATOS CA 95030 -2112 108 air A SLAVIN t CURRENT OWNER 305 PAUL AVE RATOGA CA 95070 -5820 503 -27 -054 TIBOR SZALAY OR CURRENT OWNER 14328 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 503 -27 -057 TIBOR SZALAY 14328 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 503 -27 -060 RICHARD H SHAW OR CURRENT OWNER 14260 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5819 503 -27 -066 THOMAS 3 BELPASSO OR CURRENT OWNER 14241 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 503 -27 -069 DONALD M RUTH SCHWARTZ OR CURRENT OWNER 14271 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 503 -27 -074 SRINIVASA R PADMAJA MALLADI OR CURRENT OWNER 14345 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5889 503 -27 -078 RICHAD SUZAN DEIGNAN OR CURRENT OWNER 14291 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 503 -27 -083 UNG -DO SHIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14288 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 503 -27 -101 CHEN QIU OR CURRENT OWNER 14230 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5819 503 -27 -109 PIROOZ NAZANIN TOOYSERKANI OR CURRENT OWNER 14315 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 503 -27 -055 EDWARD Y TEHCHI CHIEN OR CURRENT OWNER 14314 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5821 503 -27 -058 JOSEPH L MARIA KOVACS PO BOX 164 SARATOGA CA 95071 -0164 503 -27 -061 FELIX ISABELLA MARKHOVSKY OR CURRENT OWNER 14250 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5819 503 -27 -067 RONALD P YOLANDA MARTIN OR CURRENT OWNER 14251 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 503 -27 -071 VERNON L SHUPER OR CURRENT OWNER 14305 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5889 503 -27 -075 STEVEN YVONNE ZIVANIC OR CURRENT OWNER 14361 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5889 503 -27 -079 BARBARA KRAFT OR CURRENT OWNER 14299 SPRINGER AVE. SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 503 -27 -095 ST NICHOLAS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GR OR CURRENT OWNER 14220 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5812 503 -27 -107 RAKESH JABINA RAMDE OR CURRENT OWNER 14220 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5819 —503-27-110 JONATHAN SUNNY CHO OR CURRENT OWNER 14361 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5820 3 -27 -111 10 ICAR VENKATESAN 2759 OGA CA 95070 -0759 503 -27 -112 PAUL PAMELA MCDONALD OR CURRENT OWNER 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 -5823 CITY OF SARATOGA AT'TN: KATE BEAR 13777 FRUITVALE AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BARRI E D. COATE an d ASSOCIATES Horticutural Consultants X 535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 408)353 -1052 December 18, 2006 Mr. Paul Qian 14261 Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Qian, You asked my opinion regarding the installation of a new concrete pathway in relation to the preservation of a coast live oak tree and a European olive tree. These trees are located adjacent to an existing concrete pathway, which extends the length of your residence in the north side yard. As you know, I evaluated these trees on this property in a report dated November 27, 2002. At that time, the coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree 7 had a trunk diameter of 11 inches DBH Diameter at Breast Height), and the European olive (Olea europea) Tree 6 had a trunk diameter of 16 inches DBH. The diameters of each of these have probably increased about 1 inch since 2002. I stated in the report (11- 27 -02) that several procedures would be required to preserve Trees 6 and 7, including the fact that the new pathway must be a porous material (1.e., p. 4). However, this was not intended to suggest that the entire pathway had to be of a porous material but only that the area of the pathway near each of these trees. I apologize that this was not clarified. Because you have asked me to take another look at this circumstance, I realize that the concrete pathway would not adversely affect the olive tree. I recommend that any pathway within approximately 7 feet of the trunk of this coast live oak tree should be porous to assure preservation of the root zone. The critical issue is that there must be no excavation of the existing soil within the (hipline to construct the pathway. I hope this clarifies the issue. I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused you. Michael L. Bench, Associate 42 Barrie D. Coate, Principal MLB /sh tt u !°1 z c' eve Date: January 2, 2007 To: Planning Commission From: Yolanda Martin 14251 Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Subject: Appeal of the November 27, 2006 Modification of the 2003 Approved Plans for the residential construction at 14261 Springer Avenue; Application #02 -121 Overview This is a formal appeal to the Community Development Director's decision to modify the design plans of a property that has been occupied, and, I presume, received final inspection sometime last year. I believe this modification after the -fact is not in the best interest of my trees planted adjacent to the property. I believe the decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, and discriminatory. This action is in direct violation to the City of Saratoga's Tree Protection Handbook and Saratoga's Tree Regulations (specifically, but not limited to, Article 15- 50.010 Article 15- 50.120.) This action has been unfairly applied to me and my trees to mitigate the City's responsibility and liability. Background The residential construction application at 14261 Springer Avenue was approved on February 12, 2003 with the some of following stipulations noted in the Report to Planning Commission, Application #02 -121: The proposed walkway around the structure should be on grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees.' The recommendations of the arborist (Barry D. Coate and Associates) are hereby made a condition of approval and incorporated into the revised plan. The main areas of concern are as follows The walkway proposed adjacent trees #6 (olive tree) and #7 (oak tree) is only feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material is a pervious material. Construction began sometime in late 2004, and there were problems from the start with fences coming down, erosion, drainage issues and concerns for the trees and landscaping between the 2 properties; 14261 and 14251 Springer Avenue. The City failed to properly supervise this project and enforce requirements outlined in the Planning Commission Report despite several phone messages of concern and requests for information, or actual complaints. Required fencing was not installed; erosions concerns and increase' grading issues were ignored. Things climaxed Summer, 2005, when I was informed by a PG &E official that the utility trenching under my trees was "illegal" (his words, not mine), and, harmful to the future Community Development Section, item #8, page 13. 2 City Arborist Report Section, item #2, page 14. health and survival of the trees. He informed me that PG &E wanted no part of it because PG &E has been found liable in similar cases for damages and death to trees that occurred up to ten years after the fact. I called the City immediately, and like many times before, I left a telephone message that was never returned. So I called again (and again) and learned the City had hired another Arborist, Arbor Resources, to review the site. David Babby of Arbor Resources issued a report, dated October 11, 2005, listing several findings, including the fact that the Oak tree had declined in health. Concerned, I personally called David Babby on November 14, 2005, and he gave me the following advice: That I should request that the bond money set aside for the trees be held beyond the completion of the construction project. He told me that if there is concern for the trees, the Arborist can recommend the bond be held for a given period of time at the end of construction when she /he does a final review. Olive trees are hardy, but that the grade should not be increased because Olive roots are near the surface and they need oxygen. And he was the first to tell me that plans called for the walkway under the trees to be of a pervious material (i.e. pavers or pervious concrete). He stressed the importance of a pervious concrete /material walkway to ensure the long term health and survival of the Olive trees. A pervious material would provide water, nutrients and oxygen to the root system. Later that week, on November 17, 2005, I went into the Building Department to get some questions answered. After an emotional encounter with a city employee named Mr. Brad Lind, I walked away with many unanswered questions, but with a copy of the Planning Report and the repeated assurance that the project will be constructed "according to the Planning Report." I noted the Planning Report required, as Mr. Babby stated, the construction of a pervious walkway (as noted above). With the pervious walkway requirement documented and Mr. Lind's assurance that the project would be constructed according to the "Planning Report," I naively assumed it would be constructed with pervious material. But I also had other concerns and many unanswered questions. On January 25, 2006, I sent a written compliant via your web -site. In that long complaint, I outlined my concerns as follows: 1. My neighbor has leveled the grade of his property. Piling dirt along the property line adjacent to me and adding soil to the natural grade under the maple, olive and oaks trees. (Our properties are on a slight hill. My neighbor is at the crest, sloping downward, and I'm on the downward side). The additional soil on top of the oak and olive tree roots is a concern from what I've been told by an arborist. 2. The constructing project has caused the ivy on my property (under my trees) to die off, causing major soil erosion and exposing the roots of the Oak tree. 3. My neighbor wants to construct a fence (where a fence did not exist before) along the property line under the trees and I have concerns about the fence posts (requiring 3 foot holes) severing large tree roots. Additionally, fence contractors want to remove what's left of the little ivy vegetation before constructing the fence. I worry about further soil erosion and additional exposure of the oak tree roots. 4. Drainage issues resulting from the grade increase near my property. The natural slope is sharper causing a huge puddle to form in my driveway. This will only be exasperated when landscaping sprinklers are installed. Recent rains have produced larger puddles (over 8 feet in diameter) than years past. And I requested the following: 1. Increase the bond on the trees past the life of the construction project. Maybe a year or two to be certain that the trees will survive. Also have the arborist evaluate and make recommendation for the future survival of the trees. And have the city follow -up to be sure that provisions are carried out correctly. 2. Review the grading issues and problems. Require retaining walls for the increase grade to hopefully prevent further erosion and destruction of vegetation trees. Require replacement of the ivy vegetation. 3. Have an arborist recommend and approve fencing construction near the trees.,. 4. Require some kind of drainage system for water run off to prevent flooding and damage to my property. This complaint did not mention the pervious walkway because it was addressed in the Planning Report, I had Mr. Lind's defiant assurance that the Building Department was obligated to make sure things were constructed according to the Planning Report, and at the time of my complaint, the walkway had not been constructed. Happily, the written compliant did get attention, and at 9am on February 6, 2006, Kate Bear, the new Arborist for the City of Saratoga, and Skyelar McLean came out to view the site. Ms. Bear and Mr. McLean noted a few items, such as: the increase in grade, piling of dirt, stone housing materials along the tree trunks, dumping of chemicals /muddy cement residue in the dirt under the trees, and lack of wood chips around the tree trunks as recommended in the October 11, 2005 Arbor Resources Report. At this meeting, it is important to note that I mentioned to Kate Bear that the walkway, according the Plans (and as emphasized by Mr. Babby), needed to be of a pervious material. I also mentioned this to Mr. Qian, the owner of the property. I was surprised when my neighbors moved into their house before the project appeared to be complete. And I was flabbergasted that many things were not done according to plans or recommendations, and most of my concerns were not addressed or were dismissed. Such as; the trench not filled according the Arborists recommendations, trees not pruned by an ISA certified arborist, erosion and drainage issues ignored, claims of the increased grade denied, and bond, protecting the trees, returned. But I was completely shocked that the walkway around the house was in fact cement. It was not pervious. I couldn't believe it. Once again, I called the City. Kate Bear agreed to research it. On October 9, 2006, after many delays (on everyone's part), I was informed by Jana Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist for the City, that the owner (Mr. Qian) was given a 30 -day Notice to comply with the pervious walkway requirement. Jana Rinaldi also sent me an e-mail (attached) indicating that the owner intended to replace the cement with pavers (a pervious material). However, it appears that the City never sent that 30 -day Notice, and instead, the owners (Mr. Qian/Ms. Yang) hired their own Arborist. This Arborist said that only part of the cement walkway needed to be replaced. Side note: I called this Arborist, Mark Beaudoin of Beaudoin Associates Landscaping Architecture on November 30, 2006. He informed me that he was retained by Ms. Yang, the owner, and did not know about the trenching. He told me that trenching would have destroyed the roots, but admitted that if a pervious material was installed, the roots would return. On November 27, 2006, the City did a 180 degree turn, almost 4 years after the original Planning Report, and issued a "minor modification" agreeing with this biased Arborist. Leaving me with no alternative, other than to pay $250.00 and appeal this capricious decision. I'm upset a walkway originally deemed "only feasible if the surface material is a pervious material" is now not required to constructed of a pervious material. the City approved this project when it did not meet the required protection measures outlined in the original Arborists Report the Planning Commission Report, and contrary to the City's Tree Protection Plan, Preservation Handbook and Zoning regulations, including, but not limited to, Section 15- 50.140, Section 15- 50.090, Section 15- 50.080. a $250.00 filing fee is required to fight a decision that the Community Development Director had no authority to make 3 years, 9 months and 15 days after the -fact. I'm appealing this action and requesting that the Planning Commission and the City: Ensure a pervious walkway is constructed as originally required. Refund of $250.00 Appeal filing fee. Attachments 1. City of Saratoga Tree Protection Handbook 2. City of Saratoga Zoning Regulations; a. Article 15- 05.020 b. Article 15- 50.010 c. Article 15- 50.050 d. Article 15- 50.070 e. Article 15- 50.080 f. Article 15- 50.090 g. Article 15- 50.120 h. Article 15- 50.140 i. Article 15- 50.170 3. Report to Planning Commission, Application #02 -121, Dated February 12, 2003 4. Tree Survey Preservation Recommendations by Barrie D. Coate Associates, dated 11/27/2002 5. Arbor Resources Site Visit Report, dated October 11, 2005 6. City of Saratoga Letter regarding minor modification dated November 27, 2006 7. Notice of Public Hearing 8. First written Citizen Compliant, submitted on -line dated January 26, 2006 9. Second written Citizen Complaint, submitted on line October 11, 2006 10.E -mail from Jana Rinaldi, dated October 26, 2006 11. Pictures Please see main binder. CITY OF SARATOGA TREE PROTECTION HANDBOOK ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The Principle author of this document is Landscape Designer and Consultant, Lisa Kurasch. The entire Tree Committee wishes to thank Ms. Kurasch for her generous contribution of time and expense in developing the Handbook We would also like to extend our thanks to Assistant Planner, Paul Kermoyan, who assisted the Tree Committee in this project. Saratoga Tree Committee members: Meg Caldwell, Planning Commissioner Barrie Coate, City Arborist Blair Glenn, Certified Arborist Lisa Kurasch, Landscape Designer Henry Murakami, Planning Commissioner Robert Peepari, Architect and Heritage Preservation Commissioner Adopted by City Council on January 17,1996 2 CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 4 ORGANIZATION OF THE HANDBOOK 4 TREE GROWTH AND CULTURE 5 BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE GROWTH AND HEALTH 6 ENCROACHMENT IMPACTS 7 SARATOGA TREE PERMIT PROCESS 10 THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS 11 PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION 13 CONSTRUCTION PHASES 13 POST CONSTRUCTION PHASE 14 TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE 14 MANAGING TREES YOURSELF 18 PRUNING STANDARDS 19 GLOSSARY t 20 APPENDIX I: ISA Pruning Standards 3 INTRODUCTION Saratoga owes much of its unique attractiveness to the wooded hillside and native and ornamental trees found throughout its neighborhoods. In addition to enhancing property values and residents' sense of pride in their community, these trees provide practical benefits by shading homes and streets, buffering temperature extremes and stabilizing soils along creeks and on hillsides. Trees lessen the ill effects of wind, noise and air pollution, while providing wildlife food and habitat in natural areas. The way trees are accommodated in the City, cared and planned for in all stages of their life, will have a great effect upon their future in the community. Attention to their management installation, maintenance, removal and replacement can contribute to sustaining the City's urban forest today and in the future. This Tree Protection Handbook, together with Saratoga's Tree Regulations (contained in Article 15 -50 of the Saratoga City Code), establishes basic standards and recommendations for the protection and preservation of trees in our City. The Handbook is designed to explain and illustrate generally accepted concepts of tree preservation to property owners, developers, designers, tree care professionals and the general public. The goal is to make the process of design, review and development around protected trees easier to understand. Throughout the Guidelines, special attention is given to native oak species. Native oaks are an important part of Saratoga's history. The City's emblem is that of a coast live oak, and its creeks, hillsides, open spaces and neighborhoods are graced by majestic oaks. Throughout California, native oak species have been under intense pressure from human activity and, as a result, their numbers continue to decline. Oak trees are particularly sensitive to disruptions or changes in their growing conditions and are least able to recover from physical injury. For these reasons, the Handbook provides more detailed information about protecting native oaks than for any other species. Organization of the Handbook The Handbook starts with a brief description of the_way_ trees_ grow -a what 4 TREE HEALTH AND CARE --01 NetvAlcz iikAwf ri2OPA 1124441447. -rtaLAN ppOperzt).1 /447 Av7n2 CvG-1 1 rvositoer etrer oirowv-14 GoMptlioNG 10 ftt2zr cifiebrlet•tlectrot7 GvseAsa AN17 1+43)Pe1# MEA•44.4 SOU/ WHIHIN RUPL4140 WrtH 0-4 clo or-stAN 14 SCrA4 814;a0MIOP ea‘4441 VAZIOCAWSO LOCAVO 01 1 4 41 V NA1 L4e tetr&1 geer 1212:716014#42' m i44:11440 SOU/ WANK" Aptivsz isaltatevesoky (i r %frog) outoka mar DIET summegG "P MNIP4120 12=4Kr efilebss APTOM ran tipss egcm 4a Inguirt oPt Vovisr relmAzi,44)/ hi■Cgego441. ecnai44045nVG e.12.1 AG VW', laxpr pgapprnbs. rA ,4A 44140 le-Ver P1.4441GAstO LorAsi -15,4 rcur rgam loza srodivt■I 7 11-e IfuNg- GI/ CveM), INVIIGHWE42- agerkieta• flavor.. 