Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-12-2021 Planning Commission Regular Meeting PacketSaratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING MAY 12, 2021 7:00 P.M. - PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Teleconference/Public Participation Information to Mitigate the Spread of COVID‐19 This meeting will be entirely by teleconference. All Commission members and staff will only participate via the Zoom platform using the process described below. The meeting is being conducted in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order N‐29‐20 suspending certain teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. The purpose of this order was to provide the safest environment for the public, elected officials, and staff while allowing for continued operation of the government and public participation during the COVID‐19 pandemic. The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. Members of the public view and participate in the meeting by: 1.Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82652375945 App (Webinar ID 826 5237 5945) and using the tool to raise their hand in the Zoom platform when directed by the Chair to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99) and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968 and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Chair. During the meeting the Chair will explain the process for members of the public to be recognized to offer public comment. As always, members of the public can send written comments to the Commission prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/pc prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Commission and will become part of the official record of the meeting. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting due to a disability, please contact the City Clerk at debbieb@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 2 of 3 ROLL CALL APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Planning Commission Meeting of April 14, 2021. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of April 14, 2021 Planning Commission 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 APTR21-0001; 18532 Cox Ave (389-13-012); Mahesh and Chhaya Mehta. The property owners are appealing the denial of permit application TRP20-0324 for the removal of one (1) Tristaniopsis laurina tree which grows in the front yard of the property, Staff contact: Christina Fusco (408) 868-1276 or cfusco@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21-009 denying the appeal as the required findings cannot be made for the removal of the protected tree. 2.2 Application ADR21-0004/ARB21-0011; 18580 Cox Avenue (389-13-009); Byron Kemper (Applicant) – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,537 square foot one-story single-family home. Five protected trees are proposed for removal – the City Arborist is recommending that one of the protected trees be retained. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) with a General Plan Designation of M-10 (Medium Density Residential). Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21-007 denying the application for Design Review as the required findings cannot be made for the removal of a protected tree. Saratoga Planning Commission Agenda – Page 3 of 3 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS 3.1. Update to April 20, 2021 House Family Vineyard Study Session 4. COMMISSION ITEMS 5. ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 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 review on May 7, 2021 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 7th day of May 2021 at Saratoga, California. Frances Reed, Administrative Technician. In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the Planning Commission by City staff in connection with this agenda, copies of materials distributed to the Planning Commission concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the Planning Commission by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us or available at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at debbieb@saratoga.ca.us or calling 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 1 of 3 DRAFT MINUTES WEDNESDAY APRIL 14, 2021 SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING Chair Mohiuddin called the virtual Regular Meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Chair and Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission meeting was conducted pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act and a recent Executive Order issued by the Governor to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission at public meetings. Ordinarily the Brown Act sets strict rules for teleconferencing. The Governor’s Executive Order has suspended those rules. The Executive Order does require that public agencies continue to notice meetings in advance and provide members of the public an opportunity to observe the meeting and offer public comment. The Planning Commission met all the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Chair explained that votes would be taken through roll call. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Chair Razi Mohiuddin, Vice Chair Anjali Kausar, Commissioners Sunil Ahuja, Jojo Choi, Clinton Brownley, Cheriel Jensen and Herman Zheng ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Victoria Banfield, Associate Planner ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE-CHAIR AHUJA/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER KAUSAR FOR PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, JENSEN, KAUSAR, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE AHUJA/JENSEN MOVED TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER ZHENG FOR PLANNING COMMISSION VICE CHAIR. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, JENSEN, KAUSAR, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES Action Minutes from the Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 2021. Recommended Action: Approve Minutes of Regular Planning Commission Meeting of March 10, 2021. AHUJA/ MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 10, 2021 MEETING. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: JENSEN. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS: NONE 4 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 2 of 3 REPORT ON APPEAL RIGHTS 1. NEW BUSINESS: NONE 2. PUBLIC HEARING Chair Kausar recused herself from item 2.1. 2.1 Continued from February 10, 2021 Meeting - Application SUB20-0001; 20034 Herriman Avenue (397-25-080); John Christol – The applicant is requesting Tentative Map approval to subdivide an existing 43,887 square foot parcel located at 20034 Herriman Avenue into two lots. Parcel One would be 33,767 square feet and Parcel Two would be 10,118 square feet. Both lots would have frontage on Herriman Avenue. All existing buildings will remain and be located on Parcel One. No protected trees are proposed for removal. No other development is proposed at this time. The site is zoned R-1-10,000 with a General Plan Designation of M-10. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21-002 approving Tentative Map SUB20-0001 subject to conditions included in Attachment 2. JENSEN/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 21-002 APPROVING APPLICATION SUB20-0001. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, JENSEN, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: KAUSAR. Chair Kausar returned to the meeting. 2.2 Application PDR20-0012/ARB20-0056; 14920 Sobey Road (397-04-071); Creston Dr LLC – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 6,621 square foot two- story single-family home. The project also includes an 800 square foot deed restricted detached accessory dwelling unit. Eight protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned R-1-40,000 with a General Plan Designation of RVLD. Staff Contact: Victoria Banfield (408) 868-1212 or vbanfield@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No.21-006 approving the proposed residence subject to conditions of approval included in Attachment 1. AHUJA/BROWNLY MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 21-006 APPROVING APPLICATION PDR20-0012/ARB20-0056. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, JENSEN, KAUSAR, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 2.3 Application PDR20-0006/ARB20-0036/VAR21-0001; 15451 Bohlman Road (517- 14-011); Lori Perlman (Applicant) – The applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 2,652 square foot two-story single-family home and a 748 square foot detached garage with a request for a height exception for the garage to exceed a height of 12 feet. The project 5 Saratoga Planning Commission Draft Minutes – Page 3 of 3 also includes a request for a variance to locate the detached garage on an area of the site which exceeds a slope of 30 percent. Three protected trees are proposed for removal. The site is zoned HR with a General Plan Designation of RHC. Staff Contact: Christopher Riordan (408) 868-1235 or criordan@saratoga.ca.us. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 21-005 approving the applications for Design Review, Variance, and the removal of four protected trees subject to conditions of approval. CHOI/MOHIUDDIN MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 21-005 WITH AMENDMENTS, APPROVING APPLICATION PDR20-0006/ARB20-0036/VAR21- 0001 WITH REVISED CONDITIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: AHUJA, BROWNLEY, CHOI, KAUSAR, MOHIUDDIN, ZHENG. NOES: JENSEN. ABSENT: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. 3. DIRECTOR ITEMS: NONE 4. COMMISSION ITEMS Chair Kausar welcomed Commissioners Jensen and Choi and thanked Commissioner Mohiuddin for serving as Chair and doing such a great job over the past, challenging year. 5. ADJOURNMENT: MOHIUDDIN/ZHENG MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 8:23 PM. Minutes respectfully submitted: Frances Reed, Administrative Technician City of Saratoga 6 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 18532 Cox Avenue Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Application: APTR21-0001; TRP20-0324 Address/APN: 18532 Cox Avenue / APN 389-13-012 Property Owner/Appellants: Mahesh and Chhaya Mehta From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Christina Fusco, Arborist 7 Report to the Planning Commission 18532 Cox Avenue – Application APTR21-0001; TRP20-0324 May 12, 2021 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The property owner of 18532 Cox Avenue has appealed an administrative decision to deny an application for the removal of one multi trunk water gum (Tristaniopsis laurina) tree. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 21-008 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 Cox Avenue off of Quito Road. Per section 15-50.050 (b) of the City Code, all trees with a trunk diameter of 10 inches or more or 31 inches in circumference measured from 4.5 feet above the ground are protected. For trees with multiple trunks, the tree diameter equals the full diameter of the largest trunk plus fifty percent of the diameter of all other trunks on the tree. The water gum has multiple trunks measuring 11, 11, 10, 9, and 7 inches in diameter. It is a prominent tree located in the front yard and is the only protected tree on the property visible from the street. Background and Reason for Appeal On October 6, 2020, property owner Mahesh Mehta applied for a permit (TRP20-0324) to remove the subject tree. The reason cited for the tree removal was that the applicant would like to re-landscape the front yard to be drought tolerant. (Attachment 2) On October 26, 2020, staff conducted a site visit to inspect the tree requested for removal. The water gum was determined to be in good health and has good structure for a multi stem tree. This tree requires moist soil when young but is drought tolerant at maturity. The water gum tree can be expected to live many more years in a low water landscape environment whereas the installation of a new tree would require higher water usage. On November 9, 2020, the applicant was notified that the City intended to deny the removal of the water gum because tree removal criteria in City Code Section 15-50.080 could not be met. On November 16, 2020, the applicant submitted additional information that the tree sheds berries and creates potential obstacles that may cause the owner to fall due to mobility issues. In addition, the applicant said the tree has caused damages to the irrigation lines next to the driveway. Staff reviewed and discussed the additional information with the property owner, and on February 24, 2021, the application was denied because required findings for tree removal pursuant to City Code Section 15-50.080 could not be met. On March 8, 2021, an application to appeal the administrative determination denying the tree removal request was filed with the Community Development Department. The appellants cited a number of reasons for the tree removal, including that debris from the tree created an unmanageable slip hazard for the resident due to limited mobility. Please note that the resident’s 8 Report to the Planning Commission 18532 Cox Avenue – Application APTR21-0001; TRP20-0324 May 12, 2021 Page | 3 date of birth and medical record number have been redacted per the request of the appellants. (Attachment 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 tree such as raised walkway or driveway 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 water gum is the largest tree on the property 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 water gum 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. 