HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-27-2008 Planning Commission PacketFebruary 27, 2008 �-
I'
J y,
CITY OF SARATOGA
REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION
NAME
ADDRESS—
SUBJECT R 12., 1�`�V Fr L..—
AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE TELEPHONE NO. 406 62 S--
a
TIME OF DAY CARD IS FILLED OUT:
(Please read instructions on reverse side)
ANY PERSON DESIRING TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION:
Please approach the rostrum and, after receiving recognition from the Chair, state your name and
address and proceed to comment upon the agenda item you wish to discuss. No .member of the
audience will be called upon to address the Commission on any subject during the time that the
members are discussing the item. Following the discussion, and prior to a vote, the Chair will
recognize any member of the audience who wishes to speak on the subject. Speakers will be
recognized in the order these cards are. filled out.
You are welcome to attend all Planning Commission meetings, and your interest in the conduct
of public business is appreciated.
• CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
SITE VISIT AGENDA
DATE: Tuesday, February 26, 2008 — Approximately 3:30 p.m. — 5:00 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
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
AGENDA
1. APPLICATION# APTR08 -0001
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Kriens
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.
P:TC SITE VISITS \Site Visits\2008\.SVA 022608.doc
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
0 AGENDA
DATE: Wednesday, February 27,2008- 7:00 p.m.
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
ROLL CALL:
Commissioners Manny Cappello, Rishi Kumar, Robert Kundtz, Susie Nagpal, Linda Rodgers, Yan Zhao and Chair
Joyce Hlava
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
MINUTES: Draft Minutes from Regular Planning Commission Meeting of February 13, 2008
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 February 21, 2008
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:
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 #APTR08 -0001; (397 -08 -027) Kriens, 18940 Monte Vista Drive - The applicant is
appealing the denial of a tree removal permit application to remove six blue gum eucalyptus trees, and
requests a modification of conditions of approved plans for their project to construct a new single family
residence and compound, allowing the replacement of the six eucalyptus trees with new oak, redwood and
camphor trees equal to the appraised value of the eucalyptus trees.
DIRECTORS ITEM:
0- None
COMMISSION ITEMS:
None
P: \PC Agendas\2008 \022708.doc
COMMUNICATIONS
- None
ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING
Wednesday, March 12, 2008 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 February 21,
2008 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 Planning(a!saratoQa.ca.us
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
•
•
P: \PC Agendas\2008 \022708.doc
• MINUTES
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DATE: Wednesday, February 13, 2008
PLACE: Council Chambers /Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA
TYPE: Regular Meeting
Chair Hlava called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
Absent: Commissioners Cappello and Nagpal
Staff: Director John Livingstone, Senior Planner Chris Riordan, Planner Shweta 8hatt
and Assistant City Attorney Bill Parkin
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
APPROVAL OF MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 23, 2008.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner Zhao,
the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of January 23,
2008, were adopted as submitted. (5 -0 -2; Commissioners Cappello and
Nagpal were absent)
ORAL COMMUNICATION
There were no Oral Communications.
REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA
Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the
agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 7, 2008.
REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS
Chair Hlava announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by
filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of
the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15- 90.050(b).
CONSENT CALENDAR
There were no Consent Calendar items.
I�
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1
APPLICATION #MOD07 -0001 (510 -03 -012) Labio, 15211 Bellecourt Drive: The applicant
requests a Modification to a previously approved Design Review application. The modification
is for a 110 square foot addition to a 6,008 square foot house approved by the Planning
Commissioner on July 11, 2007. The proposal includes demolition of the existing 2;364
square foot residence. The maximum proposed impervious coverage is 35 percent of the site.
The maximum height of -the proposed building is 26 feet. The lot size is 45,784 square feet
and the site is zoned R- 1- 40,000. (Heather Bradley)
Mr. John Livingstone, Community Development Director, presented the staff report as follows:
Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for an additional 110 square feet to a
previously approved Design Review approval for an approximately 6,000 square foot
house:
• : Described the site. as being a little more than an acre at 45,784 square feet.
• Reminded that the original approval was for the demolition of an existing house,
guesthouse and pool and the construction of a new house with basement and four -car
garage:
• Stated that this Modification request increases the basement slightly as well as the first
floor, slightly expanding. the breakfast nook, family room and garage.
• Said that there are no other changes to the project's contemporary Mediterranean
architectural style.
Said. that the project is consistent with both Design Review and General Plan
requirements.
• Reported that neighbors have provided three letters of support.
• Recommended approval.
Chair'Hlava opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1.
Ms. Amira Sofer, Project Designer:
Said' that this request is for an- addition of 110 square feet to the original approval.
Reported that they have also received a letter of support from the closest neighbor.
Chair Hlava closed the -public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. .
Commissioner Kundtz:
Said that he liked this project before and still likes it.
• Added that .he. appreciates the support provided by the nearest neighbors who most likely
could be impacted.
• Stated that he could make the findings and supports this proposal.
Commissioner Rodgers added that if those neighbors ever decide to construct a second.story
they can position. windows in offset locations from those on this residence.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 3
City Attorney Bill Parkin suggested added text to the end of Condition 5 to read, "...and will be
subject to approval by the Community Development Director."
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Kundtz, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the Planning Commission approved a Modification (Application
#MOD08 -0001) to a previously approved Design Review approval to allow
an additional 110 square feet for a new home to be constructed on
property located at 14211 Bellecourt Drive, with the modified condition, by
the following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal
ABSTAIN: None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2
Commissioner Zhao reported that she must recuse herself from Item No. 2 as she lives within
noticing distance. She left the dais and chambers.
APPLICATION #MOD07 -0003, CUP08 -0001 (517 -22 -072) Arimilli, 15400 Peach Hill Road:
The applicant requests a Conditional Use Permit for the construction of an eight foot tall, 97
square foot Cabana within the rear yard setback and modifications to an approved Design
Review application. Modifications include 1) altering the layout of the driveway near the front
entrance to avoid conflict with existing water meters; 2) proposed rear yard landscaping to
include concrete patios, swimming pool and pond; 3) construction of the cabana, and 4) the
removal of five trees (including three oak trees) to accommodate the revised driveway location
and the removal of one Eucalyptus tree for the construction of the cabana. The property is
zoned R- 1- 40,000. (Chris Riordan)
Senior Planner Chris Riordan presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit and Modification to a
previously approved Design Review approval that was approved on October 10, 2007.
• Reminded that the original approval was for a new two -story single - family residence.
• Explained that the modifications include altering the driveway; the landscaping of the rear
yard to include pool, patio and pond; and construction of a cabana.
• Added that the cabana requires a Conditional Use Permit as it needs to be located within
the setback area.
• Said that there is also need to removal four Oak trees and one Eucalyptus tree. Two of
the Oaks have Oak Beetle disease. One 48 -inch box Oak tree will be replanted.
• Recommended approval of the Conditional Use Permit and Modification to the previous
Design Review approval.
Commissioner. Rodgers asked if there is a materials board.
Planner Chris Riordan replied yes and passed it around.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 4
Chair Hlava asked where the Oak would be replanted in the center of the drive. Is it within the
planter area. .
Planner Chris Riordan replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers'-asked what material the pillars are. made of. Are they natural, or
artificial?
Planner Chris . Riordan -said he believes they are manufactured stone but would defer that
question to the applicant.
Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No 2.
Mr. Raul Arimilli, Applicant:
• Said he is seeking approval of his landscape plan that was developed by a Landscape
Architect and Solar Power Engineer after the.original approval was granted.
• Said that he must remove three trees in front and one in back and located the cabana next
to the pool.
• Reported that the photovoltaic panels need to - face the south and will _ be located on the
cabana roof.
• ' Apologized for any inconvenience cause by this return for modifications.
Stated that it was_his mistake not to concentrate more on the landscape prior to this.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the fireplace in the cabana would be gas.
Mr. Raul Arimilli replied yes.
Chair Hlava.asked for further details on the columns from the project architect.
Mr. Marty Oakley, Project Architect:
• Explained that the columns on the cabana would be pre -cast and identical to the house.
They are made of pre -cast canterra stone.
Added` that they are not concrete but are real stone.
Commissioner Rodgers asked, if they are fire _resistant.
Mr. Marty Oakley said that they -are natural stone, like a rock.
Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 2.