9 BASIC REQUIREMENTS FOR TREE. GROWTH AND HEALTH A few basic needs should be considered for all trees and the common functions they perform (see figure 2). Water. The amounts of water needed by trees depends on the size and type of tree, the soil, depth and spread of roots, stresses on the tree, and the season. Young trees always need regular, supplemental water until they are established, which usually takes two or more years. All trees should be watered when showing signs of drought in hot, dry summers, or after a dry winter. Signs of drought in mature trees include: lighter dull leaves, wilting and leaf drop. Infrequent deep watering can benefit all trees during droughts, after root damage or loss, and in paved areas where other sources of water have been eliminated. Native oaks are adapted to dry summers and are healthier with little of no supplemental water. Buttress roots, at the root collar, where the root system meets the trunk, become vulnerable to several fatal root diseases when subjected to frequent summer irrigation. These root diseases are inactive in dry, warm soils but thrive in wet, warm soils. Young oaks do not adapt to frequent irrigation, they just take longer to decline than mature oaks, which will rapidly decline under similar conditions. Oaks can be given one or two deep soakings at the beginning of spring and at the end of summer. Water should be applied using soaker hoses, drip emitters or a slow drip from a conventional hose to reach the entire root area. Water should only be applied in the area from the midde to the outside of the dripline, never close to the trunk. Soils. All soils are made up of mineral particle, organic matter, water, air and soil organisms. The best soils for root health allow for water and air movement while holding water and mineral nutrients. These well aerated soils have spaces between particles which allow a free exchange of gases with absorbing roots. Oxygen is critical for the uptake of water and minerals, without which trees cannot survive. Soils should be deep nough -to -drain water- -and to- allow roots to grow unrestricted. To improve soils for young or new trees, organic amendments (peat moss, compost, nitrolized redwood conditioners, etc.) can be added to benefit any type of soil. Organic amendments help hold water and nutrients in sandy soils, and improve drainage and aeration in heavy, clay soils. Although nitrogen is the most important mineral for young trees, mature trees that are growing well may not need supplemental nitrogen, except those growing in very poor soils. Too much nitrogen can cause excessive leaf growth, overly dense canopies and excessive shading inside the canopy, all of which lead to poor growth. Commercially available soil tests can help analyze soil conditions and provide recommendations to correct deficiencies. Young and mature trees alike benefit greatly from mulching with organic materials, such as shredded bark or leaves, compost, etc. A layer of organic mulch covering the soil is one of the easiest and most important steps in tree care as it provides ideal conditions for tree roots. Mulch maintains a slow, long lasting supply of nutrients, improves aeration, retains moisture, reduces evaporation and runoff, and buffers soil temperature in the summer when it can be hot enough to kill tree roots. To mulch properly, place four inches of organic material within the dripline at least six inches away from the truck, replenishing as needed. Existing leaf litter (the natural built up layer of leaves and debris dropped by the tree itself) is similarly beneficial and should always be left under the canopy. ENCROACHMENT IMPACTS A mature tree is adapted to a specific balance of moisture, air, soil conditions and nutrients. Its ability to tolerate change from these vary according to the trees health, age, species, location and other factors. A tree's natural aging and decline can be accelerated by stress such as root loss, soil changes and resulting diseases. Many of the greatest injuries to trees are caused by development activities that take place too extensively or too close' "to a tree's root area. By identifying impacts from common activities around protected trees, some damage can be lessened or avoided by using alternatives to the most harmful of them. The best strategy for protecting trees, especially native oaks, is to keep their root zones as undisturbed as possible. A. tree's long term, survival can be enhanced by providing the conditions to which trees are naturally adapted and by minimizing environmental changes. Compaction. Soil compaction compresses the spaces between soil particles, eliminating much of the air spaces and essential oxygen available to roots. Keep vehicles and heavy equipment outside the root zone. Impervious Paving Asphalt, concrete and similar surfaces prevent water percolation and the exchange of air and gases between roots soil and atmosphere. In addition, preparation for paving often compacts soils and removes or damages tree's roots during excavation. Porous materials which allow for permeability are attractive alternates. Brick, stone on sand, with sand joints, gravel, bark or similar materials are good substitutes for impervious paving. Aeration devices set in gravel are needed with impervious paving located in a root zone. Trenching. Trenching in a tree's root area is a commonly overlooked cause of tree mortality. When utility trenches are dug into the root zone, or area where the majority of the roots are found, major portions of the tree's roots may be cut. The ability of a tree to withstand root loss depends upon its age, health, species and the soil type. Root loss may stress a tree, leading to other secondary health problems, its .decline or death. Alternative to trenching include boring or drilling for utilities and installing conduit for several bundled lines; excavating by hand when digging is unavoidable and;esigning utility pathways so they are outside of the root zone. Other Soil Disturbances Changing natural soil levels through grading or terracing can reduce soil permeability and trap excessive moisture in soils causing root and drown rot. Building retaining walls near trees can cut roots or mound soil up onto root collars and lead to root decay. Poorly designed drainage can divert water into root zones, where wet soils may eliminate oxygen and be detrimental to trees. Natural drainage patterns ground trees should —be— retained, —and 8 drainage devises used. Significant grade changes should occur only outside root zones. For areas which will have landscaping restored or added, stockpile any topsoil that must be removed before construction and redistribute .afterwards.. This saves some of the sites's original fertility and organic material at little added cost. Pruning. Pruning can be a detriment or an asset to a tree's health depending on the type of pruning done. Extensive, severe pruning such as "topping" should never be done to any valued tree. Topping cuts back ill large branches of a mature tree indiscriminately, to stubs. This eliminates the tree's ability to produce and store food. Topping exposes the trunk and limbs to sun, which scalds the tree. The pruning wounds cannot close and are left open to disease and insect attack. The branches or "water sprouts" that grow back produce many vigorous, upright shoots that emerge just below the stubbed cuts, like a hedge. These prolific water sprouts are weak and hazardous because they are neither attached deeply nor supported by the natural structure of the tree. Overthinning the interior of a tree is just as detrimental as topping. This common practice removes most of the interior branches to produce long limbs with growth only at the ends. A few years after the overthinning, the long branches break because they cannot support the weight of their relatively heavy foliage. Use the kind of cuts recommended in the ISA Pruning Standards (see appendix I). Selective pruning, such as a light thinning, opens the canopy to light and lightens heavy branches. This reduces the size of the tree without unnecessary stress. Instead of cutting to stubs, follow the branch back to its origin on another limb or trunk, and remove the whole branch, or cut back to a smaller branch, which will take over the lead. Follow the natural shape of the tree and cut only dead, weak, diseased or crossing branches. For native oaks, limit the amount cut to 10% to 20% of the tree and less for older or declining trees. Instead of forcing a tree into a size or space to which it may, never conform, consider replacing the tree with one or more that are appropriate. Landscaping. Landscaping, like pruning, can also be harmful or beneficial to trees. Native oaks are especially sensitive to changes in their living environment. Since oaks do not tolerate summer irrigation, plants that need regular year round 9 irrigation should not be planted close to native oaks. Thick ground covers such as ivy, ornamental covers, exotic ferns, lawns, etc., develop thick mats of roots and foliage which inhibit the air and water that a mature oak requires. These ground covers also disturb and compete with a tree's root system. Native oaks have evolved in a "community" or as part of a relationship with other plants, animals, insects and organisms. Oak habitats support and incredibly diverse amount of wildlife which use oaks as nesting sites, shelter and food. Preserving some oak habitats can provide many landscape benefits for property owners. They help control soil erosion, promote ground water recharge and water percolation, reduce stream siltation, stabilize soil, control insects and lower maintenance costs. These undisturbed habitats also assure that some oak seedlings survive to establish future generations. Do not remove any natural litter or built up layer of leaves and debris beneath the canopies of trees. Many native plants that tolerate dry soil and partial shade are well suited to._ the_ oak's _environment and can provide an attractive, low maintenance, drought tolerant landscape that will attract wildlife, such as birds, to the garden. Install compatible plants or irrigation no closer than ten feet from any native oak trunk or seven time the trunk diameter, whichever is larger. This leaves a minimum area that is consistently dry near the sensitive roots. Use drip or soaker irrigation until plants are established, then irrigate sparingly or not at all after that. An excellent guide is Compatible Plants Under and Around Oaks, published by the California Oak Foundation, Oakland, CA and the Saratoga City Xeriscape Guidelines. SARATOGA'S TREE PERMIT PROCESS A Tree Removal Permit is required for the lawful removal of any protected tree except in the case of emergencies, removals by public utilities and removals expressly allowed by the City through project approval. Before a tree permit may by granted, the City inspects the tree involved and evaluates the application based on relevant information, including: 1) the condition of the tree; 2) the necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to the property; 3) the topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal on erosion, soil retention and the diversion of increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes; 4) the number species, size andlo of-existing 1 0 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 the residents in the area; and 5) the age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS This section of the Handbook deals with development related activities around protected trees and the recommended or required measures for retaining trees. Information is presented according to the times or phases when various construction activities take place, and the required steps in the building process when protected trees are involved. This section contains some of the most important recommendations in the Handbook because they are intended to minimize the injury and loss of trees during property development when the majority of damage and removal occurs. The basic process of design, review and development that any project follows where protected trees may be affected is summarized in figure 3. When an application for development is submitted to the City, it is first reviewed to determine whether protected trees are involved. If protected trees are in proximity to the proposed development, a deposit is then made to the City to fund the City Arborist's assessment of trees that may be affected. The project design and plans can then be evaluated to try to minimize tree removal or impact given the constraints of the property. Design Evaluation A number of specific standards are recommended to reduce construction practices which can cause harm if undertakn within a tree's root zone (see figure 4): New construction setbacks. Structures, excavations and impervious hardscape surfaces should not be constructed within the _root zone of a tree. Within a tree's root zone, avoid or keep to an absolute minimum: Change of grade,_excavation, -cut- and/or fill; or- retaining waif.- Change in drainage 11 REMOVE TREES TREE REPLACEMENT TREE VALUATION SITE D EVEL OP MENT APPLICATION i PROTECTED TREES IN PROXIMITY REMOVAL CONDITIONS OR REDESIGN PROJECT RETAIN TREES PRESERVATION MEASURES AS COND'S OT APPROVAL SECURITY BOND 1 PRESERVATION CONDITIONS ADDED TO PLAN SET INSPECTION PROTECTIVE FENCES IN PLACE FINAL INSPECTION SECURITY REFUND GRADING BEGINS OTHER INSPECTIONS 1 CONSTRUCTION -ENDS patterns, trenching, compaction or impervious paving. Avoid paving inside the root zone wherever possible. Where paving must occur, install pervious paving such as brick on sand, rock, gravel or similar materials. Where impervious materials are used,,. install aeration devices on gravel beds at original grade (soil level). Portions of structures under tree driplines should have pier and grade beam foundations with beams poured at original grade. Drain away from trunks by paved areas to avoid the root zone using surface and /or subsurface devices. For appropriate landscape material see Encroachment Impacts and the City Xeriscape Guidelines. For native oaks trees, the following steps are recommended: Keep the area within the dripline undisturbed as possible. Do not install plants, lawn etc., that tree driplines. 12 of mature or established oaks as need summer irrigation within oak If plants must be installed within driplines, select plants that are shade and drought tolerant (plants that require no supplemental water once established). Use plants sparingly as accents. Install plants or irrigation no closer than ten feet from trunks or seven times the trunk distance, whichever is larger. Irrigation systems for these plantings should be bubbler, drip or soaker types only, with no sprinkler spray systems within the oaks' driplines. a If landscape stones are installed, set on existing ..soil or water permeable landscape fabric and keep at least six inches from trunks. Never use non permeable plastic tarping within driplines. Do not remove natural leaf litter within oak driplines. Replace any removed leaf litter with two to four inches of organic material within dripline, six inches away from trunks. Nitrogen should be added P1Wr. U�ll�IN NML .4C' MANAGEMENT OF ACTIVITIES IN THE ROOT ZONE r NAIII4c,Apk• ow 6)440 KeP.or P`J/&Y f OM TANK- muMfti or AteirrANATIvrr.s 4444 F L f COMMON Go►∎t S7 G7101 1 AGI I V I'f ►eiS IIy es7-P TD MINIMIZE Tai INMVA-{ wl'fHlr.t gear %AWE.. CX, NOT: G,W1Pr+G'f soft. Wril.i Htavi( '1"IN�6��"�Y� YF.Htc E VIPM NM•'f IN,4 GI.v..maE GAL L,E//v1. ,QG'1 aS KAls& oR- L.ow will-1 04 rN% Flc.t. MACHINE 112CNGH Az d AK'(4 12o1o'r m. of MECkt'c 4r ,ur Tm. Plzta p1"'11ispNS 11 NAftiWioQS `5oc.eD) gdvit44 sumac AS GONE -1D q /4 1*AtiS 4 Ikih■F MUI,GN USE SPLAY IR4 Su14-1E a WA t P4Nt7wT rL 4 ITs wr114 NATIV* cis wPfr ovt poor4 PkifIG iN•4 R e err s ..ZoW'. 12D 5 I Ma p 46 Wi tt.a4 c iSIL i Roerr ZONE Lfr ACW*417A, W rni I MII yy� lomiN4 ■-rAgr. pNJD SW M cu'fsi I Eow f -DeArld.1 PKAINING VII A'S OR 0.447c12. olf,•43V. atm4 GG DvT iDB gO 241461 -142cocfp prHwAYG fog vftw7ee E• vRwNs MID O'n.e 14NES TO AWID it Zara ruNto O. -romAn. i OLst l EoIV I+4D 6Ut4no •ver.Air. LANK. NJ CONDurf TO ExoANAu prr 14 4 #40 AND afT PAM. 4 0 64 41 =r w11H SltARp CAW q. etAtAlge u paws pe htd4 sc.r.ti AS etuct Wt.'s; ON 44.40, 611 LAC MMCIZKL ot4 Poser AA, Pm& fay mlioN If IMpmtvle7u3 PAsfi/J4 c04.4NO't Be /wDIDrE:tt t 1egAw A4:4 DA/IC.CS WHD11Z 4 aceelci7 IN RiDerwoma to woody material(shredded bark, sawdust, etc.) using a formula of three pounds actual nitrogen per cubic yard of material. PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION Before a grading permit is issued or any construction activity begins, an Arborist's report, protective fencing or other measures may be required by the City. Arborist's Report. The City Arborist's report is required when a development proposal is in close proximity to one or more protected trees. Is describes and evaluates the physical health and condition of protected trees on a development site, showing their location, canopy spread, trunk diameter and species name. The report also evaluates the impacts of proposed activities (including utility pathways, landscaping and construction). Mitigation or changes to reduce impacts may also Protective Fencing. A temporary chain link fence for trees to be protected must be installed at the edge of a tree's protected zone prior to any grading operations. The fences are an important way to minimize direct damage to tree roots, trunks and branches. Fencing must remain in place until all work is completed and may not be removed until authorized by the City. Scheduled property inspections will be made by the City before any grading or construction activities begin to verify that all appropriate protective measures, including protective fencing, are in place. CONSTRUCTION PHASES The construction phases begin with grading and include the construction of all building improvements. Grading Operations After grading operations have begun and before building improvements have started, the following measures will be required for protected trees: 1) A copy of the approved plan- andted- documents- must -be kept at the 13 project site. 2) City inspection and approval of rough grading, including compaction, cut and fill, drainage and trenching. 3) Installation of all tree preservation devices. Devices such as aeration systems (see figure 5), tree wells, drains, special paving and cabling may be required to be installed before grading operations are complete. All building improvements are completed at this time, including landscaping and irrigation. POST CONSTRUCTION PHASE Following completion of all building improvements, certain conditions may be required before a final inspection may be requested. The City will certify all tree work. On all sites containing protected trees, the City will ensure that all tree work specified in the City approvals has been completed. This will include landscape materials and irrigation installed around protected trees. TREE PLANTING AND MAINTENANCE Along with the attention given the needs of established trees, another important area to be considered is the way new trees are planted and maintained. By providing the best possible conditions for them_.to grow from the beginning, proper planting can go along way to assure trees' long term health.. One of most important steps to proper planting is to choose an appropriate tree species. Trees can be selected that are adapted to the particular set of conditions under which they may grow, conditions whick may not by affected by any other planting practice. For example, within the general climate zone of Saratoga, one species may need full sun in order to perform well, where another would only thrive in part shade. Tolerance to heat, wind, smog or alkaline soils, as well as requirements for water vary greatly between species -of trees. A tree which is well adapted to its environment will generally be healthier, more attractive, have less disease problems, and need less maintenance. Knowing existing trees in an area and their success or problems can help in 14 selecting new trees. Native trees have the advantage of being well suited to their area's climate and natural conditions, while many other disease resistant tree varieties are also widely available. Planting a diversity of trees species and ages can help limit the spread of pest infestations by eliminating continuous stands of trees which all have the same vulnerability. Pine beetles and borers, for example, are a large problem in northern California where one type and age of pine has been used extensively. In the same way, the appropriateness of a site itself should be considered when selecting trees. The proximity of building, walks, sewers or other lines, and soil type and condition should be addressed. The growth rate, life span and ultimate size of a tree and its root system should also be considered to prevent property damage. The cooling shade cast by a new tree may be welcome for a building but not for existing landscaping or trees which may need more light. Similarly, building may interfere with a tree's own need for light or air. Many factors should be considered in order to make compatible choices between trees and their placement inthe An ideal tree would have a straight; tapered trunk, able to stand upright without staking, with branches evenly spaced, and along the length of its trunk. Trees which have been "topped" and have so many branches growing close together near the top of the tree may develop a poor structure and need corrective pruning later on. An ideal tree has a good balance between the size of its roots and its top or crown. Its roots are able to supply the size of the crown with water and nutrients as it grows. An overly large tree in the same size container may likely be root bound and not have enough roots to support vigorous top growth, or may have to be pruned later to reduce the crown to a size the roots can support. Avoid trees with circling or kinked roots as they can lead to poor root support and growth. Bark should be free of obvious wounds or cracking from injuries or sunscald. After selecting an appropriate tree and size several steps can be followed for planting: 1) Thoroughly water plants in containers the evening before planting. 2) Dig planting holes two time the width and -as deep as the nursery plant P ry P container.-Gouge side- -of- holes- toloosen oosen 3=4" of-soil -under plant -hole. 15 3) Add appropriate amendments to native soil for the planting (backfill) mix In general, backfill can be 70% native soil and 30% added amendment such as redwood conditioner or any other humus containing organic material. This basically helps aerate and loosen soil. A slow release granular fertilizer, one pound per cubic yard (Osmocote 18 -6-12) can be added if a nutrient deficiency is suspected. For best results, use a soils analysis to determine recommended amendments and fertilizer rates for planting and maintenance. 4) Remove the entire root ball intact from the container by supporting it from below. Cut any visibly circling roots (3/16" diameter or larger) with sharp shears or a knife. This will encourage new roots to form. Do not pull the root ball apart. 5) Set plant in hole and adjust height of rootball so that plant soil level (root crown) is even with the finish grade, or slightly higher. For trees in lawns, set root crown 1" above finish grade to drain Fill around rootball with backfill, packing soil to firm. Disturb the rootball as little as possible. Make sure to keep the same level of soil around the planter as it was in the original nursery container. 6) Form basin around tree root ball with remaining native soil to retain water. 7) Fill basin with water, allow to drain and fill and drain two more times. New trees will need regular, frequent watering during the first year or until established. Generally after two years, infrequent, thorough soaking will encourage deep roots and a healthy root system. 8) Install stakes as illustrated in figure 5. Brace if needed with 1/4' board nailed between stakes to keep stakes from leaning together. Make sure neither brace for stakes touch tree trunks. Maintenance for young or new trees should involve good planting and staking techniques such as these. Staking should be checked periodically and removed when a tree can hold its shape and trunk straight. Staking should be considered at best a needed but temporary measure, as staking after two years of growth creates weaker trees and less developed supporting roots. Protect the trunks of young trees from mechanical injury by surrounding them with short stakes, especially in lawns, just outside the rootball. Keep lawns and weeds at least 16 Regular observation is an essential step in good tree maintenance. By noting changes in their appearance and size, clues to a tree's overall health can be found. Note the general vigor of a tree, the amount of yearly growth, and watch for changes. A decline in growth rate can be a first sigh of many problems, from root disease, mineral deficiency or compacted soil. Changes in leaf color or size can also alert a homeowner of potential concerns. If changes happen after periods of stress, such as an injury, drought, transplanting, etc., they may signal a need for care. Proper irrigation, nutrition and growing conditions can go a long way in preventing the stresses that impair tree health. Trees, like many living things, are better able to resist diseases or infections when they are vigorous and healthy. Providing conditions as close to those that trees naturally thrive under is one of the fundamental goals in the care of urban trees. Poor soil, bark and root injury, air pollution and bad pruning can stress trees and leave them open to the injury from pest attacks. A number of strategies have been developed by horticultural professionals to emphasize the least toxic solutions to pest control. