Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-10-16 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 10, 2016 7:00 PM 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 January 13, 2016. Draft Minutes 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. 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. 1.1. PDR15-0035; 13235 Glen Brae Drive (393-19-003); Tanner – The applicant is requesting to construct a new 3,315 sq. ft. single-story, single family residence with a 2,758 sq. ft. basement and 451 sq. ft. attached garage. The height of the residence will not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the proposed residence exceeds 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The net site area is 12,514 square feet and is zoned R-1-12,500. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230 Recommended Action: Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 2 of 3 Adopt Resolution No. 16-001 approving the project subject to conditions of approval. Cover Memo Staff Report Att 1 - Resolution Att 2 - Arborist Report Att 3 - Photos of Existing House Att 4 - Neighborhood Context Photos Att 5 - Plans Att 6 - Colors and Materials Att 7 - Story pole certification Att 8 - Letters of Support Att 9 - Neighbor Notification Forms Att 10 - Letter from Applicant 1.2. Application APTR15-0004; 12990 Regan Lane (393-07-030); Leney – The appellant is appealing a tree removal permit application (TRP15-0380) to remove one Italian stone pine growing in the back yard of the property. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276 or kbear@saratoga.ca.us . Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution affirming staff’s determination on the required findings in the City Code to approve the tree removal application for the removal of an Italian stone pine tree at 12990 Regan Lane, and to require a replacement tree. Cover Memo 2 - Staff report and attachments 3 - PC Desk Item 1-13-16 12990 Regan Ln 4 - Revised Attachment 1 - Resolution 16-005 12990 Regan Ln 5 - PC Info received since 1-13-16 1.3. Application PDR15-0029; 13215 Carrick St. (389-17-031) Norton – The applicant is requesting approval to demolish an existing 1,184 sq. ft. residence for a new one-story, 3,186 sq. ft. residence. The height will be not taller than 22 feet. One tree has been proposed for removal. The lot size is 9,859 sq. ft. and is zoned R-1-10,000. Staff Contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-006 approving Design Review PDR15-0014 subject to conditions of approval. Staff Report - 13215 Carrick St Att 1 Reso 13215 Carrick Att 2 13215 Carrick Arborist Report Att 3 Neighbor Forms Att 4 Full Set - 13215 Carrick DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 3 of 3 CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, 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 February 4, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ACTION MINUTES JANUARY 13, 2016 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater   PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT Commissioners Wendy Chang, Joyce Hlava, Tina Walia, Vice Chair Dede Smullen ABSENT Commissioners Ahuja, Almalech, Fitzsimmons, ALSO PRESENT Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Michael Fossati, Planner Liz Ruess, Planner Sandy Baily, Special Project Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of December 9, 2015. Action: WALIA/HLAVA MOVED TO APPROVE THE DECEMBER 9, 2015 MINUTES. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE 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. 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 minutes maximum for closing statements. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 2 of 3 1.1 Application APTR15-0004; 12990 Regan Lane (393-07-030); Leney – The appellant is appealing a tree removal permit application (TRP15-0380) to remove one Italian stone pine growing in the back yard of the property. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276. Action: HLAVA/WALIA MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE 1.2 Application PDR15-0035; 13235 Glen Brae Drive (393-19-003); Tanner – The applicant is requesting to construct a new 3,315 sq. ft. (includes 451 sq. ft. attached garage) single-story, single family residence with a 2,758 sq. ft. basement. The height of the residence would be no taller than 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the height of the proposed residence exceeds 18 feet. The site area is 12,514 sq. ft. and the property is zoned R1-12,500. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230. Action: HLAVA/CHANG MOVED TO CONTINUE THIS ITEM TO THE FEBRUARY 10, 2016 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE 1.3 Application ADR15-0029; 15470 Belnap Way (517-14-021); Van den Hoek – The applicant is requesting to construct an 841.25 sq. ft. addition to an existing attached garage. The height of the addition to the garage would be no taller than 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the construction proposed is located within the “Md” ground movement potential category within a State mapped earthquake-induced landslide hazard zone. Geotechnical Clearance has been granted because the proposed project complies with requirements of Categorically permitted projects as described in Saratoga Municipal Code Section 16-65.060. The site area is 95,832 sq. ft. and the property is zoned HR. Staff Contact: Liz Ruess (408) 868-1230. Action: HLAVA/CHANG MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 16-002 APPROVING PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE 1.4 Application PDR15-0037; 12600 Saratoga Avenue (386-14-003); Abe Kaabipour – The applicant is requesting approval to modify an existing use permit to allow the refacing of existing gasoline signage from “Valero” to “Mobil”. Signs that would be affected include 18.5 sq. ft. price/identification gasoline sign and two 165 sq. ft. signs along the existing canopy. No additional signage has been proposed. The site is approximately 22,500 square feet and the property is zoned R-M-5,000. Staff contact: Michael Fossati (408) 868-1212. Action: CHANG/HLAVA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 16-003 APPROVING THE PROJECT SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL. MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE 1.5 Application ZOA15-0009 (City-wide) - The City has drafted a revised Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (Article 15-47). The purpose of the Ordinance is to implement new State requirements to increase water efficiency standards for new and retrofitted landscapes through more efficient systems, greywater usage, onsite storm water capture and by limiting the portion of new or significantly modified landscapes that can be covered in turf. Staff Contact: Sandy Baily 408-868-1235. 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Meeting Agenda – Page 3 of 3 Action: CHANG/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 15-054 AS AMENDED AND RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT THE REVISED ORDINANCE (ARTICLE 15-47). MOTION PASSED. AYES: CHANG, HLAVA, SMULLEN, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: AHUJA, ALMALECH, FITZSIMMONS. ABSTAIN:NONE ADJOURNMENT- 8:34 PM CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Abby Ayende, 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 January 7, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. 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 6 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Liz Ruess, Planner Date: February 10, 2016 Subject: PDR15-0035; ARB15-0073: Design Review of 3,315 sq. ft. single-story residence at 13235 Glen Brae Drive At the request of the applicant via desk item, the Planning Commission continued this matter from their meeting on January 13, 2016 to February 10, 2016, with no discussion. Please refer to the January 13, 2016 staff report for this item. The Resolution has been revised to reflect the Planning Commission hearing date as February 10, 2016. The following information is included: 1. Staff report and attachments for January 13, 2016 hearing. 2. Desk item memo provided at January 13, 2016 hearing; updated map and neighborhood context photos 3. Revised resolution (Attachment 1) with revised date of approval. 4. Additional attachments not included with January 13th Staff Report; a) Seven Neighbor Notification forms (Attachment 8) b) Three letters of support from neighbors (Attachment 9) c) Letter from the applicant (Attachment 10) 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: January 13, 2016 Application: PDR15-0035; ARB15-0073 Location / APN: 13235 Glen Brae Drive / 393-19-003 Owner/Applicant: Kim & Kevin Tanner Staff Planner: Liz Ruess 13235 Glen Brae Drive 8 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting to construct a new 3,315 sq. ft. single-story, single family residence with a 2,758 sq. ft. basement and 451 sq. ft. attached garage. The height of the residence will not exceed 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. Planning Commission design review is required because the proposed residence exceeds 18 feet in height. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The net site area is 12,514 square feet and is zoned R-1-12,500. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-001 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: 12,514 SF / 0.28 acres Net Site Area: 12,514 SF / 0.28 acres Average Site Slope: 3% Grading: 622 CY General Plan Designation: M-12.5 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-12,500 (Single-Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Site Coverage Residential Footprint/Main Residence Permeable Driveway (50% counted) Patios/Walkways/Pool Permeable Patio/Walks (50% counted) Total Proposed Site Coverage 4,103 SF 395 SF 1,907 SF 475 SF 6,880 SF (54.9%) 6,882 SF (55%) Floor Area Main House First Floor Garage Basement (excluded) Total Floor Area 2,864 SF 451 SF (2,758 SF) 3,315 SF 3,710 SF Height Lowest Elevation Point: Highest Elevation Point: Average Elevation Point: Proposed Topmost Point: Total Proposed Height 345 FT 345.8 FT 345.4 FT 370.4 FT 25 FT Maximum Height = 371.4 (26 Feet) Proposed Allowed/Required Setbacks for Residence Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 25’-4”+ 10’-1” 10’-6.5” 29’ 25’ 10’ 10’ 25’ Page 2 of 5 9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS The project site is located on Glen Brae Drive, midway between Via Monte Drive and Via Grande Drive. The proposed building site at the center of the parcel is essentially level and the average slope of the site is 3 percent. This project proposes demolition of an existing 2,702 square foot, one story single-family home. The existing home will be replaced with a new 3,315 square foot one story, single-family residence that includes a 451 sq. ft. attached garage and a 2,758 square foot basement. Planning Commission review is required because the proposed height exceeds 18 feet which is the threshold for an Administrative Design Review that can be reviewed by City staff. The proposed height of the residence will not exceed 25 feet. The proposed home includes traditional design elements that are functional and simple, utilizing exterior colors and materials to compliment the design. The exterior color palette of the proposed residence is neutral and compliments the neighborhood. The exterior materials include; light beige exterior stucco, white trim, stone base veneer, slate roofing, and dark brown wood front door and garage doors. A color and material boards are on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. The following table lists the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Stucco Smooth Finish Stucco – Kelly Moore/Woodbridge Trail Trim Color Kelly Moore/Stocking White Front Door/Garage Doors Wood - Dark Brown Base Veneer California Gold Panel Roofing Pikes Point American Slate Mix Trees The site currently has two protected trees. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The project has received Arborist approval with conditions as outlined in the Arborist Report, Attachment #2. Front Landscape The applicant proposed to remove the existing front yard driveway and hardscaping and replace with a new permeable paver driveway (relocated to opposite side of front setback), a permeable paver walkway, and drought resistant landscaping. The front setback area is 2,977 sq. ft. The applicant is allowed by the City Code to install up to 1,488 sq. ft. (50%) of hardscape within the front setback area. The applicant proposes 830 sq. ft. (28%) of hardscape in the front yard. The City Code also allows up to a three foot tall fence within the required front yard setback. The applicant is not proposing a new fence at this time. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The applicant did not submit Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. Staff mailed a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga Page 3 of 5 10 News. No additional written comments, either positive or negative, were received prior to the completion of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three single-family residences in a residential area. 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. (a) 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 because the majority of the proposed structure will remain in the same building footprint of the existing structure. The average slope of the site is 3%, so the building site is essentially level. (b) 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 because neither of the two protected trees are proposed for removal. (c) 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 because the proposed one-story residence is compatible with the predominant streetscape of the area, including the generally established front yard setbacks. The proposed residence is located in the center of the site, where the existing house is located. There are numerous two-story homes in the neighborhood, including one immediately adjacent to the proposed project. The proposed residence is no taller than 25 feet, however it is a single story with no windows above 10 feet. There would be no unreasonable impact to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds. (d) 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 because the massing of the proposed roof is broken up by varying rooflines. The overall design, rooflines, materials, and location of building features will avoid the perception of excessive bulk. The proposed design utilizes color and material to compliment the design and break-up the sense of mass. The exterior colors and materials proposed are; stucco in a light beige color, contrasted by white trim, dark brown front entry door and garage doors, neutral stone base veneer, and neutral tone slate roofing. The proposed style is similar to that of several of the newer homes in the neighborhood and is complimentary to the older existing homes in the neighborhood. Page 4 of 5 11 (e) 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 because the hardscape in the front setback area is limited to just 28% which is well below the permitted 50%. The applicant proposes a driveway and front walkway constructed of pervious pavers. The remaining front yard setback area will be drought resistant landscaping. (f) Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made because the project meets all required setbacks and will remain under 26 feet in height. The project will not impair adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. (g) 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 can be made in the affirmative because the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook such as minimizing the use of excessive colors and materials, designed the structure with simple and well-proportioned massing, and avoiding unreasonable interference with privacy and views as detailed in the findings above. (h) 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 is not applicable as this lot is not located within the hillside residential zoning district and is not considered a hillside lot. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Arborist Report 3. Photos of Existing House 4. Neighborhood Context Photos 5. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 6. Colors & Materials Board 7. Story Pole Certification Letter Page 5 of 5 12 RESOLUTION NO: 16-001 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR15-0035 LOCATED AT 13235 GLEN BRAE DRIVE WHEREAS, on September 16, 2015, an application was submitted by Kevin Tanner requesting Design Review approval to demolish an existing one story home and to construct a new 3,315 square foot, one story single-family residence (includes 451 sq. ft. attached garage) with a 2,758 square foot basement. The height of the proposed residence is 25 feet. No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is located within the R-1-12,500 Zoning District (APN 393-19-003). WHEREAS, the City Code requires a geologic hazards report to be prepared by a licensed geologist and for the City’s Geologic Consultant to review and approve the report. 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 February 10, 2016, 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 Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of one single-family residence in a residential area. 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 the 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; 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 13 properties and to community viewsheds; the mass and height of the structure and its architectural 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; and is consistent with the Residential Design Review Handbook. Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0035 located at 13235 Glen Brae Drive, 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 10th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR15-0035 13235 GLEN BRAE DRIVE (APN: 393-19-003) 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, or grading permit 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 satisfaction of 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 Zoning Regulations 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. 15 5. Construction must be commenced within 36 months from the date of this approval (February 10, 2019), or the resolution will expire. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6. Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated September 14, 2015, denominated Exhibit "A". 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 Condition 3, above. 7. Building Division Submittal. 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 and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b. A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c. This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d. A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; e. A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; f. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and g. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8. Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9. Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16- 75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10. Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the proposed fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 11. Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: a. To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that 16 provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b. To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c. Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d. Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e. Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 12. Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 13. Noise and Construction Hours. 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. 14. Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. CITY ARBORIST 15. Arborist Report. All recommendations of the Arborist Report dated November 16, 2015 and all other future updated reports, and incorporated herein by this reference shall be followed and incorporated (in its entirety) into the plans. PUBLIC WORKS 16. Encroachment Permit. The applicant shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 17. Driveway Approach. Applicant (Owner) shall remove existing driveway approach and replace with vertical curb, sidewalk and landscaped strip per City standard specifications to match existing. Applicant (owner) shall install a new driveway approach per City standard specifications. Applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 17 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0073 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 13235 Glen Brae Drive Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Kim and Kevin Turner Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 393-19-003 Email: kevin@saratogarim.com Report History: Report 1 Date: Plans received October 9, 2015 Arborist report received November 4, 2015 Revised plans received November 16, 2015 Report completed November 16, 2015 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new one story house with a basement and attached two-car garage. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree bond – Required - $10,620 For trees 1 and 2 Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – None requested or permitted. Replacement trees – None required. 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. 