Chair Hlava. asked where the. requirement for the replacement 48 -inch box Oak tree should be
added in the resolution. ;
City Attorney Bill Parkin. suggested adding. it to Condition 5, Front Yard Landscaping to read,
"and would include a 48 -inch box Oak."
U
•
0.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 5
Commissioner Rodgers asked the City Attorney if the language for the eotechnical condition
9 Y Y 9
should also be edited.
City Attorney Bill Parkin replied yes and suggested adding the text, "...and subject to approval
of the Community Development Director."
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Kundtz, the Planning Commission approved a Modification (Application
#MOD -07 -0003) and Conditional Use Permit (Application #08 -0001) for
modifications to an approved Design Review application to include
placement of a cabana within the rear side yard setback, alteration of the
driveway, rear yard landscaping including pool, patio and pond and
removal of four trees on property located at 15400 Peach Hill Road, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz and Rodgers
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal
ABSTAIN: Zhao
Commissioner Zhao returned to the meeting at the conclusion of Item No. 2.
01. PUBLIC HEARING -ITEM NO. 3
APPLICATION #ADR07 -0022 (393 -38 -007) Biian /Sangam, 13574 Howen Drive: The
applicant requests Design Review approval to demolish the existing second floor of the
approximately 3,217 square foot residence and construct a new second floor. The existing
second floor is approximately 457 square feet and the proposed second floor is approximately
498 square feet. Changes to windows, siding and a new roof are also proposed. The lot size
is approximately 11,270 square feet and the site is located in the R -1- 10,000 zoning district.
Design Review approval is required pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code Section 15- 45.060.
( Shweta Bhatt)
Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Distributed a materials board.
• Explained that the applicant is seeking approval for a new 498 square foot second story on
an existing two -story residence, which is slightly larger than the existing second story.
• . Reported that adding 42 square feet to the garage and a bay window in the dining room
would modestly enlarge the first floor.
• Said that the proposed colors are earth tones including beige siding and a carriage style
garage door.
• Added that the maximum height is 22 feet where 26 is allowed.
Advised that several neighbor templates have been received and no additional comments
have been received.
• Said that the project is Categorically Exempt under CEQA.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 6
• Stated that staff can make all the Design Review findings in the affirmative and
recommends approval.
Commissioner Kundtz asked about the garage door.
Planner Shweta Bhatt said that they are proposing a new carriage style garage door.
Chair Hlava.opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Ms. Layla Bijan, Project Designer:
• Said that the existing second story is non- conforming and their proposed second story
meets required setbacks.
• Reported that there are no new windows facing the neighbors but rather all windows would
be located back in their original placements on the new second. story.
• Pointed out that they_ have minimized the height and bulk so that they are well below the
allowed maximum.
• Stated that this particular neighborhood has a mixture of both one and. two -story, homes
and this house is consistent. The proposed natural colors blend in.
Chair Hlava asked for clarification that the front rooms of the house would also come out by
two feet as the garage is proposed to do.
Ms. Layla Bijan said that-is correct:
Chair Hlava expressed appreciation to Ms. Layla Bijan for taking the time to create a model of
this home.
Commissioner Rodgers added that the Commission also appreciations the inclusion of the
carriage style'garage door:
Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 3.
Motion: Upon motion . of Commissioner Zhao, seconded by Commissioner
Rodgers, the. Planning Commission granted Design Review approval to
allow the demolition and reconstruction of an approximately 498 square
foot second story on property located at 13574 -Howen Drive, by the
following roll call vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT: Cappello and Nagpal
ABSTAIN. None
PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM 'NO. 4
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008 Page 7
APPLICATION #CUP07 -0001 386 -14 -016 Metro PCS 12768 Sarato a Avenue: The
applicant is requesting Conditional Use Permit approval to locate a wireless facility at the
Presbyterian Church near the intersection of Cox Avenue and Saratoga Avenue. The project
consists of a new cross structure with concealed antennas and a new equipment cabinet
enclosed in a shed. The lot size is approximately 3.74 acres and the site is zoned R -1-
10,000. (Shweta Bhatt)
Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Planner, presented the staff report as follows:
• Reported that the applicant seeks Conditional Use Permit approval to install a wireless
facility at the Presbyterian Church located at the intersection of Cox and Saratoga.
Avenues.
• Said that the provider is Metro PCS, who have six other installations within the city. Two
additional applications were approved in June and December.
• Said that the proposal is to remove an existing cross and mount a new cross that is one
foot, four inches taller than the existing cross.
• Advised that a bond would be required as well as protective fencing for six trees.
• Said that 97 pieces of mail went out and 19 were returned. Most did not list concerns.
There were questions about height but no additional comments.
• Stated that there is a condition to paint the shed to match the church and for landscaping
to screen that shed. Additionally, a Noise Assessment Study will be required.
• Recommended that the Planning Commission approve this project.
Chair Hlava opened the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
Ms. Kelly Pepper, Representative for MetroPCS:
• Said that they are seeking to achieve improved and increased coverage with this
installation.
• Advised that they have agreed to the staff request for curb stops instead of bollards.
• Said that on the issue of prohibiting excavation, they will actually require six inches of
excavation to install the concrete pad to build a foundation for the relocated shed. This is
required to meet Building Code.
• Reminded that there is a $42,000 bond that will be in place on the trees.
Commissioner Kundtz suggested amending the condition to read, "...excavation not to exceed
six inches in depth." He asked the City Attorney if that was acceptable.
City Attorney Bill Parkin replied certainly.
Chair Hlava pointed out that there are duplicate conditions (No. 7 and No. 15). She
suggested eliminating Condition 7 and leaving Condition 15. She asked Ms. Pepper to verify
that the shed is already there and will simply be relocated.
Ms. Kelly Pepper said yes.
Commissioner Kumar asked about a small pocket wet of Saratoga and south of Cox that does
not have coverage. He asked why.
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes-of February 13, 2008
Page 8
•
Ms. Kelly Pepper said she is not the technical person but could report that there are often
small holes in the coverage that occur due to issues such as topography, trees or tall
buildings.
Commissioner Rodgers asked if the church's adjacent property would clean up its landscaping
debris, including a dried out Christmas tree.
Ms. Kelly Pepper said that she could relay that concern to the church.
Commissioner Rodgers. asked for verification that there would be no interference with ratios,
televisions, etc., as a result of this installation:
Ms. Kelly Pepper replied. no.
Chair Hlava sought assurance that the equipment was not loud.
Ms. Kelly- Pepper replied no.
Chair Hlava closed the Public Hearing for Agenda Item No. 4.
City Attorney Bill Parkin made edits to two conditions as follows:
• Condition 13 - add the text, "... and subject,to approval by the Community Development
Director."
• Condition 17 - add the text, "... and. subject to approval by the City Arborist."
Commissioner Kundtz:
• Said that this- represents a vast improvement, as the existing cross looks more like an
antenna.
• Added that the new cross Js a better marker or symbol for this church.
Commissioner - Rodgers reported that the church is in favor of this change.
Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Rodgers, seconded by Commissioner
Zhao, the- Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to
locate a wireless facility within a new cross structure with concealed
antennas and a new equipment cabinet enclosed in a shed on property
located at 12768 Saratoga Avenue, as modified, by the following roll call
vote:
AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Rodgers and Zhao
NOES: None
ABSENT:' Cappello and Nagpal
ABSTAIN:. None
DIRECTOR S.ITEMS
•
Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of February 13, 2008. Page 9
Director John Livingstone:.
• Advised that the City Council would be having a joint meeting with the Planning
Commission on March 19, 2008, and suggested that the Commissioners start thinking
about topics.
• Added that he would be out of the office until February 25tH
COMMISSION ITEMS
Commissioner Rodgers reported that the second reading was taken on the Neglected
Properties Ordinance. She asked if Commissioners have submitted any.comments on the
Fence Ordinance.
Director John Livingstone replied that he is not aware of any comments received.
Commissioner Zhao asked staff if there are any new proposals for the North Campus
Director John Livingstone replied no.
Commissioner Zhao asked how.long the joint session with the Council would last.
Director John Livingstone said he would have a better idea closer to the date. It would likely
begin some time between 5:30 and 6 p.m.
Commissioner Rodgers suggested a meeting to prepare.
Chair Hlava suggested perhaps a Study Session.
Director John Livingstone said the Commission was welcome to do so.