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) is an approach which considers the plant, pest and their environment as parts of a total system. A variety .of techniques are combined to keep pest damage down to an acceptable level. Established knowledge of physical, biological, cultural and chemical methods can be utilized to the find the least toxic solution to pest control problems. The contamination of surface and groundwater supplies froth pesticides, herbicides and other thirty inches away from trunks until established. Proper pruning which follows the natural form of a tree is an important part of good maintenance, especially for young trees. Selective pruning helps to develop a strong framework, space branches evenly ..and ..remove dead, diseased or crossing branches. This helps maintain a tree's natural shape and safe structure. When hiring tree workers, ask that the work follows the Western Chapter ISA Pruning Standards for amounts and types of pruning done. This may prevent hazardous conditions or injuries to a tree that topping or other severe pruning method create. 17 TREE PLANTING AND STAKING FOrL 5Nt ot r07 NATN6 pie1.4MTs FuAi-'f w1114 POGWO sior'V 4aolt. '(o pg,01.1/J FlzoM1t2VNK 1/ IN LAWNS: G66,42 T IN 30 13'1 GII�G� A-it7 Tag a- PIg (3) GI¢amiNG GONG. 11 01 P410 MWG14: .1 4z2t3Vt2 t> (42 tam/. turt up I4 IVY. sueproolt, E36NEf&1N P1 lHc HOW f iaa.ro S x 2 viaM61 LOtrE- Pot4' 4'l (2 Pt's 1REv) t7r.1 v.41417V4*W Gtt7E op 11 sal 2 04 APCVNd KEG SKKIetNI swec./WL MO (M't4M)M) 1 r c e sIAK66 ctnsu /G P vT (2] l u e -rwiedi 120313e1 HMO 'f FAG (t6ry 4"titaki brroM 1`t WAIT* Fli cv4l6i mu( or/mo+ o Amp FVFR1IL -1700 /4 pgtew/VW 114 Hot* IV -fwO. ?IMt %/lam of iza7f emu. AA, oakete 10 tTS non pantAk T WPM.* FL Nat ANn rt144Nc Hot* 9 THO OMPILT Ai-h9 fo 4 a THPOL414 PIS 'MAP- 11-461•1 L* L'T UN b'SWAASWEPIO chemicals is a growing concern all over the country. The indiscriminate use of pesticides also kills beneficial insects, as well as birds and other organisms, which work to keep unwanted pests in check. A horticultural consultant familiar with IPM can set up a management program An excellent IPM guide is Pests of Landscape Tree and Shrubs: An Integrated Pest Management Guide, by Dr. Steve Dreistadt. This guide is available from the U.C. Statewide IPM Project, IPM Education and publications, University of California, Davis (916/752- 7691), publication number 3359. MANAGING TREES YOURSELF Many steps can be taken by homeowners themselves to manage their own properties and help trees resist insect and disease attacks. For new trees, planting disease resistant types can help by preventing some types of damage. Planting a diversity of types and age of trees can also help limit pest outbreaks. Beside direct pest damage, disease can also be spread-by insects and ;contact with diseased plant material, through the air water or soil. Good hygiene can help lessen their spread by restricting disease sources. Remove any infected cuttings or leaves of plants from the property and do not compost. Piles of debris left near trees may allow unwanted pests to overwinter and appear the next year and should be removed regularly. These can be composted and reapplied the following spring. Protect tree bark and limbs from pruning or other injuries such as tears, rips or stubs which can allow infections to enter. Clean cuts should always be made outside the branch collar, the thickening where the branch being cut meets the trunk or a larger branch, which is a natural barrier to decay. Wise use of water has many advantages. Watering with drip or soaker irrigation instead of sprinklers can help reduce the spread of fungal diseases, put water directly into the root zones where it is needed and save water too. Summer wet conditions, that allow -root fungi to thrive can be avoided by planting drought tolerant and native plants around susceptible trees such as native oaks. If sprays are necessary, try to use them effectively, timing their application to when the pests_ar_e _most- vulner- abl =Eggs =are— more protected -by- their armor 18 than the soft bodied larvae that hatch later. Insecticidal soaps mixed with water, available at most nurseries, are fatty acids which desiccate a wide range of soft bodied insects such as aphids. Dormant oil sprays are very effective for deciduous trees, fruits, etc., by smothering many overwintering pests on the bark when the tree is dormant Mulching soil surfaces around trees and shrubs with organic matter helps prevent soil disease spores from splashing up onto leaves and improves soils by adding nutrients, conserving moisture, increasing aeration and buffering soil temperatures. PRUNING STANDARDS The Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture Pruning Standards are the recommended guideline for structural pruning of protected trees (see appendix I). While pruning in excess of ISA Pruning Standards (which provides that no more than 25% of a tree canopy should be removed), is not encouraged or recommended, it is possible that larger amounts of pruning can be justified in some cases where a large imbalance exists, or where disease or injury has caused unsafe or undesirable situations. "Topping" or other destructive heading cuts on otherwise healthy trees is not encouraged for any tree. WHY DO I NEED A CERTIFIED ARBORIST) Certified arborist are widely recognized plant care professionals. They are educated and trained in: Diagnosis and treatment of landscape problems. Proper pruning and management techniques for trees. Tree biology and structure. Selection and installation of appropriate trees and other plants. Soil, Water and nutritional requirements to keep plants in peak form. Recognizing tree hazards and construction damage. To qualify as a certified arborist, these professionals must pass an examination on technical competency and knowledge developed by the International Society of 19 Arboriculture. To maintain certification, arborists must update their knowledge through continuing education programs 20 GLOSSARY Absorbing Roots The roots produced in the upper two to three feet of soil which absorb water minerals and oxygen. The most effective ones are found in the top two inches if a mulch is maintained on the soil, surface. See figure 1. Arborist Report A report prepared by a certified arborist containing specific information on the location, species, condition, structure, potential impacts of development and recommended actions and mitigation measures for one or more protected trees on a project site. Buttress Roots The major roots which join the trunk at the ground level. The buttress roots support the above ground tree structure. Soil levels raised above original grade around buttress roots provide an ideal environment for disease. See Figure 1. Canopy, Tree Canopy All portions of the tree with foliage. Also defined as the area inside the dripline. See figure 2. City Arborist The ISA Certified tree care professional contracted by the City to review development applications involving trees. City Xeriscape Guidelines A set of documents available at City Hall which lists plant materials recommended for drought tolerant landscapes. Deadwood Limbs, branches or a portion of a tree that contains no green. leaves during a period of the year when they should be present. Dripline The outermost edge of a tree's canopy. Also the irregularly shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree',s branches as seen from overhead. See Figure 2. Encroachment Any intrusion or human activity into the root zone of a tree. Handbook The Tree Protection Handbook (this document). 21 Impervious Paving or Hardscape Asphalt, concrete and similar surfaces that prevent water percolation and the exchange of air and gases between roots, soil and atmosphere. Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Use of a combination of pest control methods, emphasizing the least environmentally damaging solutions. IPM considers plants and pests as part of a system. ISA Certified Arborist Professional tree care specialist certified for technical competency and knowledge by the International Society of Arboriculture. ISA Pruning Standards or Pruning Standards The pruning standards established by the Western Chapter of the International Society of Arboriculture as revised from time to time. See appendix I. Leaf Litter The natural built up layer of leaves and debris under the canopies dropped by the tree itself. Mulch Any organic material, such as shredded bark or leaves, compost, etc., which covers and enriches the soil, providing ideal conditions for tree roots. Native Oak Species The most common native oak species in the Saratoga area are: Quercus agrifolia(Coast Live Oak), Quercus lobata(Valley Oak), Quercus Kellogi(Black Oak), Quercus douglasi(Blue Oak) and Quercus dumosa(Scrub Oak). Oak Tree or Oak Any native oak tree of the genus Quercus. Organic Amendments Any soil conditioner, such as compost, peat moss and nitrolized redwood which adds humus tqr °soil, improving its drainage, aeration and fertility. Protected Tree Any tree so defined by Section 15- 50.020(m) of the City Code. Root Zone An area totally encompassing a protected tree where activities are strictly controlled. When shown on a map or plan, the root zone appears as an irregularly shaped circle that follows the contour of the tree canopy and extends from the trunk to at least five feet beyond the dripline. 22 Protective Fencing Temporary fencing installed before construction to prevent direct damage to trees. Pruning Any work performed on the roots, branches or limbs of a protected tree. Root Collar Where the root system meets the trunk at natural ground level. Root System, Root Zone- The portion of the tree which supplies water and minerals to the foliage (absorbing roots) and which provide structural support for the trunk (buttress roots). Saratoga City Code The codified laws of the City of Saratoga. The City Code is available for review or purchase from the City Clerk's office. Soil Compaction Compression of soil particles by heavy machinery, construction, materials, structures, paving, etc., which eliminate air spaces between .particles: This damages roots and prevents their growth. Terminal Buds The tips of tree stems from which growth in the canopy takes place. Topping Indiscriminate pruning which cuts all limbs back to stubs and produces hazardous new growth. Tree Ordinance Article 15 -50 of the City Code which deals with the protection of trees in Saratoga. Tree Removal Permit A permit issued by the City for removal of one or more protected trees pursuant to City Code Set tion 15 -50. treehnbk 23 Purpose: WESTERN 1. Pruning Techniques CHAPTER PRUNING STANDARDS Trees and other woody plants respond in specific and predictable ways to pruning and other maintenance practices. Careful study of these responses has led to pruning practices which best preserve and enhance the beauty. structural integrity. and functional value of trees. In an effort to promote practices which encourage the preservation of tree structure and health, the W.C. ISA Certification Committe•_ nas established the following Standards of Pruning for Certified Arborists. The Standards are presented as working guidelines. recognizing that trees are individually unique in form and structure. and that their pruning needs may not always fit strict rules. The Certified Arborist must take responsibility for special pruning practices teat vary greatly from:these Standards. A. A thinning cut removes a branch at its point of attachment or shortens it to a lateral large enough to assume the terminal role. Thinning opens up a tree. reduces weight on heavy limbs, can reduce a tree's height. distributes ensuing invigoration throughout a tree and helps retain the tree's natural shape. Thinning cuts are therefore preferred in tree pruning. When shortening a branch or leader. the lateral to which it is cut should be at least one -half the diameter of the cut being made. Removal of a branch or leader back to a sufficiently large lateral is often called "drop crotching." B. Aheading cut removes a brancn to a stub, a bud or a lateral branch not large enough to assume' the terminal role. reaoing _cuts shouldseldom -be used because vigorous, weaklyattacned upright sprouts are forced just below such cuts, and the tree's natural form is a(tered.In some situations. branch stubs die or produce only weak sprouts. Certification Committee PO Box 424 St Helena [aGfnrnia QLs7L C. When removing a live branch. pruning cuts should be made in branch tissue just outside the branch bark ridge and collar. which are trunk tissue. (Figure 1) If no collar is visible. the angle of the cut should approximate the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and the trunk. (Figure 2) D. When removing a dead branch. the final cut should be made outside the collar of live callus tissue. If the collar has grown out along the branch stub. only the dead stub should be removed, the live collar should remain intact, and uninjured. (Figure 3) E. When reducing the length of a branch or the height of a leader, the final cut should be made just beyond (without violating) the branch bark ridge of the branch being cut to. The cut should approximately bisect the angle formed by the branch bark ridge and an imaginary line perpendicular to the trunk or branch cut. (Figure 4) G. On large- growing trees, except whorl branching conifers, branches.that are more than one -third the diameter of the trunk should be spaced along the trunk at least 18 inches apart, on center. If this is not possible because of the present size of the tree. such branches should have their foliage thinned 15% to 25%. particularly near their terminals. (Figure 6) H. Pruning cuts should be clean and smooth with the bark at the edge of the cut firmly attached to the wood. Large or heavy branches that cannot be thrown clear, should be lowered on ropes to prevent injury to the tree or other property. F. A goal of structural pruning is to maintain the size of lateral branches to less than three fourths the diameter of the parent branch or trunk. If the branch is codominant or close to the size of the parent branch, thin the branch's foliage by 15% to 25%, particularly near the terminal. Thin the parent branch less, if at all. This will allow the parent branch to grow at a faster rate. will reduce the weight of the lateral branch. slow its total growth. and develop a stronger branch attachment. If this does not appear appropriate. the branch should be completely removed or shortened to a large lateral. (Figure 5) J. Wound dressings and tree paints have not been shown to be effective in preventing or reducing decay. They are therefore not recommended for routine use when pruning. brands bark ridge FIGURE 1. When removing o branch, the final cut should be just outside the branch bark collar ridge and collar FIGURE 2. In removing a limb without o branch collar the angle of the final cut to the branch bark ridge should approximate the angle the brunch bark ridge forms with the limb. Angle AB should equal Angle BC. t f FIGURE 3. When removing o dead branch, cut out side the callus tissue that has begun to arm arcunp the branch. FIGURE 5. A tree with limbs tending to be equal- sized, or codominant. Limbs marked B are greater than 44 the size of the parent limb A. Thin the foliage of branch B more than branch A to slow its growth and develop o stronger brunch attachment. FIGURE 4. In removing the end of o let large lateral branch, thefrnal is made along a line that bise the angle between the branch b ridge and aline. perpendicular the limb being removed. Angle is equal to Angle BC. FIGURE 6. Major branches should be spaced both along and or the stem. 11. Types of Pruning Mature Trees A. CROWN CLEANING Crown' cleaning` or cleaning out is the removal of dead, dying, diseased. crowded, weakly attached. and low -vigor branches and watersprouts from a tree crown. B. CROWN THINNING Crown thinning includes crown cleaning and the selective removal of branches to increase light penetration and air movement into the .crown. Increased light and air stimulates and maintains interior foliage, which in turn improves branch taper and strength. Thinning reduces the wind -sail effect of the crown and the weight of heavy limbs. Thinning the crown can emphasize the structural beauty of trunk and branches as well as improve the growth of plants beneath the tree by increasing light penetration. When thinning the crown of mature trees.. seldom should more than one -third of the live foliage be removed. At least one -half of the foliage should be on branches that arise in the lower two-thirds of the trees. Likewise, when thinning laterals from a limb: an effort should be made to retain inner lateral branches and leave the same distribution of foliage along the branch. Trees and branches so pruned will have stress more evenly distributed throughout the tree or along a branch. An effect known as "lion's- tailing" results from pruning out the inside Lateral branches. Lion's tailing by removing all the inner foliage, displaces the weight to the ends of the branches and may result in sunburned branches, water sprouts, weakened branch structure and limb breakage. C. CROWN REDUCTION Crown reduction is used to reduce the height and /or spread of a tree. Thinning cuts are most effective in maintaining structural integrity and natural form of a tree and in delaying the time when it will need to be pruned again. The lateral to which a branch or trunk is cut should be at least one -half the diameter of the cut being made. D. CROWN RESTORATION Crown restoration can improve the structure and appearance of trees that have been topped or severely pruned using heading cuts. One to three sprouts on main branch stubs should be selected to reform a more natural appearing crown. Selected vigorous sprouts inay need to be thinned to a lateral, or even headed, to control length growth in order to ensure adequate attachment for the size of the sprout. Restoration may require several prunings over a number of years. 5 11. Types of Pruning Mature Trees (continued) E. CROWN RAISING Crown raising removes* the lower branches of a tree in order to provid+ clearance for buildings, vehicles. pedestrians, and vistas. It is important that tree have at least one -half of its foliage on branches that originate in the lowe two-thirds of its crown to ensure a well formed, tapered structure and tc uniformly distribute stress within a tree... When pruning for view, it is preferable to develop "windows" through ttif foliage of the tree. rather than to severely raise or reduce the crown. 111. Size of Pruning Cuts Each of the Pruning Techniques (Section I) and Types of Pruning (Section II) can be done to different levels of detail or refinement. The removal of many small branches rather than a few large branches will require more time, but will produce a less pruned appearance, will force fewer watersprouts and will help to maintai vitality and structure of the tree. Designating the maximum slie (base diameter) that any occasional undesirable branch may be Iefx within the tree crown, such as 1 /2' 1' or 2' branch diameter, will establish the degree of pruning desired. IV. Climbing Techniques A. Climbing and pruning practices should not injure the tree except for the pruning cuts. Climbing spurs or gaffs shduld not be used when pruning a tree, unless the branches are more than throw -line distance apart. In such cases, the spurs should be removed once the climber is tied in. C. Spurs may be used to reach an injured climber and when removing a tree. D. Rope injury to thin barked trees from loading out heavy limbs should be avoided by installing a block in the _tree to carry the load. This technique may also be used to reduce injury to a crotch from the climber's line. 6 3- 05.010 Violations as misdemeanors or infractions; public nuisances. Chapter 3 CODE ENFORCEMENT Article 3 -05 CRIMINAL ENFORCEMENT Page 1 of 1 3 05.010 Violations as misdemeanors or infractions; public nuisances. (a) It shall be unlawful for any erson to violate an rovision or to fail to com l with an of the regwremen s o is o•e, or an other ordinance of the Ci or an rule regulation or order promulgated or issued 2 ursuant to this Code, or the provisions o any code adopted by reference y t is Code, or any condition of an app royal, permit or. license r anted pursuant to this Code. Any person viola mg any o such provisions or failing to comply with any of such requirements shall be guilty of a misdemeanor or an infraction if so specified. Each such person shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation is committed, continued, or permitted by such person, and shall be punishable accordingly. (b) Notwithstanding subsection (a) of this Section or any other provision of this Code, any violation constituting a misdemeanor may, in the discretion of the enforcing authority be charged and prosecuted as an infraction. (c) Where no specific penalty is provided therefore, any person convicted of a misdemeanor under the provisions of this Code shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, or by imprisonment in the County Jail for a period not exceeding six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (d) Any person convicted of an infraction under the provisions of this Code, excluding violations of local building and safety code provisions in Chapter 16, Articles 16 -05 through 16 -50, shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, for a second conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year by a fine of not more than two hundred dollars, and for a third or any subsequent conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars. (e) Any person convicted of an infraction under the local building and safety code provisions of Chapter 16, Articles 16 -05 through 16 -50 of this Code, shall be punishable for a first conviction by a fine of not more than one hundred dollars, for a second conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, and for a third or any subsequent conviction of the same ordinance within a period of one year by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars. (f) In addition to the penalties provided by this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Code, or any other ordinance of the City, or any rule, regulation or order promulgated or issued pursuant to this Code, or the provisions of any code adopted by reference by this Code, or in violation of any condition of an approval, permit or license granted pursuant to this Code, shall be deemed a public nuisance and may be abated by the City in a summary action pursuant to Article 3 -10, Article 3 -15 or Article 3 -20 of this Chapter, or any civil action, and each day such condition continues shall be a new and separate offense. (Amended by Ord. 71 -129 1, 1993; Ord. 71 -141 1, 1994; Ord. 235 1, 2005) 3- 05.010 previous 1 next httn:/ /www.bncnet.com/codes /saratoga/ DATA/TITLE03 /Article 3 05 CRIMINAL EN... 12/26/2006 lz 15- 05.020 Purposes of Chapter. 