Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-09-2019 Planning Commission PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 9, 2019 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Civic Theater | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Special Planning Commission Meeting of September 25, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of September 25, 2019 meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public will be allowed to address the Planning Commission for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. This law generally prohibits the Planning Commission from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Planning Commission may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications. REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS If you wish to appeal any decision on this Agenda, you may file an Appeal Application with the City Clerk within fifteen (15) calendar days of the date of the decision. 1. NEW BUSINESS 2. PUBLIC HEARING Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of ten (10) minutes maximum for opening statements. All interested persons may appear and be heard during this meeting regarding the items on this agenda. If items on this agenda are challenged in court, members of the public may be limited to raising only issues raised at the Public Hearing or in written correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to the close of the Public Hearing. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. Applicants and/or their representatives have a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. 2.1 Application APTR19-0002; 19324 Harleigh Dr (389-31-016); Katerzyna and Maciej Kranz (continued from the July 10, 2019 Planning Commission meeting). The property owners are appealing the denial of permit application TRP19-0054 for the removal of one (1) Blue Atlas Cedar tree located in the front yard of the property. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276 or kbear@saratoga.ca.us. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-012 denying the appeal. 2.2 Application APTR19-0003; 12459 Saratoga Creek Dr (386-21-009); Tahmineh Kazemi and John Reagan. The property owners are appealing the denial of permit application TRP19-0185 for the removal of one (1) Deodar Cedar tree located in the front yard of the property. Staff contact: Kate Bear (408) 868-1276 or kbear@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-023 denying the appeal. 2.3 Application PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016; 14303 Elva Avenue (503-27-085); Yong Yang and Guixiang Gu / Qing Gan. The applicant requests Design Review approval to construct a 726 square foot single story addition and a 393 square foot second story addition with a maximum height of 22’8”. No protected trees are requested for removal. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of Medium Density Residential. Staff Contact: Victoria Hernandez (408) 868-1212 or vhernandez@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-028 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA I, Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant 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 October 3, 2019 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 3rd day of October 2019 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant 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 Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 2 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION SPECIAL MEETING Chair Ahuja called the Planning Commission Special Meeting to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Sunil Ahuja, Vice Chair Razi Mohiuddin, Commissioners Leonard Almalech, Anjali Kausar, Tina Walia ABSENT: Kookie Fitzsimmons, Lucas Pastuszka ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of September 11, 2019. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of September 11, 2019 meeting. WALIA/ ALMALECH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 11, 2019 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS 1. NEW BUSINESS: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING 2.1 Application PDR19-0007; 14160 Victor Place (397-27-018); Priti Goal/Brian Capsey. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-029 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. KAUSAR/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-029 APPROVING APPLICATION PDR19-0007 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN ATTACHEMENT 1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.2 Application PDR19-0006, ARB19-0021; 19361 Valle Vista Drive (397-11-014); Anil Ubale and Anu Sonvane/Tom Sloan AIA. 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 2 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-027 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. WALIA/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-027 APPROVING APPLICATION PDR19-0006 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN ATTACHEMENT 1. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3 Application PDR19-0005, ARB19-0018; 14431 Fruitvale Avenue (397-17-006); Jianwen Zhang and Na Wei Yin/Tri Hong. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 19-024 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. WALIA/ALMALECH MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 19-024 AS AMENDED, APPROVING APPLICATION PDR19-0005 SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS IN ATTACHEMENT 1, REMOVING CONDITION NO. FIVE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, MOHIUDDIN, ALMALECH, KAUSAR, WALIA. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: FITZSIMMONS, PASTUSZKA. ABSTAIN: NONE. DIRECTOR ITEMS: Director Pedro reported that on September 18, 2019 City Council introduced the Wireless Facilities Ordinance Update with a modification to the Planning Commission recommendation to apply the streamline review process to applications proposed on existing wooden utility poles in the public right-of-way. COMMISSION ITEMS: None. ADJOURNMENT CHAIR AHUJA ADJOURNED THE MEETING AT 7:50 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant City of Saratoga 5 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 19324 Harleigh Drive Meeting Date: October 9, 2019 (continued from July 10, 2019) Application: APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 Address/APN: 19324 Harleigh Drive / 389-31-016 Property Owner/Appellants: Katerzyna and Maciej Kranz From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Kate Bear, City Arborist 6 Report to the Planning Commission 19324 Harleigh Drive – Application # APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 October 9, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 19324 Harleigh Drive has appealed an administrative decision to deny an application for the removal of one blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’) (TRP19-00054). The appeal was continued from the July 10, 2019 Planning Commission hearing to a date uncertain. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.19-012 denying the appeal. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100, review by the Planning Commission is required for an appeal of an administrative decision. BACKGROUND AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION On July 10, 2019, the Planning Commission heard the appeal APTR19-0002 requesting the removal of one blue atlas cedar tree. The appellant stated that if they could park cars on Harleigh Drive they would no longer need to remove the tree to allow parking in their driveway. The Planning Commission requested that the appellant investigate the possibility of parking on Harleigh Drive before making they made a determination on the appeal, and continued the appeal until a date uncertain. The appellant contacted the Department of Public Works to investigate the possibility of parking on Harleigh Drive. The “no parking” prohibition was put in place in the 1960’s at the request of the neighborhood next to the newly created West Valley College campus and expanded in the 1970’s through actions of the Saratoga City Council. Parking is allowed on Harleigh Drive between 8 pm to 8 am Monday through Friday and all day Saturday and Sunday. Action by the City Council would be needed to modify the limits on street parking to accommodate individual homeowners. Surrounding neighbors have not made requests to remove the prohibition on street parking. The appellant also contacted the Traffic Safety Commission to see if this was the correct place to have their concerns reviewed. The Traffic Safety Committee considers situations that are unsafe, and the inability to park on the street falls outside of their purview. FINDINGS Refer to the July 10, 2019 staff report. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 19-012 2. Staff Report for July 10, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting 3. Appeal Application APTR19-0002 4. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP19-0054 7 RESOLUTION NO: 19-012 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR19-0002 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP19-0054 AT 19324 HARLEIGH DR WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one blue atlas cedar at 19324 Harleigh Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree Removal Permit set forth in Section 15-50.080, the Planning Commission finds that overall the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one blue atlas cedar. 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, Open Space and Conservation Element Policy: General Open Space, OSC2: To preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces. The mature blue atlas cedar on the property adds to the small town residential semi-rural appeal of the community. Arbor Resources Element, OSC12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of arbor resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable manner. To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs. ATTACHMENT 1 8 19324 Harleigh Drive Application #: APTR19-0002/TRP19-0054 Resolution No. 19-012 Page | 2 The blue atlas cedar 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 blue atlas cedar does not meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.080 in that the tree appears healthy, stable and does not appear to be damaging structures on the property on which it grows or the neighbor’s property. Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have not been met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. How each criterion has or has not been met is detailed below. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding cannot be made. At the time of inspection, the tree was in good health. Nearly half of the root space of the tree is covered by hardscape. The reduced root space may be contributing to the increased sap production. While this is a nuisance, it is unlikely to cause decline in the health or appearance of the tree. (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. At the time of inspection, there was no indication of damage to the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is not a concern. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. There are a fair number of trees on the property and neighboring property, but the location and color of the cedar distinguishes it in the landscape. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding could not be made. The cedar is not being crowded by other trees. The property is able to accommodate all the large trees currently growing at the site. (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 the removal of the tree. Car covers could be used to protect the cars from the sap falling. There is a parking space beside the house that is not in use because the driver would need to park behind a gate and to open and close the gate. Street parking is available between the hours of 8pm and 8am. (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. The general purpose of the Article 9 19324 Harleigh Drive Application #: APTR19-0002/TRP19-0054 Resolution No. 19-012 Page | 3 is to preserve mature trees in Saratoga if there are feasible alternatives that do not require the removal of the 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 cannot be made as the tree does not affect the safety of the public. (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 cannot be made. There are feasible alternatives to the removal. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed. Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR19-0002, denying TRP19-0054 for the removal and replacement of one blue atlas cedar, located at 19324 Harleigh Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission 10 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 19324 Harleigh Drive Meeting Date: July 10, 2019 Application: APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 Address/APN: 19324 Harleigh Drive / 389-31-016 Property Owner/Appellants: Katerzyna and Maciej Kranz From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Kate Bear, City Arborist ATTACHMENT 2 11 Report to the Planning Commission 19324 Harleigh Drive – Application # APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 July10, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 19324 Harleigh Drive has appealed an administrative decision to deny an application for the removal of one blue atlas cedar (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’) (TRP19-00054). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.19-012 denying the appeal. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100, review by the Planning Commission is required for an appeal of an administrative decision. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION Site Description The property is a single story house in a neighborhood across from West Valley College. There are a variety of large and small trees on the property. In addition to the blue atlas cedar, mature trees include three liquidambars along the street in the front yard, a deodar cedar in the front yard on the other side of the house, and two redwoods and a deodar cedar in the back yard. The blue atlas cedar tree grows in the front yard and is visible from the street. The tree is planted to the right of the driveway, which has been widened to accommodate two additional parking spaces directly under the tree. There is a paved area behind the gate large enough to accommodate a parked vehicle. Background and Reason for Appeal On February 2, 2019 the property owners Katerzyna and Maciej Kranz applied for a permit (TRP19-0054) to remove one blue atlas cedar growing in the front yard. The reason for the requested removal was that the tree is dropping sap on cars parked under the tree. Prior to applying for tree removal, the owners hired an arborist to inspect the tree to see if there was action they could take to prevent the sap production. Their arborist found the tree to be healthy but determined that the sap production could not be prevented. The application was denied because the tree removal criteria in City Code Section 15-50.080 could not be met. On April 26, 2019, Katerzyna and Maciej Kranz filed an application with the Community Development Department to appeal the administrative determination denying the application for tree removal. The reason for the appeal is that the tree is dropping sap on cars and preventing them from fully utilizing their driveway. According to the property owners, there are six drivers in the household. The garage and driveway