Chair Hlava asked if this Study Session could be held at 5:30 p.m. prior to the March 12th
meeting.
Director John Livingstone replied yes.
Commissioner Rodgers also suggested following the site visits on March 11th
Commissioner Kundtz said he had a conflict on the evening of March 11th
Chair Hlava said that in addition to passing the Neglected Properties Ordinance, Council also
approved issuance of an RFP for the Housing Element.
Director John Livingstone said that he has received direction from Council to have staff work
on both the Non - Conforming Use Ordinance and Sign Ordinance.
0 COMMUNICATIONS
•
E
•
Item 1
REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Application No./Location: APTR08-0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
Type of Application: Appeal of the denial of a Tree Removal Permit and request
for a Modification of PC Design Review conditions
Applicant/Owner: Scoff and Joanie Kriens, Appellants and Property Owners
Staff Arborist: Kate Bear -
Meeting
7\D
Date: February 27, 2008
APN: 397-08-027
Department Head: John F. Livingstone, AICP
Subject:
105
18940 Monte Vista
y RiVo
APN: 397-08 -027
"! A
500' Radius LOO Aa.
34
A
45
It
50, N
A
I?"
4 jt 02. At k '.
AC.
14
2 7 1 A L
151A D
0
VE 4
z
1077
AC 43A tso '6 5 47 1
Z4
02s m I I
Z6 I
$ Z7 5
It
%! 01' 45
-J,5
PCLA
'�%&zu
'92Ar-fl-
-T
I
IPCL I.
.97AC-H .4 ' - �f9 MONTEW000
ZO
1C'0 Rzg ms
L9
6
cr.
I. Pc�
T2s..m So,
117
,ossAO. '9
V '1IL
b 17
-'r SIDE LO-1 P Z4
L" AC
Z5 Z4
`oj9A
Z5
`B Wo AC.. to
%o A C Ilk
54RA-roG.
-,1
42 At I
-Los
GAT
ff I
'Q
oS.
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Application No. APTR08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CASE HISTORY
Design Review Approval:
3/28/07
Tree Removal Permit Application filed:
10/23/07
Tree Removal Permit Application denied:
11/19/07
Appeal Application Filed:
1/24/08
Notice published:
2/13/08
Mailing completed:
2/6/08
Posting completed:
2/21/08
PROJECT. DESCRIPTION:
The owner of the property at 18940 Monte Vista Drive has appealed the City's denial of Tree
Removal Permit application TRP07 -0628 and requested a modification of approval
conditions for a project approved by the Planning Commission on March 28, 2007 (07 -101).
The applicant wishes to remove six Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) trees ( #23, 26, 27, 32, 33
and 34 on the attached site map) growing in the rear and side yards.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission deny the appeal retain the six Eucalyptus
trees:
STAFF ANALYSIS
PROJECT DISCUSSION
The application for removal of the six eucalyptus trees was denied because the trees did not
meet the criteria in City Code Section 15- 50.080. They appear to be in good health, they are
not causing damage and they do not appear to be structurally unsound.
The applicant has requested approval to remove the trees because one neighbor is concerned
that they may fall on their house and they are messy. In addition, they will be constructing
their new home near to eucalyptus #23, and are concerned that it may cause damage to the
new house. They wish to replace the six eucalyptus with new trees including oaks, redwoods
and camphor trees.
When the applicants submitted the preliminary plan for arborist review they showed all six
eucalyptus trees to be removed. During the design review process the applicant decided to
retain the trees. They stated that this decision was made due to the high appraisal values
2
Application No. APTR08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
given to the six trees. The appraisal value for these trees included an error in one of the
' multipliers, resulting in incorrect values for these trees. A revised appraisal value is
significantly lower, and the owners are willing to replace these six trees with new trees equal
to their appraised value of $7,810.
FINDINGS
Saratoga is primarily a residential community where economic property values are
inseparably connected with the attractiveness of the area resulting from the native and
ornamental trees planted throughout the city.
The goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of
their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the
establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees.
Denial of the appeal is consistent with the General Plan, including the following Policies:
Conservation Element Policy 24 - Through implementation of the Tree Preservation
Ordinance, the City shall control the removal or destruction of trees.
The denial of the permit retains the mature trees.
Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that the
new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent
surroundings.
Initially the applicants submitted a preliminary landscape plan showing all of the eucalyptus
trees to be removed, but no plan to replace them. During the design review process the
applicants decided to retain the six trees and have received approval for this project
including retention of the eucalyptus trees.
Denial of the appeal is consistent with the City Code, including the following sections:
Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 50.080 in order for a Tree Removal Permit to be issued, the
tree removal permit application shall be reviewed and determined based on the following
criteria:
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling,
proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services.
The request to remove the six eucalypts does not meet this criterion in that the
trees appear to be in good health and not diseased. The trees also do not
appear to be in danger of falling, are not too close to existing or proposed
structures, and do not interfere with utilities. They appear to have been well
maintained.
3
Application No. APTR08- 0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
(2) The necessity to remove the trees for physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property.
The request to remove the six eucalyptus does not meet this criterion, in that it
is not causing damage. to any structures on either the appellant's or the
neighbor's properties and does not threaten damage to the proposed house at
this time..
(3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon erosion,
soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters.
This. criterion does not apply. This part of the lot is flat and erosion is not an
issue whether the trees are removed or retained, as long as it is landscaped.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring
properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic
beauty, property values and established standards of the area.
The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that their removals
will "have a - significant impact on the amount of shade and privacy for the
property. There are additional trees in this area of the property, but removal
of the eucalyptus would leave a hole in the landscape that would require.new
trees and time to fill in. Although eucalyptus trees are messy, the City Code
does not have a provision to remove and replace trees because they create
litter or require cleanup.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees. the property is able to support according to good
forestry practices.
The proposed tree removal does meet this criterion, in that this section of the
property is somewhat crowded with trees. Removal of trees #26 and 27 will
provide more space and sunlight for oak tree #28.
(6) Whether or not there are: any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not
encroaching. on the protected trees.
The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the landscape
can; include the existing mature eucalyptus trees rather than new trees.
Regular maintenance and cleanup of the trees can result in attractive trees
within `the current landscape. Eucalyptus trees are drought tolerant and
perform well in the clay soils of this area. Redwoods require a lot of water
and camphor trees are slow- growing, requiring along time to fill in the
landscape.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the !
4
Application No. APTR08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
general purpose and intent of this Article.
The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of
the request to remove the six eucalyptus trees is in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect healthy,
mature trees in the City.
(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.
Removal of the six eucalyptus trees does not meet this criterion. At this time,
no documentation has been provided to the City with information on damage
to structures concluding that the trees require removal in order to maintain
safety or improve public health or welfare.
(9) The necessity to remove the trees for economic or other enjoyment of the property
when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal.
Removal of the tree does meet this criterion. The appellants have expressed a
desire to change the landscape in this section of the property to mirror the
landscape across the street by planting camphor trees in place of eucalyptus
trees.
0 NOTIFICATION
A notice of the public hearing is being provided to property owners within 500 feet of the
applicant and is being published in the Saratoga News. Staff has not received any comments
from neighbors.
CONCLUSION
Removal of the redwood is not adequately supported by the General Plan or the criteria of
Section 15- 50.080 of the City Code, and it is recommended for retention. The applicant has
met the burden of proof on criteria #5 and 9, but not on criteria #1, 2, 4, and 6 — 8 for the
removal of the six eucalyptus trees. Criterion #3 does not apply.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 08 -008 for the Denial of the removal of six eucalyptus trees
2. Resolution 07 -042 with Conditions of Approval for DR07 -101
3. Arborist reports for DR07 -101, dated April 27, 2006 and March 19, 2007
4. The appeal form submitted by the applicant
5
Application No. APTR08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
5 Tree removal permit application, including City denial.
6. Affidavit of Mailing Notices, Public Hearing Notice, Mailing Labels
no
•
•
•
•
•
Attachment 1
Application No. APTR 08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive - Kriens
RESOLUTION 08 -008
Application No. APTR08 -0001
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Scott and Joanie Kriens; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
Resolution Denying the Appeal of the Denial of a Tree Removal Permit Application
. - WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning. Commission has received an appeal
of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove six eucalyptus trees at 18940
Monte Vista Drive; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed Public Hearing at
which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present
evidence; and
WHEREAS, -the goal of the City is to balance. the rights and privileges .of
property owners for the -use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an
-urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal
and replacement of trees; and
WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree
.Removal Permit set' forth in Section 15- 50.080, the Planning Commission finds that
overall the applicant -has not met the burden of proof required to support said application
for the Tree Removal Permit for six eucalyptus trees as identified in the application for
tree removal. After review of all the criteria regarding a permit for removal of the trees,
.the following findings have been made by the Planning Commission:
-Approval of the appeal 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 Planning Commission has reviewed the appeal and found that the request to remove
the six eucalyptus trees does not overall meet the criteria in the Tree Preservation
Ordinance.
Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that
the-new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
adjacent surroundings.
Initially the applicants submitted a preliminary landscape plan showing all of the
eucalyptus trees to be removed, . but no plan to replace them. During the design review
•
•
Application No. APTR 08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive - Kriens
process the applicants decided to retain the six trees and have received approval for this
project including retention of the eucalyptus trees.
(1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling,
proximity to existing or proposed structures, and interference with utility services.
The six trees are in good health and do not exhibit any disease. In addition
they do not appear to be in imminent danger of falling, do not interfere
with utilities and are not close to existing structures. They appear to have
been well maintained. All six trees are at a sufficient distance from
existing and proposed structures that they do not cause concern about
damage to new or existing structures from the tree roots.
The request to remove the six eucalypts does not meet this. criterion in that
the trees appear to be in good health and not diseased. The trees also do
not appear to be in danger of falling, are not too close to existing or
proposed structures, and do not interfere with utilities.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree for physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property.
The request to remove the six eucalyptus does not meet this criterion, in
that it is not causing damage to any structures on either the appellant's or
the neighbor's properties and does not threaten damage to the future
house at this time.
(3) The topography of the land and the effect the tree removal would have upon
erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters.
This criterion does not apply. This part of the lot is flat and erosion is not
an issue whether, the trees are removed or retained, as long as it is
landscaped.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees on this and neighboring
properties and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact,
scenic beauty, property values and established standards of the area.
The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that their
removals will have a significant impact on the amount of shade and
privacy for the property. There are additional trees in this area of the
property, but removal of the eucalyptus would leave a hole in the
landscape that would require new trees and time to fill in. Although
eucalyptus trees are messy, the City Code does not have a provision to
remove and replace trees because they create litter or require cleanup.
Is (5) The number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good
Application No. APTR 08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive - Kriens
forestry practices.
The proposed tree removal does meet this criterion, in that this section of
the property is somewhat crowded with trees. Removal of trees #26 and 27
will provide more space and sunlight for oak tree #28.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not
encroaching on the protected tree.
The proposed tree removals do not meet this criterion, in that the
landscape can include the existing mature eucalyptus trees rather than
new trees. Regular maintenance and cleanup of the trees can result in
attractive trees within the current landscape. Eucalyptus trees are drought
tolerant and perform well in the clay soils of this area. Redwoods require
a lot of water . and camphor trees are slow - growing, requiring a long time
to fill in the landscape.
(7) Whether -the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the
general.purpose and intent of this Article.
The proposed tree removal does not meet this criterion, in that approval of
the _ request to remove the six eucalyptus trees is in conflict with the
general purpose and intent of this Article, which is to preserve and protect
healthy, mature trees in the City.
(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.
Removal of the six eucalyptus trees does not meet this criterion. At this
time, no documentation has been provided to the. City with information on
damage to structures concluding that the trees require removal in order to
maintain safety or improve. public health or welfare.
(9) _It is- necessary to remove _the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property
when there-is no other feasible alternative to the removal.
Removal of the .tree does meet this criterion. The appellants have
expressed a desire to change the landscape in this section of the property
to mirror the landscape across the street by planting camphor trees in
place of eucalyptus trees.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission does hereby resolve as follows:
Section L The appeal of the tree removal permit shall be denied.
Section 2. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of Article. 1'5 -90 of the Saratoga
•
•
Application No. APTR 08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive Kriens
City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of
adoption.
CITY ATTORNEY
Applicant shall hold the 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 the 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 request.
All applicable requirements of the State, County, City or other governmental entities
must be met.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of
California, on the date of February 27, 2008 by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
�J
Joyce Hlava
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
John F. Livingstone, AICP
Secretary, Planning Commission
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. 07 -042
Application No. 07 -101
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Kriens; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an application to
demolish a single - family residence with attached garage and construct a single- family,
single -story, residence and multiple detached accessory structures. The total floor area of
the proposed residence and all accessory structures will be approximately 6,331 square -feet.
The maximum height of the proposed residence will not be higher than 26 -feet. The net lot
size is 56,018 square -feet and the site is zoned R -1- 40,000; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 45.060(6) requires Design Approval by the
Planning Commission when proposed construction, reconstruction or expansion, the floor
area of all structures on the site will exceed six thousand square feet. The applicant requests
Design Review Approval to construct multiple structures resulting in a total floor area of
6,331 sq. ft.; and
WHEREAS, Zoning Code Section 15- 12.100 (b) requires approval by the Planning
Commission when an accessory structure's proposed height exceeds fifteen feet. The
proposal includes a two- story, 17 ft. 11 in. accessory Study /Garage; 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
. I WHEREAS, The existing home is less than 50 -years old and not been identified as a
cultural resource; therefore, the proposal is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 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.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Design Review, and is consistent with the following General Plan Policies:
Conservation Element Policy 6.0 - Protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by
carefully considering the visual impact of new development. The proposal will utilize an
existing developed building site in an established residential neighborhood; thereby avoiding
development of vacant land in the community thus protecting the existing rural atmosphere
of Saratoga.
Land Use Element Policy S.0 -The City shall use the design review process to assure that
isthe new construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the
Application No. 07- 1011Kriens
adjacentsurroundings. —As- conditioned; the application meets the Findings required for
Design Approval.
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to support said
application for Design Review approval, and the following findings have been determined:
(a) Avoid unreasonable interference with views and privacy. The proposal has been
designed to minimize interference with views and privacy of 4butting parcels by
utilizing the, gentle_ slopes of the parcel. The maximum height proposed for all
structures is less than 18 -feet. The proposal meets or exceeds minimum setback
requirements. -The proposal avoids unreasonable interference with views and
privacy.
VA
(b) Preserve. Natural Landscape. The applicant is requesting removal of five trees and
will incorporate grading; however, grading will not be so dramatic as to change the
natural landscape. Given the size of the, site there will be minimal impacts to .
natural landscaping:
(c) . Preserve Native and Heritage Trees. As conditioned, only one native tree will be
removed; a. Coast Live Oak.
(d) Minimize perception of excessive bulk The ,proposal will integrate building
materials and colors utilized by the development to the East; thereby, blending into
the neighborhood and minimizing perception of excessive bulk.. In addition, the
applicant is proposing a mix of building materials, including: copper gutters; terra -
cotta barrel tile roofs; stone veneer planter walls; exposed wood beams, decorative
iron railings and stucco exterior for the buildings, all of which combine to minimize
perception of excessive bulk.
(e),. Compatible bulk and height The proposed structures range in height from
approximately 9 feet to 17, feet in height. The neighborhood is a mix of single -story
and two -story single - family detached homes with various accessory structures;
therefore, the proposal would not look out of scale and would be compatible in bulk
and height.
(f) Current grading and erosion control methods. Grading will be required as part of
the proposed project. As conditioned, the applicant will comply with the City's
grading and erosion control methods.
(g) Design policies and techniques... The proposed project 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.
2
•
•
n
Application No. 07- 1011Kriens
WHEREAS,,, the - applicant- has- met the - -burden -of proof required -to suppbt said -. --
application for Height Extension approval,, and the following findings have been
determined:
(a) The additional height is. necessary in order to establish architectural
compatibility with the main structure on the site. The proposal consists of an
integration of two legal lots of record with a single owner. Generally, an accessory
structure is subordinate in nature to the main structure, which is usually a residence.
In this instance, a residence was created in order to meet the City's requirement that
a legal lot of record must have a residence as a primary structure in order to have .
accessory structures. In actuality, the main structure is located on the adjacent
parcel. In this unique situation the additional height of the study /garage is required to
integrate all of the buildings into a cohesive architectural design and to help create a
sense of continuity.
(b) The accessory structure will be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood.