15- 05.020 Purposes of Chapter. The purposes of this Chapter shall be to promote and protect the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, prosperity and general welfare, including the following more specific purposes: (a) To control the phy_sical_dev_gl_ooment of the City in,sacha manner as to preserve it as essentially a residential_ community with a rural atmos here. (b) To achieve the arrangement of land uses depicted in the General Plan. (c) To foster a harmonious convenient workable relationship among land uses. (d) To promote the stability of existing land uses which conform with the General Plan, and to protect them from inharmonious influences and harmful intrusions. (e) To ensure that public and private lands ultimately are used for the purposes, which are most appropriate and most beneficial from the standpoint of the City as a whole. (f) To prevent population densities in excess of those prescribed in the General Plan, and to maintain a suitable balance between structures and open spaces on each site. (g) To ensure adequate light, air and privacy for each dwelling unit. (h) To minimize traffic congestion and to avoid the overloading of utilities by preventing the construction of buildings of excessive size in relation to the land around them. (i) To facilitate the appropriate location of community facilities and institutions. (j) To provide for adequate off street parking and loading facilities. (k) To provide for the orderly, attractive development of commercial facilities in those areas where permitted by the General Plan. (I) To exclude new industrial development in order to preserve the essential residential character of the City. (m) To preserve natural beauty of the City. (n) To ensure that uses and structures enhance their sites and harmonize with improvements in the surrounding area. (o) To protect and enhance real property values within the City. (p) To protect and_pres a heritage native. and other significant trees at all times, including, the Leal property deve opment planning and implementation processes. Amended b Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -05 GENERAL PROVISIONS previous 1 next Page 1 of 1 http:/ /municipalcodes.lexisnexis.com/ codes /saratoga/_DATA/TITLE15 /Article 15 05 G... 12/11/2006 15- 50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.010 Findings; purposes of Article. 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, safet 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 veloces. 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. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) http:/ /www.bpcnet.com/codes /saratoga/ DATA /TITLE15 /Article 15 50 TREF, RECTTT 1nosonns 15- 50.050 Removal of certain trees without permit. Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.050 Removal of certain trees without permit. Except as otherwise provided in Section 15- 50.060, it is unlawful for any person to remove, damage, prune, or encroach upon, or cause to be removed, damaged, pruned, or encroached upon any protected tree, located on any private or public property in the City without first having obtained a tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit issued pursuant to this Article and authorizing the proposed action. A protected tree shall consist of any of the following: (a) Any native tree having a DBH of six inches or greater (b) Any other tree having a DBH of ten inches or greater. (c) Any street tree, as defined in Section 15- 50.020(v), regardless of size. (d) Any heritage tree, as defined in Subsection 15- 50.020(1) regardless of size. (e) Anv tree rewired to be planted or retained as a condition of anv aooroval granted underlhis_ Cha ter or Chapter 144 of ti is Co e. Any tr require to be plante a s a replacement, as provided in Section 15- 50.170 of this Article. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) previous next Page 1 of 1 http: /www.bpcnet.com/ codes /saratoga/_DATA/TITLE 15 /Article 15 50 TREE REGU... 12/29/2006 15- 50.070 Application for permit. Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.070 Application for permit. (a) Application. Application for a tree removal pruning or encroachment permit shall be made to the Community Development Director on such form as he or she may prescribe. The application shall contain the number and location of each tree to be removed, pruned or encroached upon, the type and approximate size of the tree, the reason for removal, pruning or encroachment and such additional information as the Director may require. The application shall be signed by the owner of the property upon which the tree is located and if the applicant is not the owner of said property shall include a statement that the owner consents to the activity described on the permit application. (b) Notice. Prior to acting on an application for a tree removal permit affecting one or more protected trees, notice shall be given to property owners within one hundred fifty feet at the time of application, at least ten days before a decision on the permit is made. (c) Pruning Permit: A permit is required for structural pruning in excess of ISA Standards (the 2001 Edition of which is hereby adopted by reference) any given growth period or year of any protected tree. Pruning shall not exceed twenty -five percent of the canopy. No permit is required for structural pruning, which complies with ISA Pruning Standards, or for the pruning of productive agricultural trees. (d) Notwithstanding the foregoing, either written permission or a permit is required for the pruning of a protected tree the trunk of which is at least partially located on a neighboring property. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) previous next Page 1 of 1 http: /www.bpcnet.com /codes /saratoga/_DATA/TITLE 15 /Article 15 50 TREE REGU... 12/29/2006 15- 50.080 Determination on permit. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.080 Determination on permit. (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal runin or encroachment ermit shall be reviewed and e� termined on t e asis o the of owin• criteria: e con 1 on o e ree wit respect to isease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. (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. (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. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in section 15- 50.010. (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. (b) Additional recommendations. The Community Development Director may refer the application to another department, commission or person for a report and recommendation. The Director may also require the applicant to furnish a written report from an ISA Certified Arborist acceptable to the Director, such report to be obtained at the sole expense of the applicant. At the discretion of the Community Development Director, City Arborist review may be required before any tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit is issued or before approval of a project involving the removal of, pruning of or encroachment upon one or more protected trees is granted. City Arborist review shall also be at the sole expense of the applicant. (c) Decision by Director. The Community Development Director shall render his or her decision within thirty days after the filing of the application for a permit. The Director may grant or deny the application or grant the same with conditions, including, but not limited to, (1) the condition that one or more replacement trees be planted of a species and size and at locations as designated by the Director, (2) relocation of existing tree desired to be removed, and /or (3) payment of a fee or the posting of a bond or security deposit in favor of the City to the Tree Fund. Any such tree replacement, relocation, fee payment, or bonding or security deposit shall be at the sole expense of the applicant. (d) Security deposits and maintenance bonds. In the case of an application for, or a project involving encroachment on one or more protected trees, the applicant shall post a security deposit with the City in an amount equal to one hundred percent of the ISA valuation of the trees involved. The City may also require posting of a maintenance bond or security deposit of at least five years designed to ensure long term maintenance of the affected or replacement trees. Security deposits or maintenance bonds required for protected trees or replacement trees in public or private development may, in the reasonable discretion of the Community Development Director, be refunded upon a determination that the project is in compliance with the City Arborist's requirements and /or Tree Preservation Plan. In the case of violations of this Article or where replacement, restitution, or other remedy required pursuant to Section 15- 50.170 cannot be made on the project site, then such payments shall be made from the deposit or bond being held before any refund is made. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) previous 1 next http:// www. bpcnet .com/codes /saratoga/_DATA/TITLE 15 /Article 15_50_TREE_REGU... 12/29/2006 15- 50.090 Development or improvement projects. Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.090 Development or improvement projects. (a) Subdivision approval. When any application is made pursuant to Chapter 14 and that proposal would involve removal of, pruning of, or encroachment upon a protected tree, the City shall take into consideration the provisions of this Article in granting or denying the application. (b) Project approval. Rem oval of ,pruning of, enc upon any protected tr ees pursuant to project approval granted under this Chapter or Chapters 14 or 16 of this Code shall meet the requirements of Section 15- 50.1'0 and evaluate according to e cn ena in ection 15- 50.080. (c) Modifications to approved projects. In the event of any change or modification to an approved site development plan which results in removal of or an increase in pruning of or encroachment upon any protected tree, the provisions of this Article shall apply. (Amended by Ord. 226 §2 (part), 2003) previous 1 next Page 1 of 1 http: /www.bpcnet.com/ codes /saratoga_ DATA /TITLE15 /Article_15_50 TREE_REGU... 12/29/2006 15- 50.120 Setback of new construction from existing trees. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.120 Setback of new construction from existing trees. Unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority, no structure excavation or impervious surface areas of any kind shall be constructed or installed within the root zone of any protected tree without mitigating special design, such as post and beam footings that bri ge the roots. No .parking, stonng of vehicles, equipment"or other materia" s h�l'be permitfe" wifhin°'the�npTine o any protected tree without special design considerations approved by the Community Development Director and the City Arboiist. (Amended by Ord: 226W§ 2 (pait); 2 `03) http:/ /www.bncnet.com/codes /saratoga/ DATA/TITLE 1 5/Articl e 15 50 TR PR R car T tn/)s//nns 15- 50.140 Tree Preservation Plan. Page 1 of 1 Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.140 Tree Preservation Plan. (a) A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required for any project approved pursuant to Chapters 14, 15 and 16 of the Code on any site on which an Arborist Report is prepared. (b) The Tree Preservation Plan shall consist of a separate detailed plan drawn to a sufficient scale but no larger that twenty feet to the inch, with any details to be shown at least ten to the inch) to clearly indicate all protection and mitigation measures to be taken as required by the Community Development Director and /or the Arborist Report for the project. (c) When a project has been submitted for approval pursuant to Chapters 14, 15, or 16, there shall be no permits issued for grading or site improvements until a Tree Preservation Plan for the project has been approved by the Community Development Director and the required protection measures are determined to be in lace throu4h City inspection. Protection measures required shall remain in place for the duration of the construction activit at the proiect site. or as otherwise required by t e City and shall not be removed until authorized b the Community Development Director. (d) The Tree Preservation Plan and any permits for tree removal shall be maintained at the project site at all times during construction activities and until all work has been completed, inspected and approved by the City. (e) At least three scheduled inspections shall be made by the City to ensure compliance with the Tree Preservation Plan. The inspections shall, at a minimum include the followinc„#,: (fljj itial inspection prior to any construction or grading, M After com letion of rough grading,.and /or trenching, and (3) Completion of all work including planting and irrigatiort#pjallatioo Other inspections may be conducted as required by the Community Development Director. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) http: /www.bpcnet.com/codes /saraton/ DATA /TITLE15 /Article 15 50 TRF.F. PP.M 1 C hchnnc 15- 50.170 Violations; penalties and remedies. Page 1 of 2 Chapter 15 ZONING REGULATIONS Article 15 -50 TREE REGULATIONS* 15 50.170 Violations; penalties and remedies. The violation of any provision contained in this Article is hereby declared to be unlawful and shall constitute public nuisance and an infraction. As either a public nuisance or an infraction, the violation shall be subject to the penalties or remedies as described in Chapter 3 of this Code and any other remedies authorized by the City Code, including, but not limited to the following: (a) Re wiring that the violator obtain a tree removal, pruning or encroachment permit for the p eviously conducted unlawful activity_, incIu.ing one or more o t e o lowing con i ions as appropriate: (1) the violator shall replace each unlawfully removed tree with one or more new trees which can be accommodated on the site of the violation according to good forestry practices and, in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in terms of cost (as determined pursuant to the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tree /s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula adopted by reference), aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully removed tree; or (2) where replacement trees cannot be accommodated on site according to good forestry practices, or cannot provide equivalent aesthetic or environmental quality of removed tree /s on site, the violator shall either plant replacement trees off site or make a cash payment to the City Tree Fund (based on the City Arborist's calculation of the value of the removed tree /s in accordance with the ISA Tree Valuation Formula adopted by reference), or any combination thereof, in accordance with the following: (A) To the extent that a cash payment is required for any portion or all of the value of the removed tree, such payment shall be doubled to reflect the estimated installation costs that would be incurred if replacement trees are planted; and (B) To the extent that the planting of offsite replacement trees is required, the retail cost of such trees, as shown by documentary evidence satisfactory to the Community Development Director, shall be offset against the value of the removed tree, but no credit shall be given for transportation, installation, maintenance and other costs incidental to the planting and care of the replacement trees; or (3) Where the unlawful activit did not result in tree removal but did result in tree damage the violator shall enhance the condition of the rem aining trees or portions of trees accordin to good foregly ractices which in the opinion of the Community Development Director, will provide equivalent value in t of damage to the: reels), aesth' e` is and`enViron` T ai qualify; height, location, appearance and other characteristics of the unlawfully damaged tree; provide equ yalent enhancement of the condition of trees off site or make a cash paymeneto he City_ Tree Fund (based on the City Arborist's calculation of the equivalent value of the unlawful damage to the tree). (b) Any person who is required to plant replacement trees pursuant to this Section shall permanently maintain such trees in a good and healthy condition, for a minimum of five years to ensure permanent establishment of any such tree /s, as determined by the City Arborist. Such person shall post a maintenance bond or security deposit in a form prescribed by the Community Development Director and execute a maintenance agreement with the City, which shall be recorded in the office of the County Recorder. (c) As -part of a civil action bronight by tb i a ,acou rt m ^y assess against an nersoo .bo_ commits, allows, or maintains a violation of any provision of this Chapter a civil penalty. Where the violation has resulted in removal of a protected tree, the civil penalty shall a iin an amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per tree unlawfully removed ess the rep acement valueof" a.tree un awfully removed is greater than five thousand dollars`Which case the civirpenalty ° removal of that tree shall equal the replacement value lexcluding installationYof the tree: DATA/TITLE15 /Article 15 50 TRF.F R par T 1n /11-Inc 15- 50.170 Violations; penalties and remedies. Page 2 of 2 (d) Payment (to the extent authorized by law and determined appropriate by the Community Development Director) of any criminal, civil, administrative, or other penalty or restitution order into the Tree Fund. (e) The violation of any provision contained in this Article during the conduct by any person of a tree removal, structural pruning, landscaping, construction or other business in the City shall constitute grounds for revocation of any business license issued to such person. (f) All remedies provided in this Section shall be cumulative and are not exclusive. (Amended by Ord. 226 2 (part), 2003) http:/ /www.bpcnet.com/codes /saratoga/ DATA /TTTLE15 /Artir.1 15 5n TRF.F. PR a! 111/1 G/111(1G ITEM 3 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Application No./Location: #02 -121/ 14261 Springer Avenue Applicant/Owner: Paul Qian and Suying Yang Staff Planner: Ann Welsh, AICP Assistant Planner Date: February 12, 2003 APN: 503 -27 -068 Department Head: 14261 Springer Avenue 1 U EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CASE HISTORY Application filed: 6/20/02 Application complete:. 1/27/03 Notice published 1/29/03 Mailing completed: 1/28/03 Posting completed 1/29/03 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 000 zoning district and The site is located at 14261 Springer Avenue in the R -1, 10,000 contains 7,500 square feet. The project involves demolishing the existing three residential structures on the site totaling 1,069 square feet and constructing a new two- story residence with basement. The height of the residence is 19 feet 11.25 inches. The proposed residence is to contain 2,824 square feet with a 1,349 square foot basement. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of the Design Review application with conditions by adopting the attached Resolution for application 02 -121. ATTACHMENTS 1. Staff Analysis 2. Draft Resolution for application 02 -121 3. Arborist Report received December 26, 2002 4. Saratoga Fire District report dated June 28, 2002 5. Windshield Survey of one and two family residences 6. Neighbor Approval Sheet 7. Affidavit of Mailing Notices 8. List of Property Owner's Noticed 9. Plans, Exhibit 'A' date stamped February 5, 2003 2 C00002 o) STAFF 1 STAFF ANALYSIS ZONING: R- 1,10,000 GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: M -10 Medium Density Residential MEASURE G: Not applicable PARCEL SIzE:.172 acres gross AVERAGE SITE SLOPE: Average Slope of the lot is less than 10%. GRADING REQUIRED: No grading of the site is proposed. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The proposed project consisting of a single family residence is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, "New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures", Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction or conversion of up to three single family residences. The project site is in an urbanized area and is connected to utility and roadway infrastructure. MATERIALS AND COLORS PROPOSED: The house is to be light gray stucco with charcoal gray roof tiles. LOT COVERAGE Building Footprint Walkways, Patio, and Driveway TOTAL FLOOR AREA Main Floor Second Floor (Basement) TOTAL SETBACKS Front Rear Side Height Residence PROPOSED 58% OR 4,350 SQ. FT. 1,842 SQ. Fr. 2,508 SQ. Fr. 4,350 SQ. FT. 1,842 SQ. Fr. 982 SQ. FT. (1,349 SQ. Fr.) 2,824 SQ. FT. 27 Fr. 54 Fr. 7 Fr. 19.5 Fr. DEMOLITION 1,069 SQ. Fr. CODE REQUIREMENTS MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 60% OR 4,500 SQ. FT. MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE 2,880 SQ. Fr. MINIMUM REQUIREMENT 25 Fr. 1 sT FL 25 Fr. 2 FL. 35 Fr. *6 Fr. 26 Fr. This application was 'submitted prior to the recent setback amendments, which currently required a side yard setback of 11 feet for the second floor. This application was submitted prior to the recent basement revisions to the zoning ordinance, which currently require geotechnical clearance for basements. To ensure thorough review, as a compromise, geotechnical review of the application will to be conducted prior to issuance of building permit. 4 PROJECT DISCUSSION DESIGN REVIEW The applicant proposes to construct a two story, 2,824 square foot dwelling on a non- conforming R -1, 10,000 square foot lot. The lot size is 7,500 square feet and is 50 feet wide and 150 feet deep. The R-1 10,000 zoning standards require an 85 -foot lot width, thus the lot width is 35 feet less than typical R-1 10,000 zoning requires. The property is located on Springer Avenue in an older neighborhood of similarly nonconforming lots whose design character is not of a single theme but rather an eclectic mix of one and two story homes in a variety of architectural styles, facade textures, and colors. A study of the neighborhood in terms of single story and two story structures reveals that of the 13 lots that are on Springer Avenue from Wildwood Way to the end of the cul -de -sac, five are two story and eight are single story homes. In terms of adjacent neighbors the homes immediately abutting the parcel at issue are single story dwellings. The style of home is Modern/Mediterranean with a charcoal gray tile roof and light gray stucco facade. The front elevation contains an arched recessed entry, a two -car garage and bay window. The proposed two -story home is to contain a 1,349 square foot basement with light wells to the rear and front of the structure. Recommended changes to the design of the proposed structure involve the facade and windows. The bulk should be minimized and horizontal element enhanced by anchoring the base of the structure with a stone foundation. The windows along the front elevation should be more symmetrical. The round and square windows along the front facade do not project a consistent design theme. The neighborhood contains a mixture of two- story and one- story structures. The height of the two -story home is 19 feet 11.25 inches as measured from the natural grade. Thus, the two- story structure maintains a relatively low profile. The plans show the height of the structure as measured from the finished floor. The height should be provided from the natural grade. In terms of natural features, the proposed development impacts trees to the north of the subject property. Excavation of the basement to the rear of the house would require soil cuts, which may be within five feet of the trunk of the trees on the north side of the property. If the applicant is to save the trees on the north side of the property the basement wall may have to be moved to increase the setback between the basement and the trunk of the tree in this area. This tree also provides screening between the two properties. This existing natural screen is important in maintaining the privacy between these two structures. The design and placement of the house are discussed below and specific conditions of approval are outlined under Community Development concerns. 