HomeMy WebLinkAbout04-26-17 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 26, 2017
7:00 PM PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING
Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of April 12, 2017.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three
(3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This 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.
REPORT ON 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.
1. NEW BUSINESS
2. PUBLIC HEARING
Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for
opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting
regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court,
members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or
in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of
the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3)
minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum
for closing statements.
2.1 Application PDR16-0021 & ARB 17-0013; 20152 Hill Avenue (517-22-004); Jon Freel (Applicant)
Vince Borelli / Coyote Properties VII LLC (Property Owner) – The applicant is requesting design
review approval to construct a new single-family home on a vacant site. Planning Commission Design
Review approval is required because the project will exceed a height of 18 feet. The site is
approximately 70,760 square feet (gross) and is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff contact: Christopher Riordan
(408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us.
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3
Staff Report-DR (Final)
Attachment 1 - PC Resolution
Attachment 2 - Arborist Report.pdf
Attachment 3 - Public Hearing Notice
Attachment 4 - CalGreen Checklist
Attachment 5 - Development Plans
2.2 Application APTR17-0001; 18620 Vessing Road (397-06-048); John Brosnan (Appellant, Property
Owner) – The property owner is appealing the denial of the removal of two eucalyptus trees growing
in the front yard of the property. Tree removal permit application TRP16-0391 approved the removal
of two acacia trees and denied the removal of two eucalyptus trees. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-
1276 or kbear@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 17-005 denying appeal APTR17-0001 and Tree Removal Permit
Application TRP16-0391.
18620 Vessing Road staff report
Attachment 1 - Resolution 17 - 005; 18620 Vessing Road.pdf
Attachment 2 - 18620 Vessing Rd appeal application
Attachment 3 - 18620 Vessing Rd TRP16-0391
Attachment 4 - 18620 Vessing Rd Notice
Attachment 5 - 18620 Vessing Rd information from owner 2
2.3 Application APTR17-0002; 12174 Woodside Drive (386-08-050); Liang Chun Chen (Appellant,
Property Owner) – The property owner is appealing the denial of permit application TRP17-0014 for
the removal of one coast redwood tree which grows in the front yard of the property: Staff contact:
Kate Bear (408) 868-1276 or kbear@saratoga.ca.us.
Recommended Action:
Adopt Resolution No. 17-006 denying appeal APTR17-0002 and Tree Removal Permit
Application TRP17-0014.
12174 Woodside Dr staff report
Attachment 1 - Resolution 17 - 006; 12174 Woodside Dr
Attachment 2 - APTR17-0002 Appeal App; 12174 Woodside Dr
Attachment 3 - TRP17-0014 tree permit denial; 12174 Woodside Dr.
Attachment 4 - 12174 Woodside Dr Notice
Attachment 5 - 12174 Woodside Dr informatin from appellant
DIRECTOR ITEMS
COMMISSION ITEMS
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA
I, Janet Costa, Office Specialist III for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on April
20, 2017 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s
website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3
Signed this 20th day of April 2017 at Saratoga, California.
Janet Costa, Office Specialist III
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in
this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 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]
You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have
been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp.
NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at
www.saratoga.ca.us
REPORT TO
THE PLANNING COMMISSION
Meeting Date: April 26, 2017
Application: PDR16-0021, ARB17-0013
Location / APN: 20152 Hill Avenue / 517-22-004
Owner/Applicant: Borelli - Coyote Properties/ Jon Freel
Staff Planner: Christopher Riordan
20152 Hill Avenue
SITE
4
Page 2 of 6
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a 1,904 square foot one story
single-family home. The height of the structure would be approximately 24.7 feet. The net lot size is
1.6 acres or 68,561 square feet and is zoned R-1-40,000.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 17-012 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section
15-45.060(a)(3).
PROJECT DATA:
Gross Site Area: 70,761 SF / 1.62 acres
Net Site Area: 68,561 SF / 1.57 acres
Average Site Slope: 7.9%
General Plan Designation: RVLD (Very Low Density Residential)
Zoning: R-1-40,000
Grading: 325 cubic yards (100 cubic yards cut/225 cubic yards of fill)
Proposed Allowed/Required
Proposed Site Coverage
Residential Footprint
Driveway
Walkways
Total Proposed Site Coverage
1,467.93 sq. ft.
4,267.00 sq. ft.
576.00 sq. ft.
6,310.93 sq. ft. (9.2%)
23,996 sq. ft.
Floor Area
First Floor
Attic (over five feet)
Total Floor Area
1,467.93 sq. ft.
436 sq. ft.
1,903.93 sq. ft.
6,580 sq. ft.
Height (Residence)
Lowest Elevation Point:
Highest Elevation Point:
Average Elevation Point:
Proposed Topmost Point:
Total Proposed Height
552.50
554.61
553.61
578.28
(24.67 Ft.)
26 Feet
Setbacks
Main House
Front
Left
Right
Rear
110’-0”
20’-0”
161’-4”
154’-6”
30’
20’
20’
50’
5
Page 3 of 6
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Site Description: The approximately 1.6 acre project site is located at 20152 Hill Avenue
between Bonnie Brae Lane and Montalvo Road. The average slope of the site is 7.9 percent with
a 29 foot rise in elevation from Hill Avenue to its southwest corner. Site access from Hill
Avenue is provided by an existing concrete driveway.
The site does not contain any existing structures. The majority of the site is covered with trees
including rows of fruit trees in the western and southern portions of the site. An existing concrete
wall and a wrought iron entrance gate are located along the front setback line. A shorter wrought
iron fence is located along the front property line. The area in front of the concrete wall and
adjacent to the street is landscaped with hedges, trees, grass and ornamental plants.
Surrounding uses include single-family residences from the west to the east and across Hill
Avenue to the north. The adjacent residence to the west is a two-story structure and the residence
to the east is a one story structure. Two story residences are located across the street.
Sixty protected tress are located on site. The majority of these trees are Oak trees but also include
Mulberry’s, Maples, Pine, and Cedar.
Project Description and Architectural Style: The project would include the construction of a
new one story, 24.7 foot tall, single-family dwelling. Related site improvements would be
limited to a paver stone driveway to provide fire department turnaround area and access to the
garage doors located on both the southern and northern facades of the b uilding. The
approximately 1,904 square foot structure would include 366 square feet of living space, 1,102
square feet of garage area, and 436 of usable attic space.
The site is owned by the adjacent property owner to the west. The applicant originally
approached staff with a request to construct a structure to store agricultural equipment used to
maintain the sites many fruit trees and grape vines. This type of structure was classified as an
“accessory structure” and could only be constructed on site if it was an accessory use to an
existing or proposed residential use.
In response to staffs comments, the applicant modified the design of the structure to be classified
as a single-family home to include 366 square feet of living space that includes one bedroom and
a full kitchen. The remaining floor area of 1,102 square feet would be used as a garage, storage,
and a workshop. The floor area also includes 436 square feet of accessible and usable attic space.
The architectural style, roof forms, and materials would be consistent with the property owner’s
home on the adjacent site to the west. The exterior would be tan colored smooth stucco and the
roof would be slate tiles that are grey in color. All trim including gutters, doors, eaves, and
windows would be brown in color.
Landscaping: The front of the site includes formal landscaping that is to remain. No additional site
landscaping is proposed. The existing fruit trees and grape vines will remain.
6
Page 4 of 6
Materials and Colors:
Detail Colors
Exterior Tan integral colored smooth stucco
Gutters and Trim Bahama Brown
Windows Bahama Brown Colored Aluminum Clad Wood
Windows
Roof Grey Colored Slate Tiles
Trees:
Sixty protected tress are located on site. The majority of these trees are Oak trees but also include
Mulberry’s, Maples, Pine, and Cedar. No trees are proposed for removal. All remaining
protected trees in the vicinity of the project would be protected during project construction.
City arborist comments and descriptions of the trees to be saved are included in the Arborist
report which is included as Attachment #2.
Residential Calgreen Measures: The project will meet the minimum CalGreen standards for a
new home. A copy of the Residential Calgreen Measures Checklist is included as Attachment #4.
Neighbor Notification and Correspondence: The applicant contacted neighboring property
owners but to date has received no written responses or project related comments. A Public
Notice was sent by the Community Development Department to property owners within 500 feet of
the site. No additional concerns have been brought to the City’s attention as of the writing of this
staff report.
FINDINGS
Design Review Findings - The Planning Commission shall not grant design review approval unless
it is able to make the following findings. These findings are in addition to and not a substitute for
compliance with all other Zoning Regulations (which constitute the minimum requirements, as
provided in City Code Section 15-05.050).
1. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is
appropriate given the property’s natural constraints.
This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the
existing contours of the site. Grading is limited to construction of the driveway and the
residence. The structure would be located in an area of the site in with minimal slope.
2. All protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15 -50 (Tree Regulations).
If constraints exist on the property, the number of protected trees, heritage trees, and
native trees approved for removal shall be reduced to an absolute minimum. Removal
of any smaller oak trees deemed to be in good health by the City Arborist shall be
minimized using the criteria set forth in Section 15-50.080. This finding can be made in
the affirmative in that the project has been designed to reduce impacts to a minimum number
of protected trees. No trees are proposed for removal. The remaining protected trees in the
7
Page 5 of 6
vicinity of the project will be preserved and protected during the duration of project
construction.
3. The height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are
designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to
community viewsheds. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the 1.62 acre size
of the parcel, the building setbacks and existing vegetation, trees, and fencing would screen
views of the project from the street and surrounding properties. The existing vegetation and
fencing would also screen the project from the residences on the adjacent sites so that there
would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community
viewsheds.
4. The overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in
scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the
affirmative in that the overall design, height, materials, and location of building features will
help to minimize the perception of excessive bulk. The architectural theme of the building and
the use of architecturally true elements unify the building façades. Facades are well articulated
with varying heights of architectural projections, and rooflines. The perception of mass is
reduced by a ten foot plate height on the sides of the building with an increase in building height
toward the center of the structure. The elevations are softened by the use of varying materials to
include earth toned smooth finished stucco and slate times. The views from homes on adjacent
sites are screened by existing and proposed landscaping.
5. The landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains
elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape. This finding can be
made in the affirmative in that the exiting formal landscaping and mature trees within the
front setback area are to remain. Hardscape in the front setback area for the driveway is
limited to approximately 10 percent.
6. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties
to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed
structures have ample setbacks from buildings on adjacent sites to minimize shadowing that
could impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. The design of the
structure would not unreasonably impair opportunities for the utilization of solar energy.
7. The design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the
Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. This finding may be made
in the affirmative in that the proposed project conforms to 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.
8. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts
to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance
with Section 15-13.100. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project is not
located on a ridgeline, there are no significant hillside features on the site to be impacted, and
the project is screened from offsite views by existing and proposed vegetation. The overall
size of the parcel and the proposed building setbacks would not unreasonably impact 8
Page 6 of 6
community viewsheds. The project is in compliance with City Code Section 15-13.100
(Height of Structures).
Environmental Determination: The project is categorically exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New
Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This
exemption allows for the construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to
that exemption applies.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 17-012 approving the project subject to
conditions of approval.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution of Approval for Design Review
2. Arborist Report dated December 7, 2016
3. Public Hearing Notice
4. CalGreen Checklist
5. Development Plans (Exhibit "A")
9
RESOLUTION NO: 17-012
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A NEW ONE STORY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE
LOCATED AT 20152 HILL AVENUE
WHEREAS, on August 30, 2016, an application was submitted by Jon Freel on behalf of
Vince Borelli/Coyote Properties VII LLC, requesting Design Review approval to construct a new
one story residence at 20152 Hill Avenue. The project has a total floor area of approximately 1,904
square feet. The height of the proposed residence would be 24.7 feet. The site is located within the
R-1-40,000 zoning district (APN 517-22-004).
WHEREAS, the Community Development Department completed an environmental
assessment for the project in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
and recommends that the Planning Commission determine this project exempt.
WHEREAS, on April 26, 2017, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public
hearing on the subject application, and considered evidence presented by City Staff, the applicant,
and other interested parties.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The project is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) pursuant to 14 C.C.R. Section 15303, Class 3 “New Construction or Conversion of
Small Structures”, of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the
construction of up to three single-family residences and no exception to that exemption applies.
Section 3: The project is consistent with the following Saratoga General Plan Policies: Land
Use Goal 13 which provides that the City shall use the Design Review process to assure that new
construction and major additions thereto are compatible with the site and the adjacent surroundings;
Safety Element Site and Drainage Policy 3 which provides that the City shall require that
landscaping and site drainage plans be submitted and approved during Design Review for a
residence prior to issuance of permits; Land Use Element Goal 10 which minimizes the impact of
development proposals in hillside areas by requiring visual analyses and imposition of conditions to
prevent or reduce significant visual impacts; and Conservation Element Policy 6.0 which provides
that the City shall protect the existing rural atmosphere of Saratoga by carefully considering the
visual impact of new development.
Section 4: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and
improvements are consistent with the design review findings in that the project follows the natural
contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints;
preserves protected trees; is designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining
properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural
Attachment 1
10
elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; landscaping minimizes
hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the
neighborhood streetscape; does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize
solar energy; is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook; and in the case of hillside
lots, avoids unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds,
and is in compliance with Section 15-13-100.
Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR16-0024 and
ARB17-0013 located at 20152 Hill Avenue subject to the Findings, and Conditions of Approval
attached hereto as Exhibit 1.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of
April 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
____________________________
Tina Walia
Chair, Planning Commission
11
Exhibit 1
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
PDR16-0024 and ARB17-0013
20152 Hill Avenue
(APN 517-22-004)
GENERAL
1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of
time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s
successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this
project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting
all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant
with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community
Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it
shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or
its equivalent.
2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this
approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection
with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This
approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all
processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or
Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all
processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is
maintained).
3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City
and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the
requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference.
4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and
hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers
harmless from and against:
a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action
on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done
or made prior to said action; and
b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any
manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or
grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting
on their behalf.
In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate
agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and
Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney.
12
5.Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (26 April
2020), or this resolution will expire.
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
6.The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but
not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall
retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed
construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively
impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage
Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element
design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department.
7.The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those
features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated 24 August 2016. All proposed changes to the
approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a
clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in
accordance with City Code.
8.Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a lighting
Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to
full-cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on
adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to
limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties.
9.In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site
preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and
16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and
other requirements stated in these sections.
10.Prior to issuance of Building Permits the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City
staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the
following:
a.Proposed construction worker parking area.
b.Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code.
c.Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas.
d.Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for
delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth
moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours.
e.Proposed construction material staging/storage areas.
f.Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name
of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor.
11.All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code
Section 15-29.
13
ARBORIST
12.All requirements in the City Arborist Report dated March 21, 2017 are hereby adopted as
conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans.
13.The location of the driveway as depicted on the Grading and Drainage plan (Sheets C-1 through
C-4) shall be modified to preserve tree #22. The revised driveway location shall be consistent
with what is shown on the Site Plan (Sheet A2)
FIRE DEPARTMENT
14.The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL
15.Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These
plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance.
The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following:
a.Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit
“A” on file with the Community Development Department.
b.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the
Building Division.
c.This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages.
d.The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation
inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written
certification that all building setbacks and elevations comply with the Approved Plans,”
which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance
with this Design Review Approval.
14
Community Development Department
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, California 95070
ARBORIST REPORT
Application No. ARB17-0013
Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 20152 Hill Avenue
Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Vince Borelli
Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 517-22-004
Email: Not provided
Report History: Final report Date: March 21, 2017
PROJECT SCOPE:
The applicant has submitted plans to build a new single story house with an attached one car garage.
No trees are requested for removal to construct the project.
STATUS: Approved by City Arborist, with attached conditions.
PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF:
Tree bond – Required - $30,560
Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map.
Tree removals – No trees are requested or approved for removal.
Replacement trees – Not required
ATTACHMENTS:
1 – Findings and Tree Information
2 – Conditions of Approval
3 – Map Showing Tree Protection
1
15
20152 Hill Avenue Attachment 1
FINDINGS:
Tree Removals
No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct this project.
New Construction
Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the
requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-
50.120 of the City Code.
Tree Preservation Plan
Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To
satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the
final sets of plans:
1) The submitted arborist report dated November 30, 2016;
2) The Project Data in Brief and the Conditions of Approval from this report dated
March 21, 2017.
TREE DATA:
Arborist Report reviewed:
Preparer: Katherine Naegele, Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc.
Date of Report: November 30, 2016
An arborist report was submitted for this project that inventoried 20 trees protected by
Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from
construction, suitability for preservation, appraised values and tree protection
recommendations was provided. A table summarizing information about each tree is below.
No trees are requested for removal to construct the project.
2
16
20152 Hill Avenue Attachment 1
3
17
20152 Hill Avenue Attachment 2
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
1. It is the responsibility of the owner, architect and contractor to be familiar with the
information in this report and implement the required conditions.
2. All recommendations in the arborist report dated November 30, 2016 prepared by Katherine
Naegele of Anderson Tree Care Specialists, Inc. shall become conditions of approval.
3. The arborist report dated November 30, 2016 shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree
Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans.
4. The Project Data in Brief and the Conditions of Approval from this report dated March 21,
2017 shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans.
5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Katherine Naegele, unless otherwise approved by
the City Arborist.
6. Tree Protection Security Deposit
a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080.
b. Shall be $30,560 for tree(s) 9, 10, 20 – 24, 40 – 45 and 50 – 56 (tree numbers are from
arborist report, not plans).
c. Shall be obtained by the owner and filed with the Community Development Department
before obtaining Building Division permits.
d. May be in the form of cash, check, credit card payment or a bond.
e. Shall remain in place for the duration of construction of the project.
f. Ma y b e released once the project has been completed, inspected and approved by the City
Arborist.
7. Tree Protection Fencing:
a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map.
b. Shall be shown on the Site Plan.
c. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site.
d. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch
diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10
feet apart.
e. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR
REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408)
868-1276”.
f. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection
fencing once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division
permits.
g. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final
inspection.
8. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call Project Arborist to
arrange a field meeting before performing work.
4
18
20152 Hill Avenue Attachment 2
9. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and every
six weeks thereafter. Following visits to the site, the Project Arborist shall provide the City
with a report including photos documenting the progress of the project and noting any tree
issues.
10. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within:
a. 10 feet of trees 24, 40, 41, 42, 50, 51, 53 and 56
b. 13 feet of trees 23, 52 and 55
11. The Project Arborist shall supervise:
a. Any necessary pruning or root pruning.
b. Excavation and grading for the driveway on the uphill side.
c. Grading around trees 41, 42, 51 and 52.
12. No protected tree authorized for removal or encroachment pursuant to this project may be
removed or encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building
division for the approved project.
13. Receipt of a Planning or Building permit does not relieve applicant of his responsibilities for
protecting trees per City Code Article 15-50 on all construction work.
14. All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing. 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.
15. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing.
16. Roots of protected trees measuring two inches in diameter or more shall not be cut without
prior approval of the Project Arborist. Roots measuring less than two inches in diameter may
be cut using a sharp pruning tool.
17. Any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site shall be performed under the
supervision of the Project Arborist and according to ISA standards.
18. No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct the project.
19. Trees permitted for removal shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices,
and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height,
location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. The
value of the removed trees shall be calculated in accordance with the ISA Guide for Plant
Appraisal.
20. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half
of the canopy of oak trees on site.
21. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies.
5
19
20152 Hill Avenue Attachment 2
22. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there
is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be
paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below.
15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500
48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000
23. Following completion of the work around trees, and before a final inspection of the project,
the applicant shall provide a letter to the City from the Project Arborist. That letter shall
document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and
provide information on the condition of the trees.
24. At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to remove tree protection fencing and
have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call City Arborist for a final
inspection.
6
20
$WWDFKPHQW
æ ,]oo v
7
21
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTI CE OF PUBLI C HE ARI NG
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following public hearing on:
Wednesday, the 26th of April 2017, at 7:00 p.m.
The public hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. A site
visit will also be held by the Planning Commission at the subject property. Please contact the
Planning Department for the date and time of the site visit. 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: PDR16-0021, ARB17-0013
ADDRESS: 20152 Hill Avenue
APPLICANT/OWNER: Jon Freel / Vince Borelli - Coyote Properties VII LLC
APN: 517-22-004
DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting design review approval to construct a new single-
family home on a vacant site. Planning Commission Design Review approval is required
because the project will exceed a height of 18 feet. The site is approximately 70,760 square feet
(gross) and is zoned R-1-40,000. Staff contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or
criordan@saratoga.ca.us.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. In order for information
to be included in the Planning Commission’s information packets, written communications should be
filed on or before Monday, April 17, 2017.
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.
Christopher Alan Riordan, AICP
Senior Planner
(408) 868-1235
Attachment 3
22
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
This notice was mailed to all property owners within
500 feet of the project site as illustrated on the below map
23
January 2015
Page 1 of 9
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES
Please select the Elective Measures below that will be incorporated into your project.
The Mandatory Measures are required by CALGreen.
Project # _______________________________
Project Address __________________________
MEASURES Mandatory Elective
PLANNING AND DESIGN
Site Selection
A4.103.1 A site which complies with at least one of the following
characteristics is selected:
1.An infill site is selected.
2.A greyfield site is selected.
3.An EPA recognized Brownfield site is selected.