9 Report to the Planning Commission 18532 Cox Avenue – Application APTR21-0001; TRP20-0324 May 12, 2021 Page | 4 This finding cannot be made because there are alternatives to the removal of the tree. The walkway and driveway under the tree can be cleaned to remove debris from the tree. (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. Removal of debris from a tree is part of routine maintenance for a property. (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. 21-008 2. Tree Removal Permit Application TRP20-0324 3. Appeal Application APTR21-000 10 RESOLUTION NO: 21-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING APPEAL APTR21-0001 AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION TRP20-0324 AT 18532 COX AVENUE WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received an appeal of an Administrative Decision denying a request to remove one water gum at 18532 Cox Avenue; 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 water gum. 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 water gum on the property adds to the small town residential semi-rural appeal of the community. Arbor Resources, 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. The water gum 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 Attachment 1 11 18532 Cox Avenue Application #: APTR21-0001/TRP20-0324 Resolution No. 21-008 Page | 2 removal and the appeal, and found that the request to remove the water gum 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 subject tree 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 water gum is the largest tree on the property 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 water gum 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 walkway and driveway under the tree can be cleaned to remove debris from the tree. (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. 12 18532 Cox Avenue Application #: APTR21-0001/TRP20-0324 Resolution No. 21-008 Page | 3 (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. Removal of debris from a tree is part of routine maintenance for a property. (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 APTR21-0001, denying TRP20-0324 for the removal and replacement of one water gum (Tristaniopsis laurina,) located at 18532 Cox Avenue. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Anjali Kausar Chair, Planning Commission 13 Date Permit Issued: TREE PERMIT APPLIC CITY OF SA RA TOGA • 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE• CITY ARBORIST • CHRISTINA FUSCO• CFUSCO@SARATOG OFFICE USE ONLY Qxx OF SARATOGAPennit#T Deadline to Appeal Denial of Permit: 11 ,· -DENIED 3. l±:-\ . 2 \ Permit Expires: Details: STEP 1: PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION E-mail: mahesh mehtal £ A TOGA, CA 95070 . us • 408-868-1276 Q _-032'-\ ProJ?erty Owner: Mahesh Mehta Home Phone: 4084933615 -----------~ -..'::f-=--f--------------1 Mobile Phone: 40831585 3 Address where work will be performed: 18532 COX A VENUE ---. ------------ Nearest Cross Street: Quito Mailing Address (if different from above): 1 understand that the tre€(s) may be removed , pruned, or encroached upon , only according to the criteria establ she by Article l 5-50 of the City code, and that by signing this form, I am agreeing to the conditions of the permit. If trees are requested for re va , my signature certifies that they are located solely on my property. I authorize the city arborist or representative to visit the property to inspect ee . X Mahesh H Mehta Signature of Property Owner 10 /2020 Da e Submitted I prefer to receive written communication (e. g. permit or notification of denial) by US mail. ~-+--(Initial here) STEP 2: LIST TREES BELOW -APPLICATION PROCESSING Make checks payable tD the City of Saratoga and submit payment alO_!l!!_ with the permit Tree permits are required for the removal of the following trees: -Native species with a diameter at breast height (DBH) measured at 4Yi feet above the ground of 6" or great (1 "in circumference). • Other trees with a DBH of JO " or greater (31 ''in circumference measured 4 Yi feet .above the ground). -Any street tree (within public street or right of way) or Heritage Tree (designated by HPC and CC) regardle so size. Species Unknown - - -T --- Remove I Prune , Construct.-I >25o/o /Encroach 0 0 0 Remove t- L Location Reason (Front, Back, (Dead, Oise or Side Yardj _ . Front Wantto d t DOCUMENT UPWAD dscaping to save water l www.saratoga.ea.us/Admin/FormCenter/Submissions/ViewFile/2859/?name=tree with gree:_berries.JPG _ 14 APPLICATION PROCESSING fee= $125 Make checks payable to the City of Saratoga and submit payment along with the permit ap nc,tion. Permit# TRP Address: Notificati n ~equired: Yes No TO BE COMPLETED BY CITY ARBORIST: This permit is APPROVED in accordance with Article 15-50 of the City Code base.don the The tree is DEAD or has fallen. The tree is in danger of falling, or leans. D D The tree is disease The tree is droppin wing: D D The tree interferes with utilities -PG&E, sewer, gas, water. D The tree is too close to structures or damaging a patio, walkway, driveway, pool, foundati n r other hardscape. D There are a too many trees in a small area -one or more needs to be removed. D There are many trees on the property and removal of this tree( s) will not affect shade or p · v cy. D There are no feasible alternatives to removing the tree(s). D Removal of the tree(s) is consistent with the general intent of Article 15-50, Tree Regula D Removal of the tree is needed for public health, safety, or general welfare per Article 15-0 .010. 0 Removal of the tree( s) is needed to install solar panels. D PERMITTED WORK HOURS & NOISE LIMITS -www.saratoga.ca.us -Article (b) Powered Garden tools. Powered garden tools shall not exceed 78 dBA at any point twenty-five feet or mor fro the source of noise . Such tools may be utilized during the following days and times : (l) Gasoline powered leaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Frid y d Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M . Use of gasoline powered leaf blowers shall not be allowed on Sundays. (2) Gasoline powered chainsaws may be utilized between 8 :00 A.M. and 5:00 P .M . Monday through Frida an between 10:00 A.M . and 5 :00 P.M. on Saturday and Sundays. (3) Other powered garden tools (except gasoline powered leaf blowers and chainsaws) may be utilized be eeu. he hours of 8 :00 A.M. and 9 :00 P .M . any day of the week. (c) Wood chippers. Wood chippers shall not exceed 100 dBA at any point twenty-five feet or more from the sot rce fnoise. Wood chippers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 .M and 5 :00 P.M. Use of wood chippers shall not be allowed on Sundays . NEW TREE REQUIREMENTS~ D Replacement tree(s) shall be planted within_i months from the date permit is issued. Once you have-planted your new tree( s )-please go to the link below and fill ut he Tree Planting F onn. Tree planting form D Replace with 15 galion tree(s): D Reaching a mature height of feet or more. D Anywhere on the op D In the front yard. D From the City's List of Natives. D Palms are not ac ep able as replacement trees. D Other -------------------------------+---+---------- 1/0 ,;ll,r 2D 1 te oflnspection 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christina Fusco, City Arborist Date: May 12, 2021 Subject: Supplemental Memo # 1 - APTR21-0001; 18532 Cox Ave The attached are additional public comments for application APTR21-0001; 18532 Cox Ave. that were received after the publication of the packet. Attachment 1 – Public Comments 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION 18580 COX AVENUE Meeting Date: May 12, 2021 Application: ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 Address/APN: 18580 Cox Avenue / 389-13-009 Applicant / Property Owner: Byron Kemper From: Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director Report Prepared By: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner 41 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project applicant is requesting Design Review approval for a new 3,537 sq. ft. one-story single-family residence and the removal of five (5) protected trees. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt Resolution No. 21-007 (Attachment #1) denying the application for Design Review as the required findings cannot be made for the removal of one of the five protected trees, a 36” diameter, 45’ tall Catalpa tree. Planning Commission approval is required pursuant to City Code Section 15-45.060(7) – the Community Development Director can forward an Administrative Design Review application to the Planning Commission for review if it is determined that the project is inconsistent with the design review findings – staff cannot make the finding that all protected trees are being preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). Alternatively, if the Planning Commission can make all the required design review findings for the project, which includes the removal of all five protected trees on the property, then a Resolution of Approval is provided as Attachment #9. PROJECT DATA Gross/Net Site Area: 11,543 sq. ft. gross/net Average Site Slope: Level Site General Plan Designation: M-10 (Medium Density Residential) Zoning: R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) Proposed Allowed/Required Proposed Building Site Coverage Residence / Garage Driveway Patios/Walkways Total Site Coverage *Permeable surfaces used for driveways count as 50% site coverage 4,102 sq. ft. 504 sq. ft.* 731 sq. ft. 5,337 sq. ft. (.46%) 6,926 sq. ft. Floor Area Main Residence Living Area Detached Garage Total Floor Area 3,119 sq. ft. 418 sq. ft. 3,537 sq. ft. 3,540 sq. ft. Height 17.94’ 18’ 42 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 3 Setbacks (Residence) Front: Left Right Rear: 25’- 5” 11’- 2” 10’- 2” 40’- 10” 25’ 10’ 10’ 25’ Grading Cut 154 CY Fill 100 CY Export 54 CY No grading amount limitation in R-1 zoning districts SITE CHARACTERISTICS AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION Site Description The project is located at 18580 Cox Avenue in the R-1-10,000 (Single Family Residential) zoning district. The 11,543 square foot site is relatively flat with less than a one-foot change in elevation from the rear of the site to the front. Surrounding uses on all sides include one-story single-family homes on similar sized parcels. Existing structures on site include a one-story single-family home, a detached garage, gazebo, shed, and a concrete driveway and pathways. Five protected trees of different species are located on site. Project Description The project as proposed includes the demolition of all structures and hardscape including the removal of all five protected trees on the property. Proposed structures include a 3,537 square foot one story residence with a height of less than 18’. Site access would be provided by a circular driveway with two access points onto Cox Avenue. Staff is recommending the preservation of one of the protected trees. Details of staff’s recommendation is discussed later in the report. Architecture/Design The architectural style of the residence can best be described as “Contemporary”. Architectural features include a rectangular building footprint with two architectural projections at the rear of the site and an approximately 15’ tall entry element at the center of the front elevation. Exterior materials will include a composition black colored shingle roof, tan colored stucco with smooth plaster on all elevations except for beige colored stucco for the base of the front elevation, dark bronze