Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-09-2008 Planning Commission Minutes MINUTES SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DATE: Wednesday, July 9, 2008 PLACE: Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA TYPE: Regular Meeting Chair Cappello called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao Absent: None Staff: Director John Livingstone, Associate Planner Shweta Bhatt, City Arborist Kate Bear, Assistant Planner Cynthia McCormick and Assistant City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE APPROVAL OF MINUTES – Regular Meeting of June 25, 2008. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, the Planning Commission minutes of the regular meeting of June 25, 2008, were adopted with one correction to page 9. (7-0) ORAL COMMUNICATION Mr. Bob Wallace, Resident on Foothill Lane: • Explained that he had thought that tonight’s meeting was a Council meeting but he stayed anyway because of the good air conditioning, although he’s pretty sure his issue is not within the purview of the Planning Commission. • Reported that he lives off Comer Drive. • Added that Mr. Cherbone is working on funding a $200,000 plus retaining wall on property adjacent to Greg Reyes, who is worth more than $300 million and whose property is worth more than $22 million. • Questioned why the taxpayers should pay for this wealthy person’s retaining wall. Chair Cappello agreed that this issue is not something for the Commission but rather should be directed to Council, who will next meet one week from this evening in this same meeting place. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 2 REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Director John Livingstone announced that, pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 3, 2008. REPORT OF APPEAL RIGHTS Chair Cappello announced that appeals are possible for any decision made on this Agenda by filing an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision, pursuant to Municipal Code 15-90.050(b). CONSENT CALENDAR There were no Consent Calendar Items. *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 1 APPLICATION #PDR07-0020 (503-69-025 (old); (503-69-040 (new)), SLOAN/MAIROSE, 22000 Via Regina: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct a new home and detached second dwelling unit. The proposed home will be approximately 6,917 square feet and will be less than 26 feet tall. The second dwelling unit will be less than 1,200 square feet. The gross lot size is 128,541 square feet and the site is zoned Hillside Residential. Exterior colors and materials consist of beige stucco and stone accent and tile roof material. Design Review is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060. (Shweta Bhatt) Ms. Shweta Bhatt, Associate Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Advised that the applicant is seeking Design Review Approval to construct a new 6,917 square foot residence with a 2,921 square foot basement. The maximum height proposed is 25 feet, 10 inches but most of the roofline is at 17 feet, 11 inches in height. • Added that a secondary dwelling unit is also proposed that will be deed restricted as an affordable unit should it ever be rented. • Described the building materials as including earthtone stucco, stone, tile roofing and wood windows. • Distributed a materials board. • Stated that the home is articulated to minimize the bulk of the structure. • Informed that two ordinance-sized trees will be removed and replaced. Additionally, protective tree fencing and a bond would be required for all other trees on site. • Stated that a neighborhood meeting was held and signatures of support were received from the neighbors. No negative comments have been received. • Reported that a pedestrian/equestrian trail access along the southern boundary line and driveway would be recorded. The applicant has agreed to dedicate this easement to the City. • Recommended that the Planning Commission find this proposal to be Categorically Exempt under CEQA and approve this project. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 3 Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Mr. Tom Sloan, Project Architect: • Distributed a rendering. • Thanked Planner Shweta Bhatt for her hard work. • Explained that the architectural design is that of a Tuscan farmhouse, which is represented by a variety of architectural massing elements on the most level part of the site. This style is typically found in country farmhouses in Europe. These structures have evolved over several generations, which is the look they were after. • Added that the house is situated on a gentle sloping saddle between some rolling hills. The house will appear as if growing out of the site in a very natural way. • Assured that there would be no evidence of cut or fill after the grading is completed on the site. • Said that the house employs a subdued palette of building materials that evoke the rustic character of a Tuscan farmhouse befitting this pastoral setting. • Added that earth hues and colors such as a patina limestone plaster walls, terra cotta tile roof, dark brown rough-hewn timbers, beams and rafters and a rugged fieldstone bond the home to its natural terrain. It will use a combination of single-story layers and greater setbacks to assure privacy. There is a tower to anchor the façade and a sunlight-filled courtyard. The subterranean garage is hidden from view. A separate guesthouse employs the same materials and craftsmanship. • Said that two non-native pines would be removed but all oaks retained. New olive trees will