Site Preservation
A4.104.1 An individual with oversight responsibility for the project has
participated in an educational program promoting environmentally
friendly design or development and has provided training or
instruction to appropriate entities.
Deconstruction and Reuse of Existing Materials
A4.105.2 Existing buildings are disassembled for reuse or recycling of
building materials. The proposed structure utilizes at least one of the
following materials which can be easily reused:
1.Light fixtures
2.Plumbing fixtures
3.Doors and trims
4.Masonry
5.Electrical devices
6.Appliances
7.Foundations or portions of foundations
Site Development
4.106.2 A plan is developed and implemented to manage storm water
drainage during construction.
X
4.106.3 Construction plans shall indicate how site grading or a
drainage system will manage all surface water flows to keep water
from entering buildings.
X
A4.106.1 Orient buildings to optimize the use of solar energy with the
long side of the house oriented within 30⁰ of south.
A4.106.2.2 Soil disturbance and erosion are minimized by at least one
of the following:
1.Natural drainage patterns are evaluated and erosion controls
are implemented to minimize erosion during construction and
after occupancy.
2.Site access is accomplished by minimizing the amount of cut
and fill needed to install access roads and driveways.
PDR16-0021
20152 Hill Avenue
Attachment 4
24
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 2 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
3. Underground construction activities are coordinated to utilize
the same trench minimize the amount of time the disturbed soil is
exposed and the solid is replaced using accepted compaction
methods.
A4.106.2.3 Topsoil shall be protected or saved for reuse as specified
in this section.
Tier 1. Displaced topsoil shall be stockpiled for reuse in a
designated area and covered or protected from erosion.
Tier 2. The construction area shall be identified and
delineated by fencing or flagging to limit construction
activity to the construction area.
A4.106.3 Postconstruction landscape designs accomplish one or more
of the following:
1. Areas disrupted during construction are restored to be
consistent with native vegetation species and patterns.
2. Limit turf areas to greatest extent possible.
a. Not more than 50 percent for Tier 1.
b. Not more than 25 percent for Tier 2.
3. Utilize at least 75 percent native California or drought
tolerant plant and tree species appropriate for the climate
zone region.
4. Hydrozoning irrigation techniques are incorporated into the
landscape design.
A4.106.4 Permeable paving is utilized for the parking, walking or patio
surfaces in compliance with the following:
Tier 1. Not less than 20 percent of the total parking, walking
or patio surfaces shall be permeable.
Tier 2. Not less than 30 percent of the total parking, walking
or patio surfaces shall be permeable.
A4.106.5 Roofing materials shall have a minimum 3‐year aged solar
reflectance and thermal emittance or a minimum Solar Reflectance
Index (SRI) equal to or greater than the value specified in Tables
A4.106.5 (1) and A4.106.5 (2).
Tier1 roof covering shall meet or exceed the values
contained in Table A4.106.5 (1).
Tier 2 roof covering shall meet or exceed the values
contained in Table A4.106.5 (2).
A4.106.6 Electric vehicle charging. Provide capability for dedicated
electrical vehicle supply equipment in single‐family and multifamily
structures.
Energy Efficiency
4.201.1 Low‐rise residential buildings shall meet or exceed the
minimum standard design required by the California Energy
Standards.
X
Performance Approach
A4.203.1 Exceed the California Energy Code requirements, based on
the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards requirements by 15 percent.
A4.203.1 Exceed the California Energy Code requirements, based on
the 2008 Energy Efficiency Standards requirements by 30 percent.
Building Envelope
A4.205.1 Radiant roof barrier is installed in Climate Zones 2, 4 and 8
through 15.
25
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 3 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
A4.205.2 Exterior shading at least 18 inches in depth is provided on
south and west windows.
Air Sealing Package
A4.206.1 Third party blower door test is conducted and passed to
verify building envelope tightness.
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
HVAC Design, Equipment and Installation
A4.207.1 Radiant, hydronic, ground source and other innovative
space heating and cooling systems included in the proposed design
shall be designed using generally accepted industry‐approved
guidelines and design criteria.
A4.207.2 An HVAC system commissioning plan is developed and the
following items, as appropriate, pertaining to the heating and cooling
systems are inspected and certified by an independent third party
agency:
1. Verify compliance with the manufacturer’s recommended
start‐up procedures.
2. Verify refrigerant charge by super‐heat other methods
specified by the manufacturer.
3. Burner is set to fire at the nameplate input rating.
4. Temperature drop across the evaporator is within the
manufacturer’s recommended range.
5. Test and verify air flow to be within 10 percent of the initial
design air flow.
6. Static pressure within the duct system is within the
manufacturer’s acceptable range.
7. Verify that the whole house and exhaust ventilation systems
meet Title 24 requirements.
8. Verify that the recommended maintenance procedures and
schedules are documented and provided to the home owner.
A4.207.2.3 Results of the commissioning inspection shall be included
in the Operation and Maintenance Manual required in Section
4.410.1.
A4.207.4 Install gas‐fired (natural or propane) space heating
equipment with an Annual Fuel Utilization Ratio (AFUE) of .90 or
higher.
A4.207.5 If an electric heat pump must be used, select equipment
with a Heating Seasonal Performance Factor (HSPF) of 8.0 or higher.
A4.207.6 When climatic conditions necessitate the installation of
cooling equipment with a Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio (SEER)
higher than 13.0 and an Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER) of at least 11.5.
A4.207.7 Install ductwork to comply with at least one of the following:
1. Install ducts within the conditioned envelope of the building.
2. Install ducts in an underfloor crawl space.
3. Use ducts with an R‐6 insulation value or higher.
4. Install ductwork which is buried in the ceiling insulation.
26
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 4 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
A4.207.8 Perform duct leakage testing to verify a total leakage rate of
less than 6 percent of the total fan flow.
A4.207.9 In cooling Climate Zones 2, 4 and 8 through 15 install a
whole‐house fan with insulated louvers or an insulated cover.
A4.207.10 ENERGY STAR ceiling fans are installed in all bedrooms and
living areas.
Water Heating Design, Equipment and Installation
A4.208.1 The Energy Factor (EF) for a gas‐fired storage water heater is
higher than .60.
A4.208.2 The Energy Factor (EF) for a gas‐fired tankless water heater
is .80 or higher.
A4.208.3 Where the hot water source is more than 10 feet from a
fixture, the potable water distribution system shall convey hot water
using a method designed to minimize wait time for hot water to arrive
at the fixture.
Lighting
A4.209.1 Building lighting consists of at least 90 percent ENERGY STAR
qualified hard‐wired fixtures.
Appliances
A4.210.1 Each appliance provided by the builder meets ENERGY STAR
if an ENERGY STAR designation is applicable for that appliance.
A4.211.1 Install a solar photovoltaic (PV) system in compliance with
the California Energy Commission New Solar Homes Partnership
(NSHP). 1,2,3 Install energy efficiency measures meeting either Tier I or
Tier II below.
Tier 1. Exceed the 2010 California Energy Code
requirements by 15 percent.
Tier2. Exceed the 2010 California Energy Code
requirements by 30 percent.
Solar water heating may be used to assist in meeting the energy
efficiency requirements of either Tier 1 or Tier II.
1. In addition, for either Tier I or II, each appliance provided by the
builder must be ENERGY STAR if an ENERGY STAR designation is
applicable for that appliance.
2. Tier II requires a 30 percent reduction in the building’s space
cooling (air conditioning) energy compared to the 2010 California
Energy Code.
3. Information on NSHP incentives available through the California
Energy Commission may be obtained at the “Go Solar California”
website.
A4.211.2 A solar water heating system is installed.
A4.211.3 Space on the roof surface and penetrations through the roof
surface are provided for future solar installation.
A4.211.4 A minimum one‐inch conduit is provided from the electrical
service equipment for the future installation of a photovoltaic (PV)
system.
WATER EFFICIENCY AND
CONSERVATION
27
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 5 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
Indoor Water Use
4.303.1 Indoor water use shall be reduced by at least 20 percent using
one of the following methods.
1. Water saving fixtures or flow restrictors shall be used.
2. A 20 percent reduction in baseline water use shall be
demonstrated.
X
4.303.2 When using the calculation method specified in Section
4.303.1, multiple showerheads controlled by a single valve shall not
exceed maximum flow rates.
X
4.303.3 Plumbing fixtures (water closets and urinals) and fittings
(faucets and showerheads) shall comply with specified performance
requirements.
X
A4.303.1 Kitchen faucets and dishwashers shall comply with this
section.
Tier 1. The maximum flow rate at a kitchen sink faucet shall
not be greater than 1.5 gallons per minute at 60 psi.
Tier 2. In addition to the kitchen faucet requirements for Tier
1, dishwasher in Tier 2 buildings shall be ENERGY STAR
qualified and not sure more than 5.8 gallons of water per
cycle.
A4.303.2 Nonwater supplied urinals or waterless toilets are
installed.
Outdoor Water Use
4.304.1 Automatic irrigation systems controllers installed at the time
of final inspection shall be weathered or soil moisture‐based.
X
A4.304.1 Install a low‐water consumption irrigation system which
minimizes the use of spray type of heads.
A4.304.2 A rainwater capture, storage and re‐use system is designed
and installed.
A4.304.3 A water budget shall be developed for landscape irrigation.
A4.304.4 Provide water efficient landscape irrigation design that
reduces the use of portable water.
Tier 1. Does not exceed 65 percent of ETo times the
landscape area.
Tier 2. Does not exceed 60 percent of ETo times the
landscape area.
A4.305.5 A landscape design is installed which does not utilize potable
water.
WATER REUSE SYSTEMS
A4.305.1 Piping is installed to permit future use of a graywater
irrigation system served y the clothes washer or other fixtures.
A4.305.2 Recycled water piping is installed.
A4.305.3 Recycled water is used for landscape irrigation.
MATERIAL CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE EFFICIENCY
A4.403.1 A Frost‐Protected Shallow Foundation (FPSF) is designed and
constructed.
A4.403.2 Cement use in foundation mix design is reduced.
Tier 1. Not less than a 20 percent reduction in cement use.
Tier 2. Not less than a 25 percent reduction in cement use.
Efficient Framing Techniques
28
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 6 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
A4.404.1 Beams and headers and trimmers are the minimum size to
adequately support the load.
A4.404.2 Building dimensions and layouts are designed to minimize
waste.
A4.404.3 Use premanufactured building systems to eliminate solid
sawn lumber whenever possible.
A4.404.4 Material list are included in the plans which specify material
quantity and provide direction for on‐site cuts.
Material Sources
A4.405.1 One or more of the following building materials, that do not
require additional resources for finishing are used:
1. Exterior trim not requiring paint or stain
2. Windows not requiring paint or stain
3. Siding or exterior wall coverings which do not require
paint or stain
A4.405.2 Floors that do not require additional coverings are used
including but not limited to stained, natural or stamped concrete
floors.