rectangular shaped windows to include casement, single-hung and sliders, and dark bronze colored metal/glass entrance and garage doors. The applicant has provided a color and materials board. Below is a list of the proposed exterior materials. Detail Colors and Materials Exterior Tan and Beige Colored Smooth Stucco Windows/Doors Dark Bronze Metal/Glass Trim Tan Colored Eaves and Trim Roof Black Colored Asphalt Concrete Shingles 43 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 4 Trees There are a total of five protected trees located on site which include a 36” catalpa (#1), 20” coast live oak (#2), 12” ash (#3), 12” privet (#4), and a 15” Siberian elm (#5). A map of the protected trees is included as Attachment #2. As proposed, the location of the protected trees conflict with the siting of the new residence and the applicant is requesting removal of these trees. The City Arborist inspected the trees and cannot make the findings to remove the 36” Catalpa as it appears possible to modify the footprint of the proposed home to preserve the tree. A copy of the Arborist memo and the tree removal criteria from City Code Section 15-50.080 is included as Attachment #3. Staff contacted the applicant to discuss the City Arborist recommendation and explained the alternatives to move the project forward. The first alternative, which was not supported by the applicant, is to redesign the project and modify the shape of the building footprint to preserve the subject tree. Approximately 760 square feet of the proposed building conflicts with the existing catalpa tree. There is adequate space to the north and northwest of the building, outside of the required setbacks, to accommodate the square footage. Correspondence from the applicant regarding this option is included as Attachment #8. As mentioned previously, an Administrative Design Review application can be forwarded to the Planning Commission for review if it is determined that the project is inconsistent with the design review findings which includes the preservation of protected trees as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations). The applicant expressed to staff that a redesign of the project is not an option given the amount of effort and time expended on the current design. The applicant stated their preference for this alternative to have the project referred to the Planning Commission. Landscaping The project plans include a landscape plan (sheet L1.0). The landscape plan illustrates that the project will include a circular permeable paver driveway and numerous new trees, shrubs, and vines. More than 50% of the front setback area will include landscaping. A total of 21 trees would be planted with 14 of these trees located in the front yard with the remaining trees located in the side yards and the rear yard. These new trees would include three 48” oaks and 18 - 24” trees including pittosporum, crepe myrtle, dogwood, Japanese maple, Marjory channon, and flowering cherry. Ornamental plantings will be in the landscape areas on both sides of the front entrance, on both sides of the driveway, and adjacent to the street. The plant list” table on the landscape plan provides the complete list and number of shrubs to be planted. FINDINGS Design Review The findings required for issuance of Design Review Approval pursuant to City Code Section 15- 45.080 are set forth below. The Applicant has not met the burden of proof to support making all those required findings, specifically findings # b and g. a. Site development follows the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints. 44 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 5 This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the site is relatively level. Proposed grading would be a total of approximately 254 cubic yards which would include construction of the driveway and the building pad and contouring the site for drainage purposes. The site development is appropriate to the site’s natural constraints including one story single-family residences on adjacent sites. 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 cannot be made in the affirmative in that the development is not appropriate to the site’s natural constraints – these constraints include a significant protected tree located within the proposed footprint of the project which the applicant is requesting to remove. The tree has not been approved by the City Arborist for removal with a determination that the design of the project could be altered to adequately protect the tree. The project applicant does not concur with this determination and has declined to modify the design. 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 project will be consistent in height as adjacent single-story residential structures on neighboring lots to not negatively interfere with views and privacy. There are no identified community viewsheds in the vicinity. In addition, the new structure will not be taller than 18 feet so it will not negatively impact views of the surrounding neighborhood. 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 the project is a one-story residence with a attached garage in a neighborhood which consists of predominantly single-story residential structures, the project is consistent in height with other residential structures on neighboring sites and there are no two-story residences on Cox Avenue between Quito Road and Paseo Presada, the massing and building height are concentrated toward the the center of the site with lower plate and roof heights adjacent to the side property lines, and the project includes architectural elements consistent with the ‘Contemporary” architectural style which are in scale with the structure and the neighborhood. The building has varying architectural forms, colors, exterior materials to break up the appearance of mass, the building setbacks comply with those required for the R-1-10,000 zoning district, and the project will be consistent in height with adjacent structures. 45 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 6 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 more than 50 percent of the front setback area will include decorative landscaping and new trees including oaks, crepe myrtle, and Japanese maples. The circular driveway will be composed of permeable pavers. 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 tallest elements of the structure are located at the center of the site to minimize shadowing, the project meets or exceeds required setbacks, and the orientation of the sun with respect to the location of the site will not cast shadows on adjoining properties. 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 cannot be made in the affirmative in that the design of the structure and site development plans are not consistent with the Residential Design Handbook which contain informative statements, policies, and design techniques to assist property owners to comply with Saratoga’s Design Review Findings. In particular, the project is not consistent with the policies related to Site Planning and Landscaping. Related to Site Planning, the proposed removal of all five protected trees on the property is not consistent with the statement that the site plan “should take into account sun and wind orientation, site drainage, existing trees …”. In addition, the policies related to Landscaping states that the “preservation of trees is essential”. h. On hillside lots, the location and the design of the structure avoid unreasonable impacts to ridgelines, significant hillside features, community viewsheds, and is in compliance with Section 15-13.100. This finding is not applicable to the project in that it is not located in Hillside Residential zoning District and the average slope of the site does not exceed 10%. Neighbor Notification and Correspondence The applicant submitted four (4) completed neighborhood review letters which included no negative project related comments and an email from a neighboring property owner who supports the removal of the non-native catalpa tree to be replaced by native oak trees – both are included as Attachment #5. The applicant also provided a neighborhood petition supporting the removal of the trees which is included as Attachment #6. Staff received an email from a neighboring property owner supporting the preservation of the catalpa tree (Attachment #7). The Community Development Department mailed public notices 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. 46 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #s ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 7 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 a single-family residence and small structures in a residential area. The project, as proposed, is for the construction of a new residence in a suburban, residential area. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution No. 21-007 2. Tree Removal Exhibit / Map 3. City Arborist Memo dated May 6, 2021 4. Project Arborist Report dated December 29, 2020 5. Neighbor Notification Forms 6. Neighbor Petition Supporting Tree Removal 7. Email from neighboring property owner supporting preservation of the catalpa tree 8. Letter from Applicant 9. Story Pole Certification 10. Alternative Resolution 11. Project Plans 47 RESOLUTION NO: 21-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW (ADR21-0004) AND CITY ARBORIST CLEARANCE (ARB21-0011) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18580 COX AVENUE (389-13-009) WHEREAS, on January 29, 2021, applications were submitted to the City of Saratoga by Byron Kemper for Administrative Design Review and City Arborist Clearance to construct a new one story 3.537 square feet single family home which included a request to remove five protected trees. WHEREAS, the City Arborist reviewed the arborist report prepared by Monarch Consulting Arborists dated December 29, 2020 and visited the project site to inspect the five trees proposed for removal. The City Arborist determined that four trees meet the criteria for removal and the required findings can be made to remove the following trees - 20” coast live oak, 12” ash, 12” privet, and a 15” Siberian elm. The City Arborist determined that the 36” catalpa does not meet the criteria for removal and requested that the project design be modified to preserve this tree. WHEREAS, the project applicant is not in agreement with the City Arborist determination and recommendation and has stated unwillingness to modify the project design to preserve the 36” catalpa tree. WHEREAS, the design review findings require that all protected trees be preserved as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) unless the City Arborist determines that the protected trees to be removed meet the criteria for their removal. WHEREAS, the Community Development Director can forward an Administrative Design Review application to the Planning Commission for review if it is determined that the project is inconsistent with the design review findings. WHEREAS, on May 12, 2021, 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: After careful consideration of the architectural drawings and other exhibits and evidence submitted in connection with this matter, the findings for denial of a design review application as set forth below are hereby made, Application No. ADR21-0004 for Design Review approval was voted on and is hereby denied by the Planning Commission. Attachment 1 48 18580 Cox Avenue – Application # ADR21-0004 May 12, 2020 Page | 2 Section 3: The Planning Commission finds that the application for design review (ADR21-0004) for the construction of a one story 3,537 square feet single-family residence which includes a request to remove five protected trees is inconsistent with all the design review findings, specifically finding # 2 and 7, in that: 1) Site development does follow the natural contours of the site, minimizes grading, and is appropriate given the property’s natural constraints; 2) all protected trees are not being preserved, as provided in Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations); 3) the height of the structure, its location on the site, and its architectural elements are designed to avoid unreasonable impacts to the privacy of adjoining properties and to community viewsheds; 4) the overall mass and height of the structure, and its architectural elements are in scale with the structure itself and with the neighborhood; 5) the landscape design minimizes hardscape in the front setback area and contains elements that are complementary to the neighborhood streetscape; 6) development of the site does not unreasonably impair the ability