5 00CA)5 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 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 privary. The proposed plan should not interfere with the privacy of adjacent homes. The difference in elevation between the abutting lots provides a natural screen between properties. Also the staggered setback of the property to the right (north) of the subject home minimizes the impact of the new construction on the northern property. The windows facing the adjacent home to the north are very small and placed high along the wall so that they allow light but enhance privacy. In addition, only the front ten feet of the adjacent home to the right (north) are parallel to the rear of the proposed home. In this way the privacy of the abutting neighbor to the north is maintained The home to the left (south) of the proposed house shares the same setback. However, this neighbor's elevation is about two feet higher than the subject home. The first story windows along the left side of the house would be screened by the two -foot difference in elevation plus a six -foot fence, which combines to screen eight feet of the structure thus enhancing first floor privacy. The privacy for the second story of the structure is maintained by placement of very small windows high along the wall of the second story of the home. Privacy of neighbors east and west of the property is maintained by the existing redwood screen at the rear of the property and the deep setback and vegetation of the home across the street. For these reasons the proposed plan does not interfere unreasonably with privacy of the neighbors. (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 beeping with the general appearance of neighboring developed areas and undeveloped areas. The proposed construction will preserve the natural grade of the lot however; excavation for the basement may severely impact the root system of an eleven inch oak tree that is located on the north side of the property to the rear of the proposed structure. A sixteen inch European olive tree would also be impacted by construction in the vicinity of the proposed garage. 6 0006 The Arborist recommends moving the north wall of the basement approximately ten feet from the trunk of tree #7 in order to allow sufficient room for the basement to be excavated. The face cut in the soil for a basement must be at least three feet from the proposed wall in order to drain the wall and provide moisture block. The basement wall should either be redesigned to ensure the survival of this oak tree or removal of the tree should be permitted in the course of construction. It should be noted however, that this tree also provides a visual screen between the rear portion of the proposed house and the front portion of the house to the north of the property. In terms of tree #6, since this tree does not lie in the area of the proposed basement but rather in the area of the garage, which has a concrete slab foundation, the construction of the concrete slab could be redesigned to require pier and beam construction with completely on grade design. As the Arborist notes, the eighteen -inch European olive tree is more tolerant of root damage than is the oak tree on the north side of the property. Therefore it appears that this tree could be retained with redesign of the garage foundation. In order to retain the roots of trees on the south side of the property the Arborist has recommended maintaining the retaining wall that currently exists along this boundary as well as installing all proposed pathways completely on grade with pervious paving material. If the recommendations of the Arborist are made conditions of approval then the existing natural features of the property will be retained as far as practicable. (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 The proposed two -story structure retains a very low profile and calls for neutral colors and use of natural materials, which minimize the perception of excessive bulk. However, anchoring the structure with a stone base at the foundation could enhance the horizontal proportions of the structure. The structure contains varied roof elements and higher portions of the structure have greater setbacks from the property line. These design elements help to minimize the bulk of the proposed structure. (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. A study of the neighborhood in terms of single story and two story structures reveals that of the 13 lots that are on Springer Avenue from Wildwood Way to the end of the cul -de -sac, five are two story and eight are single story homes. In terms of adjacent 7 OOkO7 neighbors the homes immediately abutting the subject parcel are single story dwellings. The home to the left of the subject parcel is at a slightly higher elevation than the home to the right of the parcel. Therefore the impact of the proposed 19' 11.25" home would be greater on the home to the right (north) of the property. The parcel to the right (north) of the subject lot is about four feet lower in elevation than the subject parcel. This difference in elevation makes the perceived height of the proposed structure from their perspective about four feet higher than the actual height. Since the neighbor's house to the right of the parcel is on the north side of the property, the proposed home would cast a shadow on the home to the right of the parcel. The impact of this shadowing would be minimized because the home to the right is not in direct line with the proposed home but is setback so that only the front ten feet of the home is directly parallel to the proposed house. Furthermore, the horizontal separation between the homes is 23 feet and this separation would serve to minimize the impact of the shadowing of the abutting home. Since the Springer Avenue neighborhood is rather eclectic in terms of style and proportions, the proposed home would integrate into the environment and not constitute a substantial deviation from the overall character of the area. (e) Current grading and erosion control methods. The proposed site development plan incorporates current grading and erosion control standards used by the City. The applicant proposes no re- grading to the property. However, excavation for the proposed basement will require substantial removal of soil from the site. In terms of the City policy regarding ekcavation for basements, this application was submitted prior to the City's revised zoning provisions for basements so the recently enacted subsurface investigation requirements were not imposed on the applicant. However, in order to ensure that the basement design is acceptable from a geotechnical, grading and drainage standpoint, the applicant will be required to submit an engineered grading and drainage plan as well as receive geotechnical/soils approval on the proposed basement prior to receiving final zoning clearance. (D Design policies and techniques. The proposed addition conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques as set forth in the Residential Design Handbook The proposed project will comply with Residential Design Handbook Policy #1 to minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors as well as having a varied roofline. Anchoring the facade with a stone foundation is an architectural feature, which would further minimize the mass of the structure. The plan if revised to increase the setback for the north basement wall and provide pier and beam foundation to the garage north elevation may conform to Policy #2; integrate structures with the environment. These design revisions would retain the natural landscape and trees. Also the use of natural earth tones with stucco facade and concrete tile roof helps blend the structure into the environment. With attached garage, all 8 structures are integrated into one building on the site, which minimizes the visual impact on the environment. The proposed plan conforms to Policy #3; avoid interference with privacy. The location and size of windows and setback of the proposed structure retains privacy between surrounding neighbors. Policy #4, maximize views but avoid conflicts with privacy is addressed by retaining existing °landscaping and maintaining sufficient setback to avoid encroaching on the view shed of surrounding homes. Policy #5, design for energy efficiency, is addressed by locating the main living areas of the house along the southern exposure. Retaining existing tree canopy will control winter and summer exposure to the sun. Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan are made as recommended above, the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. The City Arborist and the Saratoga Fire District have reviewed this application. Their comments are included as conditions of approval. COMMUNITY INPUT In terms of community input, the neighbor south of the subject property viewed the plans at the Planning Department and commented that he did not have any objections to the plan. The applicant has submitted a statement signed by neighbors to the south, east and west of the property stating that they support the project. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT The plans should be revised to address the following conditions that were mentioned in the above discussion. 1. The design shall be revised to allow a ten -foot basement wall setback from the trunk of tree #7. 2. The design shall be revised to allow on -grade pier and beam construction in the vicinity of tree #6. 3. The elevation of the structure should be revised to provide the height as measured from the natural grade. 4. The base of the proposed home should have a stone foundation in order to visually anchor the structure and create a horizontal element to the facade. Elevations of the 9 UOOuO9 CONCLUSION 10 structure should be revised to reflect this change. 5. The proposed walkway around the structure should be on grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees. 6. The landscape plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist recommendation in terms of lawn area and compatible plantings. 7. A grading and drainage plan signed and sealed by a registered engineer shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 8. A geotechnical/soils report shall be reviewed by the City geotechnical consultant in order to approve the basement design. 9. The front facade windows should project a unified design element. The circular window should be modified to reflect the design of the three adjacent windows. The above conditions of Community Development approval should be incorporated into the revised plans. Thus the above analysis concludes that if revisions to the site plan are made as recommended above, the necessary findings required for granting design review approval can be met. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that these plans be approved with the aforementioned conditions by adopting the Resolution for application #02 -121. L 00Cii O Attachment 2 RESOLUTION NO. 02 APPLICATION No. 02 -121 CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA QIAN/YANG: 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application for Design Review to construct a 2,824 square foot two story dwelling with a 1,349 square foot basement; 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 construction of a single family structure; and WHEREAS, the applicant meets 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 upon revision will minimize the perception of bulk through use of natural materials and colors. The design will provide a varied roofline and facade softened with different materials and textures creating horizontal proportions, which break up massing and minimize the perception of bulk. Policy 2, Integrate structures with the environment The plan conforms to the policy to integrate structures with the environment through use of natural earth tones with stucco /stone facade and concrete tile roof. With attached garage, all structures are integrated into one building. Policy 3, Avoid interference with privacy If revised to ensure to retention of trees on the north side of the property, the plan will retain the tree canopy along the northern property line and therefore avoid interference with privacy of the neighbor to the north. Policy 4, Preserve views and access to views The proposed home will impact the view of the neighbor north of the property to some extent. However, maintaining the existing trees along their shared property line will m inimize the impact on views to a reasonable level. Policy 5, Design for maximum benefit of sun and wind The policy to design for energy efficiency is addressed by locating the main living areas of the home along the southeast elevation and locating the garage area along the north elevation. Retaining trees helps 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 Paul Qian and Suying Yang for Design Review approval is granted subject to a number of conditions. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 1. Exhibit "A" date stamped February 5, 2002 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. a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution and the Revised Arborist report and map received December 26, 2002 as a separate plan page and containing the following revisions: 3. 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." 4. The design shall be revised to allow a ten -foot basement wall setback from the trunk of tree #7. 5. The design shall be revised to allow on -grade pier and beam construction in the vicinity of tree #6. 6. The elevation of the structure should be revised to provide the height as measured from the natural grade. 7. The base of the proposed home should have a stone foundation in order to visually anchor the structure and create a horizontal element to the facade. Elevations of the structure should be revised to reflect this change. e proposed walkway around the structure should be on grade pervious material in order to minimize the impact on adjacent trees. e landscape plan shall be revised to comply with the arborist recommendation in terms of lawn area and compatible plantings. 10. Fireplaces: Only one wood burning fireplace is permitted per dwelling unit. ii. A grading and drainage plan signed and sealed by a registered engineer shall be submitted with the final construction documents and this plan shall be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. 12. A geotechnical/soils report shall be reviewed by the City geotechnical consultant in order to approve the basement design. Soil and Erosion Control Plans The applicant should submit a soil and erosion control plan which identifies the techniques for minimizing the impact of disturbance on adjacent properties. 14. The front facade windows should project a unified design element. The circular window should be modified to reflect the design of the three adjacent windows. FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT The Saratoga Fire District reviewed this application on June 28, 2002 and made the following comments. 1. Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. 2. The property is in a designated hazardous fire area. 3. Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built up roofing. 4. Early Warning fire alarm system shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, City of Saratoga Code Article 16 -60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16 -60 -E) 5. Early warning fire alarm system shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 6. Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas, which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, 13 1111:•; 1, flat horizontal ceiling. The designer /architect is to contact San Jose Water Company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. CITY ARBORIST REPORT The City Arborist reviewed this plan and the report was received on December 26, 2002. The recommen ae ons of the arborist are hereby made 'a condition of approval and incorporated into the revised Tar%The main areas of concern are as fo ows. 1. The north wall of the basement will interfere with the root system of trees #7 and #6. The face cut of the soil for the basement construction must be a minimum of seven feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. The plans may be revised to allow ten feet from the base of these two trees and the wall of the basement in order to allow a minimum of three feet of backfill area around the basement walls. 2. The walkway proposed adjacent trees #6 and #7 is only feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material is a pervious material. 3. A small retaining wall is located on the north side of trees #1 and address In order to preserve Trees #1 and #2 a detailed design should be provided to change in grade is to be addressed 4. The demolition and removal of the deck adjacent tree #8 should be done by hand. 5. The demolition and removal of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage be removed without heavy equipment being operated inside the driplines of Trees #8 through #ll. 6. The landscape plan should be revised to include the following: a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed is will not be feasible to trench for a new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to trees #1,2,5,6 and 7. b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of Trees #9 and #10 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of trees #1 and 2. c. Plants planted inside the dripline of oak trees #1,2,7,9 and 10 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species. d. Irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunk of any tree on the site. 14 f. Landscape irrigation trenches, inside the driplines of trees must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching direction is across the root zone. However radial trenches may be done closer if the trenches reach no closer than 5 times the trunk diameter to the tree trunk. and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape hardscape must be done completely on grade without excavation and without severing of roots. 7. The combined value of the trees is estimated to be $32,694. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees or $16,347 should be retained to assure their protection. 8. Construction period fencing must be provided and located as noted on the map, which accompanies the report. Fencing must be of chain link, a minimum height of 5 feet mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet into the ground. The fence must be in place immediately following demolition. The protection fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. 9. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped under the canopies of trees. Soils excavated from the basement must be removed from the site as it is excavated. 10. Any pruning must be done be an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist and according to ISA Western Chapter Standards. 11. An ISA certified arborist should be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway. 12. A pre construction meeting shall be required prior to the demolition of the existing structures. The Project Arborist shall attend and shall give instructions :to the contractors on how to prevent significant damage to Trees 8 -11. Cin ATroRNEY 1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or held to be the liability of City in connection with City's defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect to the applicant's project. 2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall constitute a violation of the permit. 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 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 12 day of February 2003 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 16 Attachment 3 BARRIE D. CAE and ASSOCIATES Hort cuturel Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos, CA 95033 4081353- 1052 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Bore! Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 27, 2002 Job 10 -99- 247 -02 giCEIVEIN OTC 2 6 2002 e I l'Y OF SARATOGA Ai OO 19 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMAIE1.7ONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER All, Sr1RATOGA Assignment At the request nest of the Community Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence, detached bedroom, and detached garage in order to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans dated September 24, 2002, Sheets Al -A6. The architect or designer is not identified on the plans provided. Summary This proposal may expose 11 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree 413 would be removed by implementation of this design. All of the other trees would survive in good condition provided all of the mitigation suggestions are adhered to. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection Observations 1 adjacent properties, and 1 tree whose ownership is in question. Tr There are 6 trees on this site, 4 trees on the adjacent #8 is a large multi-stem coast redwood tree that is located on the property boundary between this property the property toward the north. All 11 trees may suffer some damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each .tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The Trees #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 were not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations on the plans are approximate. The 11 trees are classified as follows: Trees #1, 2, 7, 9,10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #3 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Tree #4 Big leaf maple (Ater macrophyllum) Trees #5, 6 European olive (Olea europea) Tree #8 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree #11— Chinese Pistache (Pistacia chinensis) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 11 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST 1 NOIV 4BER 27, 2002 ,flf. .r2l F SURVEYAND PRESERVATION RECOMM PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST ONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AV SAR.470GA Fine ecimens must be retained if possible but without major designc o d td recommended sp prevent recommended here are intended to limit damage within accep ted horn decline. inin but again without major design revisions. Mitigation must prevent further Fair specimens are worth reta decline. Marginal s imens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Marge p� Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant dec in properties whose canopies (and roots) extend onto this property should be treated as Trees located on adjacent prope Exceptional regardless of their condition. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction lot his is a tong narrow lot. It appears that this plan proposes to maximize the bbuildin allowed A base t is ►e north and south sides tithe footprint of the red nce except fo shown 8 feet garage. Construction t of the walls of a planned for virtually the entire the wall basement typically require a cut 3-6 feet outside the location of the anew S li This mat the actual soil footprint would be backfilled after the basement walls are completed cut will be approximately 3 -5 feet from the trunk the neighboring olive the and damage ppro would bsever_ e e 3 feet from the trunk of coast live oak Tree #7. l more tolerant o this root em removal than the oak tree. although the olive would be consid y portion and the t canopies of Trees #2, 6, and 7 are in conflict with the new residence. If large limbs term. ld be removed The removed and if more ore than 1/3 of the canopies would these may root loss from basement excavation and the canopy losses are not separate and unrelated. The total loss to both trees would be severe. The p proposes ro ses a new concrete walkway adjacent to the trunks of Trees #6 and 7 (presuming these trees would be retained). This pathway would only be feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material were a pervious material. A sm g all retainin wall (approximately 12 -15 inches in height) is seen on the north side o to walkway is 2. Thed addressed. A new concr plan does not describe how the difference n trunks of these trees, but o new retaining wall is planr►ed. The within approximately 18 —24 inches of the proposed construction of the front door pathway does not appear feasible without causing severe root damage to P ro Po both Trees #1 and 2. Tree #3 is in conflict with the footing of the new residence and would be removed. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. NOVEMBER 27. 2002 ;;00. TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOM ►ME)7ONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER A l••E S4RATOGA An existing deck circles the trunk of Tree #8. This tree may be significantly injured if this deck is removed by( eavy equipment. glia If the.soil from excavation for the basement were piled over the root systems of trees or if a portion of this excavated soil were to be used to raise the soil grade where trees exist, the damage to the root systems may be severe. Consequently, it will be essential that the soil excavated from the basement mustbe removed from site as it is excavated. The Landscape Plan (A1) proposes to establish a new lawn within about 2 feet of the trunk of coast ast live a oa This would expose Tree 1, and around the root collars of coast live livroot oak Trees #I9 and zones of Trees #1 9 and 10 would expose these trees to the collar diseases. Also, the proposed turf over risk of watermold diseases. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant coast redwood trees under the canopies of coast live oak Trees 9 and 10. When pyramidal trees grow up and through the dome shaped canopies of oaks, the oaks are shaded out. These redwoods should be removed from beneath or near the oaks. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant an 'Aristocrat' pear within about 3 feet of the trunk of Tree #8, the large coast redwood. This is simply too close. The plans provided do not address drainage. I presume a drainage system would be planned for this residence. go Trenching for drain lines would likely pose a significant risk to Trees #1, 2, 4, 5, and a severe risk to Trees #6 and 7. A drainage system may pose a moderate risk to Trees #8 and 11, but this is only an assumption in the c absence of a proposed plan. It appears that all of the trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may include constant construction traffic, including foot traffic, across the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench location must be planned prior to construction and that the trenches are located exactly as planned. This must not be left up to contractors or to the utility providers. Recommendations 1: In order to preserve Trees #6 and 7, the following mitigation must be adhered to: a. The cut face of the soil cut for the basement construction must be a minimum of 7 feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base of the tree on the south side of the trunk. This may require a redesign of the basement north wall. b. Any roots 2 inches or larger must be sealed immediately after the soil cut is made (See Recommendation 18). c. If a drain line is required on the north side of the house, the new drain line must meet the requirement of la. d. The new pathway must be installed completely on top of the existing soil grade without any soil cut. 7. material under the pathway may be used but the fill material must be thoroughly porous, such as cle PREPARED BY: MICHAEL 1. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 27. 2002 I gravel or sand. Base rock with granite fines is not adequately porous after compaction and may not be used. The fill soil, if any, may be compacted to 80% maximum. e. The new pathway must be porous such as interlocking pavers, but this installation would require that the manufactures specifications for stabilization of the soil may not be used, but instead meet the requirement here of ld. L No trenching, including trenching for drainage or for landscape irrigation, may occur on the north side of the new building. The proposed strip of lawn adjacent to the building is not compatible with the cultural requirements of Trees #6 or 7. This strip of lawn must be replaced by a plant(s) that is compatible with a coast live oak tree culture (see 9c). Pruning must be limited to 25 30% of the total canopies of both Trees 416 and 7. In order to preserve the trees at this site, I recommend that a Grading and Drainage Plan and an irrigation main line and lateral must be provided and reviewed by the City Arborist. 3. In order to preserve Trees #1 and 2, I recommend that a detailed design be required to address the differences in grade on the north side of the trunks of these trees. This must be done without significant root loss these two trees. I recommend that this detail design be reviewed by the City Arborist. 4. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. 4 7. 1 recommend that the demolition and removal of the deck adjacent to Tree 418 be done by hand 6. 1 recommend that the demolition of the existing detached bedroom and the existing detached garage be removed without demolition equipment being operated inside the driplines of Trees #8 -11. A backhoe may be used but the tractor must not enter the areas inside the driplines of these trees. 7. I recommend that an ISA certified arborist be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway, that exist inside the driplines of Trees #8- 11. I recommend that the Project Arborist have the authority to supervise the demolition team in order to prevent significant damage to Trees #8 -11. I further recommend that a pre construction meeting be required, and that the agenda include instructions to the contractors by the Project Arborist: 8. I recommend that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fencing must be of chainlink, a minimum height of 5 feet, mounted on steel posts driven 2 feet (minimum) into the ground. The fence must be in place prior to the arrival of any other materials or equipment and must remain in place until all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s) and the owner must be made aware that refund of tree protection bonds are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. _9. I recommend that the Landscape Plan be revised to include the following: 9 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION REC01WM TIONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AelE SARA7OGA h. 4 a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the building foundation is constructed, it will not be feasible to trench for a new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to Trees #1, 2, 5, 6, and 7. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NODEAIBER 27, 2002 OOtir23 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMME ONSAT THE QIAN PROPERT Y 14261 SPRINGER ANL 54M2 GA ti b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of Trees #9 and 10 and a minimum of 8 feet from t,_ the trunks of Trees #1 and 2. c. Plants planted inside the driplines of oak Trees #1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 must be compatible with the environmental and cultural requirements of the oak species indigenous to this area. A publication about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. d. I recommend that irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type only. e. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunk of any tree on site. f. Landscape imgation trenches (or any other excavations), inside the driplines of trees, must be no closer than 15 times the trunk diameter, if the trenching done close if the trenches reach ch no c closer than S�times trenches (i.e., like the spokes of a wheel) may be the trunk diameter to the tree's trunk, and if the spokes are at least 10 feet apart at the perimeter. g. Landscape hardscape constructed under the canopies of trees must be done completely on grade without excavation and without the severing of roots. h. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its installation requires trenching of 4-6 inches, which may result in significant root damage. i. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. Th ere must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained trees (either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 11. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the C 'sr, driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulted. 12. Any old irrigation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 13. Supplemental irrigation must be provided to all retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall) during construction. Irrigate with 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every 2 weeks throughout the construction period. This can be achieved by the use of a simple soaker hose; which must be located near the dripline not wrapped around the trunk for the entire canopy circumference. 14. A full 4 -inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #8, 9, and 10 immediately following demolition. Spreading of the chips must be done by'hand 15. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 16. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA,` Western Chapter Standards, 1998. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. Any excess materials (including mortar, concrete, paint products, etc.) must be removed from site.' PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSUL77NG ARBORIST NOVEMBER 27, 2062 VEYAND PRESERVATION RECOMMF TIONSAT THE QLAN PROPERTY 14161 SPRINGER AC SARATOGA exposed by this excavation must be managed as follows: and sealed to 18. Roots of Trees and in 7 expo Y with a latex paint or c wrapping sealed cut 3 inches in diameter or smaller may be severed, they must be cut cleanly a Roots that are painting prevent drying out. This can be done by p S the cut ends ends with plastic. Sealing must be done immediately following severing. that are 4 inches or larger must not be severed. In this e v design to adequately accommodate b. Roots a pier and on -grade on the North side must be constructed by P lion growth for many years. the large roots, which must include annual expan Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #3 has a value of $397, which is equivalent to one 24 inch boxed native specimen. A replacement is suggested. The combined u of the total value of the ined value of the trees is $32,694.1 suggest a bond equal to 50 /o ($16,347) trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: MLBIsl.. Coast live oak Quercus agr folia Valley oak Quercus lobata Big leaf maple Acer macrophylluim California buckeye Aesculus californica Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Enclosures: Glossary of Tenors Tree Data Accumulation Charts �d After Construction Tree Protection Before, During Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map PP FPd RFD BY:AMICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST Respectfully submitted, i oate, Princi NOVEMBER 17. 2002 BARRIE D. Calk AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 Fax (408) 353 -1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 GLOSSARY Co- dominant (stems, branches) equal in size and relative importance, usually associated with either the trunks or stems, or scaffold limbs (branches) in the crown. Crown The portion of a tree above the trunk including the branches and foliage. Cultivar A named plant selection from which identical or nearly identical plants can be produced, usually by vegetative propagation or cloning. Decurrent A term used to describe a mature tree crown composed of branches lacking a central leader resulting in a round headed tree. Egcurrent A term used to describe a tree crown in l decrease in length upward from the base. the top of a tree with lateral branches that progressively Girdling root A root that partially or entirely encircles the trunk and/or large buttress roots, which could restrict growth and downward movement p h Y Included bark Bark which is entrapped in narrow-angled attachments a i of two subject to stems, branches, or a stem and branch(es). Such attachments Y sping out. Kinked root A taproot or a major root(s) which is sharply bent and can cause plant instability and reduction of movement of water, nutrients, and photosynthates. Root collar The flared, lower portion of the base of a tree where the roots and stem merge. Also referred to as the "root crown". Leader The main stem or trunk that forms the apex of the tree. Stem The axis (trunk of a central leader tree) of a plant on which branches are attached. o Temporary branches A small branch on the trunk or between eme scald ches creches retained and shade, nourish, and protect the trunk of small young trees. gradually removed as the trunk develops. Definition of Woody Paris Trunk The main stem of a tree between the ground and the lowest scaffold branch. Scaffold branches In decurrent trees, the branches that form the main structure of the crown. Limb A major structural part. Branch— A smaller part, attached to a limb or scaffold branch Branchlet- A small part, attached to a branch. Twig A very small part attached to a branchlet. Leaf— The main photosynthetic organ of most plants. IVAO10113)A ON3100WO0321 2i3ZfLLa3d S033N (5-1) 2131VM S033N (s-l) 3SV3S10 WT O0 lO0a (S-1) 03a3AO0 ayllO0 l0O8 vO30 )1Nf1211 (s-i) OOOM OV30 (S 3S`d3S10 NMOU0 Baal (S-I) S103SNI (S-1) A L laOlad ONINf1ad 0 030 319V9 114OI31J'ON3 3A01^13 1J ONISMa NM0130 NOLLVa01S3a NMO1:10 ONINNIHl NIN01:10 (6 ONLLVa OafaVH Win) ONLLVa NOLLIONOO (S-I) 3arliona1S (9-() HalV3H 1VA014139 ON3ww00311 93211LLa3d S033N (S t) 931VM 9033N (s- I) 3SV3S10 arf1100100a (S t) 03a3A00 vT O0 1O0a (s-t)1.d03O )INn2l1 (s- t) 3Sb'3SIO NMO23O 33211 (S-t) S103SNI (St) A.1.1 210121d ONINnad a 03033N S319VO 1HOI3M-ON3 3A01N3a ONISida NMO230 NOLL`dbOlS3a NMOaO ONINNIHl NMOaO ONINY310 NMOaO (Ot Z) ONLLVa NOLLIONOO (s 3afLLOnals (9-0 1-L1V314 w31SlsLLlnw enoge ,Z►t la H90 In 1 O©::28 WWI r ed. I C 8 a d c E w ca c o 2 2 V1 a1 0 0) .0— o (0 0. 0 V 63 o C oo,v O L C N 0 2 0 .0 N 0) C oao 41 0 4) r-: J+ p 4) 3 41 41 .1.) •rl U) 10 '0 14 L •u-1 41 fn 0 4 1 0) •rl VJ ■•i 0 0 1.1 'v v O •ri 0; -4 0• 0. 3 3 i v 4r .i e 4 .i oc CA. v-i •v 41 a O; iI we Or. L.1 Y 41 O 0 G +•e s w 4.1 ,!L L+ b O N C G w ••'1 O• t+ 1) G) 'v w W C.) 0 0 0) 0 r C. 1+ 4i* 0 •-4 c P. O 1+ .c 01 •r'1 0 1•I U ..0 44 O. E: w 431113 :0 Wine co Id 4 41 0 O e O. Lel O 0 0 0 GNP Ix) o .0 N L OL IJ t0 v'1 0 0 C •r+ 0 'V u 4) 11 4 1 O C 0J O 3 04 a0 4 w N 0 4) 14 P. o o PN 4•J '4 3 '4 c O u W 0) r4- N 0 01 CO 41 I. �p d ri d .0 c O 1•� v+ L F ro +I :Q0t29 o•: C (j •n C a4 CO •8 La- N BARRIE D. CS AND ASSOCIATES Horticultural Consultants (408) 353 -1052 Fax (408) 353 -1238 23535 Summit Rd. Los Gatos, CA 95033 TREE PROTECTION BEFORE, DURING, AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION These are general recommendations And may be superseded by site specific instructions BEFORE Plan location of trenching to avoid all possible cuts beneath tree canopies. This includes trenches for utilities, irrigation lines, cable TV and roof drains. Plan construction period fence locations which will prevent equipment travel or material storage beneath tree canopies. Install fences before any construction related equipment is allowed on site. This includes pickup trucks. Inform subcontractors in writing that they must read this document. Require return signed copies to demonstrate that they have read the document. Prune any tree parts, which conflict with construction between August and January. Except for pines which may be pruned between October January. Only an ISA certified arborist, using ISA pruning instructions may be used for his work. If limbs' are in conflict with the' construction equipment before the certified arborist is on -site, carpenters may cut off offending parts of 6" diameter or less, leaving an 18" long stub, which should be re -cut later by the arboriit. Under no circumstances may any party remove more than 30% of a trees foliage, or prune so thatan unbalanced canopy is created. DURING Avoid use of any wheeled equipment beneath tree canopies. Maintain fences at original location in vertical, undamaged condition until all contractors and subcontractors, including painters are gone. Clear root collars of retained trees enough to leave 5 -6 buttress roots bases visible at 12" from the trunk. Irrigate trees adjacent to construction activity during hot months (June October Apply 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter (measured at 4 /z') once per 2 week period by soaker hose. Apply water at the dripline, or adjacent to construction not around the trunk. Apply mulch to make a 3" deep layer in all areas beneath tree canopies and inside fences. Any organic material which is non toxic may be used. AFTER Irrigate monthly with 10 gallons of water per 1" of trunk diameter with a soaker hose, placed just inside the dripline. Continue until 8" drain has fallen. Avoid cutting irrigation trenches beneath tree canopies. Avoid rototilling beneath tree canopies since that will destroy the small surface roots which absorb water. Avoid installation of turf or other frequently irrigated plants beneath tree canopies. .00'30 a N 0 0 O cv1 O 4 r-1 O, 8 M E g cs h M a N c co e m N s CD G, a.+ v �t 0) o d ,n d L. 0 c. d cv 'C a 0 io v c c N co co d N -0 d in _.0Oi. .0 O, 01 0 •N d 4 C 2 b0 bO TO IA E 0) 'w 0 c0 O C s co a o. d 0 CO d` 0 d H 73 r. o y 3 u .°3 vv ca a. i, u O o CO NI s. d s N 00 0. s c O o 'n i u d v, 0 3 ,n d y CO O ..0 C :G C i a o) i a s cv '10...31 i'3 C CJ d 0 d •r.. unnTICULTURAL CONSULTANT EXISTING SITE PLAN 05 Date: November 27 2002 n "In -,A,Jvi BARRIE D. COATE i and ASSOCIATES pon3Dioni 22525 swallow to ca..cA vase Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the Qian Property, 14261Springes Ave. Saratoga Prepared for City of Saratoga, Planning Department cs ‘.)00%sa2 BARRIE D. COATE l lf 106 MOg and ASSOCIATES 79599 Tama I. sow to Gov.* Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the Qian Property, 1426ISpringer Ave.. Saratoga Prepared TOT City of Saratoga, Planning Department O/A RESIDENCE IN) SMALL SCALE rLosq1111.4 )RCCS Ivr rrrwrr pr yes IN POOL EVERGREE R9 0) 7• IN) 100. EVER EVERGREEN E NO 121 QOi ma Rot[CIC) 101• Ivng CAN POiO It M14 W NAAp 112 UM mi. Tit QOM �1 1 0c6)NL IE[(M W MAN rU :-o' N 0UE1a!GNG RnIB 101 10 05[5210 mown 111 SIOK SAW PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN sPiiU1+Ea AVE. 10 (WE 57RCEr PAVEMENT /P Ott 0 EtIIYE h Hw r 5 2002 O1fu 1.1AIR M Attachment 4 J N/A N/A SARATOGA FIRE 409 867 2790 qian -14261 springer ay.wpd 09/28/02 12:27pm P. 002 III SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT REVIEW AND COMMENTS FOR PLANNING DEPARTMENT N/A means NOT APPLICABLE FILE 02 -121 DATE: June 28, 2002 OF LOTS: ONE APPLICANT: QIAN/YANG LOCATION: 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE Y I 1: Water supply and access for fire protection are acceptable. Y 1 2: Property is located in a designated hazardous fire area. Y I 3: Plans checked for weed/brush abatement accessibility. Y I 4: Roof covering shall be fire retardant, Uniform Building Code Class A prepared or built -up roofing. Re- roofing less than 10% shall be exempt. (Ref. Uniform Fire Code Appendix 3, City of Saratoga Code 16- 20:210.) 5: Early Warning Fire Alarm System Shall be installed and maintained in accordance with the provisions, city of Saratoga Code Article 16 -60. (Alternative requirements, sprinkler systems, 16- 60 -E.) 6: Early Warning Fire Alarm System shall have documentation relative to the proposed installation and shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. 7: Automatic sprinklers shall be installed in newly constructed attached/detached garages (2 heads per stall), workshops, or storage areas which are not constructed as habitable space. To ensure proper sprinkler operation, the garage shall have a smooth, flat, horizontal ceiling. Thedesigner /architect is to contact San Jose Water company to determine the size of service and meter needed to meet fire suppression and domestic requirements. (City of Saratoga Code 16- 15.090 [1]) 8: All fire hydrants shall be located within 500' from the residence and deliver no less than 1000 gallons /minute of water for a sustained period of 2 hours. (City of Saratoga Code 14- 30:040 [C]) 9: Automatic sprinklers are required for the new sq. ft. residential dwelling. A 4 -head calculated 13R sprinkler system is required. Documentation of the proposed installation and all calculations shall be submitted to the fire district for approval. The sprinkler system must be installed by a licensed contractor. O0 35 Page 2 Building Site Approval Check List FILE 02 -121 N/A 110: Fire hydrants: developer shall install fire hydrant(s) that meet the fire district's specifications. Hydrant(s) shall be installed and accepted prior to construction of any building. N/A 111: Driveways: All driveways shall have a 14' minimum with plus 1' shoulders. Secondary Access not required n A: Slopes from 0% to 11% shall use a double seal coat of 0 S or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. N/A II SARATOGA FIRE 12: Turn arounds: construct a turn around at the proposed dwelling site having a 33' outside radius. Other approved types must meet the requirements of the fire district. Details shall be shown on the building plans and approved by the fire district. N/A 1 13: Parking: Provide a parking area for two emergency vehicles at the proposed dwelling site or as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A 1 14: Security Gate: Gate width shall not be less than 14'. Gate access shall be through a Medeco lock box purchased from the fire department. Details shall be shown on building plans. N/A I 15: Bridges: All bridges and roadways shall be designed to sustain 35,000 pounds dynamic loading. APPROVED ill ft C14;eF K,2 fr Chief Ernest Kraule qian-14261 springer ay.wpd 408 887 2780 06/28/02 12 :27pm P. 008 B: Slopes from 11% to 15% shall be surfaced using 2.5" of A.C. or better on a 6" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling. C: Slopes from 15% to 17% shall be surfaced using a 4" PCC concrete rough surfaced on a 4" aggregate base from a public street to the proposed dwelling D: Curves: Driveway shall have a minimum inside radius of 21'. E: Turnouts: Construct a passing turnout 10' wide and 40' long as required by the fire district. Details shall be shown on building plans. s Attachm.ent:5' 3 Windshield Survey of One and Two Story Residences in the Project Vicinity Legend Existing One -Story Residences Existing Two -Story Residences 1/4 .