A4.405.3 Postconsumer or preconsumer recycled content value (RCV)
materials are used on the project.
Tier 1. Not less than a 10 percent recycled content value.
Tier 2. Not less than a 15 percent recycled content value.
A4.405.4 Renewable source building products are used.
Enhanced Durability and Reduced Maintenance
4.406.1 Annular spaces around pipes, electric cables, conduits or
other openings in plates at exterior walls shall be protected against
the passage of rodents by closing such openings with cement mortar,
concrete masonry or similar method acceptable to the enforcing
agency.
X
Water Resistance and Moisture Management
A4.407.1 Install foundation and landscape drains.
A4.407.2 Install gutter and downspout systems to route water at least
5 feet away from the foundation or connect to landscape drains which
discharge to a dry well, sump, bioswale, rainwater capture system or
other approved on‐site location.
A4.407.3 Provide flashing details on the building plans and comply
with accepted industry standards or manufacturer’s instructions.
A4.407.4 Protect building materials delivered to the construction site
from rain and other sources of moisture.
A4.407.5 In Climate Zone 16 an ice/water barrier is installed at roof
valleys, eaves and wall to roof intersections.
A4.407.6 Exterior doors to the dwelling are protected to prevent
water intrusion.
A4.407.7 A permanent overhang or awning at least 2 feet in depth is
provided.
Construction Waste Reduction, Disposal and Recycling
4.408.1 Recycle and/or salvage for reuse a minimum of 50 percent of
the nonhazardous construction and demolition waste in accordance
with one of the following:
1. Comply with a more stringent local construction and
demolition waste management ordinance; or
2. A construction waste management plan per Section
X
29
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 7 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
4.408.2; or
3. A waste management company per Section 4.408.3; or
4. The waste stream reduction alternative per Section
4.408.4.
A4.408.1 Construction waste generated at the site is diverted to
recycle or salvage in compliance with one of the following:
1. Tier 1 at least a 65 percent reduction
2. Tier 2 at least a 75 percent reduction
Exception: Equivalent waste reduction methods are
developed by working with local agencies.
X
30
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 8 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
Building Maintenance and Operation
4.410.1 An operation and maintenance manual shall be provided to
the building occupant or owner.
X
ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
4.503.1 Any installed gas fireplace shall be a direct‐vent sealed‐
combustion type. Any installed woodstove or pellet stove shall
comply with US EPA Phase II emission limits where applicable.
Woodstoves, pellet stoves and fireplaces shall also comply with
applicable local ordinances.
X
Pollutant Control
4.504.1 Duct openings and other related air distribution component
openings shall be covered during construction.
X
4.504.2.1 Adhesives, sealants and caulks shall be compliant with VOC
and other toxic compound limits.
X
4.504.2.2 Paints, stains and other coatings shall be compliant with
VOC limits.
X
4.504.2.3 Aerosol paints and coatings shall be compliant with product
weighted MIR limits for ROC and other toxic compounds.
X
4.504.2.4 Documentation shall be provided to verify that compliant
VOC limit finish materials have been used.
X
4.504.3 Carpet and carpet systems shall be compliant with VOC limits.X
4.504.4 50 percent of floor area receiving resilient flooring shall
comply with the VOC‐emission limits defined in the Collaborative for
High Performance Schools (CHPS) High Performance Products
Database or be certified under the Resilient Floor Covering Institute
(RFCI) FloorScore program; or meet California Dept. of Public Health,
“Standard Method for the Testing and Evaluation of Volatile Organic
Chemical Emissions from Indoor Sources Using Environmental
Chambers”, Version 1.1, February 2010 (also known as Specification
01350.)
X
4.504.5 Particleboard, medium density fiberboard (MDF) and
hardwood plywood used in interior finish systems shall comply with
low formaldehyde emission standards.
X
A4.504.1 Meet the formaldehyde limits contained in Table 4.504.5
before the mandatory compliance date, or use composite wood
products made with either California Air Resources Board approved
no‐added formaldehyde (NAF) resins or ultra‐low emitting
formaldehyde (ULEF) resins.
A4.504.2 Install VOC compliant resilient flooring systems.
Tier 1. At least 80 percent of the resilient flooring installed
shall comply.
Tier2. At least 90 percent of the resilient flooring installed
shall comply.
A4.504.3 Thermal insulation installed in the building shall meet the
following requirements:
Tier 1. Install thermal insulation in compliance with the
VOC –emission limits defined in Collaborative for High
Performance Schools (CHPS) Low‐emitting Materials List.
Tier 2. Install insulation which contains No‐Added
Formaldehyde (NAF) and is in compliance with the VOC‐
emission limits defined in Collaborative for High
Performance Schools (CHPS) Low‐emitting Materials List. 31
RESIDENTIAL CALGREEN MEASURES Page 9 of 9
MEASURES
Mandatory
Elective
Interior Moisture Control
4.505.2 Vapor retarder and capillary break is installed at slab on grade
foundations.
X
4.505.3 Moisture content of building materials used in wall and floor
framing is checked before enclosure.
X
Indoor Air Quality and Exhaust
4.506.1 Exhaust fans which terminate outside the building are
provided in every bathroom.
X
A4.506.1 Higher than MERV 6 filters are installed on central air or
ventilation systems.
A4.506.2 Direct vent appliances are used or isolated from the
conditioned space.
Environmental Comfort
4.507.1 Whole house exhaust fans shall have insulated louvers or
covers which close when the fan is off. Covers or louvers shall have a
minimum insulation value of R‐4.2.
X
4.507.2 Duct systems are sized, designed and equipment is selected
using the following methods:
1. Establish heat loss and heat gain values according to
ANSI/ACCA 2 Manual J‐2004 or equivalent.
2. Size duct systems according to ANSI/ACCA 1 Manual D‐
2009 or equivalent.
3. Select heating and cooling equipment according to
ANSI/ACCA 3 Manual S‐2004 or equivalent.
X
Outdoor Air Quality
Reserved
Installer and Special Inspector Qualifications
702.1 HVAC system installers are trained and certified in the proper
installation of HVAC systems.
X
702.2 Special inspectors employed by the enforcing agency must be
qualified and able to demonstrate competence in the discipline they
are inspecting.
X
Verifications
703.1 Verification of compliance with this code may include
construction documents, plans, specifications builder or installer
certification, inspection reports or other methods acceptable to the
enforcing agency which show substantial conformance.
X
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
18620 Vessing Road
Meeting Date: April 26, 2017
Application #: APTR17-0001; TRP16-0391
Address/APN: 18620 Vessing Road (APN 397-06-048)
Property Owner: John Brosnan
Staff Planner: Kate Bear, City Arborist
44
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of an appeal (APTR17-0001) of an
administrative decision denying a tree removal permit (TRP16-0391) for the removal of two silver
dollar gum eucalyptus trees at 18620 Vessing Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal.
Review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100 for the
review of any appeal of an administrative decision.
Discussion
BACKGROUND:
On November 16, 2016, the property owner at 18620 Vessing Road applied for a permit
(TRP16-0391) to remove two acacia trees and two eucalyptus trees. The two acacia trees were
approved for removal and the two eucalyptus trees were denied. The reason for the requested
removal of the eucalyptus trees was that they were dropping branches and the owner was
concerned about them being a fire hazard.
Article 15-50.100 of the City Code states that anyone objecting to an administrative decision
made pursuant to the provisions of the Tree Regulations may appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission according to the procedure specified in Article 15-90. On January 25, 2017 the
owner filed an application with the Community Development Department to appeal the denial.
The owner’s reasons for the appeal are that the trees are too close to the house and threaten
damage to it. Both the owner and his neighbor are concerned that should the trees fall they could
hit one of the homes. In addition, he is concerned that insects are stressing the trees by eating the
leaves and could kill them.
INSPECTION OF THE TREES:
In reviewing the original tree removal application, staff conducted a site visit on November 22,
2016 and inspected the acacias and the eucalyptus trees. All four trees were in good health and did
not appear to be in imminent danger of failure.
A follow up conversation was held with the owner to obtain additional information about the trees
and their history. A history of whole tree failure of three other acacia trees growing in the same area
as the two requested for removal led to staff determination that the acacias qualified for removal and
replacement.
A visual inspection and evaluation of the two silver dollar gums found that the branches that fell
during storms were relatively small, about one to three inches in diameter. The trees appeared to be
healthy in spite of the insects chewing on the leaves. The trees appeared to be stable and not in
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 2
18620 Vessing Road – Application APTR17-0001; TRP16-391
April 26, 2017
45
imminent danger of failure, and they did not threaten damage to nearby impervious surfaces or the
house. The trees grow about 16 feet from the owner’s house, at the same level as the house, at the
top of a landscaped bank that extends down to a private driveway for several other houses. This
address is located outside the part of the city with the very high fire hazard rating.
During a follow-up conversation with the owner, staff recommended that he have a qualified tree
company inspect and prune the trees to prevent further limb failures during storms. On January
10, 2017, the application for removal of the eucalyptus trees was denied. Following the appeal,
staff recommended that the owner engage an arborist to provide a second opinion about the
health and safety of the two trees and suggested he may want an assessment of risk of whole tree
failure as well as limb failure.
On April 10, 2017 the owner provided a letter (Attachment 5) stating why he wanted the trees
removed and included information from the Sanitation District about visits to remove tree roots
from the sewer cleanout located halfway down the bank between the trees and the private
driveway.
Findings
City Code Section 15-50.080 requires that each application to remove a tree shall be reviewed and
that a determination be made on the basis of the following findings. A tree qualifies for removal if
just one of the criteria listed is met and there is no feasible alternative to removal. In making a
determination on an application, staff determines all of the criteria that have been met in support of
an application for tree removal.
(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, and whether the tree
is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree.
This finding cannot be made because the two silver dollar gum eucalyptus trees appear
healthy, they are not interfering with utilities, they are not dead or fallen, and are not in
danger of imminent failure.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property.
This finding cannot be made because the two trees are not causing any damage to
improvements or the owner’s house. The perceived threat from the two trees requires that
one or both fall, and that the direction of the failure is towards the house. The threat from fire
does not reach the very high rating found in the hillside areas.
(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.
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 3
18620 Vessing Road – Application APTR17-0001; TRP16-391
April 26, 2017
46
The trees grow at the top of a bank and serve to retain soil. Their removal could have an
effect on erosion and soil retention.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the
removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion
control, and the general welfare of residents in the area.
This finding cannot be made because these are the only trees of a significant size in the front
yard. Removal will affect shade and privacy for the house.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good
forestry practices.
This finding cannot be made because the two eucalyptus trees are not crowded by other trees.
There is room for more trees in this area of the property.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not
encroaching on the protected tree.