18 3235 Glen Brae Drive Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. The submitted arborist report, once included in the final set of plans, will satisfy this requirement. The Project Description in Brief and Conditions of Approval from this report are also to be included in the final set of plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Conditions of Approval 3 – Maps of site showing tree locations and protective fencing 19 13235 Glen Brae Drive Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Scott Design Associates Date of Plans: September 14, 2015, revised November 16, 2015 Sheet A 0.1 Site Plan Sheet A – 1 Enlargement of Leased Area Sheet A – 2 Equipment Cabinets Layout Sheets A – 4 and A – 5 Existing and Proposed Elevations Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Westfall Engineers, Inc. Date of Plans: October 9, 2013, revised April 15, 2015 Sheet TOPO Boundary and Topographic Survey Sheet 1 of 2* Grading and Drainage Plan Sheet 1 of 2* Grading and Drainage Plan * Both sheets are numbered 1 of 2 and titled Grading and Drainage Plan – second sheet has details TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: David Lazcko of Ian Geddes and Associates Date of Report: November 2, 2015 An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried two trees protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of each tree, potential impacts from construction, appraised values and tree protection recommendations was provided. No trees are requested for removal to construct this project. A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Table 2: List of trees and appraised values Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Condition Intensity of Construction Impacts Appraised Value On Adjacent Property? Deodar cedar 1 Cedrus deodara 35 Fair Moderate $14,250 No Beech Low/ 2 Fagus sylvatica 17.0 Good Moderate $12,300 Yes 20 13235 Glen Brae Drive Attachment 3 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 2, 2015 prepared by David Lazcko shall become conditions of approval. 3. The arborist report dated November 2, 2015 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 Conditions of Approval from this report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans as part of the Tree Preservation Plan. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be David Lazcko, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall $10,620 be for tree(s) 1 and 2. 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. May be 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 maps. b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. 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. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. 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. f. Tree protection fencing shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. g. If contractor feels that work must be done inside the fenced area, call City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 8. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every week during grading activities and monthly 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. 21 13235 Glen Brae Drive Attachment 3 9. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of trees 1 and 2. 10. The Project Arborist shall supervise: a. Installation of the new driveway and walkway within 15 feet of tree 1. b. Installation of the storm drain where it is within 15 feet of tree 1. c. Work in the planter under the neighbor’s beech tree – hatched area on map 2. 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. 14. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct the project. 18. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $150 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 19. 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. 20. 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. 22 Attachment 3 13235 Glen Brae Drive 23 Attachment 3 13235 Glen Brae Drive 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Kate Bear Date: February 10, 2016 Subject: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Appeal of removal of one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane The Planning Commission continued this matter from their meeting of January 13, 2016 to February 10, 2016, with no discussion. Please refer to the January 13, 2016 staff report for this item. Attached is the revised Resolution for this item which reflects today’s Planning Commission hearing date and information received after January 13, 2016. The following information is included: 1. Staff report and attachments for January 13, 2016 hearing. 2. Desk item memo with information received prior to January 13, 2016 hearing. 3. Revised resolution, Attachment 1, with new resolution number and revised date of approval. 4. Information received after January 13, 2016. 62 PLANNING COMMISSION MEMORANDUM Meeting Date: January 13, 2016 Application: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Location / APN: 12990 Regan Leney/393-07-030 Appellant/Applicant: Leney/Abhyankar Staff: Kate Bear, City Arborist On September 30, 2015, the property owner at 12990 Regan Lane applied for a permit (TRP15- 0412) to remove an Italian stone pine growing in the back yard. The application included a report from International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) – Certified Arborist and Registered Consulting Arborist, Brian McGovern, recommending the removal of the tree. Staff reviewed the independent arborist report submitted along with the tree removal application, inspected the tree and confirmed the findings required by the City Code to allow for its removal subject to neighborhood notification and an applicable 15-day appeal period. On November 3, 2015 notices were sent to neighbors within 150 feet of the property informing them of the administrative decision and providing a deadline of November 18, 2015 to appeal the determination. 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 November 16, 2015 Megan Laney, the neighbor next door, filed an appeal application with the Community Development Department saying that the tree is healthy and provides a gateway experience for the neighborhood. The appeal expressed concern that removing the tree would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the attached resolution affirming staff’s determination on the required findings in the City Code to approve the tree removal application for the removal of an Italian stone pine tree at 12990 Regan Lane, and to require a replacement tree. DESCRIPTION: The owner of the property applied for a permit (TRP15-0380) to remove one mature Italian stone pine (Pinus pinea). Along with the application they submitted a report from an independent arborist, Brian McGovern, supporting the removal of the pine. The report found the pine to be in good health, although its structure was determined to be poor. The tree has three main trunks which are co-dominant; they are each about equal in size and competing for dominance. The three trunks are in contact with each other for lengths of 50 – 75 inches and have “included bark”, a phenomenon where bark becomes imbedded in the union and creates a weak attachment. If a trunk failed the report found the likelihood of hitting the street or the garage high and the consequences of impact to be significant. The report concluded that the tree posed a high risk of failure of a trunk within the next five years in normal weather. 63 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 A failure profile for Italian stone pines was published in the Fall 2015 journal of Western Arborist and is attached (Attachment 4). The article notes that a key factor for trunk failures is the presence of codominant trunks. Data on 170 tree failures was analyzed, 75 of which were from the bay area. Of trunk failures, 44% occurred in trees with multiple codominant trunks. FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS 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 below 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 can be made because this is a mature Italian stone pine that is growing close to the garage with a portion of the tree canopy over the structure. The owner provided an independent arborist report which includes a climbing and risk assessment of the tree supporting the requested removal. The arborist report notes that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather as the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding can be made because the tree’s roots have broken a concrete pad that was used as an RV parking area by the previous owners. If a trunk failure occurs, it could cause additional damage by landing on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (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 no erosion has been observed. (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. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the amount of shade available on the property. There are no documented privacy issues, scenic view impacts, or erosion problems associated with the tree proposed to be removed. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding can be made because there are no other trees near this one but this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. Additionally, there is adequate space on the property to accommodate additional replacement trees to mitigate the tree proposed to be removed. Page 2 of 4 64 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree. Additionally, the required size of the supporting brace itself would have an aesthetic impact to the tree and property. (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 can be made because removal of the tree and replacement with new trees on the property is entirely consistent with the City’s Tree Regulations of the City Code. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 require the owner to plant two replacement trees in the front yard. Each new tree shall be capable of reaching a height of 40 – 50 feet or more when mature, and shall be of 24-inch box container size. The replacement trees can also be planted on the property so they are farther from the house and can grow without the potential for property damage or personal injury. The replacement trees would also have the potential to contribute to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature without the risks noted with the existing tree. (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 can be made because the trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car, causing damage or possibly injure a pedestrian. (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 because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through any other standard remedies. In addition this species is noted for the fact that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, the tree can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (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. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 15-055 denying the appeal 2. Tree removal permit application TRP15-0380 Page 3 of 4 65 21990 Regan Lane, APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 3. Arborist report by Brian McGovern 4. Structural failure profile: Italian Stone Pine (Picea pinea), Fall 2015, Western Arborist Page 4 of 4 66 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO: 15-055 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR15-0003 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP15-0412 AT 20315 ORCHARD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane; 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 met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one coast live oak. 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, including the Conservation Element Policy, OSC12: 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. The Italian stone pine 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 pine does meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are met, allowing the removal of a tree, as set forth in Section 15- 50.080. Criterion 4 is not met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. 67 Resolution No. 15-055 (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 may be made in the affirmative. This is a mature Italian stone pine that grows close to the garage with a portion of the canopy over it. The owner provided a report that included a climbing and risk assessment of the tree in support of its removal. The report found that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather due to the way they grow and the fact that the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding may be made in affirmative because the tree’s roots have broken the concrete pad that was used as an RV parking pad by the previous owners. If a trunk fails it could land on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (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 cannot be made. The property is considered flat. (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. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the shade of the property 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 can be made in the affirmative. Although there are no other trees near this one, this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made in the affirmative because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree cables. (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 can be made in the affirmative because removal of 68 Resolution No. 15-055 the tree and replacement with new trees on another part of the property is consistent with the Tree Regulations when there are no alternatives. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 are for the owner to plant two trees in the front yard to replace this tree. Each new tree is to reach a height of 40 – 50 feet or more when mature, and be from a box container measuring 24 inches on a side. Replacement trees can be planted farther from the house so that they will not threaten damage to it and they can add to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature. (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 can be made in the affirmative. The trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car or pedestrian (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 in the affirmative because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through standard remedies. In addition this is a species that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (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 pertinent to the application and is not made. 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 APTR15-0004, approving TRP15-0380 for the removal and replacement of one Italian stone pine, located at 12990 Regan Lane, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval of TRP15-0380. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 13th day of January 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Kate Bear Date: January 13, 2016 Subject: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Appeal of removal of one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane The following information was submitted to the City after Planning Commission packets for this meeting were created. 1. The Appeal Application was not attached to the staff report and is included here. 2. An email from the neighbor at 12974 Regan Lane in support of the application to remove the pine. 3. An email from the neighbor at 20335 Blauer Drive in support of the appeal. 100 101 1 Kate Bear From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Monday, January 11, 2016 11:41 AM To:Kate Bear Subject:FW: Stone pine removal @ Blauer and Regan     From: Wei‐Jen Hsia [mailto:hsiawj@yahoo.com]   Sent: Monday, January 11, 2016 11:22 AM  To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>  Cc: Paul Song <paul_song@issi.com>; Wei‐Jen Hsia <hsiawj@yahoo.com>  Subject: Stone pine removal @ Blauer and Regan  Dear Saratoga Planning Commission, My name is Paul Song, and I am the property owner at 20335 Blauer Drive. I am writing in regards to the tree removal permit for an Italian stone pine tree at the intersection of Blauer and Regan. My family and I have lived on Blauer for more than 13 years, and we feel that this tree is one of the landmarks for our street. It is a beautiful tree and has been well kept over these years. Although we do not wish to interfere with any project by the owner of the tree in question, we would be sad to see it go and would like the city to reconsider this decision. Thank you. Sincerely yours Paul Song 102 1 Kate Bear From:Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> Sent:Sunday, January 10, 2016 8:53 AM To:Kate Bear Subject:Support Letter for the Stone Pine Tree Hello Kate, I would like to forward this email we received as a support from our neighbor next door - Denise and Lee Salin. We would request if you could kindly forward this to the planning committee members prior to the meeting on Wednesday. Thank you and Warm Regards Devyani 408-910-1510 ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Denise Salin <denisesalin@me.com> To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> Sent: Saturday, January 9, 2016 7:10 PM Subject: tree Hi Devyani, Thank you for keeping in touch with us regarding the tree. We appreciate the time, resources, and research you have invested to assess the situation. Although we have enjoyed the beauty of the tree for many years, we understand and support your decision to remove the tree due to safety concerns. Best, Denise and Lee 12974 Regan Ln. Saratoga, CA 103 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO: 16-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR15-0003 AND APPROVING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP15-0412 AT 20315 ORCHARD ROAD WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision permitting a request to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane; 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 met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one coast live oak. 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, including the Conservation Element Policy, OSC12: 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. The Italian stone pine 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 pine does meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that criteria 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are met, allowing the removal of the tree, as set forth in Section 15- 50.080. Criterion 4 is not met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. 104 Resolution No. 16-005 (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 can be made because this is a mature Italian stone pine that is growing close to the garage with a portion of the tree canopy over the structure. The owner provided an independent arborist report which includes a climbing and risk assessment of the tree supporting the requested removal. The arborist report notes that the tree would be susceptible to failure of one of the main trunks in normal weather as the trunks will continue to push against each other as they increase in girth. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding can be made because the tree’s roots have broken a concrete pad that was used as an RV parking area by the previous owners. If a trunk failure occurs, it could cause additional damage by landing on the garage, a car parked in the driveway or in the street. (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 no erosion has been observed. (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. This is the only tree of a significant size on the property and its removal will impact the amount of shade available on the property. There are no documented privacy issues, scenic view impacts, or erosion problems associated with the tree proposed to be removed. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding can be made because there are no other trees near this one but this tree has outgrown its planting area and its root system is in a very limited soil volume. Additionally, there is adequate space on the property to accommodate additional replacement trees to mitigate the tree proposed to be removed. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding can be made because removal of the tree is the only means to assure that catastrophic failure of one or more of the codominant trunks will not occur. The locations where stems are in contact with each other contain “included bark”, or bark that becomes embedded between the trunks. As they increase in girth, they push against each other and one or more of the trunks may split out of the tree. This tree has two long sections of included bark, one measuring over four feet and another measuring over six feet. Typically defects such codominant stems with included bark are addressed when a tree is young and corrective pruning is undertaken. Pruning this mature tree will require large pruning cuts and the result will likely be unsightly. Sometimes codominant stems can be supported with cables, but the necessary symmetry doesn’t exist in this tree. Installing a support brace would require significant costs associated with engineering and installing the support and would disrupt the root system which supports the tree cables. Additionally, the required size of the supporting brace itself would have an aesthetic impact to the tree and property. 