At approximately 17 feet in height, the accessory structure will not appear massive
or bulky as viewed from the front of the parcel at Monte Vista Drive.
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 for Design
Review approval is hereby granted subject to the following conditions:
PERMANENT CONDITONS OF APPROVAL — None
CURRENT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL CONDITIONS —
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
1. The development shall be. located and constructed as shown on Exhibit "A" date
stamped February 20, 2007, incorporated by reference. All changes to the approved
plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes and are subject to the
Community Development Director's approval.
2. The project shall utilize materials illustrated on a materials board date stamped January
18, 2007.
3. The following shall be required and/or included as to the plans submitted to the
Building Division for the building plan check review process:
a. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans incorporating this Resolution as a
separate plan page.
9
Application No. 07- 1011Kriens
- -- —b�- -The - following -note shall -be- included: "A maxirrium of one wood = burning fireplace
is permitted and it shall be equipped with a gas starter. All other fireplaces shall be
gas burning."
c. The following note shall be included verifying building setback: "Prior to
foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall
.provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per approved plans."
4. A storm water retention plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval
indicating how all storm. water will be retained on -site, and incorporating the New
Development and Construction - Best Management Practices. If all storm water cannot
be retained on -site due to topographic, soils or other constraints, an explanatory note
shall be provided on the plan.
5. Landscape plan shall be designed with efficient irrigation to reduce runoff, promote
surface infiltration and minimize use of fertilizers and pesticides that can contribute to
water pollution.
6. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated- to treat storm water
runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that
provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and
prolong exposure to water shall be specified.
7. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the
landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area.
8. Plant- materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil
type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air
movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions 'to erisure
successful establishment.
9. Existing native trees, shrubs,, and ground cover shall be retained and incorporated into
the landscape plan to the maximum extent possible.
10. Staff shall not approve . downgrading to the exterior appearance of the approved
residence. -Downgrades may include, but are not limited to, garage doors, architectural
detailing, stonework, columns, shutters, driveway: materials, or similar items. Any
exterior changes" to approved plans resulting in a downgrade shall require filing an
additional application and fees for review by the Planning Commission as a
modification to approved plans. Any other exterior changes to the approved plans,
which are not deemed a downgrade by staff, shall require a Zoning Clearance issued by
the Community Development Director with payment of appropriate fees.
11. All processing fees, in the form of deposit accounts on file with the community
development department, shall be reconciled with a minimum $500.00 surplus balance
at all times. In the event that the balance is less than $500.00, all staff work on the
project shall cease until the balance is restored to a minimum $500.00.
11
Application No. 07- 101/Kriens
FIRE DISTRICT
12. Applicant shall comply with all Fire Department conditions.
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
13. The owner /applicant is responsible for all damages to curb /gutter and the public street as
result of project construction and construction vehicles. The public Works Director will
determine if any repair is required prior to final occupancy approval.
14. Applicant shall comply with all Public Works conditions, including but not limited to,
Geotechnical Conditions issued on November 8, 2006, via a memo from Iveta
Harvancik, Associate Engineer, to Therese M. Schmidt, AICP, Associate Planner.
ARBORIST REPORT
The City Arborist reviewed this project and prepared two reports dated April 27, 2006, and
March 19, 2007. The recommendations. contained in these reports are hereby included as
conditions of approval and shall be incorporated as part of the plans. Among the
recommendations outlined in this report are the following:
15. Prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance the two arborist reports shall be incorporated
into the plan set.
16. Prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance the applicant shall either submit revised
drawings for review and approval by the City's arborist illustrating either relocation,
redesign, or removal of the detached garage and carport or relocate the protected Black
Oak (Tree No. 22) to a location approved by the Community Development Director to
ensure survival of a protected Black Oak (Tree No. 22).
17. A bond equal to $97,580.00, which is 100% of the value of the Ordinance - protected
trees to be retained, is required prior to issuance of final Zone Clearance.
CITY ATTORNEY
18. Owner and Applicant agree 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.
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.
0 Section 3. All applicable requirements of the State, County, City and other
Governmental entities must be met.
5
Application No. 07- 1011Kriens
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 28th day of March 2007 by the following roll call vote:
AYES: HLAVA, RODGERS, CAPPELLO, ZHAO, NAGPAL, KUNDTZ, KUMAR
NOES:
ABSENT'
ABSTAIN:
Linda R. Rodgers
Chair, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
John F. Livingstone CP
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.
C.¢ -Z1 -D�
Pro erty Owner or Authorized Agent Date
6
Attachment 3,,
•
a
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
18940 Monte Vista Drive Application #• 06 -312
ARBORIST REPORT April 27, 2006
APN 397 -08 -027 Prepared by Kate Be
.:owner* Scott.and Joanie Kriens iSA Certified Arborist WE 2250A
INTRODUCTIOhl
The property owner of 18940 Monte Vista Drive. has submitted plans to demolish his existing house, pool
and tennis court and build a new conference cener with an office, fitness room, guest house, batting cage
and putting green on the property.
A total of 34 trees on this property are protected by City Ordinance 15 -050 and were inventoried for this
project. They include thirteen coast live oaks (# 1, 3 -6, 11, 15 -19, 21, and 28), six eucalyptus ( #23, 26, 27
and 32 -34), four Monterey pines ( #24, 25 29 and 31), three deodar cedars ( #7 -9), three camphor trees
( #12 -14), two redwoods ( #10. and 30), one birch tree ( #20), one valley oak ( #2) and one black oak ( #22).
Data for each tree is compiled in. a table at the end of this report. Tree locations are noted on the attached
copy of the Topographic Survey dated August 2005.
The plans reviewed for this report include the'Topographic Survey dated August 2005, by Je#irey M.
Barnea, and Sheet IA, Preliminary Concept Plan dated November 11, 2005 by Kikuchi and Associates.
This report.is preliminary. -Another review will be required in order to determine the bond amount and
values associated-with replacement of trees to be-removed.
Site Observations, Plan Review and Technical Discussion
.The. concept plan does not show existing trees. They must be included on the Site /Concept plan and
clearly shown if they are to be removed. Plans should use separate sheets to depict new trees to be
installed and existing trees to be removed.
Two protected trees, .oak trees #1 and 22 are in good health and have good -structure. The concept design
appears_ .to show .them to be. removed. I recommend retaining both trees. The car port and circular
parking area can be made of pervious materials on top of grade. This would also : equire. no grade
changes within the drip line of oak # 1. To preserve oak #22, the low walls with pillars should be moved
to a position at least ten feet from the trunk of the tree. The walkway to the putting green can be relocated
to the south by two feet and created out of a pervious material such as decomposed granite on grade.
Oak tree 4 28 is not shown on:the Topographic Survey and should be included.
It appears that the owner wishes to remove all the. eucalyptus trees on the property through this project. A
landscape plan showing sPecies recommendations for replacements must be considered in order to
determine if this is appropriate.
Page 1 of 3
IU
•
- - - - - - - - - - -Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond amount equal to 100 /o of the total appraised value the trees to be
retained, is required. It is not possible to calculate this required amount.based on the information
provided. Once a plan clearly showing trees to be removed is provided a bond amount will be calculated.
Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 91h Edition, published by the
International Society of Arboriculture (ISA), 2000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Design
1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans and be titled T -1 (Sheet.
L3.0 is acceptable) Tree Protective Measures.
2. Design project so that oak trees #1 and 22 may be retained by using pervious materials for carport
and pathway, and locating footings for wall a minimum of ten feet from the trunk of oak tree #22.
3. Site Plan must clearly indicate all existing trees and show those to be removed.
4. All tree locations must be surveyed. Include tree #28, a coast live oak that was not included on the
Topographic Survey.
5. Landscape plan showing new trees should be separate from site plan showing trees to be removed.
6. Utility
sheet must show undergrounding trenches for power so they can be evaluated for tree
impacts.
7. Design the project so that trenching for irrigation, lighting, drainage. or any other aspect of the
project remains otitside of the drip lines of tree canopies.
8. A grading and drainage plan and a utility plan are needed to assess, impacts to trees.
Tree Protection Measures
1. Tree protective fencing shall be shown on the Site Plan and established prior to the arrival of
construction equipment or materials on site. The exact location of protective fencing will be
determined at a later date. It shall be comprised of six -foot high chain link fencing mounted on
eight -foot tall, two -inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no
more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained
throughout the construction process until final inspection.