This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to removal of the trees. The trees
can be retained and evaluated on a yearly basis to address concerns about failure during
winter storms.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of this Article.
This finding cannot be made because removal of the tree is not the only feasible alternative.
(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.
This finding cannot be made because the trees do not appear to threaten public safety.
(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.
This finding can partially be made because the owner and the neighbor would have increased
enjoyment of their properties. It cannot be mad in that there are feasible alternatives to
removal of the tree.
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 4
18620 Vessing Road – Application APTR17-0001; TRP16-391
April 26, 2017
47
(10)The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels,
subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed, shall not be removed until solar
panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City
Arborist's recommendation.
This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 17-005 denying the appeal
2. Appeal application APTR17-0001
3. Tree removal permit application TRP16-0391
4. Notice of public hearing
5. Information from owner
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 5
18620 Vessing Road – Application APTR17-0001; TRP16-391
April 26, 2017
48
RESOLUTION NO: 17-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING APPEAL APTR17-0001
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP16-0391
AT 18620 VESSING ROAD
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an
Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove two silver dollar gum eucalyptus trees at
18620 Vessing Road; 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
one coast redwood.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The administrative decision is consistent with the General Plan, Conservation
Element Policy:
General Open Space, OSC2: To preserve the City’s existing character which includes small
town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces.
The two silver dollar gum eucalyptus trees on the property add to the small town residential
semi-rural appeal of the community.
Arbor Resources Element, OSC12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health
and increasing the extent of arbor resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall
tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and
sustainable manner. To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s
Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs.
49
Resolution No. 17-005
The two eucalyptus trees were requested for removal through the City’s process to remove
protected trees as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the
application for tree removal and the appeal, and found that the request to remove the eucalyptus
trees does not meet the criteria in the City Code, overall.
Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section
15-50.080 in that the trees appear healthy, stable and do not appear to be damaging structures on the
property on which it grows or the neighbor’s. Criteria 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 have not been met.
Criterion 9 is partially met. Criterion 10 does not apply. How each criterion has or has not been met
is detailed below.
(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, and whether the tree is a
Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding cannot be made because the two silver dollar gum
eucalyptus trees appear healthy, they are not interfering with utilities, they are not dead or fallen,
and are not in danger of imminent failure.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding cannot be made because the
two trees are not causing any damage to improvements or the owner’s house. The perceived threat
from the two trees requires that one or both fall, and that the direction of the failure is towards the
house. The threat from fire does not reach the very high rating found in the hillside areas.
(3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention
and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. The trees
grow at the top of a bank and serve to retain soil. Their removal could have an effect on erosion and
soil retention.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the
removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion
control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made because
these are the only trees of a significant size in the front yard. Removal will affect shade and privacy
for the house.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good
forestry practices. This finding cannot be made because the two eucalyptus trees are not
crowded by other trees. There is room for more trees in this area of the property.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching
on the protected tree. This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to removal of the
trees. The trees can be retained and evaluated on a yearly basis to address concerns about failure
during winter storms.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of this Article. This finding cannot be made because removal of the tree is
not the only feasible alternative.
50
Resolution No. 17-005
(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. This finding cannot be made
because the trees do not appear to threaten public safety.
(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. This finding can partially be made because
the owner and the neighbor would have increased enjoyment of their properties. It cannot be mad in
that there are feasible alternatives to removal of the tree.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels,
subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar
panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City
Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed.
Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council 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.
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR17-0001, denying TRP16-0391 for
the removal and replacement of two silver dollar gum eucalyptus, located at 18620 Vessing Road.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of
April 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Chair, Planning Commission
51
52
53
54
55
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following Public Hearing on:
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us
regarding Friday office closures.
ADDRESS/APN: 18620 Vessing Road, Saratoga CA 95070; (397-06-048)
APPELLANT/OWNER: John Brosnan
APPLICATION: APTR17-0001, TRP16-0391
DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property has appealed the administrative decision of the City
Arborist to deny the removal of two mature eucalyptus trees growing in the front yard.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the meeting.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 150 feet of the permit application 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@saratoga.ca.us
56
April 7, 2017
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Request to Remove 2 Eucalyptus Trees on 18620 Vessing Rd
APTR17-001, TRP16-0391
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to appeal the administrative decision to deny our request for the removal of two
Eucalyptus trees on our property located at 18620 Vessing Road. These two non-native trees
were improperly located by the previous homeowners at the top edge of a slope, causing them
to be in an unstable area and vulnerable to falling (see photos in Attachment 1).
We have many concerns about these 2 trees and request for their removal because:
•if they fall towards our house, they would fall on top of our bedrooms where we and our one
son sleep.
•they could also fall onto our adjacent neighbor’s house at 18564 Vessing Road. In fact, the
Hambeys had their Eucalyptus trees removed from around the same area and they support
the removal of these two trees.
•if they fall on the road, they would block the only access to three properties located on 18564,
18594 and 18584 Vessing Road.
•Because of their potential to fall and harm that would follow, this causes us great anxiety with
every storm and long drought.
•the tree roots constantly cause blockage to our sewer lateral resulting in sewage spills onto
the street. We have provided records from the West Valley Sanitation District which list our
property as one they frequent multiple times per year as shown on Attachment 2.
•the trees are non-native and we would mitigate the removal by planting native local trees in
more appropriate stable locations.
We are very much supportive of native trees. On the back side of our property, we have 15
native oaks, 13 of which are of significant size. Their canopies occupy more than 1/2 of our
parcel.
For the safety of our family and our neighbors, we urge you to allow us to remove these 2 trees.
For reducing potential fines to West Valley Sanitation District from sewage spills, we urge you to
allow us to remove these 2 trees. For the promotion of planting native species in more
appropriate locations, let us mitigate the removal of these two Eucalyptus trees by planting trees
more suitable for our environment so we may all live in harmony. Thank you for your
consideration.
Respectfully,
John Brosnan
57
The following shows our tree removal request in compliance with the City of Saratoga’s
Tree Regulations:
City Tree Regulations Article 15-50
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, and whether the
tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened
damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property.
(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.
As discussed, the two Eucalyptus trees are ~60 feet tall and have the potential to
fall. They are located 18 feet from our house and 57 feet from our neighbor’s
house, and not providing sufficient clearance from structures shall they fall.
(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.
Once the two trees are removed, our plan is to landscape the entire slope
including installation of irrigation and plantings that will reduce soil erosion.
(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.
Our property is currently home to 15 Heritage oaks, many very mature and their
canopy take up more than 1/2 of our parcel.
(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.
The removal of these two trees would eliminate their potential to fall and their
impacts to the sewer lateral, and thereby, improve the safety and welfare of our
family as well as our neighbors.
58
Two Eucalyptus Trees and
their proximity to our and
adjacent neighbor’s houses.
Two Eucalyptus trees - view from Vessing
Rd and their close proximity to the sewer
lateral marked in green by West Valley
Sanitation District
View of trees from the south
side of Vessing Rd showing
size of trees compared to
homes.
ATTACHMENT 1
59
ATTACHMENT 2
Email Correspondence with West Valley Sanitation District
On Friday, April 7, 2017 11:17 AM, Alan Kam <AKam@westvalleysan.org> wrote:
John,
Preventative maintenance was performed on:
3/11/2005
11/3/2009
In 2015 this lateral was placed on a 6-month preventative maintenance schedule and was
serviced on:
6/1/2015
12/23/2015
5/18/2016
12/5/2016
Alan
From: John Brosnan [mailto:john.brosnan@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Friday, April 07, 2017 9:43 AM
To: Alan Kam
Subject: Re: 18620 Vessing Road Saratoga Sewer Lateral
Hi Alan,
In addition the emergency sewer overflowing service calls referenced below, I remember Jason
mentioned multiple preventive services were performed by the sanitation district in a given year
as well. For example, staff came out 3 times in 2005 servicing the lateral.
Would like to have the dates for the other services as well if available. Thanks.
On Friday, April 7, 2017, 8:38 AM, Alan Kam <AKam@westvalleysan.org> wrote:
John,
Between 2005-2015 WVSD responded to stoppages 7 times. The service calls for these
stoppages were on the following dates:
3/8/2005
9/2/2008
10/26/2009
2/1//2011
9/11/2012
12/12/2013
1/6/2015
Alan Kam P.E.
Senior Engineer
West Valley Sanitation District
100 E Sunnyoaks Ave
Campbell, CA 95008
(408)385-3030
60
18620 Vessing Road – Location of Sewer cleanout
61
1
Kate Bear
From:Kurt Guttenberg <kguttenb@yahoo.com>
Sent:Wednesday, April 12, 2017 2:46 PM
To:Kate Bear
Subject:APTR17-0001, TRP16-0391
Hi Kate -- Following up on the public notice for the two eucalyptus trees on the Brosnan property on Vessing Road. We
are fine with their removal.
Thank you,
Kurt Guttenberg & Karen Louie
18579 Vessing Rd.
62
1
Kate Bear
From:Austin Kilburn <austinkilburn2004@yahoo.com>
Sent:Tuesday, April 11, 2017 11:44 AM
To:Kate Bear
Cc:Austin Kilburn; Lisa Au
Subject:Removal of Eucalyyptus trees on Brosnan's property on Vessing Road, Saratoga
Dear Ms. Bear.
I am sending you an email rather than a letter because I have dreadful handwriting (shaky hands due to familial
tremor).
My wife Barbara and I support the removal of the two Eucalyptus trees on the Brosnan property at 18620 Vessing Road
(we are
neighbors at 18531 Vessing Road). As you know Eucalyptus trees have a shaky root structure and those trees could do a
lot of
damage to the Brosnan's bedroom and also their next door neighbors the Hanbeys. The trees, if they fell out on Vessing
could also
block the Hanbeys, Muellers, Dan and Manju's and the new family (who just oved here) from getting out of the court.
As an aside, when I lived near GUnderson High School in San Jose for 6 years or so, my next door neighbor had a
Eucalyptus
tree split and part of it fall on his Datsun Truck doing a fair amount of damage. Since both he and I had chain saws, we
were
able to get the tree off his truck and he only missed a partial day of work.
Thanks for considering their request. We support it.
Austin and Barbara Kilburn
p.s. Please tell John Cherbone hi if you see him.
63
1
Kate Bear
From:bj kilburn <bjk2us@yahoo.com>
Sent:Monday, April 10, 2017 6:57 PM
To:Kate Bear
Subject:Support for Removal of 2 Eucalyptus Trees on 18620 Vessing Rd APTR17-001,
TRP16-0391
Follow Up Flag:Flag for follow up
Flag Status:Flagged
April 10, 2017
Planning Commission
City of Saratoga
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Ave
Saratoga, CA 95070
RE: Support for Removal of 2 Eucalyptus Trees on 18620 Vessing Rd
APTR17-001, TRP16-0391
Dear Commissioners:
We are writing to support the Brosnans’ request to remove two Eucalyptus trees on their property
located at 18620 Vessing Road. These two trees have the potential to fall onto their house, the
Hambey’s house on 18564 Vessing Road, and onto Vessing Road blocking access.
