The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About04-13-16 Planning Commission Agenda PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING APRIL 13, 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 March 23, 2016. ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 1. NEW BUSINESS 1.1. Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Meeting Schedule Recommended Action: Discussion of the upcoming Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Meeting Schedule 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1. Appeal of staff denial of tree removal permit application TRP16-0071 to remove one mature redwood to allow the addition onto a house. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 16-009 denying the application to remove the coast redwood. Saratoga Planning Commission Regular Meeting Agenda – Page 2 of 2 DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Janet Costa, Office Specialist III, for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the Planning Commission was posted and available for public review on April 7, 2016 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 7th day of April 7, 2016 at Saratoga, California. Janet Costa, Office Specialist III, City of Saratoga In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1269. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] You can also sign up to receive email notifications when Commission agendas and minutes have been added to the City at website http://www.saratoga.ca.us/contact/email_subscriptions.asp. NOTE: To view previous Planning Commission meetings anytime, go the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 1 of 2 P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC Minutes\2016\03232016.docx SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING ACTION MINUTES MARCH 23, 2016 7:00 PM REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Leonard Almalech, Vice Chair Dede Smullen, Commissioners Joyce Hlava, Sunil Ahuja, Tina Walia, Kookie Fitzsimmons, ABSENT: Commissioner Wendy Chang (excused) ALSO PRESENT: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Kate Bear, City Arborist APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 9, 2016. WALIA/SMULLEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING OF MARCH 9, 2016. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, SMULLEN, AHUJA, WALIA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: CHANG. ABSTAIN: HLAVA. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS Planning Commission Chair Almalech reported on appeal rights. 1. NEW BUSINESS None 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes – Page 2 of 2 P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\PC Minutes\2016\03232016.docx 2. OTHER BUSINESS 2.1. Planning Commission Criteria for Excused Absence Recommended Action: Review the Planning Commission's criteria for excused absences and provide direction on potential changes. Heard out of order/no action taken. 3. PUBLIC HEARING 3.1. Appeal of tree removal permit application TRP15-0380 to remove one Italian stone pine at 12990 Regan Lane. Commisioner Tina Walia recused herself and left room. Recommended Action: Consider new arborist report and make a determination about whether the tree qualifies for removal according to City Code tree removal criteria listed is Article 15-50.080. Action: SMULLEN/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO UPHOLD APPEAL AND MAKE REVISED FINDINGS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: ALMALECH, SMULLEN, HLAVA, AHUJA, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: CHANG (EXCUSED), ABSTAIN: NONE DIRECTOR ITEMS None COMMISSION ITEMS None ADJOURNMENT Chair Almalech adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m. Minutes respectfully submitted: Janet Costa, Office Specialist III City of Saratoga 5 1 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Erwin Ordoñez, Community Development Director Date: April 7, 2016 Subject: Fiscal Year 2016-2017 Meeting Schedule The Planning Commission has requested that a discussion of the upcoming Fiscal Year 2016 -2017 Meeting Schedule be placed on the April 13, 2016 Planning Commission Meeting Agenda in order to determine if any regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting dates (i.e. every 2nd and 4th Wednesday of each month) should be cancelled due to scheduled time-off, vacations, or other commitments. Typically, the Commission’s past practice has been to cancel at least one of the scheduled regular meetings during the summer months to coincide with the City Council’s hiatus and/or planned vacations. Attached is a calendar noting potential meeting dates. Members of the Commission have already noted to staff the desire to possibly cancelling one or more of the following meeting dates:  July 13, 2016  July 27, 2016  August 24, 2016 Staff is recommending that the Commission determine the appropriateness of cancelling one or more of the scheduled meetings and direct staff to revise the Planning Commission regular meeting calenda r. Attachment: FY 2016-2017 Calendar P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\Staff