can accommodate four cars. Harleigh Drive is posted with no parking signs from 8 am to 8 pm to prevent West Valley College students from parking in the neighborhood during school hours. The owners widened the driveway under the tree to allow two additional cars to be parked in the driveway. On February 19, 2019 staff conducted a site visit to inspect the blue atlas cedar tree. The tree appeared to be mature and in good condition with several decades left in its most valuable years. The tree has good structure with a strong central leader. The color of the foliage and this tree’s even 12 Report to the Planning Commission 19324 Harleigh Drive – Application # APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 July10, 2019 Page | 3 shape give it a strong aesthetic appearance. The reduced root space from the widened driveway may be contributing to the sap production. Pruning may reduce the amount of sap, but would not eliminate the problem. There is no treatment available to stop the tree from dropping sap. While this is a nuisance, it is unlikely to cause decline in the health or appearance of the tree. FINDINGS The findings required for tree removal pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.080 are set forth below. The Appellant has not met the burden of proof to support making one or more of those required findings: (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. At the time of inspection, the tree was in good health. Nearly half of the root space of the tree is covered by hardscape. The reduced root space may be contributing to the increased sap production. While this is a nuisance, it is unlikely to cause decline in the health or appearance of the tree. (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. At the time of inspection, there was no indication of damage to the property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is not a concern. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. This is the largest tree in this area of the front yard and contributes to shade and privacy of the property. The distinctive blue gray foliage of the blue atlas cedar and its good health and structure distinguishes it in the landscape. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding cannot be made. The cedar is not being crowded by other trees. The property is able to accommodate all the large trees currently growing at the site. 13 Report to the Planning Commission 19324 Harleigh Drive – Application # APTR19-0002; TRP19-0054 July10, 2019 Page | 4 (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 the removal of the tree. Car covers could be used to protect the cars from the sap falling. There is a parking space beside the house that is not in use because the driver would need to park behind a gate and to open and close the gate. Street parking is available between the hours of 8pm and 8am. (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. The general purpose of the Article is to preserve mature trees in good condition if there are feasible alternatives that do not require the removal of the 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 cannot be made as the tree does not affect the safety of the public. (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 cannot be made. There are feasible alternatives to the removal. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 19-012 denying the appeal 2. Appeal application APTR19-0002 3. Tree removal permit application TRP19-0054 14 ATTACHMENT 3 15 16 ATTACHMENT 4 17 18 19 20 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive Meeting Date: October 9, 2019 Application: APTR19-0003; TRP19-0185 Address/APN: 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive / APN 386-21-009 Property Owner/Appellants: Tahmineh Kazemi and John Reagan From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Kate Bear, City Arborist 21 Report to the Planning Commission 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive – Application APTR19-0003; TRP19-0185 October 9, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive has appealed an administrative decision to deny an application for the removal of one deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) (TRP19-00185). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.19-023 denying the appeal. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.100, review by the Planning Commission is required for an appeal of an administrative decision. SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND APPEAL DESCRIPTION Site Description The property is a single story house in a neighborhood along Saratoga Cree off of Cox Avenue. The deodar cedar grows in the front yard. Also in the front yard is a young ash tree. The property backs up to the creek and is shaded by mature trees along the creek, and in their neighbor’s back yards. Background and Reason for Appeal On February 5, 2019 the owners John Reagan and Tamineh Kazemi applied for a permit (TRP19-0047) to remove one 31 inch trunk diameter deodar cedar growing in the front yard and one coast live oak with an estimated trunk diameter of 24 inches growing in the back yard. The reason for the requested removal of the deodar cedar was that the tree drops cones and produces pollen which is causing health issues for Mrs. Kazemi. On February 19, 2019 staff conducted a site visit to inspect the two trees requested for removal. The oak tree was found to have internal decay, and the cedar was determined to be in good health and to have good structure which includes a strong central leader. The cedar can be expected to live many more years. On March 21, 2019 the application for the removal of the coast live oak was approved, and the removal of the deodar cedar was denied. The tree removal criteria in City Code Section 15- 50.080 could not be met for the deodar cedar. The owners did not appeal the denial. On May 29, 2019 the property owners applied again for a permit (TRP19-0185) to remove the deodar cedar tree. The application stated the reason for the requested removal was excessive pollen and dropping cones, causing health issues. Included in the application was a doctor’s letter recommending the removal of the cedar as part of Mrs. Kazemi’s health management plan, to reduce her exposure to environmental allergens and “inhalant irritant aggravators of respiratory disease”. The application was denied because the tree removal criteria in City Code Section 15- 50.080 could not be met. On June 27, 2019 an application to appeal the administrative determination denying the application for tree removal was filed with the Community Development Department. According to the appellants, the pollen produced by the cedar is a trigger for Mrs. Kazemi’s asthma. 22 Report to the Planning Commission 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive – Application APTR19-0003; TRP19-0185 October 9, 2019 Page | 3 FINDINGS The findings required for tree removal pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.080 are set forth below. The Appellant has not met the burden of proof to support making one or more of those required findings: (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. The tree was found to be in good health, was not interfering with utilities and was sufficiently far from the house. (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. No evidence of damage to the property from the deodar cedar was found. Removal of debris from a tree is part of routine maintenance for a property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is not a concern. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. The deodar cedar is the largest tree in the front yard and is prominently visible from the street. It contributes to shade, privacy and the aesthetic appearance of 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. The deodar cedar is not crowded by other trees and the property can accommodate this tree. (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 the removal of the tree. The roof, gutters and yard under the tree can be cleaned to remove debris from the tree. The tree can be pruned so that branches do not hang over the roof. 23 Report to the Planning Commission 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive – Application APTR19-0003; TRP19-0185 October 9, 2019 Page | 4 (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. The general purpose of the Article is to preserve mature trees in good condition. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. This finding cannot be made as the tree does not affect public safety. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding cannot be made. This species is wind pollinated and there is a mature deodar cedar tree across the street. It cannot be guaranteed that the pollen load would be sufficiently lowered to provide the necessary relief. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 19-023 2. Appeal Application APTR19-0003 3. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP19-0185 24 RESOLUTION NO: 19-023 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR19-0003 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP19-0185 AT 12459 SARATOGA CREEK DRIVE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one deodar cedar at 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a full opportunity to be heard and present evidence; and WHEREAS, the goal of the City is to balance the rights and privileges of property owners for the use of their land with criteria for establishing and sustaining an urban forest, including the establishment of basic standards and criteria for the removal and replacement of trees; and WHEREAS, after considering all of the criteria for the application of a Tree Removal Permit set forth in Section 15-50.080, the Planning Commission finds that overall the applicant has not met the burden of proof required to support said application for the Tree Removal Permit for one deodar cedar. 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, Open Space and Conservation Element Policy: General Open Space, OSC2: To preserve the City’s existing character which includes small town residential, rural/semi-rural areas and open spaces. The mature deodar cedar on the property adds to the small town residential semi-rural appeal of the community. Arbor Resources Element, OSC12: Support appropriate management for sustaining the health and increasing the extent of arbor resources in the City. The specific vision is to increase overall tree cover, tree health and consequent tree benefits in an equitable, cost beneficial and sustainable manner. To further protect and enhance the City’s arbor resources built on the City’s Tree Regulations, the City should continue its support of tree protection programs. ATTACHMENT 1 25 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive Application #: APTR19-0003/TRP19-0185 Resolution No. 19-023 Page | 2 The deodar cedar 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 deodar cedar does not meet the criteria in the City Code, overall. Section 3: The administrative decision is consistent with the Saratoga City Code Section 15-50.080 in that the tree appears healthy, stable and does not appear to be damaging structures on the property on which it grows or the neighbor’s property. Criteria 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 have not been met. Criteria 3 and 10 do not apply. How each criterion has or has not been met is detailed below. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. This finding cannot be made. The tree was found to be in good health, was not interfering with utilities and was sufficiently far from the house. (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. No evidence of damage to the property from the deodar cedar was found. Removal of debris from a tree is part of routine maintenance for a property. (3) The topography of the land and the effect of the tree removal upon erosion, soil retention and the diversion or increased flow of surface waters, particularly on steep slopes. This finding is not applicable because the property is considered flat and erosion control is not a concern. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. This finding cannot be made. The deodar cedar is the largest tree in the front yard and is prominently visible from the street. It contributes to shade, privacy and the aesthetic appearance of the property. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. This finding could not be made. The deodar cedar is not crowded by other trees and the property can accommodate this tree. (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 the removal of the tree. The roof, gutters and yard under the tree can be cleaned to remove debris from the tree. The tree can be pruned so that branches do not hang over the roof. (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. The general purpose of the Article is to preserve mature trees in Saratoga. 26 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive Application #: APTR19-0003/TRP19-0185 Resolution No. 19-023 Page | 3 (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. This finding cannot be made as the tree does not affect public safety. (9) The necessity to remove the tree for economic or other enjoyment of the property when there is no other feasible alternative to the removal. This finding cannot be made. This species is wind pollinated and there is a mature deodar cedar tree across the street. It cannot be guaranteed that the pollen load would be sufficiently lowered to provide the necessary relief. (10) The necessity to remove the tree for installation and efficient operation of solar panels, subject to the requirements that the tree(s) to be removed shall not be removed until solar panels have been installed and replacement trees planted in conformance with the City Arborist's recommendation. This finding is not applicable as solar panels are not proposed. Section 4: Unless appealed to the City Council pursuant to the requirements of Article 15-90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption. The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby denies APTR19-0003, denying TRP19-0185 for the removal and replacement of one deodar cedar, located at 12459 Saratoga Creek Drive. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 9th day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission 27 ATTACHMENT 2 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 ATACHMENT 3 36 37 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 14303 Elva Avenue Meeting Date: October 9, 2019 Application: PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Address/APN: 14303 Elva Avenue / 503-27-085 Property Owner: Yong Yang and Guixiang Gu From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Victoria Hernandez, Planner I 38 Report to the Planning Commission 14303 Elva Avenue – Application # PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016 October 9, 2019 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant is requesting Design Review approval to construct a 726 square foot single story addition and a 393 square foot second story addition. The height of the residence will not exceed 22’8”. No protected trees are requested for removal. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No.19-028 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. Pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(a)(2), Design Review Approval by the Planning Commission is required because the project is conversion of a single-story structure to a multi-story structure. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 8,064 sq. ft. gross / 6,129 sq. ft. net after slope deduction Average Site Slope: 17% General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-10,000 Proposed Allowed/Required Site Coverage Residence/Garage Impervious Walkways/Patios/Driveway Permeable Walkways/Patios Total Proposed Site Coverage 2,577 sq. ft. 670 sq. ft. 261 sq. ft. 3,508 sq. ft. (43.5%) 4,838.4 sq. ft. (60%) Floor Area First Floor Second Floor Garage Area over 15 ft. ceiling height Total Proposed Floor Area 1,787 sq. ft. 393 sq. ft. 403 sq. ft. 119 sq. ft. 2,702 sq. ft. 2,720 sq. ft. Height 22’ 8” 26’ Setbacks Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 1½” 27’ 6’ 2” 22’ 1 ½” 8’ 1” 11’ 6” 53’ 7” 83’ 3” 1st Floor 2nd Floor 25’ 25’ 6’ 11’ 6’ 11’ 25’ 35’ Grading Cut 100.2 CY Fill 1.9 CY Export 98.3 CY No grading limit in the R-1-10,000 zoning district 39 Report to the Planning Commission 14303 Elva Avenue – Application # PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016 October 9, 2019 Page | 3 SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The subject property is located on the western side of Elva Avenue, in the R-1-10,000 zoning district. The site is currently developed with a single-story residence and attached garage. The surrounding uses consist of single-family residences on all sides of the site. One (1) tree adjacent to the project, which is protected by the Saratoga City Code, was inventoried on the site by the project arborist. Project Description The proposed project would include a 726 square foot first story addition and a 393 square foot second story addition to an existing single-story home. Pursuant to City Code Section 15- 06.195(b), the scope of the project meets the definition of a demolition, as more than 50 percent of the existing exterior walls and more than 50 percent of the existing interior walls will be removed. Therefore, the project would be considered a new residence, and all existing non- conforming walls encroaching within the south property line setbacks will be brought into conformance with the current zoning regulations. The first floor of the residence would consist of a two-car garage, foyer, great room, family room, kitchen, office, two bedrooms, and two bathrooms. The second floor would consist of one bedroom and one bathroom. Architecture/Design The project would have a contemporary architectural style. Exterior materials and colors would consist of silver fern (light khaki) and new wool (tan) stucco walls, white trim, and a gray shingle roof. The variety of exterior materials and varying roof heights provides architectural articulation to break up the mass of the home. The applicant has provided a color and materials board, which will be available for review at the site visit and during the public hearing. Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Stucco (light khaki and tan) Trim (white) Windows Vinyl (white) Doors Wood (natural wood and white) Roof Composition Shingle (gray) Trees The project arborist inventoried one (1) tree on the adjacent lot south of the project site, which is protected and near the proposed area of work. No protected trees are requested for removal. All protected trees to remain in the vicinity of the project will be protected prior to building permit issuance and throughout the duration of the project. The applicant is required to place a tree security deposit of $2,575 and install tree protection fencing on the site. Details of the arborist report findings and descriptions of the trees to be preserved are included in the Arborist Report (Attachment 2). 40 Report to the Planning Commission 14303 Elva Avenue – Application # PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016 October 9, 2019 Page | 4 Landscaping The majority of the existing landscaping is proposed to remain on the site. Any landscaping damaged during construction in the front yard must be replaced prior to final occupancy. The applicant will be required to demonstrate compliance with the Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance when the application is submitted to the Building Department. Geotechnical Review The proposed location of the residence is not located in a geo hazard zone therefore Geotechnical review was not required. FINDINGS The findings required for issuance of a Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section Article 15-45.080 are set forth below and the Applicant has met the burden of proof to support making all of those required findings: 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 in the affirmative in that the project minimizes changes to the contours of the site. Grading will be limited to the location of the new two-story addition. 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 in the affirmative in that no protected trees are proposed for removal. The City Arborist has reviewed and recommends approval of 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 in the affirmative in that the second story has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence and proposed setbacks that are greater than the minimum required by the zoning district. No community viewsheds are located in the vicinity of the project. d. The overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project will create a two-story residence in a neighborhood with both one and two-story structures. The project includes architectural 41 Report to the Planning Commission 14303 Elva Avenue – Application # PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016 October 9, 2019 Page | 5 elements consistent with the contemporary architectural style which are in scale with the structure and the neighborhood. 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 in the affirmative in that the hardscape will be less than 50% of the front setback area and limited to a concrete driveway and walkway. The majority of the existing landscaping is proposed to remain. f. Development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy. This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the development will not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy as the project exceeds required setbacks and has a proposed height that does not exceed the maximum allowable height for a single-family residence. 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 incorporates applicable design policies and techniques from the Residential Design Handbook. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed manner which is complementary to the architectural style of the home. 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. The project is not located on a ridgeline, and will not affect any significant hillside features or community viewsheds. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence A public notice was sent to property owners within 500 feet of the site. In addition, the public hearing notice and description of the project was published in the Saratoga News. The applicant submitted five (5) completed neighborhood notification forms, two of which had no negative project related comments and three which expressed concerns with the project (Attachment 3). The comments expressed concerns with the proposed location of the second story, potential obstruction of views, and dead trees on the property. As a condition of approval, all dead trees located in the rear yard are to be removed and replaced on the property at a ratio of one-for-one prior to final occupancy. 42 Report to the Planning Commission 14303 Elva Avenue – Application # PDR18-0032, ARB19-0016 October 9, 2019 Page | 6 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, including small structures. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of an addition to a residence in a suburban, residential area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 19-028 2. Arborist Report 3. Neighbor Notification Forms 4. Story Pole Certification 5. Project Plans 43 At RESOLUTION NO: 19-028 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING DESIGN REVIEW PDR18-0032 AND ARBORIST REPORT ARB19-0016 14303 ELVA AVENUE (APN 503-27-085) WHEREAS, on October 23, 2018 an application was submitted by Yong Yang and Guixiang Gu requesting Design Review approval to construct a 726 square foot first story addition and a 393 square foot second story addition located at 14303 Elva Avenue (APN 503-27-085). No protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is located within the R-1-10,000 zoning district. 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 Categorically Exempt. WHEREAS, on October 9, 2019 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 a single- family residence and small structures in a residential area. Section 3: The proposed residence 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 proposed residence is consistent with the Saratoga City Code in that the design and improvements are consistent with the design review findings. The overall mass and height of the structure are in scale with the neighborhood; the structure is set back in proportion to the size and shape of the lot; site development follows contours and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; the porch and entry are in scale with other structures in the neighborhood. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. ATTACHMENT 1 44 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 2 Section 5: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves PDR18-0032 and ARB19-0016 located at 14303 Elva Avenue (APN 503-27-085), 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 9th day of October 2019 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Sunil Ahuja Chair, Planning Commission 45 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL PDR18-0032 AND ARB19-0016 14303 ELVA AVENUE (APN 503-27-085) GENERAL 1. All conditions below which are identified as permanent or for which an alternative period of time for applicability is specified shall run with the land and apply to the landowner’s successors in interest for such time period. No zoning clearance, or demolition, grading for this project shall be issued until proof is filed with the city that a certificate of approval documenting all applicable permanent or other term-specified conditions has been recorded by the applicant with the Santa Clara County Recorder’s office in form and content to the Community Development Director. If a condition is not “Permanent” or does not have a term specified, it shall remain in effect until the issuance by the City of Saratoga of a Certificate of Occupancy or its equivalent. 2. The Owner and Applicant will be mailed a statement after the time the Resolution granting this approval is duly executed, containing a statement of all amounts due to the City in connection with this application, including all consultant fees (collectively “processing fees”). This approval or permit shall expire sixty (60) days after the date said notice is mailed if all processing fees contained in the notice have not been paid in full. No Zoning Clearance or Demolition, Grading, or Building Permit may be issued until the City certifies that all processing fees have been paid in full (and, for deposit accounts, a surplus balance of $500 is maintained). 3. The Project shall maintain compliance with all applicable regulations of the State, County, City and/or other governmental agencies having jurisdiction including, without limitation, the requirements of the Saratoga City Code incorporated herein by this reference. 4. As a condition of this Approval, Owner and Applicant hereby agree to defend, indemnify and hold the City and its officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, agents and volunteers harmless from and against: a. any and all claims, actions or proceedings to attack, set aside, void or annul any action on the subject application, or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken, done or made prior to said action; and b. any and all claims, demands, actions, expenses or liabilities arising from or in any manner relating to the performance of such construction, installation, alteration or grading work by the Owner and/or Applicant, their successors, or by any person acting on their behalf. In addition, prior to any Zoning Clearance, Owner and Applicant shall execute a separate agreement containing the details of this required Agreement to Indemnify, Hold Harmless and Defend, which shall be subject to prior approval as to form and content by the City Attorney. 46 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 4 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. All dead trees located in the rear yard are to be removed and replaced on the property at a ratio of one-for-one prior to final occupancy. Replacement trees shall be planted from 15-gallon containers and shall reach a height of 20 feet when mature. 6. The owner/applicant shall comply with all City requirements regarding drainage, including but not limited to complying with the city approved Stormwater management plan. The project shall retain and/or detain any increase in design flow from the site, that is created by the proposed construction and grading project, such that adjacent down slope properties will not be negatively impacted by any increase in flow. Design must follow the current Santa Clara County Drainage Manual method criteria, as required by the building department. Retention/detention element design must follow the Drainage Manual guidelines, as required by the building department. 7. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the Approved Plans date stamped August 26, 2019. All proposed changes to the approved plans must be submitted in writing with plans showing the changes, including a clouded set of plans highlighting the changes. Such changes shall be subject to approval in accordance with City Code. 8. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall submit for staff approval, a Lighting Plan for the home’s exterior and landscaped areas. Proposed exterior lighting shall be limited to full-cut off & shielded fixtures with downward directed illumination so as not to shine on adjacent properties or public right-of-way. All proposed exterior lighting shall be designed to limit illumination to the site and avoid creating glare impacts to surrounding properties. 9. In order to comply with standards that minimize impacts to the neighborhood during site preparation and construction, the applicant shall comply with City Code Sections 7-30.060 and 16-75.050, with respect to noise, construction hours, maintenance of the construction site and other requirements stated in these sections. 10. Prior to issuance of Building Permits, the applicant shall prepare for review and approval by City staff a Construction Management Plan for the project which includes but is not limited to the following: a. Proposed construction worker parking area. b. Proposed construction hours that are consistent with City Code. c. Proposed construction/delivery vehicle staging or parking areas. d. Proposed traffic control plan with traffic control measures, any street closure, hours for delivery/earth moving or hauling, etc. To the extent possible, any deliveries, earth moving or hauling activities will be scheduled to avoid peak commute hours. e. Proposed construction material staging/storage areas. f. Location of project construction sign outlining permitted construction work hours, name of project contractor and the contact information for both homeowner and contractor. 11. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 47 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 5 12. The final landscaping and irrigation plan submitted for Building Permit approval shall demonstrate how the project complies with the State Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance and 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 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 13. 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. 14. A locking mailbox approved for use by the U.S. Postal service shall be installed and in compliance with Saratoga Municipal Code section 6-25.030. The mailbox shall be installed prior to final inspection. 15. A Building Permit must be issued and construction commenced within 36 months from the date of adoption of this Resolution or the Design Review Approval will expire unless extended in accordance with the City Code. FIRE DEPARTMENT 16. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements. ARBORIST 17. All requirements in the City Arborist report dated March 26, 2019 are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. PUBLIC WORKS 18. Applicant / Owner shall obtain an encroachment permit for any and all improvements in any City right-of-way or City easement including all new utilities prior to commencement of the work to implement this Design Review. 48 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 6 19. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Remove existing driveway approach and replace with same. See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 20. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 21. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 22. Applicant / Owner shall maintain the streets, sidewalks and other right of way as well as adjacent properties, both public and private, in a clean, safe and usable condition. All spills of soil, rock or construction debris shall be removed immediately. 23. The Owner/Applicant shall incorporate adequate source control measures to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff (e.g. landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where possible, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and incorporates appropriate sustainable landscaping practices and programs, such as Bay-Friendly Landscaping). 24. Construction Site Control a. Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. b. The City requires the construction sites to maintain year-round effective erosion control, run-on and run-off control, sediment control, good site management, and non-storm water management through all phases of construction (including, but not limited to, site grading, building, and finishing of lots) until the site is fully stabilized by landscaping or the installation of permanent erosion control measures. c. City will conduct inspections to determine compliance and determine the effectiveness of the BMPs in preventing the discharge of construction pollutants into the storm drain. Owner shall be required to timely correct all actual and potential discharges observed. 25. Prior to the Building final, all Public works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 26. 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: 49 14303 Elva Avenue Application # PDR18-0032 / ARB19-0016 Resolution #19-028 Page | 7 a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. Arborist Report dated March 26, 2019 printed onto a separate plan page; and c. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. d. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. e. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. 50 Community Development Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 ARBORIST REPORT Application No. ARB19-0016 Prepared by Kate Bear, City Arborist Site: 14303 Elva Avenue Phone: (408) 868-1276 Owner: Yong Yang Email: kbear@saratoga.ca.us APN: 503-27-085 Email: yongyang_usa@yahoo.com Report: Approval of Tree Protection Plan Date: March 26, 2019 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to add a first and second story addition on to the house and remodel the interior. No trees are requested for removal to construct the project. STATUS: Approved by City Arborist, with attached conditions. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $2,575 Tree protection – Required – See Conditions of Approval and attached map. Tree removals – No trees are requested or approved for removal. Replacement trees – Not required. ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Conditions of Approval 3 – Map Showing Tree Location and Protection Page 1 of 5 ATTACHMENT 2 51 14303 Elva Avenue Attachment 1 FINDINGS: Tree Removals No trees are requested or approved for removal. New Construction Based on the information provided, and as conditioned, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15- 50.120 of the City Code. Tree Preservation Plan Section 15-50.140 of the City Code requires a Tree Preservation Plan for this project. To satisfy this requirement the following shall be copied onto a plan sheet and included in the final sets of plans: 1) The recommendations and tree information from the submitted arborist report dated January 17, 2019; 2) The Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection from this report dated March 26, 2019. TREE INFORMATION: Arborist Report reviewed: Preparer: Michael Bench, Consulting Arborist Date of Report: January 17, 2019 An arborist report was submitted for this project that inventoried one trees growing on the adjacent property and protected by Saratoga City Code. Information on the condition of the tree, potential impacts from construction, its suitability for preservation, an appraised value, and tree protection recommendations was provided. A table summarizing information about this tree is below. Table 1: Tree information from January 17, 2019 arborist report. Tree No. Species Trunk Diameter (inches) Canopy Spread (feet) Condition Intensity of Construction Impacts Suitability for Preservation Location Coast redwood Adjacent 1 Sequoia sempervirens 29 25 Good Low High property Table 2: Appraised value from January 17, 2019 arborist report. Species Trunk Diameter Basic Value Species % Condition % Location % Rounded Value Coast redwood 29 $24,177 50% 100% 85% $10,300 Page 2 of 5 52 14303 Elva Avenue Attachment 2 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1. Owner, Architect, Contractor: 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. Permit: a. 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. b. 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. 3. Final Plan Sets: a. Shall include the recommendations and tree information from the arborist report by Michael Bench dated January 17, 2019 copied onto a plan sheet, titled “Tree Preservation”. b. Shall include the Project Data in Brief, the Conditions of Approval, and the map showing tree protection sections of the City Arborist report dated March 26, 2019. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit: a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $2575 for tree(s) 1. 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. 5. Tree Protection: a. Shall be installed as shown on the attached map. b. Shall be shown on the Site Plan. c. Shall be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. d. Shall be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 2-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. e. Shall be posted with signs saying “TREE PROTECTION FENCE - DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276”. f. Call City Arborist, Kate Bear at (408) 868-1276 for an inspection of tree protection once it has been installed. This is required prior to obtaining building division permits. g. Tree protection shall remain undisturbed throughout the construction until final inspection. Page 3 of 5 53 14303 Elva Avenue Attachment 2 6. Construction: All construction activities shall be conducted outside tree protection fencing unless permitted as conditioned below. These activities include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: demolition, grading, trenching for utility installation, equipment cleaning, stockpiling and dumping materials (including soil fill), and equipment/vehicle operation and parking. 