The Brosnans have said that after the two Eucalyptus trees are removed, they will plant native trees
in more appropriate locations on their property.
Please accept the Brosnans' request to remove these two Eucalyptus trees.
Sincerely,
Austin & Barbara Kilburn
18531 Vessing Rd.
Saratoga, CA 95070
64
65
PEST NOTES Publication 74104
University of California
Agriculture and Natural Resources January 2009
EUCALYPTUS TORTOISE BEETLES
Integrated Pest Management for Home Gardeners and Landscape Professionals
Two species of eucalyptus leaf beetles
from Australia, also called tortoise
beetles (family Chrysomelidae),
have been introduced into Califor-
nia. Trachymela sloanei was found in
1998 in Riverside County and now
occurs throughout most areas of
California where eucalyptus trees
grow. Chrysophtharta m-fuscum was
discovered in Orange County in 2003
and has spread to at least four nearby
counties.
Notched eucalyptus leaves are usually
the only obvious indication that trees
are infested by tortoise beetles. Well-
established and properly maintained
eucalyptus appear to tolerate exten-
sive leaf feeding. Thus, no tortoise
beetle control is needed in many land-
scape situations, despite the tattered
appearance of leaves. Providing trees
with a good growing environment and
appropriate cultural care are usually
the most important actions for keeping
eucalyptus healthy.
DAMAGE
Adult beetles and larvae chew semicir-
cular holes or irregular notches along
edges of eucalyptus leaves (Fig. 1). The
beetles can remove most of a leaf’s
surface, leaving only the midvein, and
they occasionally feed on new termi-
nal growth. Unsightly, tattered leaves
are usually just an annoyance that
does not appear to threaten eucalyp-
tus survival or health.
During heavy infestations, trees
can lose most of their leaves, which
increases tree stress. Although these
beetles alone are not known to kill
trees, their feeding adds to that of
more than a dozen other new eucalyp-
tus pests introduced into California
during the last three decades. Com-
bined stress from multiple pests, espe-
cially if growing conditions or tree
care practices are not optimal, could
eventually lead to tree death.
Chrysophtharta m-fuscum is a serious
pest of commercially grown baby blue
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus pulverulenta).
Baby blue, also called silverleaved
mountain gum, is used as fresh cut
foliage in flower arrangements, or it
is dried, dyed, and sold in preserved
arrangements.
The eucalyptus species preferences of
these tortoise beetles have not been
well documented. However, certain
tree species are apparently preferred
or avoided by these beetles and other
major eucalyptus pests, as summa-
rized and compared in Table 1.
IDENTIFICATION AND LIFE CYCLE
The two species of tortoise beetles
have similar biology and appearance.
By comparison, Trachymela sloanei
adults are dark brown with blackish
mottling, whereas Chrysophtharta m-
fuscum adults are lighter colored and
gray to reddish brown. Adults of both
species are hemispherical (like half
a sphere) or rounded, about 1/4 to 3/8
inch long, and superficially resemble a
large lady beetle.
Female Trachymela sloanei lay 5 to 40
or more eggs side by side on leaves or
under loose bark. The eggs are pink-
ish or light brown at first and become
orange or dark brown to purplish as
they age. Female Chrysophtharta m-fus-
cum lay 1 to 40 or more eggs side by
side or in an irregular group on leaves.
Eggs are bright orange when laid and
become dark brown before hatching.
The larvae of both tortoise beetle spe-
cies superficially resemble caterpillars
(larvae of butterflies and moths) or
larvae of sawflies but can be distin-
guished by their appendages. Cater-
pillars, larvae of leaf beetles (tortoise beetles) and sawflies all have three
pairs of true jointed legs on their tho-
rax. Caterpillars and sawfly larvae also
have several pairs of prolegs (fleshy,
round, leg-like protuberances) on their
abdomen. By contrast, tortoise beetle
Figure 2. Trachymela sloanei adult (left) and larva (right).
(actual
size)
Figure 1. Eucalyptus tortoise beetle adults and larvae chew irregular notches along leaf edges.
66
◆ 2 of 5 ◆
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle
larvae do not have any prolegs on their
abdomen (Fig. 2).
Trachymela sloanei larvae are dark green
to reddish brown with a black head
and prothoracic shield (black area on
the top and sides of the first segment
behind the head). Chrysophtharta m-
fuscum larvae are lighter greenish gray
with a black head. Larval color in both
species resembles that of host foli-
age, camouflaging the larvae. Larvae
develop through four immature stages
before pupating beneath loose bark, or
they drop from the canopy to pupate
in the soil or litter around the base
of host trees. During warm weather,
development time from egg to adult
may be as short as 5 weeks. There are
several generations per year from late
winter through fall.
Trachymela sloanei larvae and adults
hide under loose bark during the day
and feed primarily at night. Also, they
may be concentrated high in the tree,
so determining the cause of damage
may be difficult. If no leaf-feeding
adults or larvae are observed on foli-
age, search beneath loose bark where
adults, egg masses, larvae, and pos-
sibly pupae can be observed and col-
lected for identification by your local
county department of agriculture or
University of California Cooperative
Extension office.
Adults and larvae of Chrysophtharta
m-fuscum rest during the day on leaves,
where they are easily overlooked
because of their color and inactivity.
The young larvae often occur in groups
on leaves, but as they mature and feed
more they disperse. Adults of both
species are commonly snared in spider
webbing under bark and in orb weaver
spider webs.
Another Leaf Chewer—the Eucalyp-
tus Snout Beetle. The tortoise beetles
described above can readily be distin-
guished from the only other eucalyp-
tus leaf-chewing beetle in California,
the eucalyptus snout beetle or gumtree
weevil (Gonipterus scutellatus). Euca-
lyptus snout beetle adults are reddish
brown weevils. Their elongated head
and mouthparts (their “snout”), are
Table 1. Approximate Susceptibility of Eucalyptus (Gum) Species to Several
Introduced Pests in California.
Common name Eucalyptus Longhorned Redgum Tortoise
(gum) species borers1 lerp psyllid2 beetles3
Australian beech, polyanthemos — L L
silver dollar
baby blue, silverleaved pulverulenta — L4 M5
mountain
blue6 globulus M I–L4 M5
desert rudis — M I
dollar leaf, silver dollar cinerea — L —
flooded grandis I I M
forest red tereticornis — M —
gray ironbark paniculata — L —
hybrid trabutii L — —
Karri diversicolor M I —
lemon citriodora L I 7 L
long flowered macandra — I —
manna viminalis M I M5
mountain dalrympleana L — —
narrow leaved spathulata — L —
Nichol’s willow leaved nicholii — I —
red flowering ficifolia — L L
red ironbark sideroxylon L I–L L
river red camaldulensis L M M
round leaved/red flowered platypus/nutans M I–L —
shining nitens M M–I —
silver crenulata — — L
spotted maculata — —7 L
sugar cladocalyx L I–L —
swamp mahogany robusta L L —
Sydney blue saligna M L —
white ironbark leucoxylon — I —
— = information not available
M = more or most susceptible
I = intermediate susceptibility
L = less or least susceptible or reportedly not attacked
1 Longhorned borers = reported susceptibility to Phoracantha semipunctata, which is believed to be similar to the
susceptibility to Phoracantha recurva.
2 Redgum lerp psyllid = Glycaspis brimblecombei.
3 Tortoise Beetles = based mostly on observations of Trachymela sloanei, except where footnoted #5.
4 Susceptible to bluegum psyllid (Ctenarytaina eucalypti), but this psyllid is generally under good biological control.
5 More or most susceptible to the Chrysophtharta m-fuscum tortoise beetle.
6 Has become an invasive weed, others species may be better choices for planting.
7 Susceptible to lemongum psyllid (Cryptoneossa triangula) and spottedgum lerp psyllid (Eucalyptolyma maideni ).
Adapted partly from: Brennan et al. 2001, Hanks et al. 1995.
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles
67
◆ 3 of 5 ◆
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle
apparent when they are viewed from
the front or side. The legless snout
beetle larvae are yellowish green with
a slimy coating. Young snout beetle
larvae feed by scraping leaf surfaces,
leaving discolored trails of tissue and
causing elongated holes in the center
of leaves. This feeding pattern (surface
scraping and holes) by young snout
beetle larvae is distinctly different
from the leaf-edge notching caused
by tortoise and leaf beetles or by older
snout beetle larvae, which chew the
margins of leaves and consume large,
irregular patches of leaf tissue.
Eucalyptus snout beetles are uncom-
mon in California, because it is under
good biological control from an egg
parasite (Anaphes nitens) introduced
by University of California scientists.
Where this weevil is newly intro-
duced, a temporary outbreak may
occur. Avoid applying pesticides and
tolerate snout beetle leaf damage until
the population of natural enemies
increases enough to provide biological
control. From then on, the snout beetle
should not be a problem.
MANAGEMENT
Eucalyptus trees are attacked by sev-
eral other types of insects, including
eucalyptus longhorned borers, several
psyllids, and more innocuous species
such as the lemongum gall wasp (Epi-
chrysocharis burwellii). For more infor-
mation on these pests, see the Pest
Notes listed in References. Some euca-
lyptus insects are now under good
biological control, including eucalyp-
tus snout beetle, bluegum psyllid (Cte-
narytaina eucalypti), and (increasingly
at least in Southern California) the
redgum lerp psyllid. Learn how man-
agement efforts may affect these intro -
duced pests before taking any actions
against these leaf-feeding beetles (See
sidebar.). Provide trees with good cul-
tural care and avoid actions that are
harmful to the natural enemies of any
of these eucalyptus pests.
Cultural Control
Minimize tree stress by providing
eucalyptus trees with proper cultural
care and protecting them from injury.
Depending on the situation, consider
providing trees with supplemental
water during periods of prolonged
drought, such as during summer
and fall in much of California. Some
eucalyptus species are drought toler-
ant, but others require supplemental
moisture. If irrigating, avoid the
frequent, shallow watering that is
often used for lawns. A general recom-
mendation is to irrigate eucalyptus
trees infrequently (possibly once a
month during drought periods) but
with sufficient amounts so the water
penetrates deeply into the soil (1 foot
or more below the surface). This can
be achieved by applying water slowly
through drip emitters that run con-
tinuously for several days. In areas
without an established irrigation sys-
tem, a water tank truck can be used
to temporarily flood soil. However,
avoid prolonged waterlogging, espe-
cially around the root crown, because
eucalyptus trees are susceptible to
pathogens that cause Armillaria root
rot and Phytophthora root rot, which
are favored by wet soils. The spe-
cific amount and frequency of water
needed vary greatly depending on the
site and tree species. In addition, if a
tree has been irrigated regularly, avoid
prolonged interruptions to watering,
particularly during the summer when
insect pests are most active.