Reports\2016\041316\FY 2016-2017 Meetings Schedule Memo.rtf 6 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 27 28 29 30 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 30 31 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 29 30 31 26 27 28 26 27 28 29 30 31 S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S S M T W TH F S 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 28 29 30 31 25 26 27 28 29 30 30 31 P:\PLANNING COMMISSION\Staff Reports\2016\04132016\FY 2016-2017 Calendar APRIL MAY JUNE CITY OF SARATOGA City Council and Planning Commission Meetings Fiscal Year 2016-2017 JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH JULY AUGUST SEPTEMBER OCTOBER NOVEMBER DECEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION P/C TENTATIVE CANCELLATION Attachment 1 CLOSED FRIDAY CITY COUNCIL 7 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION Meeting Date: April 13, 2016 Application: APPC16-0001; ARB15-0077; TRP16-0071 Location / APN: 19500 Brockton Lane / 386-31-051 Owner/Applicant: Min Yeol Lim Staff: Kate Bear 19500 Brockton Lane 8 Summary PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The applicant is appealing a staff denial of a tree removal permit application for the removal of one coast redwood (TRP16-0071) protected by Saratoga City Code. The tree is in conflict with a proposed whole house remodel project that includes a rear addition (ARB15-0077) that is proposed to extend to the trunk of the tree. The applicant’s preliminary plan submittal includes demolition of approximately 47% of the existing one story single-family home’s exterior walls, removal and reconstruction of approximately 50% of the roof, adding a total of approximately 950 square feet to the front and rear of the existing structure, a substantial remodel of the remaining interior spaces and the proposed removal of a mature redwood tree. Planning staff determined that as submitted this project does not currently meet the threshold that would require administrative design review, but does require arborist review for the proposed tree removal. The redwood tree has a trunk diameter of 26 inches at breast height, is in good health and has appropriate structure for the species. There is sufficient room for it in the rear yard and it is not located too close to the existing house or other trees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 16-009 denying the application to remove the coast redwood. PROJECT DATA: Gross Site Area: 10,341 SF /.24 acres Average Site Slope: Flat Zoning: R-1-10,000 SITE CHARACTERISTICS - TREES : A total of six trees protected by Saratoga City Code were inventoried for this project. Inventoried trees include one mature blue atlas cedar in the front yard, a black walnut, an evergreen ash and the coast redwood in the back yard, and a Colorado blue spruce and interior live oak on the west side yard. The redwood (tree 4) is the only tree requested for removal to construct the project. FINDINGS: City Code Section 15-50.080 requires that each application to remove a tree shall be reviewed and that a determination be made on the basis of the following findings. A tree qualifies for removal if just one of the criteria listed 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 cannot be made because the tree is not in conflict with the existing house and there are options for the proposed addition to be designed to avoid removal of the mature redwood tree. The tree is healthy (assigned an 80% out of 100% condition rating in the submitted arborist report), not in danger of falling and does not interfere with utilities. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding cannot be made because the Page 2 of 3 9 tree has not damaged any structures on the property and does not threaten damage to the existing house. (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 can partially be made because the tree is in the back yard and there are other trees on the property. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on privacy. Its removal will affect shade for the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding cannot be made because the redwood is not growing too close to other trees for good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to removing the redwood. The addition can extend into the other side of the back yard (i.e. reconfigured floor plan), or a basement or second story can be considered. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding cannot be made because the intent of the tree regulations is to retain and preserve existing mature large canopied trees whenever possible. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. This finding is not applicable. The tree grows on private property and does not pose a public health or safety threat. (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 partly made because this design provides the owner with a less costly house remodel project. However, there are alternatives to removing the redwood that will still allow the house remodel and addition project to move forward. (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 because the owner has said that he will not be installing solar panels as part of this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution 2. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP16-0071 3. Appeal Form APPC16-0001 4. Arborist report by Michael Bench dated December 11, 2015 5. Reduced Plans (Exhibit A) Page 3 of 3 10 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO: 16-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APPC16-0001 AND DENYING TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP16-0071 AT 19500 BROCKTON LANE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one coast redwood at 19500 Brockton 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 not 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 coast redwood was requested for removal through the City’s process to remove protected trees as set forth in the Tree Regulations. The Planning Commission has reviewed the application for tree removal and the appeal and found that the request to remove the redwood does not meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are not met, as set forth in Section 15-50.080, and the tree does not qualify for removal. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. 11 Resolution No. 16-009, APPC16-0001; TRP16-0071 (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding cannot be made because the tree is not in conflict with the existing house and there are options for the proposed addition to be designed to avoid removal of the mature redwood tree. The tree is healthy (assigned an 80% out of 100% condition rating in the submitted arborist report), not in imminent dater of falling, and does not interfere with utilities. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. This finding cannot be made because the tree has not damaged any structures on the property and does not threaten damage to the existing house. (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 can partially be made because the tree is in the back yard and there are other trees on the property. The removal of this tree will not have a significant impact on privacy. Its removal will affect shade for the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding cannot be made because the redwood is not growing too close to other trees for good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to removing the redwood. The addition can extend into the other side of the back yard (i.e. reconfigured floor plan), or a basement or second story can be considered. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. This finding cannot be made because the intent of the tree regulations is to retain and preserve existing mature large canopied trees whenever possible. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. This finding is not applicable. The tree grows on private property and does not pose a public health or safety threat. (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 partly made because this design provides the owner with a less costly house remodel project. However, there are alternatives to removing the redwood that will still allow the house remodel and addition project to move forward. (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 12 Resolution No. 16-009, APPC16-0001; TRP16-0071 panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable because the owner has said that he will not be installing solar panels as part of this project. 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 APPC16-0001, denying TRP16-0071 for the removal and replacement of one coast redwood located at 19500 Brockton Lane. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 23rd day of March 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Leonard Almalech Chair, Planning Commission 13 Back 14 15 16 17 19500 Brockton Lane Saratoga, CA Michael L. Bench Consulting Arborist (831) 594-5151 7327 Langley Canyon Road Prunedale, California 93907 A Tree Protection Plan Property of Mr. Min Yeol Lim 19500 Brockton Lane Saratoga, California Assignment I was asked by Mr. Min Yeol Lim to review the Arborist Report prepared by Mr. Joe Bathurst, Certified Arborist, for the property located at 19500 Brockton Lane, Saratoga, California, to review the trees at the site, to prepare a Tree Protection Plan, and to prepare a Value Assessment of the existing trees. The plan provided for this review was the Site Plan prepared by Mr. Zuishuang Chen, Architect, Observations I inspected the trees at the site on December 11, 2015. There are six significant trees at this site as follows: Tree # 1 – Blue Atlas Cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’) Tree # 2 – California Black Walnut (Juglans hindsii) Tree # 3 – Shamel Ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Tree # 4 – Coast Redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Tree # 5 – Weeping Colorado Spruce (Picea pungens ‘Pendula’) Tree # 6 – Interior Live Oak (Quercus wislizenii) Risks to Existing Trees The plan proposes to construct two new additions to the residence. No new utilities are proposed at this time. The trees at this site would likely be at risk of