**gi lett ftkivklib r p w e i ftW, A, 1 4 4 4.4* Ak s• 1 \1 8 Attachment 6 �s OOr4O. (3 Attachment 7 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, j 7. 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 2003, that I Planning Commission on the o? day of 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. SS. 00s442 s Attachment 8 u0043 HARON F HEDDEN )r Current Owner 0820 CANYON VIEW DR ARATOGA CA 95070 (ASHVANT J VARSHA 'ATEL )r Current Owner !0685 MARION RD ARATOGA CA 95070 EOHN R HELEN KAHLE Dr Current Owner 20601 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 EVELYN A JOHNSTON Or Current Owner PO BOX 53 SARATOGA CA 95071 JAMES P BACHTOLD RENALDS Or Current Owner 20640 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 MEHDI FATEMEH SHAHBAZI Or Current Owner 14231 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARNA Or Current Owner 14224 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 HOWARD F CATHERINE EARHART Or Current Owner 20680 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner RODOLFO GLORIA RUANO Or Current Owner 14370 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 STANLEY F SALLY PERRY Or Current Owner 20810 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY L CAMPBELL Or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHNSTON Or Current Owner 20611 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 LOGAN S AMOS DEIMLER Or Current Owner 14320 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SONNY C HO NG Or Current Owner 2065.0 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 JON M DEMETRIA SCOTT Or Current Owner 14256 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BELSHAW Or Current Owner 14240 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID S SANDRA WILSON Or Current Owner 20678 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner CYNTHENY A KEMP Or Current Owner 14362 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARTY EMILIA CASSERLY Or Current Owner 20800 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070 IVAN ANGELA BURGOS Or Current Owner 14265 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 SARANGAN LAKSHMI RANGACHARI Or Current Owner 20613 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID H ELIZABETH HORN Or Current Owner 20646 MARION RD SARATOGA CA 95070 KURT BARBARA VOESTER Or Current Owner 14251 BURNS WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 KETTMAN Or Current Owner 14250 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MICHAEL CAROL MAULDIhh Or Current Owner 15345 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID JOHNSTON Or Current Owner 20616 BROOKWOOD LN SARATOGA CA 95070 CLAUDETTE R FORD Or Current Owner 524 24TH AVE SAN FRANCISCO CA 94121 SARATOGA CITY OF Or Current Owner WILDWOOD WAY SARATOGA CA 95070 11 00(K A4 h. Current Owner ;HUN W JANE QUON )r Current Owner [4330 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 VICBRIARTY- PINTO Dr Current Owner 1340 S DE ANZA BLVD 201 SAN JOSE CA 95129 CAPPUCCI Or Current Owner 1764 WOODEN VALLEY RD NAPA CA 94558 GARY L CAMPBELL Or Current Owner 20731 MARION RD 1 0.ATOGA CA 95070 L TA COOK Or Current Owner 14241 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT W KAREN KING Or Current Owner 14271 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ARIC J CLAIRE KAZARNOVSKY Or Current Owner 14301 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner CARTMELL r Current Owner 14350 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 LLOYD G STEPHENS Or Current Owner 14350 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CHESTER J STANARO Or Current Owner 14320 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 YIT -SUN A TSANG WU Or Current Owner 14270 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 TERRY F PAMELA MULLEN Or Current Owner 14240 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 NIKOLAJS VIKTORS JANSONS Or Current Owner 123 NEW YORK AVE LOS GATOS CA 95030 MCCABE Or Current Owner 23 GLADEVIEW WAY SAN FRANCISCO CA 94131 TAT C TINA CHOI Or Current Owner 14281 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT SHIRLEY CANCELLIERI Or Current Owner 1486000DYLN SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES J POLCYN Or Current Owner 14365 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOHN F ANNE MEHAFFEY Or Current Owner 14340 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 PRISCILLA F DONALD POOLE Or Current Owner 14340 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES L HESTER Or Current Owner 14310 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 CARYJ &JUNOLIN Or Current Owner 12062 JAMESTOWN CT SARATOGA CA 95070 ALEXANDER L IGNACIO Or Current Owner 14230 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BARRIE R RAVI NOVAK Or Current Owner 14231 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAL S OH Or Current Owner 14261 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 AMIN R NARJES GHAFOURI Or Current Owner 14291 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BRUCE N ROBERTA MARSHALL Or Current Owner 14341 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ZHAOQING MUZHI MA Or Current Owner 14360 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 GARY M NISHIMOTO Or Current Owner 14330 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 anne =��5 IBOR BIELSKI SZALAY 1r Current Owner 4328 PAUL AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 'IBOR T SZALAY )r Current Owner 4290 PAUL AVE ■ARATOGA CA 95070 'IEI SHIO LU )r Current Owner .4260 PAUL AVE ARATOGA CA 95070 ?AUL PAMELA,MCDONALD Dr Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RAO YANG QIAN Or Current Owner 14261 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SPARACINO Or Current Owner 14325 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RICHAD SUZAN DEIGNAN Or Current Owner 14291 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BAUER Or Current Owner 14288 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES F ELAINE TENNYSON Or Current Owner 14315 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 BEVERLY A SLAVIN Or Current Owner 14305 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 EDWARD Y TEHCHI CHIEN Or Current Owner 14314 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JOSEPH L MARIA KOVACS Or Current Owner 14280 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FELIX ISABELLA MARKHOV SKY Or Current Owner 14250 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ANTHONY L LINDA CLARK Or Current Owner PO BOX 81 SARATOGA CA 95071 DONALD M RUTH SCHWARTZ Or Current Owner 14271 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SAMUEL T AIDA SCOTT Or Current Owner 922 BICKNELL RD LOS GATOS CA 95030 TR KRAFT Or Current Owner 14299 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 POUTRE Or Current Owner 14360 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JIE QING CHEN Or Current Owner 14230 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070' TOOYSERKANI Or Current Owner 14315 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 MARYANNE NOLA Or Current Owner 14300 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 DAVID DELEEUW HUANG Or Current Owner 1836 PORT STIRLING PL NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PAUL PAMELA MCDONALD Or Current Owner 14231 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 RONALD P YOLANDA MARTIN Or Current Owner 14251 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 SPARACINO Or Current Owner 14325 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ROBERT L WEINMANN Or Current Owner 14371 SPRINGER AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 JAMES R J ARENA Or Current Owner 14294 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 ST NICHOLAS RUSSIAN ORTHODOX GR Or Current Owner 14220 ELVA AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 FRANK J FRIEDRICH Or Current Owner 14220 PAUL AVE SARATOGA CA 95070 Or Current Owner i 46 1 A. 3 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES Hod cutural Consultants 23535 Summit Road Los Gatos. CA 95033 408/353-1052 .t TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Prepared at the Request of: Kristin Borel Community Planning Dept. City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Saratoga, CA 95070 Site Visit by: Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist November 27, 2002 Job 10- 99- 247-02 12/29/02 09109am P. 005 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERV4TIONRECOM IENDATIONSAT THE QMNPROPERTT 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA Assignment At the request of the Development Department, Planning Division, City of Saratoga, this report reviews the proposal to demolish an existing residence, detached bedroom, and detached garage in order to construct a new residence in the context of potential damage to or the removal of existing trees. This report rates the condition of the trees on site that are protected by City of Saratoga ordinance. Recommendations are included to mitigate damage to these trees during construction The plans reviewed for this report are the construction plans dated September 24, 2002, Sheets Al-A6. The architect or designer is not identified on the plans provided. Summary This proposal may expose 11 trees to some level of risk by construction. Tree #3 would be removed by implementation of this design. All of the other trees would survive in good condition provided all of the mitigation suggestions are adhered to. Replacement trees, which equal the values of the trees removed, are suggested. Procedures are suggested to mitigate the damage that would be expected to the retained trees. A bond equal to 50% of the value of the trees that would be retained is recommended to assure their protection. Observations There are 6 trees on this site, 4 trees on the adjacent properties, and 1 tree whose ownership is in question. Tree #8 is a large multi-stem coast redwood tree that is located on the property boundary between this property and the property toward the north. All 11 trees may suffer some damage by proposed construction. The attached map shows the location of these trees and their approximate canopy dimensions. Each tree on this site has been tagged with a metallic label indicating its assigned number. The Trees #4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 were not shown on the plans provided and have been added. Their locations on the plans are approximate. The 11 trees are clied as follows: Trees #1, 2 7 ,10 Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Tree #3 Siberian elm (Ulmus pronila) Tree #4 Big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum) Wes 6 European olive (Olea europea) Tie` e -east redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree 11-- C mese stache (Pistacia chinensis) The particulars regarding these trees (species, trunk diameter, height, spread, health, and structure) are provided in the attachments that follow this text. The health and structure of each specimen is rated on a scale of 1 to 5 (Excellent Extremely Poor) on the data sheets that follow this text. The combination of health and structure ratings for the 11 trees are converted to descriptive ratings as follows: <1 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST 12/28/02 09108am P. 008 NOVEMBER 27, 2002 1 Exceptional Specimens Fine Speci Fair Spec' ens Marginal Specimens 3 Poor Specimens 1,2,5 -I1 4 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION R ECOMMENDATIONSAT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE S RA7OGA Att 0-114 vs Fine specimens must be retained if possible but without major design revisions. Mitigation procedures recommended here are intended to limit damage within accepted horticultural standards in order to prevent decline. Nlu [2!-U Fair specimens are worth retaining but again without major design revisions. Mitigation mustrevent f decline. Marginal specimens are typically worth retaining but could be removed if necessary to facilitate construction. Mitigations recommended here are intended to prevent significant decline. Trees located on adjacent properties whose canopies (and roots) extend onto this property should be treated as Exceptional regardless of their condition. Risks to Trees by Proposed Construction This is a long narrow lot. It appears that this plan proposes to maximize the building space allowed for this lot. The north and south sides of the new residence are shown 8 feet from the property boundaries. A basement is planned for virtually the entire footprint of the residence except for the garage. Construction of the walls of a basement typically require a cut 3-6 feet outside the location of the new walls. This space outside the wall footprint would be backfilled after the basement walls are completed and sealed. This means that the actual soil cut will be approximately 3 -5 feet from the trunk of the neighboring olive Tree #6 an approximate y l 3 feet from the trunk of coast 'live oak Tree #7. In the case ofboth Trees the root damage would.be some, although the olive would be considerably more tolerant of this root removal than the oak tree. A portion of the canopies of Trees #2, band 7 are in conflict with the new residence. If large limbs would be removed and't n�iore` i1iiaa" 73 o t ie cano ies would be rem' these trees ma not survive the bon term. The root loss from basement excavation and the canopy losses are not separate and unrelated. The total loss to both trees would be severe. The plan proposes a new concrete walkway adjacent to the trunks of Trees #6 and 7 (presuming these trees would be retained). This its y woad only be feasible if it is installed completely on top of the existingjrade without a soil cut andlithe surface material were a pervious material. A small retaining wall (approximately 12 -15 inches in height) is seen on the north side of Trees #1 and 2. The plan does not describe how the difference in elevation would be addressed. A new concrete walkway is planned within approximately 18 24 inches of the trunks of these trees, but no new retaining wall is planned. The proposed construction of the front door pathway does not appear feasible without causing severe root damage to both Trees #1 and 2. 12128/02 O9a09am P. 007 Tree #3 is in conflict with the footing of the new residence and would be removed. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH. CONSULTINGARBOROST NOVEIBER 27.2002 2 12/23/02 09:09am P. 009 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATTONRECOMMENDATIONS Al' THE QIANPROPERTY 14 261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARATOGA 3 An existing deck circles the trunk of Tree #8. This tree may be_ significantly injured if. this. deck -is removed -by heavy equipment. If the soil from excavation for the basement were piled over the root systems of trees or if a_ortion of this excavated soil were to be used to raise the soil p where trees exist, the damage to the root systems maybe severe. Consequently, it will be essential that the soil excavated from the basement must be removed from site as it is excavated. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to establish a new lawn within about 2 feet of the trunk of coast live oak Tree 1, and around the root collars of coast live oak Trees #9 and 10. This would expose these trees to root collar diseases. Also, the proposed turf over the root zones of Trees #1, 9 and 10 would expose these trees to the risk of watennold diseases. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant coast redwood trees under the canopies of coast live oak Trees 9 and 10. When pyramidal trees grow up and through the dome shaped canopies of oaks, the oaks are shaded out. These redwoods should be removed from beneath or near the oaks. The Landscape Plan (Al) proposes to plant an 'Aristocrat' pear within about 3 feet of the trunk of Tree #8, the large coast redwood. This is simply too close. The lans provided do not address drainage.1 presume a drainage system would be planned for this residence. Trenching or ram rues wo e y pose a sigm scant ns to reel 2 j and a severe n o Iuses 6 and 7. A drainage system may pose a moderate nslc to Trees #8 and 1 but thts is only an assumption i tie absence of a proposed plan. It appears that all of the trees would likely be at risk of damage by construction activity and construction procedures that are typical at most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping the stockpiling of materials over the root systems, may include the trenching across root zones for drainage, for new utilities, or for landscape irrigation, and may constant construction rt ffic;incl idingfoot tra acioss the root systems resulting in soil compaction. If any underground utilities must be replaced or upgraded, it will be essential that the trench location must be a plant) pnor to construction an trenc areicate exact y as planned. Thts must not be left up to 0 contractors or to the util� providers: Recommendations 1.. Jn order to preserve Trees #6 and 7, the following mitigation must be adhered to: a. The cut face of the soil cut for the basement construction must be a minimums of 7 feet from the trunk of both trees measured from the base o the tree on t e sou side ofthe trunk This may require s re esjpn ofthe basement north wall. b. my roots inches or larger must -be sealed immediately after the soil cut is made (See Recommendation 18). c. If a drain line is required on the north side of the house, the new drain line must meet the requirement of Ia d. The new pathway must be installed completely on top of the existing soil grade without any soil cut. Fill material under the pathway may be used but the fill material must be thoroughly_porous, such_as_ clean~,. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL 4 BENCH, CONSULTING AMORIST NOVEMBER 27. 2002 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDA7IONS AT THE WAN PROPERTY 1426! SPRINGER AVENUE SARArOGA gravel or sand. Base rock with granite fines is not adequately porous after compaction and may not be used. The fill soil, if any, may be compacted to 80% maximum. e. The new pathway materia must be porous such as interlocking pavers, but this installation would require that the menu ac hies specifii ions tor stabilization ofttie soil may no ut m T meet requirement here of 1d. No trenching, including trenching for drainage or for landscape irrigation, may occur on the north side of the new building. g. The posed strip of lawn adjacent to the building is not compatible with the cultural requirements of Trees #b'or 7. This strip of lawn must be replace a p ants) that is compah -wt a coast the oak tree culture (see h. Pruning must be imited to 25 30% of the total canopies of both Trees #6 and 7. 2. It to rve the trees at this site I recommend that a Gradin a nd Drai Phan and an irrigation main line and lateral must be provided and reviewed by the City Arborist. 4. I recommend that Tree #3 be replaced. 12/29/02 09:09am P. 009 5. I recommend that the demolition and removal of the deck adja „cent to Tree #8 be on Uy hand. d. I recommend that the demolition of the existing detached bedroom and the existing de ached garage be removed without demolition equipment being o erxted inside Trees the dnnlines of T&l 1 x &backhoemay be us 1 e tractor must not enter areas inside the driplines of these trees. 3. In order to preserve Trees #1 and 2, I recommend that a detailed design be required to address the differences in grade on the north side of the trunks of these trees. This must be done without significant root loss -these two trees. I recommend that this detail design be reviewed by the City Arborist. 7. I recommend that an ISA certified arborist be required as the "Project Arborist" to be on site to supervise the demolition of the structures, including the existing driveway, that exist inside the driplines of Trees #8- 11. I recommend that the ProjectArborist have the authority to supervise the rttonleam in order to prevent significant da mage to Trees #8 -111 further recommend that a pre construction miming be required, and thatthe agenda include instructions to the contractors by the Project Arborist 8. I recommend that construction period fencing be provided and located as noted on the attached map. Fe cmg must be o"T1ainhnk, a rrununum height of 5 feet, mounted of steel posts driven 2 ?ee ((minimum) into the ground. The ence mustbeein place prior to the arrival of ny other materials or equipment and must remain in place uric J all construction is completed and given final approval. The protective fencing must not be temporarily moved during construction. Fencing must be located exactly as shown on the attached map. The contractor(s)) and Y the owner must be made aware that of tree protection are based on the correct location and dedicated maintenance of these fences. 9. I recommend that the Landscape Plan be revised to include the following: a. A main irrigation line must be installed against the footing of the building at the time that the footing is backfilled. After the rig of undation is constru it will not be feasible to trench fora new irrigation line (or for any other purpose) without severe root damage to Trees #1 2,5 6, and 7. PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOYF.MBER 27, 2002 4 PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTINGARBORIST 12/28/02 09108am P. 010 TREE SURVEY AND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THEQIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUE SARA7OGA b. Lawn must be a minimum of 12 feet from the trunks of Trees #9 and 10 and a minimum of 8 feet from the trunks of Trees #1 and 2. c. Plants planted inside the driplines of oak Trees #1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 must be compatible with the environmen a an c r enem nts of the oak ies indige _area.,,A.publication.about plants compatible with California native oaks can be obtained from the California Oak Foundation, 1212 Broadway, Suite 810, Oakland 94612. d. I mmumend that irrigation inside the driplines of oak trees must be a drip type onl e. Sprinkler irrigation must be designed not to strike the trunk_of any_ tree on site f Landscape irrigation trenches (or any other excavations inside the dnplines of trees, must be no closer t r an times tfie U 1c diameter, if the trenching directs 'on is across the root zone. However, radial trenches (s.e: like the spokes ov a wheel) maybe done closer if the trenches reac no closer than 5 times the inmk sameter to the tree's tnm and if the spokes are at least feet apat at_the_ perimeter g. Landscape hardscape constructed under the candies of trees must be done.completely on grade without excavation and w the severing_of roots. h. Bender board or similar edging material must not be used inside the driplines of existing trees, because its rris on iu res`t'renching ci 4-6 inches, which may result in significant ge. Landscape a aTs /cobbles, decorative bark,stones, fencing, etc must not be installed directly in coma ill the liar oftrees because oftfie risk ofserious disease infection. 