Avoid fertilizing eucalyptus. Succu-
lent new shoot growth stimulated by
excess nitrogen can increase the popu-
lation and damage of eucalyptus-feed-
ing psyllids. Eucalyptus in landscapes
rarely require nitrogen fertilization for
good growth. A six-year study of river
red gum found no significant effect
on tree size or survival due to annual
nitrogen application. If other plants
within the drip line of the tree require
fertilization, use slow-release nutrient
formulations.
Pest-Resistant Eucalyptus. If planting
eucalyptus, choose species that are
well adapted to the location, including
tolerance to the prevailing moisture
conditions. Although certain eucalyp-
tus trees are drought tolerant, other
species are adapted to more moist
conditions. It may not be apparent
that eucalyptus trees are stressed due
to drought or other factors until trees
become affected by additional dam-
aging influences, such as abundant
insects. Be aware that a few species
such as blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus)
have become invasive and other spe-
cies may be better choices for planting.
Consult Table 1 for a list of the approx-
imate susceptibility of eucalyptus
species to tortoise beetles, longhorned
borers, and psyllids.
Biological Control
Eucalyptus tortoise beetles are not
normally pests in their native home of
Australia except in cultivated stands;
presumably natural enemies there
keep beetle populations low. During
a period of several years, University
of California scientists introduced
an egg parasite (Enoggera reticulata),
originally from Australia, into Califor-
nia in an effort to control Trachymela
sloanei. This tiny wasp searches under
eucalyptus bark and in cracks and fis-
sures, laying its eggs in tortoise beetle
eggs. The parasite larva feeds inside
and kills the egg and, after pupating,
emerges as an adult to seek and attack
more beetle eggs.
However, the parasite has not been
recovered during field surveys in
California, indicating the species
probably has not become established.
To date, no biological control research
has been conducted for the newer pest,
Chrysophtharta m-fuscum. The parasite
Enoggera reticulata did establish and
control another eucalyptus tortoise
beetle species in South Africa, and
several other eucalyptus pests have
been controlled in California using
introduced parasites.
Chemical Control
There is no published research con-
ducted in landscapes on pesticide
effectiveness for controlling eucalyp-
tus tortoise beetles. Based on studies
of these pests in field nurseries and
eucalyptus stands, long–term con-
trol can be achieved by a soil drench
application of the systemic neonicoti-
noid insecticides imidacloprid (Merit
or Bayer Advanced 12-month Tree &
Shrub Insect Control) or clothianidin
(Arena—for commercial applicators
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles
68
◆ 4 of 5 ◆
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle
only). Foliar sprays of broad-spec-
trum insecticides such as the carba-
mate carbaryl (Sevin) or pyrethroids,
including cyfl uthrin (Tempo) and
permethrin (Astro, Dragnet), are
not recommended for eucalyptus in
landscapes because of concerns about
drift, runoff into water, and toxicity to
natural enemies. In comparison with
these contact sprays, systemic neonic-
otinoid insecticides can be more effec-
tive and provide longer-lasting control,
although they can take several weeks
after application before they become
effective.
Eucalyptus trees are often very large
and diffi cult to treat in landscapes.
Many eucalyptus trees are stressed
from other problems, and tree stress
can reduce pesticide effectiveness as
well as increase a tree’s sensitivity to
damage by the pesticide (called phy-
totoxicity). If insect damage cannot
be tolerated and pesticides must be
applied, make sure trees are receiving
good cultural care before making a
pesticide application.
Systemic Insecticides. These insecti-
cides are absorbed by plants (such as
through roots) and move to the plant
parts where pests feed. The systemic
insecticide imidacloprid is avail-
able to both professional applicators
(Imicide, Merit) and home gardeners
(Bayer Advanced 12-month Tree &
Shrub Insect Control). Soil applica-
tions and tree injections (if labeled for
these methods of application) mini-
mize environmental contamination.
The home-use product is relatively
easy to apply to soil; it is measured
into a bucket, diluted with water,
and poured onto soil near trunks, as
directed on the label.
Limit any treatments to situations
where damage is intolerable or pests
threaten tree survival. Most pesticides
are at least somewhat harmful to
benefi cial predators or parasites. Imi-
dacloprid applied to fl owering plants
or the soil beneath them may move to
nectar and poison the nectar-feeding
adult parasites, which during their
larval stage partially or completely
control other pests. Be aware that imi-
dacloprid application may contribute
to outbreaks of spider mites and other
pests.
When using systemic insecticides,
whenever possible consider making
a soil application instead of spray-
ing foliage or injecting or implanting
trees. Injecting or implanting trunks
or roots injures trees, and it is diffi cult
to repeatedly place insecticide at the
proper depth. Especially avoid meth-ods that cause large wounds, such as
implants placed in holes drilled in
trunks. Do not implant or inject roots
or trunks more than once a year.
Based on use against other pests, the
most effective time to apply imida-
cloprid on or into soil beneath trees is
late winter to early spring, just before
or soon after new leaves emerge and
before the end of California’s rainy
season. Make an application before
rainfall, or follow the application with
irrigation. Effi cacy is delayed until
sometime after application.
Because pesticide recommendations,
registrations, labels, and products change regularly, check current prod-
uct labels or contact the University
of California Cooperative Extension
in your county for the most current
recommendations on the use of insec-
ticides.
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles
IPM for Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles
Combine several practices in an Integrated Pest Management program
to prevent damage from tortoise beetles and other pest insects on
eucalyptus:
✔ Choose well-adapted
eucalyptus species.
✔ Deep-water drought-stressed
trees with drip hoses. Avoid
sprinkler irrigation.
✔ If pruning is necessary, prune
in December or January to
avoid borer attacks to freshly
cut limbs.
✔ Don’t fertilize trees.
Fertilizing increases damage
from psyllids, weakening trees.
✔ Use pesticides rarely and
always as a last resort. Most
tortoise beetle infestations
do not require pesticide
treatments, and pesticides
disrupt biological control of
other pests.
69
◆ 5 of 5 ◆
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetle
WARNING ON THE USE OF CHEMICALS
Pesticides are poisonous. Always read and carefully follow all precautions and safety recommendations
given on the container label. Store all chemicals in the original labeled containers in a locked cabinet or shed,
away from food or feeds, and out of the reach of children, unauthorized persons, pets, and livestock.
Pesticides applied in your home and landscape can move and contaminate creeks, rivers, and oceans.
Confine chemicals to the property being treated. Avoid drift onto neighboring properties, especially gardens
containing fruits or vegetables ready to be picked.
Do not place containers containing pesticide in the trash or pour pesticides down sink or toilet. Either use
the pesticide according to the label or take unwanted pesticides to a Household Hazardous Waste Collection
site. Contact your county agricultural commissioner for additional information on safe container disposal and
for the location of the Household Hazardous Waste Collection site nearest you. Dispose of empty containers
by following label directions. Never reuse or burn the containers or dispose of them in such a manner that
they may contaminate water supplies or natural waterways.
The University of California prohibits discrimination or harassment of any person on the basis
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, pregnancy (including childbirth, and
medical conditions related to pregnancy or childbirth), physical or mental disability, medical condition
(cancer-related or genetic characteristics), ancestry, marital status, age, sexual orientation, citizen-
ship, or service in the uniformed services (as defined by the Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act of 1994: service in the uniformed services includes membership, applica-
tion for membership, performance of service, application for service, or obligation for service in the
uniformed services) in any of its programs or activities. University policy also prohibits reprisal or
retaliation against any person in any of its programs or activities for making a complaint of discrimi-
nation or sexual harassment or for using or participating in the investigation or resolution process of
any such complaint. University policy is intended to be consistent with the provisions of applicable
State and Federal laws. Inquiries regarding the University’s nondiscrimination policies may be
directed to the Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Director, University of California, Agriculture and
Natural Resources, 1111 Franklin Street, 6th Floor, Oakland, CA 94607, (510) 987-0096.
For more information contact the University
of California Cooperative Extension in your
county. See your telephone directory for
addresses and phone numbers.
AUTHORS: J. G. Millar, Entomology, UC
Riverside; T. D. Paine, Entomology, UC Riv-
erside; J. A. Bethke, UC Cooperative Exten-
sion, San Diego Co.; R. W. Garrison, Calif.
Dept. of Food & Agric.; K. A. Campbell, En-
tomology, UC Riverside; and S. H. Dreistadt,
UC Statewide IPM Program, Davis
TECHNICAL EDITOR: M. L. Flint
COORDINATION AND PRODUCTION: P. N.
Galin and M. L. Fayard
ILLUSTRATIONS: Fig. 1: S. H. Dreistadt;
Fig. 2: R. W. Garrison 1998; Table 1:
Adapted partly from Brennan et al. 2001 and
Hanks et al. 1995.
Produced by UC Statewide IPM Program,
University of California, Davis, CA 95616
This Pest Note is available on the
World Wide Web (www.ipm.ucdavis.edu)
This publication has been anonymously peer
reviewed for technical accuracy by University of
California scientists and other qualified profession-
als. This review process was managed by the ANR
Associate Editor for Urban Pest Management.
To simplify information, trade names of products
have been used. No endorsement of named products
is intended, nor is criticism implied of similar products
that are not mentioned.
This material is partially based upon work supported
by the Extension Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, under special project Section 3(d),
REFERENCES
Bethke, J. A. 2007. Chrysophtharta con-
trol. CAPCA Advisor. June 2007. Vol. X
(3): 20, 53.
Bethke, J. A. 2007. Minimizing damage
to fresh cut eucalyptus. CORF News.
Summer 2007. Vol. 11(1): 7.
Brennan, E. B., G. F. Hrusa, S. A. Wein-
baum, and W. Levison. 2001. Resis-tance of Eucalyptus species to Glycaspis
brimblecombei (Homoptera: Psyllidae)
in the San Francisco Bay Area. Pan-
Pacific Entomologist 77: 249-253.
Garrison, R. W. 1998. New Agricul-tural Pest for Southern California:
Australian Tortoise Beetle, Trachymela
sloanei. El Monte, CA: Los Angeles
County Department of Agriculture.
Available online, http://acwm.co.la.
ca.us/pdf/AustralianTortoiseBeetle
eng_pdf.pdf
Hanks, L. M., T. D. Paine, J. G. Millar,
and J. L. Hom. 1995. Variation among
Eucalyptus species in resistance to
Eucalyptus longhorned borer in south-
ern California. Entomologia Experimen-
talis et Applicata 74: 185-194.
Paine, T. D., D. L. Dahlsten, J. G. Millar, M. S. Hoddle, and L. M. Hanks. 2000.