damage by construction or construction procedures that are common to most construction sites. These procedures may include the dumping or the stockpiling of materials over root systems, may include the trenching across the root zones for utilities or for landscape irrigation, or may include construction traffic across the root system resulting in soil compaction and root die back. The Trees # 1, 5, and 6 (the front area of the residence) would be exposed to risks created by the Staging of Materials and Equipment. Three procedures would be required to preserve these trees: (1) Tree Protective Fencing; (2) Irrigation during the construction period, and (3) Retention of the Existing Driveway during the construction period for the preservation of the root system of Tree # 1. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: Consulting Arborist December 11, 2015 1 18 19500 Brockton Lane Saratoga, CA Because of their location in relation to construction, it appears that the risk to Trees # 2 and 3 would be very low. With the exception of hand tools, no large equipment would be used in the back yard. Should a Bobcat (a skid steer tractor) or other similar equipment be used, the Project Arborist must be consulted for supervision and oversight. The proposed new addition is planned adjacent to the trunk of Tree # 4, a Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens). A typical footing would remove all of the roots on the north side to construct the addition. This likely would render Tree # 4 unstable. If Tree # 4 would be expected to survive and remain stable, it would be essential to construct the footing by “Pier and On-Grade Beam” Design. This would preserve the majority of the root system. However, this would not alter the risk that the tree would pose to the new structure. The coast redwood species (S. sempervirens) has a large bulb like structure, usually just below grade. This bulb structure is called a lignotuber, which is an adaption for fire. The lignotuber is typically twice the diameter of the trunk and grows at about the same rate. I have seen this structure lift the foundation of a two story residential structure. Should this proposed new be constructed, even with a Pier and On-Grade Beam footing, this tree would not doubt pose a significant risk to the structure in a relatively short time. There is also a question as to whether or not there will be sufficient water for high volume consuming plants, such as coast redwood, in the near future. Experts have reported for many years that demand continues to rise, but the supply has remained static or has become reduced as a result of over use. Experts report that reduction plans for non-essential usage, for example landscapes, will continue indefinitely. I suspect that the majority of high volume consuming plants, for example coast redwood (sadly), will die out in the next few years. For these reasons, I recommend to replace Tree # 4 with a low water consuming tree adapted for this area. Value Assessment The method used for the appraisal of the 5 trees is the Trunk Formula Method, in accordance with the International Society of Arboriculture ( ISA ), Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th Edition and the ISA Western Chapter Species Classification Guide. I have prepared an Excel spreadsheet to perform the Trunk Formula Method calculations. The calculation worksheet is attached. On October 9, 2015 I prepared an appraisal of the Coast Redwood Tree # 4 for Mr. Joe Bathhurst. I used information supplied by Mr. Bathhurst to do the task. However, for this report, I have inspected the tree personally and, as a result, have a slightly different opinion than Mr. Bathhurst concerning some of the elements that contribute to an appraisal. The result is a slightly different value. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: Consulting Arborist December 11, 2015 2 19 19500 Brockton Lane Saratoga, CA Tree Protection Plan 1. I recommend that the existing concrete Driveway be preserved during the entire construction period. This would protect that portion of the root mass of Tree # 1 which exists under the driveway. If it would be desirable to replace the driveway, several procedures would be required for the protection of Tree # 1. In the event that the driveway would be replaced, I recommend that the Project Arborist be consulted. If the existing driveway would be preserved during the construction period, Tree # 1 should be adequately protected by Tree Protective Fencing installed at the curb on the north side, at the edge of the driveway on the west side, and 5 feet outside the canopy on the south side. 2. I recommend that protective fencing be provided during the construction period to protect those trees that are planned to be preserved. This fencing must protect a sufficient portion of the root zone to be effective. I recommend that the Tree Protective Fencing be located as shown on the attached plan. In my experience, the protective fencing must: • Consist of chain link fencing and having a minimum height of 6 feet. • Be mounted on steel posts driven approximately 2 feet into the soil. • Fencing posts must be located a maximum of 10 feet on center. • Protective fencing must be installed prior to the arrival of materials, vehicles, or equipment. • Protective fencing must not be moved, even temporarily, and must remain in place until all construction is completed, unless approved by the Project Arborist. • Tree Protective Fencing must be posted to read “Tree Protective Fence – Do Not Move or Remove without approval from City Arborist – Kate Bear (408) 868-1276. 