2. Owner shall provide a tree protection bond, the amount of which shall be determined once all trees
can be identified as to whether they will be retained or removed. The bond shall be equal to 100%
of the value of retained protected trees.
3. Owner shall replace any tree approved for removal for the project with approved replacement
trees. The value of replacement trees shall be equal to the value of trees removed as determined in
the tree inventory table attached to this report. This value shall be spelled out when it is clear
which trees will be removed and replaced.
Page 2 of 3
4. Unless otherwise approved, all construction activities must be conducted outside the designated
fenced area (even after fencing is removed). These activities include, but are not necessarily
limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and
dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking.
5. Any approved grading or trenching beneath the trees' canopies shall be manually performed using
shovels.
6. Any pruning of trees on site must be performed under the supervision of an ISA Certified Arborist
or ISA- Certified Tree Worker and according to ISA standards.
7. The disposal of harmful products (such as chemicals, oil and gasoline) is prohibited beneath tree
canopies or anywhere on site that allows drainage beneath tree canopies.. Additionally, fuel shall
not be stored nor shall any refueling or maintenance of equipment occur within 20 feet of the
tree's trunks.
8. Herbicides shall not be applied beneath the tree canopies. Where used on site, they must be
labeled`for safe.use near trees.
Attachment;
Tree Inventory Table
Tree Location Map
•
Page 3 of')
C
Address: April 27. 2006
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Coast live oak
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
1
Quercus a ri olia
14
20
50
75
Good
II
1
�
$6.300
o
0
c
c
Valley oak
Qa
c
0
2
Quercus lobata
24
40
1 75
75
o
o
3
a s
E v)
$41.300
R
10
1
'�
4.
3
Quercus a ri olia
8,195
25
►.
A w
ti
+
o II
U
II
O
V
o
0 .c
Z,
3
o
ti
•R
y
s
ed
�a
M
W
G i.
.i
0 >
Quercus a ri olia
TREE
No.
TREE NAME
F t7
w �
x 0
� �
O
�n x
� "
.� A
Z -
a a
C
Address: April 27. 2006
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Coast live oak
1
Quercus a ri olia
14
20
50
75
Good
High
1
X
$6.300
Valley oak
2
Quercus lobata
24
40
1 75
75
Good
High
3
$41.300
Coast live oak
10
1
3
Quercus a ri olia
8,195
25
75
25
Good
High
2
$3.490
Coast live oak
4
Quercus a ri olia
13.5
35
100
75
Good
High
3
$8.200' '
Coast live oak
5
Quercus a ri olia
7
10
100
75
Good
High
3
$2.300
Coast live oak
a ri olia
2.5;13:
40
75
25
1 Good
. High
3
$4.700
Deodar cedar
7
VDeoQuercus
edrus deodara
25.5
40
75
75
Good
High
3
$25.100
dar cedar
8
Cedrus deodara
24
35
75
75
Good
High
3
1 $22.100
Deodar cedar
15; 11
9
Cedrus deodara
10,8,7
40
75
25
Good
High
3
$3,860
Redwood
10
Sequoia sem ervirens
21
30
75
50
Good
High
5
$8.500
Coast live oak
11
Quercu s a rifolia
17
25
75
75
Good
Hieh
5
$11.100
Camphor
11.5, 9
12
Cinnamomun cam hora
12.5
35
0
0
Poor
Low
5
$0
Camphor
13 1
Cinnamomun cam hora
14
10
0
0
Poor
Low
5
$0
Camphor
14
Cinnamomun cam hora
14
15
0
0
Poor
Low
5
$0
Coast live oak
15
Quercus a rifolia
7
12
100
75
Good
High
4
$2.;10
r
Coast live oak
l 0.5,
16
Quercus a 7 ri olia
12.5
35
25
75
Good
High
4
$4.050
C
Address: April 27. 2006
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Address:
1 8940 Monte Vista Drive
$4,350
$4,730
$5,200
$1,310
$.15,360 .
$17,500.
$13,300
$880
.$940
$11
X $2,560
$1.780.
$26.600
$4.300
April 27, 2006
a.
161C
u
c
e
c
17
15
25
U
°o
v
High
3
G
Y c
c
y
N
a
Coast live oak
o
h
i II
Quercus agrifolia
p,
20
75
75
Good
High
1
G
:y c
ai o
o ;°
E
3
o
Q
C°
U
3
3
a
•. T
w E
75
c
t~
>
A w
Y
U
w.
.F{0Vq
h
20
Betula endula
10
15
25
25"
_
9
w II
C
U '�
Ca
°
CO
a
TREE
NO.
TREE NAME
fP. C�
...
w �
N
x .0
N
(A .
O
it
E . �
� :.
5 A
o
z
c
.°a a
Q
Address:
1 8940 Monte Vista Drive
$4,350
$4,730
$5,200
$1,310
$.15,360 .
$17,500.
$13,300
$880
.$940
$11
X $2,560
$1.780.
$26.600
$4.300
April 27, 2006
Coast' live oak
17
15
25
50
25
Good
High
4
Coast live oak
18
Quercus agrifolia
11
20
75
75
Good
High
1
X
_
Coast live oak
19
guercus agrifo# a
11.5
35
75
75
Good
High
3
Birch
20
Betula endula
10
15
25
25"
Fair
Moderate
4
Coast live oak
21
Quercus i olia .
18,5
40
100
75
Good
High
3
Black oak
22
Quercus kello ii
18
40
75
75
Good
High
]
X
23
- Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus globulus
24
20
75
75
Good
Hieh
1.
a
Monterey pine
. 24 -
Pinus radiata
15
25
50
25
Fair
Moderate
4
Monterey pine.
25
Pinus radiata
15.5
25
25
50
Fair
Moderate
4
Eucalyptus
26
Eucalyptus lobulus
80
40
75
25
Good
Moderate
3
27
Eucalyptus
EucajypiusAglobulus
40
35
25
25
Good
Moderate
3
Coast live oak
28
Quercus ap i olia
8
15
75
75
Good
Moderate
3
29
Monterey pine
Pinus radiata
24
35
10
10
Poor
Love
3
X
Redwood
-
30
Sequoia sem ervirens
13
15
100
75
Good
High
31
_
Monterey pine
Pinus radiata
34
50
75
75
Good
Moderate
4
a
Eucalyptus 18,
32
Eucal tus lobulus 29 25 75 25 Good Moderate
Address:
1 8940 Monte Vista Drive
$4,350
$4,730
$5,200
$1,310
$.15,360 .
$17,500.
$13,300
$880
.$940
$11
X $2,560
$1.780.
$26.600
$4.300
April 27, 2006
TREE INVENTORY TABLE
•
Replacement Tree Values
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
Should any tree listed above become damaged OwDer will be required to repair the damage. .
Should any tree listed above be removed o Amer will be required to replace that tree with trees
equal in value to its assessed value.
K-I
Address: April 277 2006.
18940 Monte Vista Drive
Eucalyptus
Eucalyptus lobulus
12,
16
15
75
25
Good
Moderate
3
$1,330
33
34
Eucalyptus
Eucal tus lobulus
52
40
75
25
Good
Moderate
3
$10,460
•
Replacement Tree Values
15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 52 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
Should any tree listed above become damaged OwDer will be required to repair the damage. .
Should any tree listed above be removed o Amer will be required to replace that tree with trees
equal in value to its assessed value.
K-I
Address: April 277 2006.
18940 Monte Vista Drive
1
%/
-------------- -•� et _
rOr �
4t26, , 27
�22
off
f sw„
4716
� r
4
4
�Ie rqr .
5
I
I ,
1.6 <
N04D'VV W
r
33r
—19 18
�.�
17
34
/� 0
j/I
f
Q�
W �
16
mel
rod 1
av
o !.
pw
Abft
�i
.•e
3
14
o
13
,12
I1
a.
at
Umm
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 - Fruitvale- Avenue--- - - - - -- - - - --
Saratoga, California 95070
18940 Monte Vista Dr.
ARBORIST REPORT
APN 397 -08 -027
Owner: Scott and Joanie Kriens
INTRODUCTION
Application #: 06 -312
March 19, 2007
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist
Phone (408) 868 -1276
Revised plans were provided to the. City on January 22, 2007.