UC scientists apply IPM techniques to
new eucalyptus pests. Calif. Agric. 54
(6): 8-13.
Paine, T. D., S. H. Dreistadt, R. W. Gar-rison, and R. Gill. 2006. Pest Notes:
Eucalyptus Redgum Lerp Psyllid. Oak-
land: Univ. Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7460.
Paine, T. D., and S. H. Dreistadt. 2007.
Pest Notes: Psyllids. Oakland: Univ.
Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7423.
Paine, T. D., J. G. Millar, and S. H.
Dreistadt. 2000. Pest Notes: Eucalyp-
tus Longhorned Borers. Oakland: Univ.
Calif. Nat. Res. Publ. 7425.
von Ellenrieder, N. 2003. Eucalyptus
leaf beetle (Chrysophtharta m-fuscum).
Arcadia, Calif.: Los Angeles County Department of Agriculture. Avail-
able online, http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/
phpps/ppd/PDF/Chrysophtharta_m-
fuscum.pdf ❖
January 2009 Eucalyptus Tortoise Beetles
70
REPORT TO THE
PLANNING COMMISSION
12174 Woodside Drive
Meeting Date: April 26, 2017
Application #: APTR17-0002; TRP17-0014
Address/APN: 12174 Woodside Drive (APN 386-08-050)
Property Owner: Liang Chun Chen
Staff Planner: Kate Bear, City Arborist
71
Summary
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
The applicant requests Planning Commission approval of an appeal (APTR17-0002) of an
administrative decision denying a tree removal permit (TRP17-0014) for the removal of one coast
redwood tree at 12174 Woodside Drive.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the attached resolution denying the appeal.
Review by the Planning Commission is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100 for any
appeal of an administrative decision.
Discussion
BACKGROUND:
On January 12, 2017, the property owner at 12174 Woodside Drive applied for a permit (TRP17-
0014) to remove a mature coast redwood growing in the front yard. The reason for the requested
removal was that the tree was dropping branches in storms that damaged her neighbor’s tree.
Article 15-50.100 of the City Code states that anyone objecting to an administrative decision
made pursuant to the provisions of the Tree Regulations may appeal the decision to the Planning
Commission according to the procedure specified in Article 15-90. On February 7, 2017 the
owner filed an application with the Community Development Department to appeal the denial.
The reason for the appeal is that both the property owner and the neighbor are worried that
falling branches could hit cars parked under the tree or pedestrians walking on the street as well
as do damage to their yards.
INSPECTION OF THE TREE:
In reviewing the original tree removal application, staff conducted a site visit on January 17, 2017
and inspected the coast redwood tree. The redwood is very large and grows in the front yard. Until a
few years ago when the house was built, a neighboring redwood grew adjacent to this one; it was
approved for removal and replacement as part of the project because it was damaging the driveway.
An inspection of this retained redwood found it to be in good health and to have reasonable
structure. There were a couple of broken branches that had fallen from the tree during storms with
diameters of about 2 – 3 inches. The tree did not appear to be at risk of whole tree failure.
Following inspection, staff was unable to make the determination that the redwood required
removal and had a follow up conversation with the owner. During the conversation staff
suggested that the owner have a qualified tree contractor look at the tree to see if it could be
pruned to reduce the chance of limb failure. The owner indicated that the tree had been recently
pruned to thin out branches, but did not indicate that the tree company said this would prevent
limb failures. On January 23, 2017, the application for tree removal was denied. After the
application appealing the denial was submitted staff recommended that the owner have an
arborist provide an independent assessment of the tree. To date, an assessment has not been
received.
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 2
12174 Woodside Drive – Application APTR17-0002; TRP17-0014
April 26, 2017
72
Findings
City Code Section 15-50.080 requires that each application to remove a tree shall be reviewed and
that a determination be made on the basis of the following findings. A tree qualifies for removal if
just one of the criteria listed is met and there is no feasible alternative to removal. In making a
determination on an application, staff determines all of the criteria that have been met in support of
an application for tree removal.
(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, and whether the tree
is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree.
This finding cannot be made because the mature coast redwood appears healthy, is not
interfering with utilities, is not in danger of imminent failure, and is not dead or fallen.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property.
This finding cannot be made because the tree grows in the front lawn sufficiently far from the
house and has not lifted the curb and gutter for the street or driveway.
(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.
This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is
not a concern.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the
removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion
control, and the general welfare of residents in the area.
This finding cannot be made because this is the only tree of a significant size on the property.
Removal of the redwood will affect shade and scenic beauty of the neighborhood.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good
forestry practices.
This finding cannot be made because the redwood is not crowded by other trees.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not
encroaching on the protected tree.
This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to removal of the tree. Branches
have fallen during storms when residents are primarily inside. Branch size is relatively small
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 3
12174 Woodside Drive – Application APTR17-0002; TRP17-0014
April 26, 2017
73
2 – 3 inches in diameter at the base. Falling branches have caused minor damage to one tree
on the neighbor’s property, but no major property damage or injury to people.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of this Article.
This finding cannot be made because removal of the tree is not consistent with the general
purpose of this Article which is to preserve the mature trees in Saratoga whenever possible.
(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.
This finding cannot be made as small branch failure during a storm that causes minimal
property damage is not a reason to remove a significant tree.
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when
there is no other feasible alternative to the removal.
This finding can be made because the owner and the neighbor would have increased
enjoyment of their properties and would worry less about safety and property damage.
However, this does not warrant removal of a healthy mature tree that has caused minor
damage to a neighboring tree during a storm.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels,
subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar
panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City
Arborist's recommendation.
This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Resolution 17-006 denying the appeal
2. Appeal application APTR17-0002
3. Tree removal permit application TRP17-0014
4. Notice of public hearing
5. Supplemental information from appellant
Report to the Planning Commission Page | 4
12174 Woodside Drive – Application APTR17-0002; TRP17-0014
April 26, 2017
74
RESOLUTION NO: 17-006
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
DENYING APPEAL APTR17-0002
AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP17-0014
AT 12174 WOODSIDE DRIVE
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an
Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove one coast redwood at 12174 Woodside
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
one coast redwood.
NOW THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby finds,
determines and resolves as follows:
Section 1: The recitals set forth above are true and correct and incorporated herein by
reference.
Section 2: The administrative decision is consistent with the General Plan, Conservation
Element Policy:
General Open Space, OSC2: To preserve the City’s existing character which includes small
town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces.
The mature coast redwood on the property adds to the small town residential semi-rural appeal
of the community.
Arbor Resources Element, OSC12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health
and increasing the extent of arbor resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall
tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and
sustainable manner. To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s
Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs.
75
Resolution No. 17-006
The coast redwood was requested for removal through the City’s process to remove protected trees
as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for tree
removal and the appeal, and found that the request to remove the redwood does not meet the
criteria in the City Code, overall.
Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section
15-50.080 in that the tree appears healthy, stable and does not appear to be damaging structures on
the property on which it grows or the neighbor’s property. Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8 have not
been met. Criterion 9 is met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. How each criterion has or has not been
met is detailed below.
(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, and whether the tree is a
Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding cannot be made because the mature coast redwood
appears healthy, is not interfering with utilities, is not in danger of imminent failure, and is not
dead or fallen.
(2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to
improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding cannot be made because the
trees grows in the front lawn sufficiently far from the house and has not lifted the curb and gutter for
the street or driveway.
(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. This finding
is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is not a concern.
(4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the
removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion
control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made because
this is the only tree of a significant size on the property. Removal of the redwood will affect shade
and scenic beauty of the neighborhood.
(5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good
forestry practices. This finding cannot be made because the redwood is not crowded by other trees.
(6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not
encroaching on the protected tree. This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to
removal of the tree. Branches have fallen during storms when residents are primarily inside.
Branch size is relatively small measuring 2 – 3 inches in diameter at the base. Falling branches
have caused minor damage to one tree on the neighbor’s property, but no major property damage
or injury to people.
(7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general
purpose and intent of this Article. This finding cannot be made because removal of the tree is not
consistent with the general purpose of this Article which is to preserve the mature trees in Saratoga
whenever possible.
76
Resolution No. 17-006
(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. This finding cannot be made as
small branch failure during a storm that causes minimal property damage is not a reason to remove
a significant tree.
(9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when
there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding can be made because the
owner and the neighbor would have increased enjoyment of their properties and would worry
less about safety and property damage. However, this does not warrant removal of a healthy
mature tree that has caused minor damage to a neighboring tree during a storm.
(10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels,
subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar
panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City
Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed.
Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council 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.
The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR16-0001, denying TRP16-0301 for
the removal and replacement of one coast redwood, located at 13807 Via Alto Court.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 26th day of
April 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
___________________________
Chair, Planning Commission
77
78
79
80
1
Kate Bear
From:Kate Bear
Sent:Monday, January 23, 2017 10:28 AM
To:'Ting Lo'
Subject:12174 Woodside Dr
Attachments:12174 Woodside Dr application and denial.pdf; Appeal Application.pdf
Ting –
The application for the removal of the redwood has been denied. If you wish to appeal this denial, please submit the
appeal application and filing fee of $250 by the deadline of February 7, 2017.
When I inspected the tree, it appeared to be in good health and not at risk of whole tree failure. Loss of some branches
can occur during a storm and does not typically require that a tree be removed. No damage occurred as a result of the
branches that broke from the tree. Their size was relatively small: 2 – 3 inches in diameter. You indicated that you had it
pruned in the last year or so. This could have contributed to the branch failure by removing foliage that would buffer
other branches during a storm. I recommend monitoring the tree for changes and avoiding pruning for the next several
years.
Kate Bear
Kate Bear, City Arborist
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
408 868‐1276
kbear@saratoga.ca.us
81
CITY OF SARATOGA
Community Development Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
(408) 868-1222
NOTICE OF OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City of Saratoga’s Planning Commission announces the following Public Hearing on:
Wednesday, April 26, 2017 at 7:00 p.m.
The Public Hearing will be held in the City Hall Theater located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue.
Details of this item are available at the Saratoga Community Development Department, Monday
through Friday, 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. Please consult the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us
regarding Friday office closures.
ADDRESS/APN: 12174 Woodside Drive, Saratoga CA 95070; (386-08-050)
APPELLANT/OWNER: Liang Chun Chen
APPLICATION: APTR17-0002, TRP17-0014
DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property has appealed the administrative decision of the City
Arborist to deny the removal of a mature coast redwood tree growing in the front yard.
All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a
decision of the Planning Commission, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the meeting.
This notice has been sent to all owners of property within 150 feet of the permit application 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@saratoga.ca.us
82
83
Median Branch in Feb’17
•Length ~ 11 ft, Width ~ 3-4 ft
84
Big Branch in March’17
•Length ~ 22 ft, Width ~ 5-6 ft
85
Big branch crashed Cherry Tree
Cherry Tree
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96