be planted. • Made a small correction to the green materials list from the stated recycled roofing tiles to a new roof tile with the same look. Chair Cappello asked why not use recycled materials for the roof. Mr. Tom Sloan said that shipping said materials takes many months and they hope to get this home constructed rather quickly. Additionally, recycled material is not very dependable and the cost is high. He assured that they would incorporate an authentic terra cotta blend of roof color tiles. Commissioner Kundtz asked how many wood-burning fireplaces. Mr. Tom Sloan replied zero. He explained that originally they planned on one in the living room but his client decided to use only gas fireplaces throughout. Commissioner Nagpal asked if anything would be growing on the trellis with the solar panels. Mr. Tom Sloan said there would be shrubs near the base. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the windows and doors are metal or wood clad. Mr. Tom Sloan explained that they are wood windows but are clad on the exterior with aluminum metal in a dark brown color. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 4 Commissioner Rodgers asked if this applies to the garage door too. Mr. Tom Sloan said the garage door is wood. Commissioner Hlava verified the other green materials with Mr. Tom Sloan including the tankless water heater and photovoltaic panels. She suggested deleting the recycled clay roof tiles from the list. Mr. Tom Sloan agreed that the other materials are still proposed outside of the recycled roof tiles. Commissioner Kumar asked if the house would utilize dual zones for energy efficiency in heating and cooling. Mr. Tom Sloan advised that they have more than dual zones as they have five zones. They are using hydronic heating. Heating the floor with radiant heat is much more efficient and keeps the heat where people walk and live. Commissioner Rodgers pointed out that the front door is recessed. She asked if they have considered use of a wood door there. Mr. Tom Sloan explained that they are using a Canterra door, which is a metal steel door with glass. This is pretty high end. It will be an iron door in a dark bronze color. It is a very large iron door with an artisan created design. Commissioner Rodgers said that this door description sounds Tuscan-Spanish. Mr. Tom Sloan replied exactly. He added that there are just two companies around here that make them and he believes Canterra is the better of the two. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 1. Commissioner Nagpal: • Said that this is a design that pays homage to the Tuscan architecture as well as the pastoral setting of the site. • Expressed appreciation for the trail easement. • Said she has no trouble making the Design Review findings to support this project. Commissioner Kundtz said that this is a very attractive design and he too can make all the findings to support this application. Commissioner Zhao said that this is very beautiful and she can make all findings. Commissioner Kumar said he really likes the artist’s rendering and agrees this is a beautiful design. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 5 Commissioner Hlava agreed that this is a beautiful house and it is easy to make the Design Review findings. She stated that she likes the use of lots of green features, especially recycled materials and zoned heating. She added that the proposed door is the better way to go as it lasts longer. Commissioner Rodgers said that this home is a very authentic Tuscan architecture that will be delightful and blend into the hillside. She said that the door would be lovely and she would love to see it when it is installed. She added that she could make all findings in support. Chair Cappello commended staff and the applicant. He thanked the applicant for going to the expense of installing story poles. This step is important in the hillside area to show how it will look from a wide area even outside the noticing distance. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer made revisions to the draft resolution as follows: • Last line on Condition #2, “…be recorded, in a form satisfactory to the City on the deed.” • Add the word “prior” to the Community Development Director approval. • Modify, “…maximum extent possible reasonably feasible.” Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval to construct a new 6,917 square foot home and 1,200 square foot secondary dwelling unit on property located at 22000 Via Regina, with conditions as modified, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 2 APPLICATION #APTR08-0006 (389-13-033) ELLINGBOE, 18644 Paseo Lado: The applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit application to remove three boxelder trees. The trees become infested with boxelder bugs on a yearly basis when the bugs feed on the fruits of the trees. The bugs do not harm the trees but overwinter in the house and create a nuisance. (Kate Bear) Ms. Kate Bear, City Arborist, presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a copy of the resolution and an email received from a neighbor. • Provided two edits. On page 3, replace alders with boxelders. On the resolution, “…criteria overall.” • Reported that this applicant is appealing the denial of a Tree Removal Permit for 18644 Paseo Lado. • Advised that the applicant wants to remove three boxelder trees due to bugs that do not harm the tree but are a nuisance. • Added that the trees are in good health and provide shade. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 6 • Informed that a letter signed by nine neighbors has been provided. They are in support of removing and replacing these trees with eight new trees. • Said that an email was received from a neighbor who supports the removal but is concerned about the replacement location. She wants to be sure that they don’t interfere with her future plans to install solar panels. • Reported that staff is recommending denial of this request to be consistent with the General Plan. • Advised that the trees are healthy and not causing damage. • Explained that the request for removal does not meet all criteria as the trees are: o Not in eminent danger of falling. o Do not interfere with utilities. o In reasonably good health. o Do not threaten damage to the house. o As the lot is flat, there is no erosion concern. • Stated that removal of the trees would create a significant impact on the property with respect to shade and landscaping. The house would no longer be shaded by the backyard trees and will not be screened from the neighbors. • Said that the trees are in reasonably good health and the site can support this number of trees. • Advised that there are alternatives to removing the trees available that do not require spraying inside of the house. • Reported that they can spray the trees in two ways using two different chemicals. One method of spraying would prevent fruit. The other method involves spraying the trunk and lower branches to kill the bugs when they emerge from the eggs. • Stated that removal of these trees is in conflict with the intent of the ordinance to protect and preserve mature and healthy trees. • Added that the request does meet the criteria in terms of health and safety as spraying may have health risks. She added that the trees and their bugs also have an impact on the owner’s enjoyment of their property. • Recommended denial. Commissioner Kundtz asked if the use of spray to preclude the fruit must occur annually. City Arborist Kate Bear replied yes. Commissioner Kundtz asked how toxic and/or much of a health hazard does this spraying pose. City Arborist Kate Bear said that the spraying must occur annually. Spraying is not supposed to occur if the wind is more than 10 miles per hour as there is a possibility of spray drifting if winds are above 10 miles per hour. Commissioner Nagpal asked City Arborist Kate Bear to verify that there is no impact from spraying if the directions are followed. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 7 City Arborist Kate Bear reported that both chemicals have “caution” on the label. Any time one uses chemicals anywhere you risk a health risk. She added that these chemicals are used on the trees not in the house. Commissioner Rodgers said that typically one stays away from the chemical until it is dry. She asked if they are less toxic once dry. City Arborist Kate Bear said that all chemicals have some toxicity. She added that the toxicity is minimal or it would not be approved for use. Commissioner Rodgers asked if treatment could get rid of bugs and break the cycle of annual infestation. Would sealing up the house keep them out without the need to spray annually? City Arborist Kate Bear said that it might be adequate to take steps to seal the house from bugs without using chemicals but she does not know for sure. Her recommendation is to seal up the house and use the chemicals. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there are other trees with bugs. City Arborist Kate Bear said that bugs usually harm trees. In this case, the trees are fine and the impact is on the homeowner. Commissioner Kundtz asked about the mistletoe growing on these trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that all of the trees have mistletoe growing on them. They are a parasitic plant usually infesting a tree after birds drop a seed onto it. Commissioner Nagpal asked about the perceived impact on privacy and shade, as there are quite a few trees on this property. City Arborist Kate Bear said that these three trees help provide significant cooling of the home. Commissioner Kumar asked if the removal of the male boxelder at the front of the property might stop the three female boxelder trees from producing fruit. City Arborist Kate Bear said she was not sure. She added that she did a lot of reading and has learned that some boxelder trees have bisexual flowers. However, theoretically it should work. Commissioner Kumar asked if this might be grounds for removal of the male tree. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she is trying to keep trees without the need to spray in the house. Commissioner Nagpal asked if all or some of the findings must be made. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 8 City Arborist Kate Bear said that not all are required but overall many should be met. Commissioner Rodgers asked what is involved in spraying. City Arborist Kate Bear said that it depends upon the chemical used. One process requires one spraying per year when the tree is in full bloom or flower. It is the more expensive option. The other process requires between one to three trunk sprayings per year although it is less expensive. Commissioner Rodgers asked what is the cost. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she does not know current costs, as her knowledge of such costs is about 15 years out of date. Commissioner Kumar asked if this decision is at the discretion of this Commission. City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer said yes. He said the Commission should look at all of the criteria and weigh them before deciding overall what is the appropriate decision for the trees. Commissioner Zhao asked what the downside might be if these trees were to be replaced with other mature trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that replacement trees are typically young trees. Commissioner Zhao asked what is the value of the three trees. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she didn’t establish a value. She added that usually one 24- inch box replacement tree is required for every tree removed. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the criteria requiring good forestry practices is for this property specifically or the City in general. City Arborist Kate Bear explained that good practices might include considering if trees are too close and if additional trees can be planted without being overcrowded. These trees should be kept because they are mature trees. Commissioner Nagpal asked City Arborist Kate Bear if these trees needed to be removed in order to accommodate an addition to the residence, would the request still be denied. City Arborist Kate Bear replied no. Their removal and replacement would be allowed to accommodate an addition. Commissioner Nagpal asked why this is different. Are the criteria different? She expressed concern that if this tree removal were necessary for an addition, this owner would not be required to keep these trees. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 9 City Arborist Kate Bear said that if the remodel offers an increased and/or better use of their home, they would be allowed to plant replacement trees elsewhere on the property. The replacement value is different. Commissioner Nagpal asked if these trees were to be replaced at an appraised value would that be a better option. City Arborist Kate Bear replied sure. However, that still results in younger replacement trees, which are smaller trees. She added that smaller trees, however, become established quicker than do larger trees. Commissioner Kumar pointed out that all of the trees have mistletoe activity on them. He asked for a health rating between one and 10. He said that the male tree appears to be in bad condition. City Arborist Kate Bear agreed that the male tree appears to be in poorer health than do the three female trees. She added that the applicant did not want to remove the male tree. The female trees can be rated as being between 60 to 70 percent healthy. Commissioner Kumar asked if they could be treated for mistletoe. City Arborist Kate Bear said that she did not think the trees have been treated for mistletoe. She explained that birds drop seeds that transmit mistletoe. Commissioner Zhao asked if the property could support more trees if the applicant wishes to plant more than three. City Arborist Kate Bear reminded that the applicant is proposing replacing the three removed trees with eight new ones. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Ms. Lori Ellingboe, Appellant and Property Owner: • Thanked the Commissioners for their site visit. • Explained that when she purchased this property a year ago it was because of the trees and not with the intent of cutting down any trees. • Said that the trees are gorgeous and it is not easy to find land like she has got. • Tearfully stated that she is stunned to be before this Commission seeking permission to remove these trees. • Advised that she is not remodeling. • Said that she wanted a backyard for her two boys to play in. • Reported that it has been a constant problem with the boxelder bugs. • Informed that she has learned that the previous owners used to spray monthly to control the bugs. • Stated that her friends often ask her, “Aren’t you disgusted!’ • Said that her nanny is disgusted because she does not spray constantly for the bugs. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 10 • Added that an electrician told her that the insulation in her attic was disgusting. • Said that it is only reluctantly that she comes before this Commission requesting permission to remove these trees. • Stated that it is her intention to keep the male boxelder tree in front alive as long as she can. She added that, in fact, this afternoon it was trimmed to try to minimize the mistletoe. • Reported that she knows for a fact that the mistletoe was removed before, as it was not there when she viewed the property. • Advised that even if you kill the mistletoe there is still damage because their roots bore into the branches. The only permanent remedy for the mistletoe is to get rid of those branches that once had some mistletoe growing on them. • Said that twice a year there are bugs all over the back wall. • Reported that her kids were using the dustbuster to get them picked up. • Stated that although the windows are fairly new and double paned, bugs still get in and can be found around the frame. • Said that she has gone through an education process in learning about this tree. • Stressed her belief that trees are a value and were also a reason for buying this property. • Added that there is still a lot of food for these bugs even if sprayed. • Reported that the father of the previous family that moved out is dealing with brain cancer. • Said that her stated options were to leave the bugs or spray frequently. • Said that all her neighbors signed a petition in support of removal of these trees over spraying. Only two neighbors did not sign and their properties are rentals and she could not contact the owners. • Pointed out that her neighbors and her are the impacted homeowners. • Said that one neighbor has asked for a maple to be planted nearest her, as she is allergic to oaks. • Said that they cannot use their