105 Resolution No. 16-005 (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 can be made because removal of the tree and replacement with new trees on the property is entirely consistent with the City’s Tree Regulations of the City Code. The conditions of approval for TRP15-0380 require the owner to plant two replacement trees in the front yard. Each new tree shall be capable of reaching a height of 40 – 50 feet or more when mature, and shall be of 24-inch box container size. The replacement trees can also be planted on the property so they are farther from the house and can grow without the potential for property damage or personal injury. The replacement trees would also have the potential to contribute to the scenic beauty of the property and the neighborhood as they mature without the risks noted with the existing tree. (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 can be made because the trunk of the tree most likely to fail could fall into the street and hit a car, causing damage or possibly injure a pedestrian. (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 because the risk of failure cannot be reduced through any other standard remedies. In addition this species is noted for the fact that when healthy and growing vigorously such as this specimen is, the tree can cause significant damage to structures from roots. (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. 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 APTR15-0004, approving TRP15-0380 for the removal and replacement of one Italian stone pine, located at 12990 Regan Lane, subject to the Findings and Conditions of Approval of TRP15-0380. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 10th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 106 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Kate Bear Date: February 10, 2016 Subject: APTR15-0004; TRP15-0380 Appeal of removal of one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane The following information was submitted to the City after Planning Commission packets for this meeting were created. 1. Email from Marcia Fariss in support of the appeal. 2. Email from appellant Megan Leney with attached tree removal permit application TRP15- 0003 requesting that the attached permit denial be included in the packet. 3. Email from Megan Leney with attached email to owner of tree, Devyani Abhyankar, offering to get another arborist report. 107 1 Kate Bear From:Abigail Ayende on behalf of Planning Sent:Tuesday, January 19, 2016 8:06 AM To:DL - Planning Commission; Erwin Ordoñez; Kate Bear Subject:FW: tree removal approvals     From: Marcia Fariss [mailto:farissmarcia@fhda.edu]   Sent: Saturday, January 16, 2016 3:56 PM  To: Planning <planning@saratoga.ca.us>; Erwin Ordoñez <eordonez@saratoga.ca.us>  Subject: tree removal approvals  Planning Commission Members, Erwin Ordonez, Unfortunately I am unable to attend the February 10 Planning Commission meeting; therefore I am addressing you via e-mail. I am extremely concerned about rather recent developments concerning the apparent ease with which property owners are receiving permission to remove mature trees in our City. The February 10 meeting includes yet another request for removal of a mature tree (an Italian Stone Pine). Not only are neighbors protesting its removal but many other fellow Saratogans have expressed their concerns to me about the fact that so many of our mature trees are being removed for personal aesthetic or home expansion reasons. Removing dangerous and/or diseased trees is understandable; removing healthy mature trees for superficial reasons is outrageous. Not only does it adversely affect Saratoga’s beauty and rural atmosphere, it lessens our property values. If those are not sufficient reasons to deny mature tree removal, then helping to cleanse the pollutants in the air we breathe, should suffice. Personally, I see no reason to approve tree removal because “it might become diseased, dangerous or decline.” Why not wait until a tree actually becomes diseased or dangerous? “Might” is no reason to remove a mature tree! In addition to opposing the removal of this specific tree, I feel that a major revision in the entire process is required. While we might not be in danger of having our “Tree City” designation revoked, if the current trend continues we’ll deserve the “Treeless City” designation. Not to mention that our tree canopy award will be meaningless. Requiring applicants to replace a mature tree with a sapling is useless; it takes too long for them to mature. Fining residents who remove trees without permission is also useless. The answer is clear: Prevention. I urge you to save the Blauer Drive Stone Pine and all other healthy, mature trees in Saratoga. I would like to see an independent arborist (or two) perform the tree evaluations, not one hired by an applicant. It is too easy for an applicant to pay (or otherwise encourage) for an arborist to give an opinion favorable to the person wanting to remove the tree. Lastly, it appears obvious that revision or “tightening” of our current City Codes pertaining to tree removal is warranted and it should be done immediately. I urge you to deny removal of this specific tree and declare a moratorium on any future removals until a new, more restrictive policy can be put into place and enforced. 108 2 Thank you, Marcia Fariss Saratoga Glen Pl. 109 1 Kate Bear From:Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Sent:Monday, February 01, 2016 10:08 AM To:Kate Bear Subject:Fwd: Please include this in the packet for the 12990 Regan Ln. stone pine appeal on Feb 10 Attachments:12990 Regan Ln permit denial.pdf; ATT00001.htm Hi Kate, Resending second email with attachment. Please confirm that you received both the email and the attachment. Thanks, Megan Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Megan Leney <meganleney@comcast.net> Date: January 28, 2016 at 10:14:33 PM PST To: planning@saratoga.ca.us, Kate Bear <kbear@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Please include this in the packet for the 12990 Regan Ln. stone pine appeal on Feb 10 Dear Planning Commissioners, Please include the attached document in the packet for the February 10th appeal of the permit to remove the stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane. I want it included because I want to discuss the fact that the Abhiyankars had previously attempted to remove the tree on the grounds that it was lifting their RV pad, even though they did not own an RV. Thanks, Megan Leney 110 111 112 1 Kate Bear From:megonation@gmail.com on behalf of Megan Leney <meganleney@comcast.net> Sent:Thursday, January 28, 2016 10:31 PM To:Planning; Kate Bear Subject:Please include in packet for Feb 10 PC meeting appeal of 12990 Regan Drive Stone Pine Removal Attachments:Gmail - Re_ Stone Pine.pdf Dear Planning Commissioners, Please include the attached file in the packet for the February 10 Planning Commission. The attachment is an email exchange between myself and Devyani Abhyankar. I want this email exchange included in the packet because I want it noted that I had offered to hire and pay for a certified arborist to come and examine the tree to help address her safety concerns. Ms. Abhyankar responded that she was not willing to have another arborist examine the tree even though I had offered to pay for the arborist examination. I have highlighted, in the document, my request and Ms. Abhyankar's refusal. Thanks and best regards, Megan Leney 113 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…1/3 Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Re: Stone Pine  3 messages Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Tue, Nov 17, 2015 at 11:42 PM Reply­To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan Thank you for responding to my email. Sorry I was extremely busy at work all day and did not get a chance to respond until now. I am aware of the sentimentality surrounding the potential removal of the tree, but for us it is more of a safety and liability issue. With regards to getting another certified arborist report, I don't see value in it, as the current findings have been approved by 2 arborists. Having a third or for that matter a fourth arborist may not provide any more clarity to this issue.   Thank you Devyani Abhyankar   From: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com>  To: dj2da91@yahoo.com   Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:23 PM  Subject: Stone Pine  Hi Devyani,  Thank you for your email, and for stopping by. Sorry we missed you; we were out late last night. Yes I did read the arborist report, and, like many in the neighborhood and surrounding area, I respectfully disagree with what you are doing.   Would you be open to having another professional arborist examine the tree and weigh in on the safety issues you mentioned being concerned about? I will pay for the arborist.  Thanks,  Megan  Sent from my iPhone  114 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…2/3 Sent from my iPhone  Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 6:15 AM To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan  We just have one arborist written report that was submitted to the city and the other arborist had met us, inspected the tree and given us a verbal opinion ­ after which he even spoke to Kate Bear.  As written reports are rather expensive we chose to do just one.    Best  Devyani  408­910­1510 Sent from my iPhone. Please pardon the typos.  On Nov 18, 2015, at 5:20 AM, Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> wrote:  Hi Devyani, Please send all the arborist reports you have. I have already seen the one you submitted for the permit, but would like to see the others as well. Thanks, Megan  Sent from my iPhone [Quoted text hidden] Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 5:30 PM Reply­To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com> To: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com> Hi Megan, Thanks for your email. As I had mentioned earlier, I am aware of the sentiments surrounding the potential removal of the tree, but for us it is more of a safety and liability issue. If there are other people from the neighborhood at the Planning commission meeting, it will allow us to present the safety / hazard issue surrounding this tree rather than its beauty or appeal. It continues to be a safety hazard for our property and others around us.  Additionally, as per the City of Saratoga website, at this point the Italian Stone Pine is not considered a Heritage tree.  Thank you, Devyani  From: Megan Leney <megonation@gmail.com>  115 1/28/2016 Gmail - Re: Stone Pine https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/?ui=2&ik=df32aa1b7b&view=pt&q=dj2da91%40yahoo.com&qs=true&search=query&th=151171e407120350&siml=151198d756b…3/3 To: Devyani Abhyankar <dj2da91@yahoo.com>   Sent: Thursday, November 19, 2015 1:55 PM  Subject: Re: Stone Pine  Hi Devyani, The neighborhood is very concerned about the loss of the tree ( Saratoga is a Tree City USA) and we value our trees greatly.  You have filed an appeal and the Heritage Tree Society of Saratoga will be presenting their case in front of the Planning Commission along with me and a large contingent of neighbors opposed to the tree removal.  I and a group of neighbors are meeting to plan our defense of the tree.   