10. There must be no grading, trenching, or surface scraping inside the driplines of retained__ trees(,either before or after the construction period fencing is installed or removed). Where this may conflict with drainage or other requirements, the city arborist must be consulted. 11. Trenches for any utilities (gas, electricity, water, phone, TV cable, etc.) must be located outside the driplines of retained trees. For any tree where this cannot be achieved, I suggest that the city arborist be consulter 12. Any old imgation lines, sewer lines, drain lines, etc., under the canopies of the existing trees, if unused, must be cut off at grade and left in the ground. 13. S pip lemental irrigation must be provided to all retained trees during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inc o rain unng construction. Imgate witas flonsTor eachinch o trunk d ameter every 2 weeks ughout uction the Camaro consperiod. This can be achiey by thg.. QL,a ple_sstaker hose, which most be located near the dripline not wraps around the trunk for the entire canopy circumference, 14. A full 4-inch layer of coarse of wood chips must be spread over the entire root zone of Tree #8, 9, and 10 immediately following demolition. Spreading of the chips must be done by hand. 15. Excavated soil must not be_piled or dumped (even temporarily) under the canopies of trees. 16. Any pruning must be done by an ISA certified arborist and according to ISA, Westem Chapter Standards,. 1998. 17. Materials or equipment must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped inside the driplines of trees, or buried on site. y excess ma a s inc u i ng mortar, concrete, paint pro ucts, etc. must owed from scte. 5 NOVEMBER 27. 2002 r• TREE S(lRVEYAND PRESERVATION RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE QIAN PROPERTY 14261 SPRINGER AVENUESARATOGA 18. Roots of Trees #6 and 7 exposed by this excavation must be managed as follows: a. Root ar me m iameter or smaller maybe seve,ut the y_must be cut clwily_ and sealed to p r e v e n t i out. This c a n be d o n e b intin t h e c u t e n d s w i t h a l a t e x painter by wrapp the cut ends with plastic. Sealing must be done immediately following severing b. Roots that are 4 inches or larger must not be severed. In this event, the foundation on the North si a must be constructed er an4 one amII esign to adequately accommodate the large roots, which must include annual expansion growth for many years. Value Assessment The values of the trees are addressed according to ISA standards, Seventh Edition. Tree #3 has a value of $397, which is equivalent to one 24 inch boxed native specimen. A replacement is suggested. The combined value of the tires is $32,694. I suggest a bond equal to 50% ($16,347) of the total value of the trees that will be retained to assure their protection. Acceptable native tree replacements are: MLB /sl.. Coast live oak Quercus agrifolia Valley oak Quercus lobata Big leaf maple Acer macrophyllum California buckeye Aesculus cal fornica Coast Redwood Sequoia sempervirens Enclosures: Glossary of Terms Tree Data Accumulation Charts Tree Protection Before, During and After Construction Protective Fencing Radial Trenching Beneath Tree Canopies Platform Buffer Map 12/28102 09t09am P. 011 Respectfully submitted, PREPARED BY: MICHAEL L. BENCH, CONSULTING ARBORIST NOVEMBER 27. 2002 12/: 09:09am P. 001 Job Address: 14261 Springer Ave. 1VAOI OWWO w03011 2:13Z111.1113.4 80 (s I) 93.1LWA SOMN (S►) 3SV3: i10010 swalgoe a (9.1) osilanoo wnoo It )30 )lN ciraa M (s-1) 351( AOW 3 1) SLO3 (s-1) ,waolud ONINfINel I 03033N MEW 1H0 13M 3AOI .ablin ONISNII MIAOW NOLL' ONINNIRLNMONO Zt3S a %001 SSW dB X E IE 1 14 L 1 uoM1 WI) ONUARIONVZ111-1 Z i 1 I Z 0Z 0Z 1 siumeamstayg OE I 91 INC 1 LL 133A Z0 LL3N I F 4 L j 0'L 0'L I 1 x 70'oI 1 waisxminvi 6 AJ0 weaning 3 1 6 0 6 Nl 1 GNIO UBedoun3j eeedome soa l 3 1 6 0 win l w13 oelieq!S� alpine snwlnl 1 1 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES N09)353.1052 MBank Itrarl La Cam,CA 95020 Plant Nance 3 1 6 0 enll LseooI 6 1W11 3 9e amen° 12/: 09:09am P. 001 Job Address: 14261 Springer Ave. E4 0 (-1) ALRIOlad 1VAONf3a 1vA00321ON3110N00321 a3ZI1LL213d S033N (S 2131VM SO33N (9-1.) 3sv3sia wnoo loom (9-1.) 03a3A00 wrioo 1OOa 1 5 (9-0Avo30 NIJf12LL (91) 0001/10V30 (9-0 39V9910 NMO210 33a1 9103SNI (9 A l OI id ONINf121d 03033N S319V0 IHOI3M-ON3 3AON1321 oNISMa NMOHO NOLLVNO1S321~SO ONINNIHI NMO8O 9NINV310 NMO210 (6 ONLLVd OHVZVH (OL-Z) oNLLVa NOLL)0N00 (94) minimum (9'L) H11■9H OV3adS 1H013H epei6 wale 2/1.1 H80 o 6 R0.11 3 1 M M 133A 7® 21313N1V30 6 H80 N 0 H730 N ad x N131SAS 5 v N M O N 1, a r 18 4 0 r X X A X 1 U El 1 o. I in 0 12129102 09109am P. 002 N a. I p POO Tree numbers correspond to evaluation charts. Irne Irv-dirtrIC EXISTING SITE PLAN 05 12/28102 08108mmi P. 004 0 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATS 101301012 13$251milhei L•Gas,CA MO HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT CONSULTING AMORIST Tree Survey and Preservation Recommendations at the Q11111 Propeny, 14261Spinger Ave. Saratoga Prepared fir: City of Saratoga, Planning Department Date: November 27, 2002 lob 4 10-99-24742 0 BARRIE D. COATE and ASSOCIATES 1611101057 mnrnskm in 026,G Well Tree Survey and Preservation Racomlmaadadons at the Dian Property, 14261S1ninger Ave. Saratoga Prepared for City of Saratoga, Planning Department HORTICULTURAL CONSULTANT CONSULTINO ARHORIST Date: November 27,2002 Job 4 10.99 -247 -02 an AAA. [MC RCV(iaCi Onnnd anon M, fMI (v(n(p[rK oa v�vman OM v( MOM ,am 0.10 no 9210, WOW 10 Jana 0(W0 W000[ Mot ro q (.010IRS 101001 y n 910 00p a b Onai O oint <u1r nw a gar w mo 0 ma Wa wa nv[. �QC (0({ MIT nvmert PROPOSED LANDSCAPE. PI AN Tm.- n„n1M,a mr«<n1nA to nnllnlinn rbnd< R: 0 1 12/29/02 09109am P. 009 October 11, 2005 Lata Vasudevan Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: SITE VISIT of the Qian Property; 14261 Springer Avenue, Saratoga Application 02 -121 Dear: Lata: ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting Tree Care As requested, I have visited the above referenced site to review tree damage imposed during trenching for the sewer line at the above referenced site. My findings and recommendations are as follows: Findings The trench was dug beneath the canopies of trees #4, 5 and 6. I find the trench is situated far enough away from their trunks that no adverse impacts resulted. Soil fill was placed beneath tree #7's canopy. Tree #7 appears in only fair health and has declined from its originally reported condition of good. My observations reveal the decline is a result of the construction activities and remediation measures must be employed to improve its longevity and vigor. Materials are piled within the protected areas. Protective fencing was not installed at the rear of the property as provisioned within the City Arborist report dated 11/27/02. Significant damage to the rear trees was not observed. Recommendations 1. The fill against and within 10 feet from tree #7's trunk should be immediately removed. The work must be manually performed using shovels and great care taken to avoid digging up natural grade or damaging the trunk. 2. The soil pile being placed back into the trench must be manually performed using shovels and great care taken to avoid digging up natural grade during the process. 3. A two -inch layer of organic composted mulch should be manually spread as follows: [1] beneath tree #7's canopy, about two feet from the home to one -foot from the tree's trunk, and [2] beneath the canopies of trees #4 thru 6, between the existing trench and property line (not to be in contact with the trees' trunks). A four -inch layer of coarse wood chips should be manually spread on top (a blend of the compost and wood chips spread to a four -inch depth would also be appropriate). P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 to Email: arborresources @comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 m Fax: 650.240.0777 o Licensed Contractor #796763 October -11, 2005 14261 Springer Avenue page 2 ARBOR RESOURCES Professional Arboricultural Consulting Tree Care 4. Supplemental water should be provided to trees #1 -3 and 4 -7. In doing so, the application methods and procedures presented within item #13, page 5, of the City Arborist report should be followed. 5. A four -inch layer of coarse wood chips should also be manually spread beneath thee canopies of trees #8, 9 and 10 per item #14, page 5, of the City report. 6. Additional trenching, including for irrigation, beneath the trees' canopies should be avoided, unless within a few feet from the home's foundation or between the home and existing trench. 7. Unless otherwise approved, all activities within the designated fenced areas for trees at the rear of the property must be avoided. Sincerely, David L. Babby, RCA Consulting Arborist P.O. Box 25295, San Mateo, California 94402 Email: arborresources @comcast.net Phone: 650.654.3351 Fax: 650.240.0777 Licensed Contractor #796763 inteo on recyc ed oa2er, BOO ;nco::por ted October 22, 1956 November 27, 2006 Mr. Paul Qien 14261: Springer Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mr. Qien, Li F.1\07 3777 FRUITVALE AVENUE o SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 828 -i200 This letter is to let you know of the decision made by the Community Development Department with respect to the concrete walkway on your property. The City Arborist has reviewed the report you obtained from Mark Beaudoin, and concurs with his conclusions: that if the concrete is replaced with pavers on sand for the stretch of walkway by the oak tree, it will be adequately protected, and the olive tree is not potentially endangered by the concrete portion of the walkway. Therefore, per Section 15- 80.120(d) of the City Code, I am approving a minor modification to your approved plans. This approved change will require pavers on sand entirely on top of grade only adjacent to the oak tree, for approximately seven linear feet of the walkway. The portion of the walkway that is next to the olive tree may remain concrete. COUNCIL MEMBERS: Riieen Kao Katkiee: King Norman Kline Nick Streit Ann V✓alonsmith This decision may be appealed to the Planning Commission within 15 days of the date of this letter, by filing an appeal application and the required filing fee, according to Section 15 -90 of the City Code. Once the appeal period ends, please contact Code Compliance Specialist Jana Rinaldi in order to finalize the schedule and arrange for final inspection. If you have any questions, please contact Kate Bear at (408) 868 -1276 or Jana Rinaldi at (408) 868 -1214, or I can be reached at (408) 868 -1231. Respectfully, John Livingstone Community Development Director Attachments: Appeal Application Copy of arborist report by Mark Beaudoin Cc: Yolanda Martin, 14251 Springer Avenue Jana Rinaldi, City of Saratoga NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The City of Saratoga's Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on: Wednesday, the 10 day of January, 2007, at 7:00 p.m. The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. The public hearing agenda item is stated below. Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday through Friday 7:30 a.m. 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us regarding Friday office closures. APPLICATION /ADDRESS: 07 -205; 14261 Springer Avenue APPLICANT /OWNER: Yolanda Martin; 14251 Springer Avenue/Paul Qian; 14261 Springer Avenue APN: 503 -27 -068 DESCRIPTION: The applicant requests the appeal of an Administrative Decision to approve a minor modification to approved plans. The project included a concrete walkway along the side of the house adjacent to trees. The site is located in the R -1 10,000 zoning district. The Administrative Decision was made pursuant to City Code Section 16- 05.035(c)2. All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a Public Hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing. In order for information to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed on or before Tuesday, January 2, 2007. This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 500 feet of the project that is the subject of this notice. The City uses the official roll produced by the County Assessor's office annually, in preparing its notice mailing lists. In some cases, out -of -date information or difficulties with the U.S. Postal Service may result in notices not being delivered to all residents potentially affected by a project. If you believe that your neighbors would be interested in the project described in this notice, we encourage you to provide them with a copy of this notice. This will ensure that everyone in your Community has as much information as possible concerning this project. Kate Bear Arborist (408) 868 -1276 CITY OF SARATOGA Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868 -1222 Compliant submitted on -line on 1/26/2006 via City of Saratoga web -site. I have tried for several months to obtain information from the City Building Department regarding my next door neighbor's construction project. My concerns and questions, for the most part, have gone unanswered by Sklyer (sorry I do not know his last name) and Brad Lind. My problems began almost a year ago when the fence between my property and that of my neighbors had fallen down. My neighbor was beginning his construction project and did not want to rebuild the fence until after his construction was completed. I had concerns about the large opening (and liability) from my property and the construction site and tried to call the city for information about fencing requirements around construction zones. I called many times and left messages for Skyler, who did not call me back. It wasn't until I became angry that someone called me back. I learned that someone had gone to the site and informed the contractor to put a fence. But a fence was not installed in a timely manner and no one from the City followed -up. It took several calls from me to the city before the contractor eventually put up the required fencing. Last August, the contractor dug a trench (for utilities) near the property line and under the canopy of my trees, trees that were noted by the city (oak, 2 olive and a maple). Weeks later I learned from a PG &E employee surveying the site that the trench was "illegal" and that PG &E did not want to have any part of it because of the potential damage and liability to the trees. When I learned this, I called the city once again (and again) and left a message(s). No one ever called me back! I finally reached a very nice woman named Lata Vasudevan who told me that an Arborist was sent out to review the site and submitted a report. I received a copy of the report and learned that the trench was dug in the wrong place and the health of my Oak tree had declined, in addition to other violations by the contractor /owner. The Arborist report also listed recommendations to help rectify the matter. The trench was, after 2 months, filled in and eventually a new trench was dug according to the original approved planning and design review. I, after reading the arborist report and speaking to an arborist, had concerns over the future health of my trees and the lack of city supervision over this project. I called to find out more about the construction and what my rights were concerning the protection of my trees. Again, Skyler did not call me back. Then one day by chance, he actually answered the phone and he agreed to meet me at lam (before office hours) on 11/14/2005 (correct date is 11/17/2005) to answer some of my questions and help me understand the issues my rights. I thought this very nice of Skyler to meet me in person so that we could get this completely resolved. He also knew that I worked in SF and would have to take a day off of work to get this handled. I was very appreciative of his flexibility and willingness to work with me. Unfortunately the morning of 11 /14 /2005(correct date is 11/17/2005), Skyler had a family emergency and was not available. Because I had taken the day off, I waited until 7:30am when the Building Department opened for public office hours. I met with Brad Lind who was extremely combative. He continually refused to answer my questions, or even tell me where I might need to go to get an answer. He was hostile, rude, loud, uncooperative, demeaning and abusive. I tried to explain that I did not understand the world (or speak the language) of "construction and building and planning" and only wanted to get some info, but he refused to help or even try and understand my issues /needed. He would continually interrupt me and yell at me. He accused me of being unreasonable and loud when in fact he was the one who was doing all the yelling. I tried to negotiate with him; tried to explain my ignorance over these matters and that I was looking for direction to help protect my trees. I felt abused and threatened and he drove me to tears. It was quite embarrassing. With his belittling interruptions he would interject, "DID YOU READ THE (PLANS). THAT'S PLANNING." I would try to reply that I did not know that was planning and that I could read the plans, but before I could finish, he would interrupt, "YOU NEED TO READ THE(PLANNING REPORT)." I read the report to the planning commissioner. The ladies in the planning office were very nice and I think they took pity on me because Mr. Lind was such a monster. While I was reading the report, Mr. Lind calmed down and tried to be nice me. He never apologized, but instead offered an excuse for his behavior. He said that he was a little heated because had traffic issues coming over the hill. I think Mr. Lind finally understood my concern to protect the trees. He told me that my neighbor had not complied with the Arborist recommendations in the 11/11/2005 (correct date is 10/17/2005) arborist report. My neighbor apparently filled the first trench, but did not fill it according to the specifications of the Arborist, because my neighbor said he understood they were only "recommendations." According to Mr. Lind, my neighbor did not understand that he was obliged to comply with the Arborist recommendations. Mr. Lind also told me that he would personally visit the construction site, check on concerns surrounding the trees and then call me. I gave him my business card. He said that he would probably not contact me until after the Thanksgiving holiday. I have yet to hear from Mr. Lind. I've called him twice and left messages, but he has never returned my calls. My concerns are, for the most part, my trees. 1. My neighbor has leveled the grade of his property. Piling dirt along the property line adjacent to me and adding soil to the natural grade under the maple, olive and oaks trees. (Our properties are on a slight hill. My neighbor is at the crest, sloping downward, and I'm on the downward side). The additional soil on top of the oak and olive tree roots is a concern from what I've been told by an arborist. 2. The constructing project has caused the ivy on my property (under my trees) to die off, causing major soil erosion and exposing the roots of the Oak tree. 3. My neighbor wants to construct a fence (where a fence did not exist before) along the property line under the trees and I have concerns about the fence posts (requiring 3 foot holes) severing large tree roots. Additionally, fence contractors want to remove what's left of the little ivy vegetation before constructing the fence. I worry about further soil erosion and additional exposure of the oak tree roots. 4. Drainage issues resulting from the grade increase near my property. The natural slope is sharper causing a huge puddle to form in my driveway. This will only be exasperated when landscaping sprinklers are installed. Recent rains have produced larger puddles (over 8 feet in diameter) than years past. What I would like to happen and maybe the city can help: 1. Increase the bond on the trees past the life of the construction project. Maybe a year or two to be certain that the trees will survive. Also have the arborist evaluate and make recommendation for the future survival of the trees. And have the city follow -up to be sure that provisions are carried out correctly. 2. Review the grading issues and problems. Require retaining walls for the increase grade to hopefully prevent further erosion and destruction of vegetation trees. Require replacement of the ivy vegetation. 3. Have an arborist recommend and approve fencing construction near the trees. 4. Require some kind of drainage system for water run off to prevent flooding and damage to my property. Thank you. I look forward to hearing from you. Citizen Complaint Form Page 1 of 1 COMPLAINANT'S INFORMATION COMPLAINANT NAME: Yolanda Martin ADDRESS: 14251 Springer Avenue, Saratoga,CA 95070 HOME PHONE: 408- 868 -0183 WORK PHONE: 415 947 -4998 EMAIL ADDRESS: yolanda.i.martin @wellsfargo.com yoyoyo @aol.com COMPLAINT LOCATION OF COMPLAINT: CROSS STREET: Jon k rtote.cli n httn://www.saratoaa.ca.us/citizencomnlaintform.htm Citizen Complaint Form PLEASE FILL IN THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO FILE A COMPLAINT. SOMEONE WILL GET BACK TO YOU AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. WE DO NOT TAKE ANONYMOUS COMPLAINTS. PLEASE FILL IN YOUR NAME AND CONTACT INFORMATION OR ELSE WE CANNOT GET THE PROCESS GOING. WE DO NOT DISCLOSE YOUR NAME WHEN FOLLOWING UP ON A COMPLAINT. 14261 Springer Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Forth Street I would like the walkway installed near my property line removed. The walkway was NOT installed according to the building plans. It is a cemet walkway and is not pervious. It was required that the walkway adjacent to trees #6 and #7 be installed on top of existing grade without a soil cut and if the surface material is a pervious material. DESCRIPTION OF COMPLAINT. The walkways was not installed on existing grade •(the grade was elevated) and is not of a pervious material. I would like the cemet removed. I've spoken to the City for several months regarding this (and other issues). I would like the walkway removed immediately. Thank you Submit Form l a pvs,�tcc�l. 1 nn 1 onnti Martin, Yolanda I. (RBCRM) From: Jana Rinaldi (jrinaldi @saratoga.ca.us] Sent: Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:45 PM To: Martin, Yolanda I. (RBCRM) Cc: Kate Bear Subject: Springer Tree /walkway Ms. Martin, just wanted to give you a quick update. This morning I spoke with City Arborist Kate Bear who informed me that she received a call from Mr. Qien to let her know that he contacted a certified arborist to help with the removal of his concrete walkway and intends to replace it with pavers. Kate and I will continue to monitor the potential work. Mr. Qien is aware that he must have the work started within 30 days or request a hearing with the Planning Commission. Thank you. Jana Rinaldi Jana .Rinaldi, Code Compliance Specialist City of `Saratoga 13777 Fruilvale Avenue, Saratoga frinaldi@saratoga.ca.us 408.868.1214 CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE The information contained in this e-mail message is privileged, confidential, and protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution, or copying is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail message in error, please e-mail the sender at jrinaldi @saratoga.ca.us or telephone (408) 868 -1214. 1/3/2007 Page 1 of 1