SITE OBSERVATIONS, PLAN REVIEW AND TECHNICHAL DISCUSSION
Trees have been included in the plans with identifying numbers and tree protective fencing locations
around them.
Five protected trees, oak trees #1 and 22;, and camphor trees #12 — 14 are proposed to be removed. The
camphor trees are in poor health and have no monetary value. It is acceptable to remove them as
proposed. It will be necessary to remove tree #1 so the retaining wall can be taken down and the area
graded for new.parking. Its appraised value is $6,300 and new trees, equal to its value should be planted
when the project is landscaped. The landscape plan shows that thirteen 36 inch box trees and one 48 inch
box tree will be planted which satisfies the replacement requirement. Species are not called out in the
plans and four of the new trees should be one of the following species: coast live oak (Quercus
agrifolia); valley oak (Quercus lobata); blue oak (Quercus douglasiana); black oak (Quercus kelloggii);
big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
Tree #22 is ablack oak in good,condition and I recommend redesigning this section of the project to
retain the tree. Black oaks'are one of the species found in the surrounding oak woodlands, but'are not as
common as the coast live oak and other species. This tree is in good health and if this tree were removed
and replaced, the new tree would be significantly smaller in size.
The eucalyptus trees are not proposed for removal in the revised plans. All remaining trees should be
protected with tree protective fencing, whether a bond is required for them or not.
Per City Ordinance 15- 50.080, a bond in the amount of $97,580, which is equal to 100% of the total
appraised value of trees #2 6, 18, 21 and 22, is required. It is not possible to calculate this required
amount based on the information. provided. Appraisal values are calculated according to the Guide for
Plant Appraisal, 91h Edition, published by the International Society of Arboriculture (ISA),.2000.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. This entire report shall be incorporated into the set of final building plans along with the report
dated April 27, 2006. The Tree Inventory Table shall be included in the final plan set as well.
Pagel of 2
r�
u
18940 Monte Vista Drive
2. Design the project around oak tree #22 so it may be retained. Construction around this tree shall
remain a minimum of ten feet from the trunk.
3. Owner shall obtain a tree protection bond in the amount of $97,580 prior to obtaining building
division permits.
4. Owner shall plant replacement trees equal to the value of $6,300 to compensate the removal of
tree #1. Acceptable species include the following: coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia); valley oak
(Quercus lobata); blue oak (Quercus douglasiana); black oak (Quercus kelloggii); big leaf maple
(Acer macrophyllum); California buckeye (Aesculus californica); Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga
menziesii) and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens).
Tree protective fencing shall be installed around all retained trees at the drip line of the canopy as
shown on Sheet T -1 of the plans. Once installed, it shall remain in place until completion of
construction.
6. Show all utilities and trenching for them on the final building plans. These include, water, sewer,
gas, electric and irrigation main and lateral lines.
7. Final landscaping plans shall be designed to show the following:
a.
Design irrigation so that it does not spray trunks of trees. Locate valve boxes and
controllers outside of drip lines of tree canopies.
b.
Select plants with similar water requirements to the trees under which they will be placed.
c.
Design lawns so that there is room between them and the trunk of any tree; confine lawn
areas to the outside 20% of the area under "tree canopies.
d.
If oaks are included in the landscape design, plant only drought tolerant plants compatible
with oaks under the outer 20% of the canopy. Do not include lawn within the. drip line of
any oak tree on the property. I recommend placing mulch under the canopy instead of a
lawn.
e.
Design topdressings so that stones or mulch remain at least one foot from the trunks of
retained trees and 6 inches from the trunks of new trees.
f.
Do not allow tilling or stripping of the topsoil beneath the trees' canopies, including for
weed control.
g.
Establish bender board or other edging material proposed beneath tree canopies on top of
existing soil grade (such as by using stakes).
Page 2 of 2
MENT 4 0
•
•
•
r
Appellant Name:
CITY OF SARAPOGA
APPEAL - APPLICATION
(Revised July 2007)
Address:
Telephone #. Mve -27 11— (114 1
Name of Applicant
(If different than Appellant
(4
Project file number and address: -* 11� 1 0l -OW
Decision being appealed:L %�� lbw! J� "`�
Grounds for appeal (Letter may be attached):
Applicant Signature:
Date: - I &-z-1 fl;
❑ City Code Section 2- 05.030 (a) appeals:
• No Hearing $100.00
• With Hearing $600.00
❑ City Code Section 15- 90.010 appeals (Zoning related):
• Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the $400.00
Planning Commission
❑ City Code Section 15- 90.020 appeals (Zoning related):
• Appeals from Planning Commission to the City Council $600.00
❑ City Code Section 13- 20.060 appeals
• Appeals from Heritage Preservation Commission to the No Charge
Planning Commission.
City Code Section 15- 50.100 (a) appeals (Trees): $500.00
• Appeals from Administrative Decisions to the Planning
Planning Commission
❑ Request for a Continuance:
• First Requests No Charge
• 2nd Request. $250.00
Date Received: I �a 0 Hearing Date: oy
Fee: Ip ( Receipt #:
Macintosh HD: Users:ckankel:Library:Mail Down loads:AppeaI Application -Ldoc
Atta,chment
5
•
FFICE USE ONLY:
ate Received:
Status of Permit:
Tree Removal /Pruning Permit Application
City Arborist, Kate Bear- (408) 868 -1276
13777 Fruitvale Ave, Saratoga, CA 95070
Deadline to appeal.denial of removal(s):
Property Owner: }yr� -e rl.S Phone:(hm) 3gq-Lg ) 1-4 y, (wk) `I Lk� _. Z t,-Z- D
Mailing Address:
Address Where Tree is to be removed: got '4 0 15 T -_
Nearest cross street:t\ bn,\1)n V bg)n8e Company to remove tree(s):
I understand that the tree(s) may be removed only if found to be within the criteria as established by Article 15-
50.080 of the City code and that by signing-this form, I am certifying that the tree(s) to be removed is /are solely
on my property.
CC1 Ill /Vl ; a 1L j C 7 3 i c1
Signature of Property Owner Date
ree Removal permits are required for the removal of the following trees:. Native Trees with a DBH
iameter at breast height) of 6" or greater (19 "in circumference measured 4 %z feet above the ground).
itber trees with a DBH of 10" or greater (31 "in, circumference measured 4 V2 feet above the ground).
Any street tree (tree within a public street or right of way) regardless of size. Any Heritage tree (tree
designated by HPC and CC regardless of size. Please list all trees to be.removed in the table below.
SPECIES
SIZE
REASON FOR REMOVAL
�]]
J 1
Location of Trees
Prepare a small site plan in the area below, showing all trees to be removed from the property; include
dimensions from property line and existing. structures. _ 0 C
n r� �� �i � i �G. 1✓ r� G� ji �- �Yi b,'"i � �.i I� '�G� 'J r -
j A
0. Y '
,ES PAID: RECEIPT NO:
PERMIT COST: $75.00 Make checks payable to The City of Saratoga
Tree Removal Permits will be held for period of ten days after inspection approval pursuant to Saratoga Municipal Code section 15- 90.050(a) for
any interested party to appeal the administrative decision to the Planning Commission.
P: \Kbear \Tree Removal Permits\Forms \tree removal app (8- 7- 07).doc
CITY OF SARATOGA
13777 FRUITVALE AVE, SARATOGA, CA 95070
APPL-- ICANT-..: To Be Completed By A Field Inspector Notification Required
APPROVED
This . tree removal permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15 -50 of the City Code based 6h , he following:
Meets Criteria Does Not Meet .
Wr Criteria
The tree is DEAD .y.
El.
Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching
on a protected tree.
Whether the approval of the request would' be contrary:to, or in-conflict with the general
purpose or intent of Article 15 -50.
The necessity to remove the tree.for economic or,other enjoyment ofthe property when there
is no other feasible alternative to the removal.
k I
Conditions of Approval: W
0
El El
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE. oZ 1°1 f� Zk_"
• Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. Pie City will re- inspect to ensure compliance with
all conditions of approval.
DENIED
This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons:
Signature of of Inspector
Date of Inspection
Efftctive bate of Permit Comm pity Development Representative
r:ri ,l (' fti \I
The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling,.proximity to
the structures and interference with utility services.
The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
❑
improvements or impervious surfaces.onthe-property.
The topography of the land and the effect of the. removal .upon. erosion, soil retention and.