3. I recommend that all of the preserved trees must be irrigated throughout the entire construction period during the dry months (any month receiving less than 1 inch of rainfall ). Irrigate a minimum of 10 gallons for each inch of trunk diameter every two weeks. A soaker hose or a drip line is preferred for this purpose, but the soaker hose(s) must be located near the dripline (not near the trunk) to be effective. 4. Any pruning must be done by an arborist certified by the ISA (International Society of Arboriculture) and according to ISA, Western Chapter Standards, 1998, and ANSI 300 standards. 5. Any pathways or other hardscape inside the driplines of protected trees must be constructed completely on top of the existing soil grade without excavation. Fill soil may be added to the edge of finished hardscape for a maximum distance of approximately 2 feet from the edges to integrate the new hardscape to the natural grade. Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: Consulting Arborist December 11, 2015 3 20 19500 Brockton Lane Saratoga, CA 6. Materials must not be stored, stockpiled, dumped, or buried inside the driplines of protected trees. 7. Excavated soil must not be piled or dumped, even temporarily, inside the driplines of protected trees. 8. The sprinkler irrigation must not be designed to strike the trunks of trees, because of potential high risk of disease infection. 9. Landscape irrigation trenches must be a minimum distance of 10 times the trunk diameter from the trunks of protected trees. 10. Landscape materials (cobbles, decorative bark, stones, fencing, etc.) must not be installed directly in contact with the bark of trees because of the risk of serious disease infection. 11. Although no new utilities are currently proposed, any trenches in the future either must be outside the drip lines of existing trees, or a Consulting Arborist must be retained to assist with procedures that would mitigate the possible roost damage. 12. The Arborist Report must be included on a Sheet included in the Plan Set and must be available to all contractors. 13. All contractors must be responsible for reading the Tree Protection Plan and responsible for the protection of the Protected Trees. 14. Should any of the protection requirements not be achievable, possibly due to design changes, the Project Arborist must be called to provide a solution. The Project Arborist must provide a written report of any to the attention of the City Arborist. Respectfully submitted, Michael L. Bench, Consulting Arborist International Society of Arboriculture Certification # WE 1897A American Society of Consulting Arborists Member Prepared by Michael L. Bench, Site Observations: Consulting Arborist December 11, 2015 4 21 Site Tree Value Assessment California Prepared by Michael Bench Consulting Arborist 2015 Tree #Species Group DBH Area 1 Trunk 2 Area2 Trunk 3 In. Sq. Replace In. Sq. Price In. Sq. BASIC VALUE Species % Condition % Location % Un- rounded Value Rounded Value 1 Cedrus atlantica Glauca 3 47 1430 0 1430.1 3.80 45.46 $65,184 90%90%70%$36,960 $37,000 2 Juglans hindsii 3 22 380 0 379.9 3.80 45.46 $17,445 30%50%70%$1,832 $1,830 3 Fraxinus uhdei 4 17 227 10 79 8 291.2 4.75 36.36 $10,762 40%30%70%$904 $900 4 Sequoia sempervirens 4 26 531 0 530.7 4.75 36.36 $19,468 30%80%70%$3,271 $3,270 5 pendula 3 13 133 0 132.7 3.80 45.46 $6,204 70%70%70%$2,128 $2,130 6 Quercus wislizenii 2 14 154 0 153.9 2.24 77.04 $12,026 90%80%70%$6,061 $6,100 22 23 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577SITE PLANDEMO PLANA-1.0PROJECT DATAVICINITY MAPGENERAL INFORMATIONOTHER PLAN NOTESARCHITECTURALGENERAL NOTES0-0DEMO PLANSCALE: 316" = 1'-0"FLOOR CALCULATIONPROPERTY SETBACKS1-0PROPOSED SITE PLANSCALE: 18 " = 1'-0"EXST. WALLNEW WALLREBUILT WALLREMOVED WALL24 20370 TOWN CENTER LNSUITE 139CUPERTINO, CA 95014408.865.0577PROPOSEDFLOOR PLANBLOCKDIAGRAMA2.0General Contractor to Verify"ALL" Lighting & ElectricalSpecifications with client priorto installation.TEMP. GLASS DOOR AND ENCLOSURE, TYP. MATERIALS OTHERTHAN STRUCTURAL ELEMENTS TO BE MOISTURE RESISTANT.TYP.SHOWER DOOR MIN. 22", SHOWER AND TUB/SHOWER WALLSTO SPECIFY A SMOOTH, HARD, NONABSORBENT SURFACE(E.G., CERAMIC TILE OR FIBERGLASS) OVER A MOISTURERESISTANT UNDERLAYMENT (E.G., CEMENT, FIBER CEMENT, ORGLASS MAT GYPSUM BACKER) TO A HEIGHT OF 72" ABOVE THEDRAIN INLET. WATER- RESISTANT GYPSUM BACKING BOARDSHALL NOT BE USED OVER A VAPOR RETARDER IN SHOWER ORBATHTUB COMPARTMENTS. [R307.2]SHOWER HEADS SHALL BE DESIGNED AND INSTALLED SOTHAT THEY WILL NOT DELIVER MORE THAN 2.5 GALLONS PERMINUTE MEASURED AT 80 PSI.EXST. WALLNEW WALL2-0PROPOSED PLAN0-1BLOCK DIAGRAMSCALE: N/A25 26