Regards, Megan [Quoted text hidden] [Quoted text hidden] 116 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date:February 10, 2016 Application:PDR15-0029 Location/APN:13215 Carrick Ave. / 389-17-031 Applicant/Owner:Norton / Lin Staff Planner:Michael Fossati 13215 Carrick Ave.117 SUMMARY PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is requesting to demolish an existing 1,184 sq. ft. residence in order to construct a new 3,186 sq. ft. single-story residence located at 13215 Carrick Ave. The height of the new residence will not exceed 22 feet. One protected tree is proposed to be removed. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-006 approving Design Review PDR15-0014 subject to conditions of approval. Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required per City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(3) PROJECT DATA: Site Area:9,859 square feet Average Site Slope:Less than 10% Grading:No grading required General Plan Designation:M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning:R-1-10,000 Proposed Allowable/Required Proposed Site Coverage House (including Eaves): Driveway: Patios (pervious) Walkways (pervious) Total Proposed Site Coverage 3,839 SF 687 SF 1,080 SF 286 SF 5,892 SF (60%) 5,915 SF Floor Area Residence: Garage: Total Proposed Floor Area 2,747 SF 439 SF 3,186 SF 3,200 SF Height (Residence) Lowest Elevation Point Highest Elevation Point Average Elevation Point Proposed Topmost Point 96.78 FT 96.78 FT 96.78 FT 118.45(21 FT 8 IN) Maximum Height = 122.78 (26 Feet) 118 Setbacks for Residence Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: *Existing site is non-conforming which allows a rear setback less than the minimum standard associated with the district. 25’2” 11” 10” 20’3” 25’ 10’ 10’ 20’* PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS This project proposes demolition of an existing 1,184 sq. ft. one story residence in order to construct a 3,188 sq. ft. residence located at 13215 Carrick Avenue. The immediate area has one two-story residence within the general neighborhood, but the majority of residences are either older one-story ranchers or newly renovated one-story homes with stucco finishes, barrel tile roofing, and stone wainscoting. As stated with an asterisk above, the existing site is non-conforming due its depth. Per City Code, sites in the R-1-10,000 zoning district must have a minimum length of 115 feet in depth. If a legal lot has a length less than the minimum, the rear setback can be reduced to 20% of the length of the site or 20 feet, whichever is greater. The lot has an average length of 95.71 feet. Twenty percent of 95.71 is 19.14 feet, which is less than the 20 feet minimum. Therefore, 20 feet is required for the rear setback. The existing home will be replaced with a new one story residence. Proposed materials and features include clay barrel tile, three coat stucco exterior and columns, crown molding, recessed windows and doors, and louver vents. The height of the main residence is 21 feet, 8 inches. A colors and materials board is on file with the Community Development Department and will be present at the site visit and public hearing. The following table lists the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior “Sour Candy” Beige Trim “Cinnabark” Reddish-Brown Windows and Do “Pebble Gray” Clad Windows and Doors Roof “Sunset Blend” Concrete Barrel Tile Roof Staff had concern that the initial design did not fit into the existing neighborhood character due to the proposed height and front entry design. The initial design included a roof height of 23’2” and front entry of 18’. The applicant resubmitted a new design with a roof height of 21’8” and front entry of 16’6”. Staff felt the overall height may be compatible, but the overall design of the front entry was still a concern. The applicant redesigned the front entry into a form that is complimentary to the proposed residence as well as the existing neighborhood, which led to staff being able to support the project. Trees 119 The site currently has nine trees that were reviewed within the arborist report. Of those nine trees, one (Chinese Pistache) has been requested and approved for removal by the City Arborist. The majority of trees are along the periphery of the site, and since the project is relatively within the building footprint of the existing residence, the majority of trees will be unaffected by the project. The applicant will need to complete the following requirements prior to obtaining a building permit. ·Install appropriate tree fencing as directed within the arborist report. ·Submit a deposit of $14,400 as a Tree Protection Security Deposit. Once the project is complete, the applicant will require the planting of $3,790 of additional trees on the property in order to make up for the Chinese Pistache that was approved for removal. Front Landscape The applicant proposes a permeable paver driveway and lush landscape plantings, which includes a mixture of shrubs such as Australian Fuchsia, Fortnight Lily, and Point Reyes Manzinita. Less than 50% of the front will be covered by hardscape that consists of the permeable paver driveway system and walkway to the front door. The remainder of front setback is vegetation. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The applicant submitted four Neighbor Notification Forms signed by adjacent property owners. None of the forms included negative comments related to the project. Copies of the neighbor notification forms are included as Attachment #3. Staff mailed a “Notice of Public Hearing” to all property owners within 500 feet of the subject property. The public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. No additional written comments, either positive or negative, were received prior to the completion of this staff report. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The project is Categorically Exempt from the Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant Section 15303, “New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures”, Class 3 (a) of the Public Resources Code (CEQA). This exemption allows for the construction of three single-family residence in a residential area. 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. (a)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 120 because the project which proposes construction of a replacement structure has been proposed within the general area of the exiting residence and the most level portions of the site. (b)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 because the proposed residence is largely within the footprint of the existing residence. One protected tree has been proposed for removal due to its location within the proposed driveway, and had met over five of ten criteria needed for removal. More than 88% of the existing trees either on or around the site will be retained throughout the project. (c)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 because the proposed residence would be located in the center of the site and would remain one-story. The one-story nature of the project and limited glazing along the north and south side elevations will assist in not impacting privacy of neighboring properties. (d)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 because the design of the proposed home includes elements which help break up the wall planes and massing of the structure by incorporating architecturally appropriate recessed windows, roof design and exterior materials. The project has incorporated a front entry that helps break up the front elevation of the home and provides a distinctive entry focal point but is also in scale with the proposed height of the structure. (e)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 because the proposed hardscape in the front setback area is limited to a pervious paver driveway and walkway. In an effort to soften the appearance of this design, the applicant has included a mixture of shrubs and plant materials into the landscaping plan and has integrated the existing 33” stone pine located in the front yard. By keeping the stone pine in place, it has minimized the large expanse of roof seen from the street. (f)Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made because the project either meets or exceeds required setback and will remain one-story, under 22 feet in height. The project will not impair adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. (g)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 can be 121 made in the because the proposed project conforms to the applicable design policies and techniques in the Residential Design Handbook such as minimizing the use of excessive colors and materials, designed the structure with simple and well- proportioned massing, incorporating landscape elements such as the existing stone pine and three foot tall stone wall that compliments the streetscape, and the use of pervious materials for the driveways and walkways. (h)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 is not applicable as this lot is not located within the hillside residential zoning district. ATTACHMENTS: 1.Resolution 2.Arborist Report, dated Jan. 14, 2016 3.Neighbor Notification Forms 4.Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) 122 RESOLUTION NO. 16-006 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION FOR DESIGN REVIEW NO. PDR15-0029 APPROVING A NEW ONE-STORY RESIDENCE LOCATED AT 13215 CARRICK AVE. (APN 389-17-031) WHEREAS, an application was submitted by Dennis Norton, in order to demolish an existing residence and build a new 3,186 sq. ft., 22 foot tall, one-story residence located at 13215 Carrick Avenue. Design Review approval is required because the proposed project is new one- story structure over eighteen feet in height. The foregoing work is described as the “Project” in this Resolution. 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 February 10, 2016, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the subject application, and after considering evidence presented by City staff, the applicant, and other interested parties, requested the applicant to revise the project to address height, mass, and parking concerns. 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 the 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. 123 Resolution No. 16­006 Page 2 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’s site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property's natural constraints; all protected trees shall be preserved, as provided in Article 15- 50 (Tree Regulations) and 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; and 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 view sheds; and the overall mass and the height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; and the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; and the development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and the design of the structure and the site development plan is consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055; and that if the project is a hillside lot, that the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community view sheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100 of the City Code. Section 5: The project is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that one protected trees has been approved by the City Arborist for removal. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR15-0029, located at 13215 Carrick Avenue (APN 389-17-031), subject to the above Findings, and Conditions of Approval attached hereto as Exhibit 1. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission this 10 th day of February 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ___________________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 124 Resolution No. 16­006 Page 3 EXHIBIT 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR15-0029 13215 CARRICK AVE. (APN: 389-17-031) 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, or grading permit 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 satisfaction of 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 Zoning Regulations 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. 125 Resolution No. 16­006 Page 4 5.Construction must be commenced within 36 months of the date of this approval (February 10, 2019), or the resolution will expire. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 6.Compliance with Plans. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans dated January 25, 2016 denominated Exhibit "A". 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 Condition 3, above. 7.Building Division Submittal. 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 and referenced in Condition No. 6 above; b.A note shall be included on the site plan stating that no construction equipment or private vehicles shall be parked or stored within the root zone of any Ordinance-protected tree on the site; c.This Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages; d.The City Arborist Report, dated January 14, 2016 e.A final utility plan that shows location of HVAC mechanical equipment outside of required setback areas; f.A final Drainage and Grading Plan stamped by a registered Civil Engineer combined with the above-required Stormwater Detention Plan; g.A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan; and h.All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, and/or materials required by the Building Division. 8.Lighting. Exterior lighting shall be shielded so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. 9.Maintenance of Construction Project Sites. Because this Design Review Approval authorizes a project which requires a Building Permit, compliance with City Code Section 16-75.050 governing maintenance of construction project sites is required. 10.Fences, Walls and Hedges. All fences, walls and hedges not in connection with the proposed fence exception shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 11.Final Landscaping and Irrigation Plan. The final landscaping and irrigation plan shall take into account the following: 126 Resolution No. 16­006 Page 5 a.To the extent feasible, landscaping shall be designed and operated to treat storm water runoff by incorporating elements that collect, detain and infiltrate runoff. In areas that provide detention of water, plants that are tolerant of saturated soil conditions and prolong exposure to water shall be specified. b.To the extent feasible, pest resistant landscaping plants shall be used throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. c.Plant materials selected shall be appropriate to site specific characteristics such as soil type, topography, climate, amount and timing of sunlight, prevailing winds, rainfall, air movement, patterns of land use, ecological consistency and plant interactions to ensure successful establishment. d.Pest resistant landscaping plants shall be considered for use throughout the landscaped area, especially along any hardscape area. e.Any proposed or required under grounding of utilities shall take into account potential damage to roots of protected trees 12.Fire Department Requirements. Owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. 13.Noise and Construction Hours. 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. 14.Front yard landscaping. Front yard landscaping shall be installed prior to final inspection or a bond satisfactory to the Community Development Department valued at 150% of the estimated cost of the installation of such landscaping shall be provided to the City. 15.Construction Management Plan. The applicant shall submit a construction management plan prior to obtaining a building permit. The plan shall address work hours and schedule, equipment/material staging and parking, estimated vehicular traffic, contaminated soil management, dust control measures, noise mitigation, and general health and safety. PUBLIC WORKS 16.Encroachment Permit. The applicant (owner) shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 127 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB15-0067 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 13215 Carrick Street Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Arthur Lin Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 389-17-031 Email: none provided Report History: Memo – Project incomplete Date: Plans received September 9, 2015 Arborist report received October 9, 2015 Memo completed October 14, 2015 Phone conversation – Project incomplete Report 1 – Project complete Revised plans received October 21, 2015 Project incomplete November 17, 2015 Revised plans received January 5, 2016 Report completed January 14, 2016 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to the City to demolish the existing house and build a new one- story house with attached two car garage. One tree is requested for removal (Chinese pistache tree 1). It meets the City’s criteria allowing removal and replacement as part of the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree protection security deposit – Required - $14,400 For trees 2 – 9 Tree removals – Tree #1 is permitted for removal and replacement once building permits have been issued. Tree fencing – Required – See Conditions of Approval and Site Plan Sheet 2A, revised January 5, 2016. Replacement trees – Required = $3,790 1 128 13215 Carrick Street FINDINGS: Tree Removals Whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. One Chinese pistache tree 1 is in conflict with the proposed driveway, and meets the Cit y’s criteria allowing it to be removed and replaced as part of the project, once building division permits have been obtained. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Criteria met Criteria not met 1 1, 4, 6, 7, 9 2, 3, 5, 8, 10 Replacement Trees The total appraised value of tree 1 is $3,790. New trees equal to this value will be required as a condition of the project. Replacement trees may be planted an ywhere on the propert y. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 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. The submitted arborist report, once Appendices A, B and D are copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans, will satisfy this requirement. The Project Data in Brief and Conditions of Approval from this report are also to be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Plans Reviewed and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval 4 – Map of Site showing tree locations and protective fencing Replacement Tree Values: 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 2 129 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 1 PLAN REVIEW: Architectural Plans reviewed: Preparer: Dennis Norton, Home Design and Project Planning Date of Plans: August 25, 2016, revised October 21, 2015 and January 5, 2016 Sheet 1 Cover Sheet Sheet 2 Site Plan Sheet 4 Proposed Floor Plan Sheets 5 and 6 Proposed Elevations Sheet 10 Sections Civil Plans reviewed: Preparer: Paul Jensen, Professional Land Surveyor Date of Plans: June 2015 No Sheet number Site Survey Landscape Plans reviewed: Preparer: Paul Jensen, Professional Land Surveyor Date of Plans: June 2015 Sheet L – 1 Hardscape Sheet L – 2 Planting Plan TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Richard Gessner, Monarch Consulting Arborist, LLC Date of Report: October 8, 2015 An arborist report was submitted to the City for this project that inventoried six 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. One Chinese pistache (tree 1) protected by Saratoga City Code is requested for removal to construct this project. 3 130 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 1 Table 2: List of trees and appraised values Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Canopy Spread (radius, ft.) Condition Intensit y of Construction Impacts Appraised value Chinese pistache 1 Pistacia chinensis 14 14 Fair High $3,790 Coast live oak Low/ 2 Quercus agrifolia 12 10 Fair Moderate $1,910 Black oak 3 Quercus kelloggii 12, 8, 5 12 Fair Moderate $5,300 Black oak 4 Quercus kelloggii 6 12 Fair Moderate $800 Black oak 5 Quercus kelloggii 12, 8, 14 12 Fair Moderate $9,000 Fern pine 6 Afrocarpus falcatus 15 12 Good Low $3,200 Coast live oak Low/ 7 Quercus agrifolia 12 15 Good Moderate $2,870 Italian stone pine 8 Pinus pinea 33 25 Fair Moderate $18,100 Coast live oak 9 Quercus agrifolia 24 25 Good Low $12,600 4 131 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 2 TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (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 necessit y to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the propert y. (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, particularl y on steep slopes. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beaut y, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safet y, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (9) The necessit y to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the propert y when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. (10) The necessit y 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. 5 132 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 3 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 October 8, 2015 prepared by Richard Gessner shall become conditions of approval. 3. Appendices A, B and D of the arborist report dated October 8, 2015 shall be copied on to a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation” and included in the final job copy set of plans. 4. This report shall also be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final set of plans. 5. The designated Project Arborist shall be Richard Gessner, unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. 6. Tree Protection Security Deposit a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall $14,400 be for tree(s) 2 – 9. 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. May be 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 Site Plan (Sheet A2). b. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. c. 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. d. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. e. 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. f. 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 City Arborist to arrange a field meeting before performing work. 9. The Project Arborist shall visit the site every two weeks during grading activities and monthly 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. 6 133 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 3 10. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 25 feet of tree 8. 11. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within: a. 10 feet of trees 3 – 5 and 7 b. 15 feet of tree 9 c. 25 feet of tree 8 12. The patio under the Italian stone pine (tree 8) shall be installed entirel y on top of grade and of pervious materials such as pavers on sand, decomposed granite, flagstones on sand or other similar materials. 13. The Project Arborist shall supervise: a. Installation of the patio under the Italian stone pine. b. Excavation for the foundation for the wall around the stone pine. c. Installation of the driveway by trees 3 – 5. 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. Trenching to install utilities is not permitted inside tree protection fencing. The water and sewer lines shall be capped outside of tree fencing. 18. 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 m a y be cut using a sharp pruning tool. 19. 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. 20. Tree 1 meets the criteria for removal and may be removed and replaced once Building Division permits have been obtained. 21. 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. 7 134 13215 Carrick Street Attachment 3 22. New trees equal to $3,790 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species. 23. 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 24. Only drought tolerant plants that are compatible with oaks are permitted under the outer half of the canopy of oak trees on site. 25. Water loving plants and lawns are not permitted under oak tree canopies. 26. Should any tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant new trees, some or all of the replacement value for trees shall be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. 27. 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. 28. 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. 8 135 $WWDFKPHQW >P v d v}˙ d W }}v &v ]vP æ ]l^ æ ı 9 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 kitchengreat roomgarage entrymedia roombedroom bedroombedroomex. Pine treeporchwalkwaycourtyardpatiodrivewayparkingwalkwaywalkwaywalkwaypatioCalstone antique style interlocking pavers (or equal) for driveway. Color and style to be selectedCalstone antique style interlocking pavers (or equal) for front walkway. Color and style to be selectedColored concrete for the porch and all landings as shown. Color to be selected. Use Sierra Stone seamless skin texture finish.Outer band of soldier course pavers (typ.)Colored concrete walkways. Use Sierra Stone seamless skin for textured finish. Color to be selectedCARRICK STREETCalstone antique style interlocking pavers (or equal) for front walkway. Color and style to be selectedInner band of soldier course pavers (typ.)ex. tree to remain - 14" diameter trunkex. Oak tree to remain - 11" diameter trunkex. Oak tree to remain15" diameter trunkhardscapesheet number:scale:DATEBYPURPOSE9.2.15first issue reviewMAAsheet title:13215 CARRICK STREET SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA LIN PROPERTY(Exp 7/31/16)MICHAEL A.ARNONENo. 3347LASTTAEFOCANECIL ADES L NDSCAFIIRON ITECTHPEARC© Michael Arnone Landscape Architect - 2015THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ISSUED FOR A ONE-TIME SINGLE USE BY THE OWNER. THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF THESE DRAWINGS IS COPYRIGHT © MICHAEL ARNONE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RETAINS ALL RIGHTS AND TITLE. NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FASHION OR MEDIUM WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.OWNER SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL EASEMENTS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PROPERTY LINES. OWNER SHALL ACQUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS REQUIRED TO PERFORM WORK SHOWN ON PLANS. BASE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. MICHAEL ARNONE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF SAID PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARIES, FENCELINES OR PROPERTY CORNERS.3370 Samuel Place Santa Cruz, CA 95062 831.462.4988 mike@arnonelandscape.com www.arnonelandscape.com1/8" = 1' - 0"1.14.162nd reviewMAA152 kitchengreat roomgarage entrymedia roombedroom bedroombedroomex. Pine treeporchwalkwaycourtyardpatiodrivewayparkingwalkwaywalkwaywalkwaypatioFFFFACCYPCYPCYPCYPCYPCYPCYPAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRAPRCPCPCPRHCRHCRHCPCCCCCCCHHHMAMAPHPHPHPHPHCARRICK STREETbark mulch under Pine treeCotoneaster ground coverDV DVDVDVDVDVPHPHCAex. tree to remain - 14" diameter trunkex. Oak tree to remain - 11" diameter trunkex. Oak tree to remain15" diameter trunkAPRAPRAPR1-Gal42" O.C.Cotoneaster congestusPyrenees CotoneasterSpacingSymbolGROUND COVER LEGENDCommon NameScientific NameSizePLANT LEGENDAliasScientific NameCommon NamePlanting Size QuantityACAcer circinatumVine Maple15-Gal1PHPhormium 'Amazing Red'Red New Zealand Flax 5-Gal7APRArctostaphylos 'Point Reyes'Point Reyes Manzanita 5-Gal17CYPCeanothus griseus horizontalis 'Yankee Point' Yankee Point Ceanothus 5-Gal7CColeonema 'Sunset Gold'Gold Sunset Coleonema 1-Gal6CPCorrea 'Carmine Bells'Australian Fuchsia5-Gal3DVDietes vegetaFortnight Lily5-Gal6FFicus pumilaCreeping Fig5-Gal4HHelictotrichon sempervirensBlue Oat Grass5-Gal3MAMimulus aurantiacusStickey Monkey Flower 5-Gal2PCPistacia chinensis 'Red Push'Red Push Chinese Pistache 24"-Box1RHCRhamnus californica 'Eve Case'Dwarf Coffeeberry5-Gal3CACarpenteria californicaBush Anenome5-Gal1necessary to be approved by Landscape Architect.project as been approved and accepted by Owner.8. All newly planted material shall be watered by deep soaking within 3 hours of planting.9. All planting areas shall receive 3 inches of mini- bark top dressing (mulch).10. Contractor shall be responsible for irrigating all new plant material until the entire 11. Thirty days after planting Contractor shall restake and straighten all trees as Any damage caused by Contractor's work shall be repaired or replaced at the Contractor's expense and be approved by the Landscape Architect. 1. All existing trees, shrubs and ground covers to remain shall be protected. Landscape Architect prior to installation.thoroughly scarifies. Do not amend backfill mix beyond initial topsoil amending 7. Plant all plants as per planting details in square pits with sides and bottoms 6. No plants shall be planted with root balls or new pits in a dry condition.5. Contractor shall lay out plant material as per plan and receive approval from 4. Quantities are for aiding in bidding only. Contractor shall verify all quantities.exceeding .5 inch. All areas shall surface drain with 1.5 percent minimum slope 3. After amending soil, grade all areas smooth with no localized depressions away from all buildings, paving or other structures. unless noted. incorporated into the top 6 inches of soil.Call Sustane - Natural Fertilizer of America, Inc. 1-800-325-9245for Distribution/Product Information. Or visit www.sustane.comslow release fertilizer) soil fertilizer per 2500 square feet to be thoroughly 2. All planting areas shall receive 50 lbs "Sustane 5-2-4 + Fe" (or equal organicPlanting NotesContractor shall install temporary fencing to protect area 10' from the Pine tree trunk.PREVAILING WIND DIRECTIONROOT CROWN 1" ABOVE FINISH GRADEPREPARED BACKFILL MIX SEE PLANTING NOTESTREE PLANTING DETAILSCALE: NOT TO SCALE3" MULCHSHRUB PLANTING DETAILSCALE: NOT TO SCALE2 X BALL DIA.GROUND COVER PLANT (TYPICAL)86% OF SPACINGEDGE OF PLANTEREQUALEQUALEQUALEQUALEQUALHALF OF SPACINGSPACINGGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAILSCALE: NOT TO SCALEFORM SAUCER WITH CONTIUNUOUS RIMSPCIFIED PLANTING MIXWATER AND TAMP TOREMOVE AIR POCKETSDISTANCES ROWS ARE AT 86% OF SPECIFIED SPACING3' WIDE WATERING BASIN W/3" HIGH BERM WHERE APPLICABLE. THOROUGHLY WATER TREE IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANTING AND RAKE GROUND SMOOTH.SCARIFY SIDES AND BOTTOM OF PLANTING HOLE BY HAND TO ELIMINATE SMOOTH SURFACES. FOOT TAMP BACKFILL BEFORE PLANTING 2) 2" DIA. X 10'-0" (MIN.)TREATED LODGE POLE PINE STAKE ON WINDWARD SIDE, OMIT STAKING FOR PALM TREES22" LONG CORDED RUBBER TREE TIE-3 PER TREE REQUIREDLIGHTLY SCARIFY SIDES OF ROOT BALLINSTALL ROOT BARRIER WHERE DISTANCE FROM TREE TO EXISTING OR NEW S/W IS 8' OR LESS.NOTES:1. Planting hole shall be minimum 24" dia. and 1-1/2 times depth of root ball.2 Species and plant stock shall be pre-approved by Landscape Architect prior to planting.3. Contractor shall notify Underground Service Alert @ (800) 642.2444 prior to excavating planting holes.NOTES:1. PLACE STAKES PERPENDICULAR TO DIRECTION OF PREVAILING WIND.2. REMOVE STAKES AFTER TWO YEARS.3. PLANTING PIT SHALL BE 24" MIN. DIAMETER AND 1 1/2 TIMES DEPTH OF ROOT BALL4. SPECIES AND PLANT STOCK SHALL BE PRE-APPROVED BY LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT PRIOR TO PLANTING5. CONTRACTOR SHALL NOTIFY UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERT @ 800.642.2444 PRIOR TO EXCAVATING TREE PITS.plantingsheet number:scale:DATEBYPURPOSE9.2.15first issue reviewMAAsheet title:13215 CARRICK STREET SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA LIN PROPERTY(Exp 7/31/16)MICHAEL A.ARNONENo. 3347LASTTAEFOCANECIL ADES L NDSCAFIIRON ITECTHPEARC© Michael Arnone Landscape Architect - 2015THESE DRAWINGS ARE INSTRUMENTS OF SERVICE, ISSUED FOR A ONE-TIME SINGLE USE BY THE OWNER. THE ENTIRE CONTENTS OF THESE DRAWINGS IS COPYRIGHT © MICHAEL ARNONE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT RETAINS ALL RIGHTS AND TITLE. NO PART MAY BE REPRODUCED IN ANY FASHION OR MEDIUM WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN APPROVAL OF THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. THE PROPER ELECTRONIC TRANSFER OF DATA SHALL BE THE USER'S RESPONSIBILITY WITHOUT LIABILITY TO THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT.OWNER SHALL ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL EASEMENTS, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND PROPERTY LINES. OWNER SHALL ACQUIRE ALL NECESSARY PERMITS REQUIRED TO PERFORM WORK SHOWN ON PLANS. BASE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE OWNER. MICHAEL ARNONE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE ASSUMES NO LIABILITY FOR THE ACCURACY OF SAID PROPERTY LINE BOUNDARIES, FENCELINES OR PROPERTY CORNERS.3370 Samuel Place Santa Cruz, CA 95062 831.462.4988 mike@arnonelandscape.com www.arnonelandscape.com1/8" = 1' - 0"1.14.162nd reviewMAA153