El
the diversion or increased flow of surface waters.
The number, species, size and. location, of the existing trees in the area and the effect the
❑
Removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty; property values, erosion
control, and the general welfare in the area.
The age and number.of healthy trees on the property.is able to support according to good
❑
forest practices.
Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching
on a protected tree.
Whether the approval of the request would' be contrary:to, or in-conflict with the general
purpose or intent of Article 15 -50.
The necessity to remove the tree.for economic or,other enjoyment ofthe property when there
is no other feasible alternative to the removal.
k I
Conditions of Approval: W
0
El El
PERMIT EXPIRATION DATE. oZ 1°1 f� Zk_"
• Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within 3 months from the approval date. Pie City will re- inspect to ensure compliance with
all conditions of approval.
DENIED
This tree removal permit is DENIED for the following reasons:
Signature of of Inspector
Date of Inspection
Efftctive bate of Permit Comm pity Development Representative
r:ri ,l (' fti \I
City of Saratoga, 10/23/07
Attn: Kate Bear
After much thought and discussion with our surrounding neighbors, we have decided
to approach the City of Saratoga to obtain a permit to remove several eucalyptus trees at
18940 Monte Vista Dr.
These eucalyptus trees are fire and storm hazards. We have seen several trees topple
over during storms. At the Elementary School on Oak Street a few years.ago. At 14330
Chester Ave this past winter.. We .do not want to put our neighbors, or ourselves in
jeopardy due to these large unstable trees. The heavy bark and debris that is associated
with the eucalyptus makes them more of a fire hazard to our area. We would like to have
them removed. It would be our intention to replace them with a grove of trees that would
enhance the neighborhood and reduce the risk of possible hazards. Please let us know
when we can arrange a meeting on site to discuss this proposal.
Best Regards,
Joanie & Scott Kriens
18974 Monte Vista Dr.
408 399 -6144
•
ATTACHMENT 6 •
C
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 27th day of February 2008, 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: APTR08 -0001; 18940 Monte Vista Drive
APPLICANT /OWNER: Kriens
APN: 397 -08 -027
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is appealing the denial of Tree Removal Permit application
TRP07 -0628 for the .removal of six Eucalyptus globulus (blue gum) trees, and conditions of and
Planning Commission Design Review approval. When the owner submitted an application for the
project, they proposed to keep the eucalyptus trees. The applicant is requesting changes to the project
conditions that would allow the removal of the eucalyptus trees.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order to be included in
the Planning Commission's information packets, written communications should be filed no later than
5 pm, Monday, February 18, 2008.
A site visit will be held the day before the hearing date listed above as part of the standard Site Visit
Committee agenda. The site.visit is open to the public and will occur between 3:30 and 5:00 p.m. The
Site Visit Committee will convene at the City Hall parking lot at 3:30 p.m. on the day before the
hearing and visit the site listed above and may visit other sites as well. For more information please
contact the Community Development Department at 408 868 -1222 or review the Site Visit Agenda on
the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
ca.us.
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, City Arborist
(408) 868 -1276, kbear(cu.saratog_a.ca.us
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 6th day of February, 2008, that I deposited 43 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 500 feet of the property described as:
APN: 397 -08 -027
Address: 18940 Monte Vista
that on said day there was regular communication by United States Mail to the
addresses shown above.
Denise Kaspar r
Advanced Listing Services
•
•
•
February 5, 2008
5 nership Listing
P *red For:
397 -08 -027
SCOTT KRIENS
18940 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6201
397 -07 -055
BARBARA STOCK
Or Current Owner
15249 SOBEY RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255
397 -07 -061
KENNETH & DEBORAH FOLLMAR
Or Current Owner
15261 SOBEY RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255
397 -08 -018
RICHARD S & ALICE ENG
Or Current Owner
19000 SUNNYSIDE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242
3* 021
DONALD P & MARY LEACH
Or Current Owner
19075 SUNNYSIDE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242
397 -08 -025
PEPPER LANE - PENDER LLC
15729 LOS GATOS BLVD 200
LOS GATOS CA 95032 -2555
397 -08 -032
JEFFREY B & ELIZABETH BRYANT
Or Current Owner
19001 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202
397 -08 -046
WEI -JEN & MEI -LIEN LO
Or Current Owner
18787 MONTEWOOD DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221
3 049
T4WSIMONSEN
Or Current Owner
18433 MONTEWOOD DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221
397 -07 -059 397 -07 -060
SURENDRA B GUDAPATI THOMAS U & NORMA COE
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
15215 SOBEY RD 15217 SOBEY RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255
397 -07 -072 397 -08 -012
STEVEN D & ALISA LEWIS DAVE D & FRANCHESCA NGUYEN
Or Current Owner 6455 SAN IGNACIO AVE
15279 SOBEY RD SAN JOSE CA 95119 -1729
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255
397 -08 -019 397 -08 -020
ROBERT E & ROSALYN WORK RAYMOND W & VIRGINIA SAMPSON
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
19015 SUNNYSIDE DR 19045 SUNNYSIDE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242
397 -08 -023 397 -08 -024
WILLIAM R DANSER ROBERT L & MARTHA MIROYAN
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
15430 EL CAMINO GRANDE 15400 EL CAMINO GRANDE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6258 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6258
397 -08- 026,027 397 -08 -031
SCOTT KRIENS CHRIS K SMITHER
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
18940 MONTE VISTA DR 18975 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6201 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202
397 -08 -033 397 -08 -034
W PELIO W PELIO
14573 BIG BASIN WAY 15350 EL CAMINO GRANDE
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6801 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6259
397 -08 -047 397 -08 -048
CESAR M MAYO GLORIA ANASTASIA
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
18801 MONTEWOOD DR 18811 MONTEWOOD DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221 SARATOGA CA 95070 -6221
397 -08 -050 397 -08 -051
HAROLD P & ELEANOR LIPTON FRED & MARY MANSUBI
Or Current Owner Or Current Owner
15420 MONTE VISTA DR 15475 MONTE VISTA
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6277 SARATOGA CA 95070
397 -08 -055
397 -08 -056
HORMOZ & ROUSSANA NAZARI
JOHN J & MARGARET MAGILL
Or Current- Owner. - -_ : —_ --
Or CurrentA.wner____.
15492 MONTE VISTA DR
15474 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6278
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6278
397 -08 -058
397 -08 -059
CHEN FAMILY
J R & MARGO TEMPLETON
Or Current Owner
PO BOX 3568
18810 MONTEWOOD DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -1568
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6222
397 -08 -083
397 -08 -085
DEAN V & JAIMIE BOBROWSKI
HELMUT & MARIA LIPPERT
Or Current Owner
Or Current Owner
15225 -BLUE GUM CT '
19040 SUNNYSIDE DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6268 _
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6242
397 -08 -092
397 -08 -093
KEVIN & YIANNOULLA STURGE
JOSEPH SWEENEY
Or Current Owner
Or- Current Owner
18927 MONTE VISTA DR
18929 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6298
SARATOGA CA.95070 -6298
397 -08 -095
397 -08 -099
BHEDA FAMILY
RICHARD B & THERESA BEAM
Or Current Owner
PO BOX 2415
.18955 MONTE VISTA DR `
SARATOGA CA 95070 -0415
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202
397 -08 -101
397 -08 -102
ROUBIK & AGNES GREGORIAN
WILLIAM L & NANCY LARSON
Or .Current Owner
PO BOX 6043
18867 MONTEWOOD CT
CARMEL CA 93921 -6043
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6294
Advanced Listing Services
P.O Box 2593
Dana Point CA 92624
397 -08 -057
DANIEL B & JOANNE O DONNELL
-- 1913- 5 -MONTE -VISTA DR-_. -
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6217
397 -08 -074
PASCAL J & SIMONNE ONESTO
Or Current Owner
15467 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6216
397 -08 -091
MICHAEL SHADMAN
Or Current Owner
15219 SOBEY RD
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6255
397 -08 -094
PATRICK J & SILVIA OHAREN
Or Current Owner
18935 MONTE VISTA DR
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6202
397 -08 -100
REED H KINGSTON
Or Current Owner
18855 MONTEWOOD CT
SARATOGA CA 95070 -6294
CITY OF SARATOGA
ATTN: Kate Bear
13777 FRUITVALE AVE
SARATOGA CA 95070
•