backyard whether covered with bugs or due to the chemical used to control those bugs. • Questioned the fairness in allowing removal of these trees to support an addition and not because of the bugs. • Stated that she has consulted with an arborist on appropriate replacement trees. • Offered the rhetorical question, ‘has the City’s Arborist ever recommended that someone plant a boxelder?” • Answered her own question by stating that she does not believe that any arborist would recommend planting boxelder trees. • Said that spraying is not a perfect solution. • Reiterated that she cannot use her own backyard. • Reported finding bugs even in her medicine cabinet. • Declared these bugs to be invasive and a significant nuisance. Commissioner Hlava expressed concern over the location of a proposed cherry tree that would be close enough to a fence shared with a neighbor as to represent a potential nuisance for that neighbor as the tree matures. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said that the plan provided is in error and the cherry tree in question already exists in that location. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 11 Commissioner Hlava said that trees proposed include a magnolia to shade the patio and a persimmon and two maples. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said she also proposes an avocado. Commissioner Hlava said there are also a new pistache and a new Japanese maple near the house. She asked how large that tree would get. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said it would grow to between 10 and 12 feet as a mature tree. Commissioner Hlava said there are also a tangerine tree and a Chinese elm. Is there enough sun? Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied that she thought so. Commissioner Kundtz reminded the applicant of Mrs. Wyckoff’s concern about shade impacts on her future use of solar panels. He asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if she had spoken with her neighbor and is she willing to work with her. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied yes. She advised that the pistache and persimmon trees grow to between 30 and 40 feet, which should not block her sun. She added that if, or when, the male boxelder fails she plans to install a camphor tree in its place. Commissioner Kundtz reiterated his question as to whether Ms. Lori Ellingboe would work with her neighbor to reach agreement. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied absolutely, she is my neighbor. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if the pictures of the boxelder bugs she provided were taken on her property. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied no, they were generated from a website. Commissioner Kumar asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe how long she has lived in this home and what she has tried to control the bugs. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Replied that she has lived in her home for one year. • Said that she learned from her research that UC Davis recommends that one uses a dustbuster to vacuum these bugs up and they have done so. • Added that she has gone to Orchard Supply for spray. • Said that they keep the debris picked up where they nest, as mulch is an ideal home for boxelder bugs. Commissioner Kumar asked how many times she had sprayed. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said twice, once in March and again in April. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 12 Commissioner Kumar asked if she could use her yard after spraying. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Said that they stay out for at least two days after spraying. • Added that the common recommendation for dealing with the boxelder tree and its nuisance bugs is either to tolerate the bugs or remove the trees. • Pointed out that the spray is rated “caution” and so was DDT at one time when it was first issued but what we know now could change later. • Stated that she does not want to spray. • Reiterated that she is in an awkward position. Commissioner Nagpal agreed that this is a very difficult thing but this Commission has to make tough findings to preserve its tree canopy. She asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if she would be willing to put in more mature trees and also which proposed trees are evergreen versus deciduous. Ms Lori Ellingboe said that all the trees in the back are deciduous. Commissioner Nagpal asked her if she would put in more mature replacement trees. Ms. Lori Ellingboe replied yes. She added that it is her understanding that 24-inch box trees are actually healthier within a couple years than are trees that are larger when planted. She said that adding mature trees is better than spraying these trees. Commissioner Zhao asked Ms. Lori Ellingboe if the bugs are around all year. Ms. Lori Ellingboe: • Said that she didn’t see them last fall but she had just moved into the house in July and the previous owners had sprayed consistently. • Added that it was really in March and April of this year when the bugs crawled out of the insulation of the roof after overwintering inside the house. • Advised that when the bugs come out they flock against the heat of the back wall of the house and that is when the yard looks like it’s moving there are so many bugs. • Said that she was taken aback as she was not expecting this. Commissioner Zhao sought clarification that this bug infestation lasts for a couple of months a year. Ms. Lori Ellingboe said that she does not know yet but rather will see how it is in the fall now that it’s been a year since the trees were sprayed. Mr. Straun Edwards, Resident on Baylor Avenue: • Said that he was the consulting arborist for Ms. Lori Ellingboe. • Reported that the boxelder bug has two generations per year, one in the spring and the other in the fall. That results in between three and four months of infestation. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 13 • Said that the common recommendation is removal. • Pointed out that spraying is damaging to other plants if not covered. • Added that timing for the spraying is critical. The tree must bee at full bloom at the time of spraying and it might take two to three times to get ideal application. There is no guarantee of 100 percent control. • Advised that the residents of this neighborhood are green and prefer removal and replacement over regular spraying. • Reiterated that there is no real alternative to removal. • Added that Ms. Ellingboe wants to retain the mail boxelder in order to retain its screening impact. Commissioner Nagpal said that the City’s Arborist says there are other alternatives. Mr. Straun Edwards: • Said that he has not seen a lot of boxelders. • Reiterated that spraying will not achieve 100 percent control. • Said the spraying is more often used to keep olive trees from fruiting. • Added that these boxelders are at varying levels of health. • Advised that boxelders are a fast growing but short lived tree. • Opined that for him, allowing removal is a “no brainer.” Commissioner Nagpal clarified Mr. Straun Edwards’ position to be that there are alternatives but none are 100 percent effective. Mr. Straun Edwards said that the alternatives are to spray the tree and/or to spray the bugs. Commissioner Zhao asked how old the boxelder trees are. Mr. Straun Edwards said that the mail boxelder has five or six years left. Chair Cappello asked if the spray, Florel, is used for the trunk spraying. Mr. Straun Edwards said that a different chemical is used as a contact spray to kill the actual bugs. Chair Cappello asked if this spray was effective Mr. Straun Edwards said fairly. He added that the bugs are not just on the trees but rather they are all over. Trunk spraying would have to happen monthly. He added that he does not like to spray and has not seen a massive infestation such as this. Mr. Tom Stanis, Resident on Paseo Lado: • Reported that he bought his home adjacent to Lori Ellingboe’s at about the same time. • Added that they also have an infestation of these bugs. • Said that they moved in when his wife was pregnant and his son was born on June 19th. He was more than one month early and spent time in the neonatal intensive care unit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 14 • Stated that spraying these trees would occur within feet of his baby’s nursery and he does not want to subject his baby to that exposure. • Said that his child should not be put at risk over three trees. • Added that a large maple tree on his lot adequately screens and shades the area that would be impacted by the removal of these trees. • Stated that there are no windows on the sides of these houses in this neighborhood so no privacy impacts exist. • Said that on the issue of new smaller versus larger trees, it is his understanding that smaller trees are larger than any large tree planted by the third year. Ms. Sue Mallory, Resident on Kirkdale Drive: • Said that she is a 40-year resident. • Explained that she is here the evening for consideration of the next agenda item but felt compelled to speak on this appeal. • Stated her support for the granting of this appeal, as she would rather have healthy people without spraying. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 2. Director John Livingstone: • Said that he needed to make two clarifications. • Said that for an addition that requires tree removal, those requests are considered on a case specific basis. • Added that if a large specimen oak was to be removed to accommodate an addition, it might not be approved. However, in this situation with boxelders, perhaps it would be allowed. • Advised that the adult boxelder bugs have wings and can fly so just trunk spraying cannot stop them. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the Commission’s decision would be final. City Arborist Kate Bear said that their decision could be appealed to Council. Commissioner Rodgers asked if the City has a nuisance tree list. City Arborist Kate Bear replied no. There is just a list of trees to avoid around pavement. Commissioner Hlava: • Said that from the descriptions provided by the applicant and her neighbors, this has public health impacts. • Stated that repeated spraying is a bad idea. • Added that the applicant is not being allowed the economic enjoyment of her property. She has a pretty backyard but one cannot imagine her having a picnic there when bugs are all around. • Said that Finding 2, the threat of damage, can be made, as these bugs are nesting/laying eggs in insulation, which creates damage. It seems that these bugs do damage. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 15 • Said that a conflict with the intent of the ordinance does not apply here. Having a huge bug infestation twice a year, with many of the bugs living in the walls and insulation of the house helps meet the criteria to allow removal of these trees. • Agreed that it is Kate Bear’s job as City Arborist to save trees in Saratoga but this is a time to make an exception. • Said that with Lori Ellingboe’s plan for planting new trees, she can make the overall intent to allow the removal of these three trees. Commissioner Kumar: • Stated his agreement. • Said that Findings 8 and 9 can be made as can Condition 2 (damage to property). • Said that it is not healthy for the kids living in this house. • Agreed that the owner cannot enjoy her property with these bugs. • Stated that the most important criteria is Finding 8. • Pointed out that this house is next door to a home with a newborn. • Stressed that he does not want a health hazard with spraying. • Agreed that this is a City that loves its tree and wants to keep them to the maximum extent possible. • Reminded that Lori Ellingboe cares just as much for trees on her property and is reluctantly requesting removal. This is a drastic measure for her. • Stated his support of upholding the appeal. Commissioner Zhao: • Stated that she also agrees. • Suggested an addition to the resolution requiring that the applicant work with the City Arborist on the proposed replacement trees. • Stressed her concerns over public health issues per Findings 8 and 9. Commissioner Kundtz: • Said that he also supports the appeal. • Reminded that this decision can also be appealed to Council so he suggested that Ms. Lori Ellingboe make contact with Mrs. Wyckoff to make sure any concerns are satisfied. Commissioner Nagpal: • Stated that she is a big proponent of trees. • Expressed disagreement with the health and safety issue. • Said that the biggest reason to allow the removal is the damage caused by these bugs coming into the house. • Questioned whether all alternatives have been adequately explored although she does recognize that some effort was made. • Said that given the circumstances here she can support this appeal. Commissioner Rodgers: • Agreed that using anecdotal evidence doesn’t support the health and safety impacts. • Stressed the value of trees in Saratoga. • Stated that spraying for bugs is a smaller issue for her than perhaps for other people. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 16 • Suggested that it might be time to think about creating a list of nuisance trees. • Said that this is a beautiful yard and supported having this owner work with Kate Bear on the replanting of trees. Chair Cappello: • Advised that he agrees with staff and will not support the appeal. • Added that spraying will minimize the impact of the bugs. Commissioner Hlava discussed a number of findings for editing to support the removal. Chair Cappello took a straw vote and it was 5-2 in support of granting the appeal. Commissioner Hlava said it appears there is an overall consensus that Findings 8 and 9 can be made in support. She suggested going with how Kate Bear wrote them. She also suggested removing the word “not” from Finding 2 and changing Section 1 to read, “Approve” rather than “Deny.” City Attorney Jonathan Wittwer: • Provided the following language, “Replacement trees shall be planted as shown on Attachment 4, subject to revisions required by the City Arborist and in a manner that would not shade the solar potential on the adjacent property.” • Added the standard attorney indemnification language. • Added the standard condition requiring the applicant to sign off on the conditions of approval. Commissioner Kumar asked if some language regarding the enjoyment of the property should be added somewhere. Commissioner Nagpal said that the minutes would reflect that position. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Kundtz, the Planning Commission upheld an appeal and overturned the denial of a Tree Removal Permit to allow the removal of three boxelder trees on property located at 18644 Paseo Lado, subject to specific conditions, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal and Zhao NOES: Cappello and Rodgers ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** PUBLIC HEARING - ITEM NO. 3 APPLICATION #PSP08-0002 (386-57-022) WASHINGTON MUTUAL, 12200 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road: The applicant requests Design Review Approval to construct and display two identical building identification signs. The 2’4” x 8’5” signs are approximately 19.68 Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 17 square feet each for a total area of 39.36 square feet. The signs will replace, and be smaller than, two existing signs. The signs are illuminated and will identify a bank. (Cynthia McCormick) Ms. Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report as follows: • Distributed a revised resolution. • Described the request as being for two internally illuminated signs that identify a bank at Park Saratoga Shopping Center. • Said that the two signs are identical and smaller than existing signs at 19.68 square feet each. They are mounted flush against the wall and include the blue and yellow WAMU corporate logo and text reading “WAMU.” • Said that this request is Categorically Exempt under CEQA. • Recommended approval. Commissioner Hlava asked if there is a change of brand as the reason for these new signs. Planner Cynthia McCormick said that it is part of a tenant improvement. Commissioner Rodgers asked if there is going to be some improvement of landscaping with this tenant improvement. Planner Cynthia McCormick suggested asking the applicant to respond. Chair Cappello opened the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Mr. Jeffery Jenson, Sign Company Representative: • Agreed that the landscaping needs work. • Added that if improvements to the landscaping are conditioned, they are fine with that. • Said that the size of the lettering is increasing in size but remains under 16-inches. • Reported that this is a new marketing logo and represents their current corporate identity. Chair Cappello asked if the logo and lettering would be backlit. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said yes. Mr. Jeff Walker, Resident on Seagull Way: • Said that he likes this proposed signage. • Asked if the one sign facing residential properties is illuminated. If so, he asked that said illumination be turned off by 9 or 10 p.m. using a timer. • Said that in this day, it is better to measure illumination by lumens rather that wattage since LED lighting is what is being used. Commissioner Kundtz asked if there is a versateller located at the back. Planner Cynthia McCormick said that the ATM is located inside the building. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 18 Commissioner Kundtz said he respects the neighbor’s comment about lighting. Commissioner Kumar said that lighting is proposed for the west side (along Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road). Commissioner Nagpal supported having no illumination on the sign facing residences. Ms. Sue Mallory, Resident on Kirkdale Drive: • Said that when she heard illumination was proposed she was concerned. • Read a letter from her husband, John “Jack” Mallory, who is attending another meeting this evening. He questions why lighting is necessary, why it is necessary at the back facing residences, and whether it is consistent with the Northwest Saratoga Community District Guidelines. He thanked the Commission for considering his comments. • Read another letter from a neighbor, Mike Ziegel, on Atrium Drive. He states that if the sign at the back were lighted it would have a negative effect on the townhome neighbors. He wrote that all-night lighting of signs is not required. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said that all comments made could be taken care of by turning off lights after business hours. Commissioner Nagpal asked if the sign facing the residences is illuminated. Mr. Jeffery Jenson replied yes. Commissioner Nagpal asked if an alternative to internal illumination had been considered such as a gooseneck lighting fixture. Mr. Jeffery Jenson replied no. He said that there is no reason it should be illuminated at all on the east side but is more functional if illuminated on the Saratoga-Sunnyvale side. Commissioner Nagpal asked Mr. Jeffery Jenson if he were okay without illumination on the east elevation sign. Mr. Jeffery Jenson said he is just the sign representative. Commissioner Kundtz said that not illuminating the sign that is facing residences after hours would be sensitive. Commissioner Rodgers said there is a sign to the east and one to the west. Is there no sign facing north? Mr. Jeffery Jenson said that the blue awning was recently removed at the rear facing east. Commissioner Hlava pointed out that there is a large wall separating the shopping center from the adjacent residences. She said if the ATM were located inside, it would appear that the entry has to be lit. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 19 Chair Cappello called for a break at 9:23 p.m. to allow staff an opportunity to go back to the office and get the tenant improvement plans to more clearly depict the proposed ATM entry. Chair Cappello reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. and reminded that there was a question about exterior lighting. Director John Livingstone said that the ATM is located inside the east entrance. On the exterior elevation there is no added lighting just a card swipe to access the interior and interior lighting. Commissioner Nagpal said that in that case having an unlit sign at the back would not impact entry lighting. Chair Cappello closed the public hearing for Agenda Item No. 3. Commissioner Nagpal said she agrees with the residents that the east elevation sign should not include illumination. Commissioner Hlava agreed and supported conditioning additional landscaping. Commissioner Kundtz agreed with both Commissioners but added that the Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road facing sign should be illuminated. Commissioner Rodgers said she is fine with the illuminated sign off Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road as being necessary but turned off at night. She also supported requiring enhanced landscaping. Motion: Upon motion of Commissioner Nagpal, seconded by Commissioner Hlava, the Planning Commission granted Design Review Approval for two new building identification signs (Washington Mutual) for a total sign area of 39.36 square feet on property located at 12200 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road, with modifications as follows: • The east facing sign shall not include illumination; and • Adding a condition incorporating the applicant’s proposal requiring the installation and maintenance of additional landscaping to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director; by the following roll call vote: AYES: Cappello, Hlava, Kumar, Kundtz, Nagpal, Rodgers and Zhao NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None *** DIRECTOR’S ITEMS There were no Director’s Items. Saratoga Planning Commission Minutes of July 9, 2008 Page 20 COMMISSION ITEMS There were no Commission Items. COMMUNICATIONS Commissioner Hlava advised receipt of a letter from the priest of St. Michael’s Church thanking the Commission for the time spent on their project. ADJOURNMENT TO NEXT MEETING Upon motion of Commissioner Hlava, seconded by Commissioner Nagpal, Chair Cappello adjourned the meeting at approximately 9:34 p.m. MINUTES PREPARED AND SUBMITTED BY: Corinne A. Shinn, Minutes Clerk