7. Work inside fenced areas: a. Requires field meeting with City Arborist before performing work. b. Requires City Arborist approval prior to performing work. c. Requires Project Arborist on site to monitor work. 8. Project Arborist: a. Shall be Michael Bench unless otherwise approved by the City Arborist. b. Shall provide a letter to the Applicant for the City at the end of the project. The letter shall document the work performed around trees, include photos of the work in progress, and provide information on the condition of the trees following construction. c. Shall supervise any permitted pruning or root pruning of trees on site. 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. d. The Project Arborist shall be on site to monitor all work within 15 feet of tree 1. e. Shall monitor the site when concrete is removed under redwood tree 1 and during and grading, trenching or digging activities near the tree (see 8d above). 9. Tree removal: No trees are requested or approved for removal to construct the project. 10. New trees are not required. 11. Damage to protected trees that will be retained: Should any protected tree be damaged beyond repair, new trees shall be required to replace the tree. If there is insufficient room to plant the necessary number of new trees, some of the value for trees may be paid into the City’s Tree Fund. Replacement values for new trees are listed below. 15 gallon = $350 24 inch box = $500 36 inch box = $1,500 48 inch box = $5,000 60 inch box = 7,000 72 inch box = $15,000 12. Final inspection: a. 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. b. Before scheduling a final inspection from the City Arborist, have the project arborist do an inspection, prepare a letter with their findings and provide that letter to the City for the project file. Page 4 of 5 54 1 Attachment 3 Legend Tree Canopy Tree Protection Fencing 14303 Elva Avenue Project arborist to be on site during demolition of concrete under neighbor’s redwood. Page 5 of 5 55 ATTACHMENT 3 56 57 58 59 60 61 ATTACHMENT 4 62 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEWPROPOSEDSINGLE FAMILY HOME ADDITIONFORYANG & GU'SRESIDENCE14303 ELVA AVENUE SARATOGA, CA 95070ATTACHMENT 563 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW64 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW65 PUBLIC UTILITY EASEMENTPRIVATE SANITARY EASEMENTCONCRETECATCH BASINSIDEWALKEXISTING & NEWCURB & GUTTERPOLYVINYL CHLORIDEDRAIN INLETFINISH GRADEGARAGE GRADE (FRONT END)FINISH FLOOR GRADEEXISTING GROUND ELEVATIONTOP OF WALLBOTTOM OF WALLP.U.E.P.S.S.E.CONCCBS/W(E) & (N)C & GPVCDIFGGFFFFGETWBWABBREVIATIONGRADING NOTES:THE LANDSCAPE FINISHED GRADES WITHIN FIVE FEET OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE SHALL SLOPE AT A 5% MINIMUM FROM THEFOUNDATION. ALL EXTERIO HARD SURFACING AREAS (iNCLUDING TERRACES) SHALL BE INSTALLED WITH A 1% MINIMUM GRADIENT, ANDSHALL DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING. FINISHED GRADE DRAINAGE SWALES SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM SLOPE OF 1.5%. MAXIMUMGRADED SLOPE IS 3:1 (3 HORIZONTAL TO 1 VERTICAL).UTILITY WORK IN THE STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY NOT INSTALLED BY CONTRACTOR WILL REQUIRE A SEPARATE PERMIT BY THE AGENCYPERFORMING SUCH WORK".ALL WORK SHALL COMPLY WITH THE LATEST EDITION OF UBC, UMC, UPC, NEC, AND CITY OF CUPERTINO, AND COUNTY STANDARDS.THE OWNER AND THE ENGINEER OF WORK WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ENFORCING SAFETY MEASURES AND REGULATIONS. THECONTRACTOR MUST DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, INSTALL, AND MAINTAIN ALL SAFETY DEVICES, INCLUDING SHORING, AND SHALL BE SOLELYRESPONSIBLE FOR CONFORMING TO ALL LOCAL, STATE, AND FEDERAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS, LAW AND REGULATIONS.PRIOR TO START OF CONSTRUCTION, CONTRACTOR MUST VERIFY ALL JOINT/CROSSING LOCATIONS, ELEVATIONS, CURB, GUTTER,SIDEWALK, FLOW LINES, PAVEMENT, STREETS, AND ALL GRADE JOINTS. IF DISCREPANCY IS FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR MUSTIMMEDIATELY NOTIFY THE ENGINEER AND NOT PROCEED WITH ANY CONSTRUCTION UNTIL VERIFICATION AND REVISION (IF NECESSARY)IS COMPLETED BY THE SAID ENGINEER.THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ALL UNDERGROUND UTILITIES/STRUCTURES SHOWN HEREON WERE OBTAINED FROM INFORMATIONFURNISHED BY OTHERS. THE ENGINEER ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE COMPLETENESS AND ACCURACY OF SAID INFORMATION.THE CONTRACTOR MUST ASCERTAIN THE TRUE VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL LOCATION AND SIZE OF THOSE TO BE USED AND SHALL BERESPONSIBLE FOR DAMAGE TO ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITIES SHOWN OR NOT SHOWN HEREON.THE SOIL REPORTS PREPARED FOR THIS PROJECT IS A PART OF THIS PLAN. THE MOST STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS BY SOIL ENGINEER ORGOVERNING AGENCIES SHALL PREVAIL.GRADING SHALL BE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE SOIL REPORT FORTHIS SITE TOGETHER WITH ANY SUPPLEMENTS THERETO. ALL GRADING WORK SHALL BE DONE UNDER THE OBSERVATION OF THE SOILSENGINEER. THE SOIL ENGINEER SHALL BE NOTIFIED 48 HOURS BEFORE THE START OF ANY GRADING.COMPACTION REPORTS IS REQUIRED ON ALL BUILDING PAD WORK.PRIOR TO START OF ANY WORK, CONTRACTOR MUST REVIEW THE PLANS FOR DESIGN INCONSISTENCIES AND TYPOS SUCH AS ELEVATIONS,CURB HEIGHT, DIMENSIONS, SLOPES, ETC. IF INCONSISTENCIES OR OBVIOUS TYPOS ARE FOUND, THE CONTRACTOR MUST IMMEDIATELYNOTIFY THE ENGINEER OF WORK FOR VERIFICATION BEFORE PROCEEDING WITH ANY WORK.NOTIFY THE SENIOR BUILDING INPECTOR 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF START OF WORK FOR THIS PROJECT.THE CIVIL ENGINEER WILL BE REQUIRED TO VERIFY ON THE GRADING PERMIT THAT THE PAD LOCATION AND ELEVATION IS CONSTRUCTEDPER APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO FOUNDATION INSPECTION. THE CIVIL ENGINEER WILL ALSO BE REQUIRED TO CERTIFY THAT THE SITE WASGRADED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE APPROVED PLANS PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.EXPORT MATERIAL (IF ANY) SHALL BE DISPOSED OF IN AN ACCEPTABLE LOCATION.ANY CONSTRUCTION WITHIN THE CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY MUST HAVE AN APPROVED PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION IN THE PUBLIC STREET PRIORTO COMMENCEMENT OF THIS WORK. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, BUTSHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT PLANS FOR INFORMATION ONLY.MONWSMONUMENTSWALE FLOW DIRECTIONSANITARY SEWER CLEAN-OUTBENCHMARKCONTOUR LINESTORM DRAIN MANHOLESANITARY SEWER MANHOLESANITARY SEWER LINEPG & E VAULTCURB CATCH BASINWATER VALVESTREET LIGHTWATER LINEGAS LINELEGENDDOWNSPOUTWITH SPLASH-BLOCKRETAINING WALLGAS METEREMELECTRICITY PANEL & METERWMWATER METERDRAINAGE TO BE DIRECTEDAWAY FROM FOUNDATIONAND TOWARDS LANDSCAPE AREASCONCRETE(E)FENCE(E)(N)FENCE(N)GASGMEELECTRICAL LINE7/26/19NOTEDTP001C-1OfSheetJobDateCheckScaleDrawnRevisionsBy66 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW67 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW68 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW69 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW70 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW71 4,1**$1C-36327RENEWALDATE$5&&&77((('61+/,,&$$$22776 ())/,,511802DESIGN REVIEW72 73