of adjoining properties to utilize solar energy; and 7) the design of the structure and the site development plan are not consistent with the Residential Design Handbook, pursuant to Section 15-45.055. Section 4: Per City Code Section 15-45.080, the Planning Commission has the power to grant design review approval if the Planning Commission can make all the required findings. The Planning Commission did not make all the required findings to approve the design review application and application No. ADR21-0004 is hereby denied. Section 5: Unless appealed 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 its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission on this 12th day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Anjali Kausar Chair, Planning Commission 49 PROTECTED TREE LOCATIONS #1 – 36” catalpa #2 – 20” coast live oak #3 – 12” ash #4 – 12” privet #5 – 15” Siberian elm #1 #2#3 #4 #5 Attachment 2 50 Community Development Department 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 www.saratoga.ca.us/171/trees 408.805.9511 1 CITY OF SARATOGA ARBORIST RECOMMENDATION Prepared by Daniel Jackman, Contract Arborist Application No. ARB21-0011 Phone: (408) 805-9511 Address: 18580 Cox Ave Email: daniel.jackman@davey.com Owner: Byron Kemper APN: 389-13-009 Date: May 6, 2021 PROJECT SCOPE: The applicant has submitted plans to demolish an existing one story home in order to build a new single story home with an attached 2 car garage and wooden deck. Currently all five trees protected by the City Code are requested for removal to construct the project. Tree #1 should be preserved by altering the design of the proposed home. PROJECT DATA IN BRIEF: Tree security deposit – Required - $13,820 Tree protection – N/A - All Protected trees are proposed to be removed Tree removals – Trees #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 are proposed to be removed Replacement trees – Required = $13,820 ATTACHMENTS: 1 – Findings and Tree Information 2 – Tree Removal Criteria 3 – Conditions of Approval Attachment 3 51 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 2 Attachment 1: FINDINGS Tree Removals According to Section 15-50.080 of the City Code, whenever a tree is requested for removal as part of a project, certain findings must be made and specific tree removal criteria met. There was insufficient information to determine that tree #1 catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) with a trunk diameter of 36 inches met any of the city qualifications for removal. At the time of my inspection, I found the catalpa tree to be in good health and exceptional in size for its species. A lack of routine maintenance has led the tree to have an uneven canopy and some dead limbs. The tree would benefit from structural and cleaning pruning and summer watering. Catalpa trees live to be 50-150 years old, and this tree has decades of life left if protected. The tree is requested for removal to construct a new 3,119 square foot single-story residence under the removal criteria of 1 and 9. These criteria do not apply if there is a feasible alternative to removing the tree as described in criteria 6 and 9. The catalpa tree is in good health with fair structure. Structure can be mitigated through pruning. The lot is of a sufficient size, 85.5 feet by 135 feet with setbacks of 25 feet in the front and rear and 10 feet on the sides, to accommodate a home of similar size and the tree in its current location. This will require new foundation to be placed 18 feet from tree #1. The new home may encroach within 18’ of tree #1 when overlapping with the existing foundation, which is currently just inside of 18’ from protected tree #1. The findings can be made for the removal of trees #2 a coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) with three stems measuring 10, 10 and 3 inches, #3 ash (Fraxinus uhdei) with three stems measuring 6, 6, and 6 inches, #4 privet (Ligustrum lucidum) with four stems measuring 6, 6, 3, 2, and 1, and tree #5 a Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) with three stems measuring 10, 5, and 8 inches. These trees meet City removal criteria 1 and 9. Tree #6 a Colorado blue spruce (Picea pungens) with one stem measuring 9 inches in diameter is not protected by City Code. These four trees (#2-5) meet the City’s criteria allowing them to be removed and replaced as part of the project. Protected tree #1 does not satisfy any of the City’s removal criteria. Attachment 2 contains the tree removal criteria for reference. Table 1: Summary of Tree Removal Criteria that are met Tree No. Species Criteria met Comments 1 Catalpa N/A No criteria met. 2 Coast Live Oak 1, 9 Fair condition, in conflict with design. Can be retained if design is altered to retain tree #1. 3 Ash 1, 9 Fair condition, in conflict with design. 4 Privet 1, 9 Poor condition, in conflict with design. 5 Siberian Elm 1, 9 Poor structure, in conflict with design. Can be retained if design is altered to retain tree #1. 52 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 3 New Construction Based on the information provided, this project complies with the requirements for the setback of new construction from existing trees under Section 15-50.120 of the City Code. Attachment 1: TREE INFORMATION Project Arborist: Richard Gessner Date of Report: December 29, 2020 Number of protected trees inventoried: 5 Number of protected trees requested for removal: 5 A table summarizing information about each tree is below. Table 1: Tree information from the submitted arborist report dated December 29, 2020. *Tree #6 was measured to be less than 10” in diameter upon field verification and is therefore not considered a protected tree in the City of Saratoga. Table 2: Tree information continued from the submitted arborist report dated December 29, 2020. *Tree #6 was measured to be less than 10” in diameter upon field verification and is therefore not considered a protected tree in the City of Saratoga. 53 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 4 Table 3: Tree appraisal values from the submitted arborist report dated December 29, 2020. Total Appraised Value of Protected Trees: $13,820 Required Replacement Value: $13,820 Total Required Tree Security Deposit (100% of Required Replacement Value): $13,820 *Tree #6 was measured to be less than 10” in diameter upon field verification and is therefore not considered a protected tree in the City of Saratoga. ** The required tree security deposit for the project shall be 100% of the replacement value, as all protected trees associated with this project are proposed for removal. 54 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 5 Attachment 2: TREE REMOVAL CRITERIA Criteria that permit the removal of a protected tree are listed below. This information is from Article 15-50.080 of the City Code and is applied to any tree requested for removal as part of the project. If findings are made that meet the criteria listed below, the tree(s) may be approved for removal and replacement during construction. (1) The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. (2) The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on 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. (4) The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. (5) The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. (6) Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. (7) Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. (8) Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010 (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. (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. 55 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 6 In the event the Planning Commission decides to approve the project including the removal of five protected trees, then the following conditions of approval would be applicable to the project. 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 encroachment pursuant to this project may be encroached upon until the issuance of the applicable permit from the building division for the approved project. 3. Final Plan Sets: a. The Project Data in Brief, and the Conditions of Approval from this report dated May 6, 2021 copied onto a plan sheet. 4. Tree Protection Security Deposit: a. Is required per City Ordinance 15-50.080. b. Shall be $13,820 for tree(s) #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5. 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, 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 Fencing: a. No tree protection fencing is required, as all protected trees in association with this project are requested for removal. If the design is altered to retain tree #1 then a new tree protection plan will be required. Tree #2 and #5 may be retained in the event that the design is altered as well. 6. Tree removal: a. Trees #1, #2, #3, #4 & #5 and may be removed once building division permits have been obtained. Tree #6 is not a protected tree as defined by City code and can be removed at any time. 56 18580 Cox Ave City of Saratoga Arborist Review May 6, 2021 7 7. New trees: a. New trees equal to $13,820 shall be planted as part of the project before final inspection and occupancy of the new home. New trees may be of any species and planted anywhere on the property. 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 b. Trees shall be replaced on or off site according to good forestry practices and shall provide equivalent value in terms of aesthetic and environmental quality, size, height, location, appearance and other significant beneficial characteristics of the removed trees. 8. Final inspection: At the end of the project, when the contractor wants to have the tree protection security deposit released by the City, call the Contract City Arborist for a final inspection. 57 Tree Inventory, Assessment and Protection Report 18580 Cox Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 December 29, 2020 Prepared for: John Kim Prepared By: Richard Gessner ASCA - Registered Consulting Arborist ® #496 ISA - Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA - Tree Risk Assessor Qualified CA Qualified Applicators License QL104230 © Copyright Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2020 Attachment 4 58 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Table of Contents Summary 1 ............................................................................................................... Introduction 1 ........................................................................................................... Background 1 ............................................................................................................ Assignment 1 ............................................................................................................. Limits of the assignment 2 ........................................................................................ Purpose and use of the report 2 ................................................................................ Observations 2 ......................................................................................................... Plans 2 ....................................................................................................................... Tree Inventory 3 ......................................................................................................... Analysis 4 ................................................................................................................. Discussion 5 ............................................................................................................. Condition Rating 5 ..................................................................................................... Suitability for Preservation 6 ...................................................................................... Expected Impact Level 6 ........................................................................................... Tree Removal and Justification 7 ............................................................................... Tree Protection 8 ....................................................................................................... Conclusion 8 ............................................................................................................ Recommendations 9 ............................................................................................... Bibliography 10 ........................................................................................................ Glossary of Terms 11 ............................................................................................... Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan and Tree Locations 13 ...................................... Appendix B: Tree Assessment Tables 14 ............................................................... Appendix C: Photographs 15 .................................................................................. C1: Catalpa 15 ........................................................................................................... C2: Coast live oak 16 ................................................................................................ C3: Ash 17 ................................................................................................................. C4: Elm 18 ................................................................................................................. C5: Privet 19 .............................................................................................................. C6: Spruce 20 ............................................................................................................ Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines 21 ........................................................... Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 59 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Tree Protection Plan Sheet Detail 21 ......................................................................... 15-50.120 - Setback of new construction from existing trees 22 ............................. 15-50.140 - Tree preservation plan. 22 ..................................................................... Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist 23 ............................................. Tree Protection Zones and Fencing 23 ...................................................................... Monitoring 23 ............................................................................................................ Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone 23 ....................................................... Root Pruning 24 ......................................................................................................... Boring or Tunneling 24 ............................................................................................... Timing 24 ................................................................................................................... Tree Pruning and Removal Operations 24 ................................................................. Tree Protection Signs 24 ........................................................................................... Security Deposit 25 ................................................................................................... 15-50.080 - Determination on permit 25 ................................................................... Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs 27 .................................................................... E1: English 27 ............................................................................................................ E2: Spanish 28 ........................................................................................................... Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions 29 ................................... Certification of Performance 30............................................................................. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com 60 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Summary The plans indicate the existing house will be removed and a new structure build largely within the same footprint. The inventory contains six trees comprised of six different species. Three trees are in fair condition while the remaining are in poor shape. In this instance the suitability ratings mirror the condition ratings with three trees having fair suitability and three poor. The most significant tree on the property is catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) #1 which is centrally located behind the existing residence. Retaining this tree prohibits the expansion of the residence due to its location. The coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) #2 is along the property boundary behind the catalpa and is too close to the proposed structure requiring removal. The Landscape Plan L1.0 indicates seven 24 inch box trees are to be planted. However, the total loss in value for all six requested for removal is equal to $14,280.00 while the landscape plan only accounts for $3,500.00 in replacement value according to the city’s container value specifications. Because all the trees are requested for removal there is no tree protection plan for this project. There were six trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $14,280.00 and the deposit would equal one hundred percent of this amount due to required replacements. Introduction Background John Kim asked me to assess the site, trees, and proposed footprint plan, and to provide a report with my findings and recommendations to help satisfy planning requirements. Assignment •Provide an arborist’s report including an assessment of the trees within the project area and on the adjacent sites where necessary. The assessment is to include the species, size (trunk diameter), condition (health, structure and form), and suitability for preservation ratings. •Provide tree protection specifications, guidelines, and expected impact ratings for those affected by the project. Provide appraised values Cost Approach in the Guide for Plant Appraisal, Tenth Edition (2019). Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 130 61 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Limits of the assignment •The information in this report is limited to the condition of the trees during my inspection on May 20, 2020 . No tree risk assessments were performed. •The plans reviewed for this assignment were as follows in Table 1: Purpose and use of the report The report is intended to identify all the trees within the plan area that could be affected by a project. The report is to be used by the property owners, owner’s agents, and the City of Saratoga as a reference for existing tree and site conditions to help satisfy planning requirements. Observations Plans The plans indicate the existing house will be removed and a new structure build largely within the same footprint. The new residence extends toward the back of the site and some trees will require removal. Table 1: Plans Reviewed Checklist Plan Date Sheet Reviewed Source Existing Site Topographic Map or A.L.T.A with tree locations April 18, 2020 1 Yes M & N Consulting Services INc. Proposed Site Plan Yes Demolition Plan No Construction Staging No Grading and Drainage Not Dated C-1 Yes Taeho Um & Associates Utility Plan and Hook-up locations No Exterior Elevations No Landscape Plan Not Dated L1.0 Yes Eden Landscape Management Irrigation Plan No T-1 Tree Protection Plan No Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 230 62 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Tree Inventory The tree inventory lists trees that are considered protected by the City of Saratoga municipal code 15-50.050 (Appendix A and B). The Saratoga municipal code protects “native trees” with trunk diameters greater than six inches and all other trees ten inches in diameter and greater. The tree diameters were measured at four and one half feet above grade (diameter at breast height DBH) on the high sides of the trees. The diameters of multi-stem trees were calculated according to the City of Saratoga’s definition, which is the sum of the full diameter of the largest stem and half the diameters of the remaining stems or measured at their smallest point below the bifurcation. The inventory contains six trees comprised of six different species (Table 1). Table 1: Tree Inventory # Tree Species Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) 1 catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides)364545 2 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 10, 10, 3 35 25 3 ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 6, 6, 6 25 20 4 privet (Ligustrum lucidum) 6, 6, 3, 2, 1 20 20 5 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) 10, 5, 8 25 25 6 spruce (Picea pungens)102010 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 330 63 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Analysis Tree appraisal was performed according to the Council of Tree & Landscape Appraisers Guide for Plant Appraisal 10th Edition, 2019 (CLTA) along with Western Chapter International Society of Arboriculture Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004. The trees were appraised using the “Cost Approach” and more specifically the “Trunk Formula Technique” (Appendix B). “Trunk Formula Technique” is calculated as follows: Basic Tree Cost = (Unit tree cost x Appraised trunk area), Appraised Value = (Basic tree cost X functional Limitations (percentage) X Condition (percentage) X External Limitations (percentage)). The trunk formula valuations are based on four tree factors; size (trunk cross sectional area), condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. There are two steps to determine the overall value. The first step is to determine the “Basic Tree Cost” based on size and unit tree cost. Unit tree cost is calculated by dividing the nursery wholesale cost of a 24 inch box specimen and its replacement size (cost per square inch trunk caliper) which is determined by the Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. The cost of the 24 inch box wholesale specimen was determined through personal communications with BrightView and Normans nurseries in Farmington and Central Wholesale in San Jose for an average of $214.00. The second part is to depreciate the tree’s Basic Cost through an assessment of condition, functional limitations, and external limitations. The condition assessment guidelines and percentages are defined in the “Condition Rating” section of this report. Functional limitations are based on factors associated with the tree’s interaction to its planting site that would affect condition, limit development, or reduce the utility in the future and include genetics, placement, and site conditions for the individual tree. External limitations are outside the property, out of control of the owner and also affect condition, limit development, or reduce the utility in the future (i.e power lines, municipal restrictions, drought adaptations, or species susceptibility to pests). There were six trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $14,280.00. Appraisal worksheets are available upon request. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 430 64 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Discussion Condition Rating A tree’s condition is a determination of its overall health, structure, and form (ISA 2018). The assessment considered all three characteristics for a combined condition rating. •100% - Exceptional = Good health and structure with significant size, location or quality. •61-80% - Good = Normal vigor, well-developed structure, function and aesthetics not compromised with good longevity for the site. •41-60 % - Fair = Reduced vigor, damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal habit, function and aesthetics compromised. •21-40% - Poor = Unhealthy and declining appearance with poor vigor, abnormal foliar color, size or density with potential irreversible decline. One serious structural defect or multiple significant defects that cannot be corrected and failure may occur at any time. Significant asymmetry and compromised aesthetics and intended use. •6-20% - Very Poor = Poor vigor and dying with little foliage in irreversible decline. Severe defects with the likelihood of failure being probable or imminent. Aesthetically poor with little or no function in the landscape. •0-5% - Dead/Unstable = Dead or imminently ready to fail. The largest trees are in fair shape including the catalpa and coast live oak. The privet, elm, and spruce are all in poor overall condition (Table 2). Table 2: Tree Condition # Tree Species Health Structure Form Condition 1 catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) Good Fair Fair Fair 2 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) Good Poor Fair Fair 3 ash (Fraxinus uhdei) Good Poor Fair Fair 4 privet (Ligustrum lucidum) Good Poor Fair Poor 5 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) Good Poor Fair Poor 6 spruce (Picea pungens) Fair Fair Poor Poor Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 530 65 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Suitability for Preservation A tree’s suitability for preservation is determined based on its condition (health, structure, form), age, species, tolerance to disturbance, external and functional limitations, and potential longevity for the site using a scale of good, fair, or poor. The following list defines the rating scale (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016): •Good = Trees with good health, structural stability and longevity after construction. •Fair = Trees with fair health and/or structural defects that may be mitigated through treatment. These trees require more intense management and monitoring, before, during, and after construction, and may have shorter life expectancy after development. •Poor = Trees are expected to decline during or after construction regardless of management. The species or individual may possess characteristics that are incompatible or undesirable in landscape settings or unsuited for the intended use of the site. In this instance the suitability ratings mirror the condition ratings with three trees having fair suitability and three poor. Those poorly suited are the ash, privet, and spruce. Expected Impact Level Impact level defines how a tree may be affected by construction activity and proximity to the tree, and is described as low, moderate, or high. The following scale defines the impact rating: •Low = The construction activity will have little influence on the tree. •Moderate = The construction may cause future health or structural problems, and steps must be taken to protect the tree to reduce future problems. •High = Tree structure and health will be compromised and removal is recommended, or other actions must be taken for the tree to remain. The tree is located in the building envelope. The proposed plans indicate most of the trees will be removed and replaced with appropriate specimens for the improved site. The most significant tree on the property is catalpa #1 which is centrally located behind the existing residence. Retaining this tree prohibits the expansion of the residence due to its location. The coast live oak #2 is along the property boundary behind the catalpa is too close to the proposed structure and will also require removal. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 630 66 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Tree Removal and Justification All the trees assessed are protected by the city ordinance and all will be highly impacted and caused to be removed. There are two trees which are the most significant which are catalpa #1 and coast live oak #2. The remaining four trees are small, mostly volunteers with multiple trunks, which by the city code are added to resulting in pushing them over the protection threshold size. None of these four trees, ash, privet, elm, and spruce, have any redeeming value to the site and can easily be replaced with new species to account for canopy loss. The trees could meet the findings for removal as stated in 15-50.080 - Determination on permit. (A) (Appendix D of this report). The removal will require mitigation to equal the value of the trees to be removed ($14,280.00)(Table 3). 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. 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. The Landscape Plan L1.0 indicates seven 24 inch box trees are to be planted. However the total loss in value for all six requested for removal is equal to $14,280.00 while the landscape plan only accounts for $3,500.00 in replacement value according to the city’s container value specifications. Table 3: Removal Justification # Tree Species Trunk Diameter (in.) Justification Rounded Depreciated Value 1 catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) 36 1 and 9 tree in building footprint $7,200.00 2 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 10, 10, 3 1 and 9 tree in building footprint $6,100.00 3 ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 6, 6, 6 1 and 9 tree in building footprint $320.00 4 privet (Ligustrum lucidum) 6, 6, 3, 2, 1 1 and 9 tree in building footprint $70.00 5 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) 10, 5, 8 1 and 9 tree in building footprint $130.00 6 spruce (Picea pungens) 10 1 and 9 tree in driveway footprint $460.00 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 730 67 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Tree Protection Tree protection focuses on avoiding damage to the roots, trunk, or scaffold branches from heavy equipment (Appendix D). The tree protection zone (TPZ) is the defined area in which certain activities are prohibited to minimize potential injury to the tree. The most current accepted method for determining the TPZ radius is to use a formula based on species tolerance, tree age/ vigor/health, and trunk diameter (Matheny, N. and Clark, J. 1998) (Fite, K, and Smiley, E. T., 2016). Because all the trees are requested for removal there is no tree protection plan for this project. Conclusion The plans indicate the existing house will be removed and a new structure build largely within the same footprint. The new residence extends toward the back of the site and some trees will require removal. The inventory contains six trees comprised of six different species. The largest trees are in fair shape including the catalpa and coast live oak. The privet, elm, and spruce are all in poor overall condition. In this instance the suitability ratings mirror the condition ratings with three trees having fair suitability and three poor. Those poorly suited are the ash, privet, and spruce. The most significant tree on the property is catalpa #1 which is centrally located behind the existing residence. Retaining this tree prohibits the expansion of the residence due to its location. The coast live oak #2 is along the property boundary behind the catalpa and is too close to the proposed structure and will also require removal. It may be possible to retain the elm but the drainage runs through there. The Landscape Plan L1.0 indicates seven 24 inch box trees are to be planted. However, the total loss in value for all six requested for removal is equal to $14,280.00 while the landscape plan only accounts for $3,500.00 in replacement value according to the city’s container value specifications. Below are the size and replacement values which need to equal $14,280.00 for the removal of the six trees. 15 Gallon = $150.00 24 inch box = $500.00 36 inch box = $1,500.00 48 inch box = $5,000.00 60 inch box = $7,000.00 72 inch box = $15,000.00 Because all the trees are requested for removal there is no tree protection plan for this project. There were six trees appraised for a rounded depreciated value of $14,280.00 and the deposit would equal one hundred percent of this amount due to required replacements. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 830 68 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Recommendations 1. Place tree numbers on all the plans. Make sure the trees are clearly indicated for removal on all the plans and remove the icons for those not protected. 2. Revise the landscape plan to account for the total loss in value based on the city’s specimen replacement values. 3. If trees are to be retained an addendum will need to be produced and the following guidelines adhered to below (#4-#8). 4. All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. 5. Refer to Appendix D for general tree protection guidelines including recommendations for arborist assistance while working under trees, trenching, or excavation within a trees drip line or designated TPZ/CRZ. 6. Place all the tree protection fence locations and guidelines on the plans including the grading, drainage, and utility plans. Alternatively create a separate plan sheet that includes all three protection measures labeled “T-1 Tree Protection Plan.” 7. Provide a copy of this report to all contractors and project managers, including the architect, civil engineer, and landscape designer or architect. It is the responsibility of the owner to ensure all parties are familiar with this document. 8. Arrange a pre-construction meeting with the project arborist or landscape architect to verify tree protection is in place, with the correct materials, and at the proper distances. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 930 69 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Bibliography American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management : Standard Practices (Management of Trees and Shrubs During Site Planning, Site Development, and Construction)(Part 5). Londonderry, NH: Secretariat, Tree Care Industry Association, 2012. Print. Costello, Laurence Raleigh, Bruce W. Hagen, and Katherine S. Jones. Oaks in the urban landscape: selection, care, and preservation. Oakland, CA: University of California, Agriculture and Natural Resources, 2011. Print. Fite, Kelby, and Edgar Thomas. Smiley. Managing trees during construction, second edition. Champaign, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2016. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2000. Print. ISA. Guide For Plant Appraisal. Savoy, IL: International Society of Arboriculture, 2018. Print. ISA. Species Classification and Group Assignment, 2004 Western Chapter Regional Supplement. Western Chapter ISA Matheny, Nelda P., Clark, James R. Trees and development: A technical guide to preservation of trees during land development. Bedminster, PA: International Society of Arboriculture1998. Smiley, E, Matheny, N, Lilly, S, Best Management Practices: Tree Risk Assessment: International Society of Arboriculture, 2017. Print Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 10 30 70 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Glossary of Terms Basic Tree Cost: The cost of replacement for a perfect specimen of a particular species and cross sectional area prior to location and condition depreciation. Cost Approach: An indication of value by adding the land value to the depreciated value of improvements. defect: An imperfection, weakness, or lack of something necessary. In trees defects are injuries, growth patterns, decay, or other conditions that reduce the tree’s structural strength. diameter at breast height (DBH): Measures at 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) above ground in the United States, Australia (arboriculture), New Zealand, and when using the Guide for Plant Appraisal, 9th edition; at 1.3 meters (4.3 feet) above ground in Australia (forestry), Canada, the European Union, and in UK forestry; and at 1.5 meters (5 feet) above ground in UK arboriculture. drip Line: Imaginary line defined by the branch spread or a single plant or group of plants. The outer extent of the tree crown. form: Describes a plant’s habit, shape or silhouette defined by its genetics, environment, or management. health: Assessment is based on the overall appearance of the tree, its leaf and twig growth, and the presence and severity of insects or disease mechanical damage: Physical damage caused by outside forces such as cutting, chopping or any mechanized device that may strike the tree trunk, roots or branches. scaffold branches: Permanent or structural branches that for the scaffold architecture or structure of a tree. straw wattle: also known as straw worms, bio-logs, straw noodles, or straw tubes are man made cylinders of compressed, weed free straw (wheat or rice), 8 to 12 inches in diameter and 20 to 25 feet long. They are encased in jute, nylon, or other photo degradable materials, and have an average weight of 35 pounds. structure: Evaluation focused on the crown, trunk, trunk flare, above ground roots and the site conditions contributing to conditions and/or defects that may contribute to failure. Tree Protection Zone (TPZ): Defined area within which certain activities are prohibited or restricted to prevent or minimize potential injury to designated trees, especially during construction or development. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 11 30 71 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Tree Risk Assessment: Process of evaluating what unexpected things could happen, how likely it is, and what the likely outcomes are. In tree management, the systematic process to determine the level of risk posed by a tree, tree part, or group of trees. trunk: Stem of a tree. Trunk Formula Method: Method to appraise the monetary value of trees considered too large to be replaced with nursery or field grown stock. Based on developing a representative unit cost for replacement with the same or comparable species of the same size and in the same place, subject to depreciation for various factors. Contrast with replacement cost method. volunteer: A tree, not planted by human hands, that begins to grow on residential or commercial property. Unlike trees that are brought in and installed on property, volunteer trees usually spring up on their own from seeds placed onto the ground by natural causes or accidental transport by people. Normally, volunteer trees are considered weeds and removed, but many desirable and attractive specimens have gone on to become permanent residents on many public and private grounds. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 12 30 72 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Appendix A: Proposed Site Plan and Tree Locations Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 13 30 DW SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSCOX AVE. 60' W G SS #1 #2#3 #4 #5 #6 NP NP 73 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Appendix B: Tree Assessment Tables Table 4: Tree Inventory Summary # Tree Species Trunk Diameter (in.) ~ Height (ft.) ~ Canopy Diameter (ft.) Condition Suitability Impact Value 1 catalpa (Catalpa bignonioides) 36 45 45 Fair Fair High $7,200.00 2 coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) 10, 10, 3 35 25 Fair Fair High $6,100.00 3 ash (Fraxinus uhdei) 6, 6, 6 25 20 Fair Fair High $320.00 4 privet (Ligustrum lucidum) 6, 6, 3, 2, 1 20 20 Poor Poor High $70.00 5 Siberian elm (Ulmus pumila) 10, 5, 8 25 25 Poor Poor High $130.00 6 spruce (Picea pungens) 10 20 10 Poor Poor High $460.00 Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 14 30 74 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Appendix C: Photographs C1: Catalpa Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 15 30 #1 75 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 C2: Coast live oak Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 16 30 #2 76 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 C3: Ash Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 17 30 #3 77 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 C4: Elm Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 18 30 #4 78 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 C5: Privet Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 19 30 #5 79 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 C6: Spruce Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 20 30 #6 80 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Appendix D: Tree Protection Guidelines Tree Protection Plan Sheet Detail Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 21 30    Crown drip line or other limit of Tree Protection area. See tree preservation plan for fence alignment.4'-0"Maintain existing grade with the tree protection fence unless otherwise indicated on the plans. 2" x 6' steel posts or approved equal. Tree Protection fence: High density polyethylene fencing with 3.5" x 1.5" openings; Color- orange. Steel posts installed at 8' o.c. 5" thick layer of mulch. Notes: 1- See specifications for additional tree protection requirements. 2- If there is no existing irrigation, see specifications for watering requirements. 3- No pruning shall be performed except by approved arborist. 4- No equipment shall operate inside the protective fencing including during fence installation and removal. 5- See site preparation plan for any modifications with the Tree Protection area.   KEEP OUT TREE PROTECTION AREA 8.5" x 11" sign laminated in plastic spaced every 50' along the fence. URBAN TREE FOUNDATION © 2014 OPEN SOURCE FREE TO USE Tree protection fence: Fencing shall be comprised of six- foot high chain link mounted on eight- foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground. Minimum 4” thick mulch layer Crown diameter drip line distance equal to the outer most limit of foliage.Notes: •All tree maintenance and care shall be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree maintenance and care shall be specified in writing according to American National Standard for Tree Care Operations: Tree, Shrub and Other Woody Plant Management: Standard Practices parts 1 through 10 and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards and local regulations. •All maintenance is to be performed according to ISA Best Management Practices. Notes: The Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) may vary in radius from the trunk and may or may not be established at the drip line distance. See arborist’s report and plan sheet for specifications of TPZ radii.6’-0”Modified by Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC, 2019 81 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 15-50.120 - Setback of new construction from existing trees Unless otherwise permitted by the approving authority, no structure, excavation or impervious surface areas of any kind shall be constructed or installed within the root zone of any protected tree without mitigating special design, such as post and beam footings that bridge the roots. No parking, storing of vehicles, equipment or other materials shall be permitted within the dripline of any protected tree without special design considerations approved by the Community Development Director and the City Arborist. 15-50.140 - Tree preservation plan. A. A Tree Preservation Plan shall be required for any project approved pursuant to Chapters 14, 15 and 16 of the Code on any site on which an Arborist Report is prepared. B. The Tree Preservation Plan shall consist of a separate detailed plan drawn to a sufficient scale but no larger than twenty feet to the inch, with any details to be shown at least ten to the inch) to clearly indicate all protection and mitigation measures to be taken as required by the Community Development Director and/or the Arborist Report for the project. C. When a project has been submitted for approval pursuant to Chapters 14, 15, or 16, there shall be no permits issued for grading or site improvements until a Tree Preservation Plan for the project has been approved by the Community Development Director and the required protection measures are determined to be in place through City inspection. Protection measures required shall remain in place for the duration of the construction activity at the project site, or as otherwise required by the City and shall not be removed until authorized by the Community Development Director. D. The Tree Preservation Plan and any permits for tree removal shall be maintained at the project site at all times during construction activities and until all work has been completed, inspected and approved by the City. E. At least three scheduled inspections shall be made by the City to ensure compliance with the Tree Preservation Plan. The inspections shall, at a minimum include the following: (1) Initial inspection prior to any construction or grading, (2) After completion of rough grading and/or trenching, and (3) Completion of all work including planting and irrigation system installation. Other inspections may be conducted as required by the Community Development Director. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 22 30 82 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Pre-Construction Meeting with the Project Arborist Tree protection locations should be marked before any fencing contractor arrives. Prior to beginning work, all contractors involved with the project should attend a pre construction meeting with the project arborist to review the tree protection guidelines. Access routes, storage areas, and work procedures will be discussed. Tree Protection Zones and Fencing Tree protection fencing should be established prior to the arrival of construction equipment or materials on site. Fencing should be comprised of six-foot high chain link fencing mounted on eight-foot tall, 1 7/8-inch diameter galvanized posts, driven 24 inches into the ground and spaced no more than 10 feet apart. Once established, the fencing must remain undisturbed and be maintained throughout the construction process until final inspection. The fencing should be maintained throughout the site during the construction period and should be inspected periodically for damage and proper functions. Fencing should be repaired, as necessary, to provide a physical barrier from construction activities. A final inspection by the city arborist at the end of the project will be required prior to removing any tree protection fence and replacement tree shall be planted at this time. Monitoring Any trenching, construction or demolition that is expected to damage or encounter tree roots should be monitored by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist and should be documented. The site should be evaluated by the project arborist or a qualified ISA Certified Arborist after construction is complete, and any necessary remedial work that needs to be performed should be noted. Restrictions Within the Tree Protection Zone No storage of construction materials, debris, or excess soil will be allowed within the Tree Protection Zone. Spoils from the trenching shall not be placed within the tree protection zone either temporarily or permanently. Construction personnel and equipment shall be routed outside the tree protection zones. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 23 30 83 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Root Pruning Root pruning shall be supervised by the project arborist. When roots over two inches in diameter are encountered they should be pruned by hand with loppers, handsaw, reciprocating saw, or chain saw rather than left crushed or torn. Roots should be cut beyond sinker roots or outside root branch junctions and be supervised by the project arborist. When completed, exposed roots should be kept moist with burlap or backfilled within one hour. Boring or Tunneling Boring machines should be set up outside the drip line or established Tree Protection Zone. Boring may also be performed by digging a trench on both sides of the tree until roots one inch in diameter are encountered and then hand dug or excavated with an Air Spade® or similar air or water excavation tool. Bore holes should be adjacent to the trunk and never go directly under the main stem to avoid oblique (heart) roots. Bore holes should be a minimum of three feet deep. Timing If the construction is to occur during the summer months supplemental watering and bark beetle treatments should be applied to help ensure survival during and after construction. Tree Pruning and Removal Operations All tree pruning or removals should be performed by a qualified arborist with a C-61/D-49 California Contractors License. Tree pruning should be specified according to ANSI A-300A pruning standards and adhere to ANSI Z133.1 safety standards. Trees that need to be removed or pruned should be identified in the pre-construction walk through. Tree Protection Signs All sections of fencing should be clearly marked with signs stating that all areas within the fencing are Tree Protection Zones and that disturbance is prohibited. Text on the signs should be in both English and Spanish (Appendix C) and read TREE PROTECTION ZONE DO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE FENCE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276. DO NOT MOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ARBORIST Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 24 30 84 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Security Deposit The tree protection security deposit is to remain in place for the duration of the project to ensure protection. Once the project is completed, inspected, and approved by the city arborist (a building inspector cannot release the tree security deposit) the bond will be released. Trees damaged by construction activity will require replanting equal to the appraised value state herein. 15-50.080 - Determination on permit (d) Security deposits and maintenance bonds. In the case of an application for, or a project involving encroachment on one or more protected trees, the applicant shall post a security deposit with the City in an amount equal to twenty-five percent to one hundred percent of the ISA valuation of the trees involved at the discretion of the approving authority; provided, however, that any project involving multiple structures or a multi-family structure shall post a security deposit with the City in an amount equal to one hundred percent of the ISA valuation of the trees involved. The City may also require posting of a maintenance bond or security deposit of at least five years designed to ensure long term maintenance of the affected or replacement trees. Security deposits or maintenance bonds required for protected trees or replacement trees in public or private development may, in the reasonable discretion of the Community Development Director, be refunded upon a determination that the project is in compliance with the City Arborist's requirements and/or Tree Preservation Plan. In the case of violations of this Article or where replacement, restitution, or other remedy required pursuant to Section 15-50.170 cannot be made on the project site, then such payments shall be made from the deposit or bond being held before any refund is made. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 25 30 85 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 (a) Criteria. Each application for a tree removal pruning or encroachment permit shall be reviewed and determined on the basis of the following criteria: 1. The condition of the tree with respect to disease, imminent danger of falling, proximity to existing or proposed structures and interference with utility services, and whether the tree is a Dead tree or a Fallen tree. 2. The necessity to remove the tree because of physical damage or threatened damage to improvements or impervious surfaces on the property. 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. 4. The number, species, size and location of existing trees in the area and the effect the removal would have upon shade, privacy impact, scenic beauty, property values, erosion control, and the general welfare of residents in the area. 5. The age and number of healthy trees the property is able to support according to good forestry practices. 6. Whether or not there are any alternatives that would allow for retaining or not encroaching on the protected tree. 7. Whether the approval of the request would be contrary to or in conflict with the general purpose and intent of this Article. 8. Any other information relevant to the public health, safety, or general welfare and the purposes of this ordinance as set forth in Section 15-50.010. 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. 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. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 26 30 86 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Appendix E: Tree Protection Signs E1: English Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 27 30TREE PROTECTION ZONEDO NOT MOVE OR REMOVE FENCE WITHOUT PRIOR APPROVAL FROM THE CITY ARBORIST, KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276DO NOT MOVE WITHOUT APPROVAL FROM THE PROJECT ARBORIST87 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 E2: Spanish Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 28 30ÁRBOL DE ZONA DE PROTECCIÓN NO trasladar o eliminar cerca sin la aprobación previa del ARBORISTA CIUDAD , KATE BEAR (408) 868-1276 NO MUEVA sin la aprobación del ARBORISTA PROYECTO88 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Qualifications, Assumptions, and Limiting Conditions Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. Any titles or ownership of properties are assumed to be good and marketable. All property is appraised or evaluated as though free and clear, under responsible ownership and competent management. All property is presumed to be in conformance with applicable codes, ordinances, statutes, or other regulations. Care has been taken to obtain information from reliable sources. However, the consultant cannot be responsible for the accuracy of information provided by others. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or attend meetings, hearings, conferences, mediations, arbitration, or trials by reason of this report unless subsequent contractual arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for such services. This report and any appraisal value expressed herein represent the opinion of the consultant, and the consultant’s fee is not contingent upon the reporting of a specified appraisal value, a stipulated result, or the occurrence of a subsequent event. Sketches, drawings, and photographs in this report are intended for use as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale, and should not be construed as engineering or architectural reports or surveys. The reproduction of information generated by architects, engineers, or other consultants on any sketches, drawings, or photographs is only for coordination and ease of reference. Inclusion of said information with any drawings or other documents does not constitute a representation as to the sufficiency or accuracy of said information. Unless otherwise expressed: a) this report covers only examined items and their condition at the time of inspection; and b) the inspection is limited to visual examination of accessible items without dissection, excavation, probing, or coring. There is no warranty or guarantee, expressed or implied, that structural problems or deficiencies of plants or property may not arise in the future. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 29 30 89 18580 Cox Avenue Tree Inventory, Assessment, and Protection Report December 29, 2020 Certification of Performance I Richard Gessner, Certify: That I have personally inspected the tree(s) and/or the property referred to in this report, and have stated my findings accurately. The extent of the evaluation and/or appraisal is stated in the attached report and Terms of Assignment; That I have no current or prospective interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted Arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any other subsequent events; I further certify that I am a Registered Consulting Arborist® with the American Society of Consulting Arborists, and that I acknowledge, accept and adhere to the ASCA Standards of Professional Practice. I am an International Society of Arboriculture Board Certified Master Arborist® and Tree Risk Assessor Qualified. I have been involved with the practice of Arboriculture and the care and study of trees since 1998. Richard J. Gessner ASCA Registered Consulting Arborist® #496 ISA Board Certified Master Arborist® WE-4341B ISA Tree Risk Assessor Qualified Copyright © Copyright 2020, Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC. Other than specific exception granted for copies made by the client for the express uses stated in this report, no parts of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, recording, or otherwise without the express, written permission of the author. Monarch Consulting Arborists LLC - P.O Box 1010, Felton, CA 95018 831.331.8982 - rick@monarcharborist.com of 30 30 90 Attachment 5 91 92 93 Project.A_ddress: Com in unify Develapmen'£ Departmierfe CftyofSaratoga 13777 Fruitwale Avenue Sara'.toga, Califoriiia t3507C ltiE:G§-:B§=.-:::}`l.=jl.I:::`::i=:3-.I:T`:.'=.?```§¥`:i:?,.`T:.s| f~ffffifSfL_~C4±± .,'i project is proposed at the above address. T.h.e City asks thL at }J.ou sign this form to indicate you have had an opportunity to review and comment ofl the proposal. Your signature is g2g± an czc.cgpfc}7zce Of the p}ans, only an. aclcp^owl.edgement that you ha\Je had a~n. opportunity to com}ncnt. IR;rpoRTANT hTOTE FP`OM CITY: These pla3Is are PRELI.MThTARY ONLY and may change as the project moves -forward. Architectural Plans alre pi.ct.gcted undel. cop}'right Jaw. The appi3cant should allovi;. i.ou to 1;7'€vtJ th€ pians but is not required to give y-ou a physical cop}.'. Cince the application is submified, }Jou may review a full sized set of p!ans at City I-Ia}1 diiring normal business riours. The applicant should inform you w=rien the plaus wi]} be submitted. PEeasg con€<Q.€&. €'fis Ci#r a€ fat.$8-8€;8-i222. ii' ';;.f;43LE Zzave fmy questaoms. This iiotice is 'oeLn.g provided to ail of thc` adjoin.ing property c)+-tJriiers and the property o'vvner{s) across the street from. the project address. The City vi,Jili sejn.a an additioria! notice to adjace.rit neighbors prior to a decision being made c]n the-project. .*Te§gkebcFNaREe: ¥`ofEqgivb®r.tr&dress.. JBrm _~f_ _xpeigfaboF C®BteSJf ffzzfo= {phorze or e.mail}: _. .,_._ .,.. - This eriables .the City rlcj ceritact you if i.hey 'r!.cave clay questi..c]ns ThavRItrH-_.I/i Please address any in!tia! concerTf below. {aftach additional sheets if` rz€cessar}f-): Feel free to in.ail €tiis form directly to the Ci`i:t/`: Ci`L?' or-Saratoga Piamij]ig Deparinent; i 3777 I+`rLiit\/-ale A`.t.enue; .Saratoga CA 95070 M}7 signature belc}w certifies that I am cntjcr?.g of thi3 proposal. HF,EGRE®RSEGP¢-4.TURE: 94 From: yeffi vanatta <yeffi.v@gmail.com> Sent: Sunday, April 25, 2021 8:01 PM To: Debbie Pedro <dpedro@saratoga.ca.us> Subject: Removal of a Catalpa tree on Cox Ave CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders. My neighbors on Cox Ave want to replace their non-native Catalpa tree with three native Oak trees. "Restoring Nature's Relationships" is a YouTube video from CNPS Conservation Conference. Los Angeles, CA. February 1, 2018 https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=3wzcz8dWyBc Dr. Tallamy explains how specialized food relationships determine the stability and complexity of the local food webs that support animal diversity, why it is important to restore biodiversity to our residential properties, and what we need to do to make our landscapes living ecosystems once again. Please ask the planning commission members to take an hour to view the video and support our neighbors request to replace a non-native Catalpa tree with our native Oaks. thank you. yeffi vanatta 408-406-5309 95 Attachment 6 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this propeliy will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in ow-neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this propeliy as proposed by the Kempers. IJe../co~--h -/he... ,;e_jl.£.,rh4<>J_ -P.~ '--'c-..1._. '1-"' P1 ee/-;c} ;o v ( 96 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. · We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: X THIN!< ~EPLAC/1'/6 A Jr/1.z'FP-1 /-VO IV -/VAT I I/ c T 12 £ £ _ f,l)/1!-/ 3 OAK.s lV!LL DO lnO/<L:. Name(s): . ,F 01<_ rlfE /il:::_16!-/801?.!lqo1J Signature(s) # Hfl'c/3 L.!£81;-Lf Address : /:J,.)-/qo p,1~Eo C£PR() 97 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and ·value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: J h So ry-a,,q, r1-t, sl)bo,' ~ Y'LqLt cf '1 (/> {J U,dll!) cu..d 'f'{,_a,r '-f';Jrc/.s Dr, 1)7,u; oJree/.j .,/ j)ija,.:,R l, /- --tYJr ~ f '1 /lYS ~pt?~ &.u f J_ 1;._j-4...R ,.,,-h iJ~ "--0 f ro fc'$lcl. " Name(s): PocJ 1 Signature(s): ~ ...... -C Addres s : / ;;)c;D() Pas po (J.,1 ,,r o Sct~a -1-o !CL-/ c' a_ ( </0&/) ~7 9 -Os-7( 98 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this prope11y as proposed by the Kempers. 99 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California.(~ P~.1. ';"j..e~ 1 ~) ,We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to r emoval of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on thi s prope1iy as proposed by the Kempers. 100 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan AD R2 l -0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any J'. Ii-,_ /; ~,., e._ ff.,. 'f if (§ f e~ fe_ djy Q. J.e ~ u~ -fv re_ f / 4-~ a..v,. J o {cP ho h -f/Lq__ 1, ue.. f(r<LJL t.Vtl~ 3 · t{t,. r, U'--t)a_~J' *4'1-lt)D uir.f ~ ~I -rt.iL (._4..-rb e." s lhK /o 6S ( ~?.e irk/~ !tl -f ;-WVL ~ D t-e._ flaw C? ~f ~ t) +l.;J-LV o o lJ> C!> cc_ u v u.., ~tk v-e ~ D v~ ~ + ft..e Name(s ): W~ l {1 ~ . T, LA,t ~n Jc;e....J ea'tai.f~ .. ~ Signature (s): J C tun_e,- Address: ~ Su "~] M c[~ ~ r(a~ t{u, OlVb',<Y) ("ec.fte_., ~v\ ~ o5\ a_ Co ~ f vD tfa\c~ R wrft_ k <, $(Q,8 i\.-~) /JO ~ 101 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21 -0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: ;]_ ~7 0 [) ~o f C,,Nl-~ J~ l.-rJt;;°' I cir r c-1> -7-v · 102 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers hav e proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan AD R21 -0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: I /i :.::jA. jC,.,, / ..).j-lA,~ ""'' II t.3(/ , r; c/L, :c{ '\ l L.: I') Ii).. t I:) f.. h, ii L'( ) i•'-11 /A .:y t,,t..t1t t ;o. i.. 1-->l , (;: t'. i '.:i 1~ C. 1,:, ' I r N ame(s): Tr-jn,-t l.trj..:.cd ~~ Si gnature(s): "--·L-\_. J -~ A ddre s s: \~(.}61 ) , • I . '\: vt.. (;'~; 103 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this prope1iy will need to be removed. We understand that t he Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native t o California. ,We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on thi s property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: OCA-,k 1r-ee,,~ .' Name(s): yV\ o.t ~ G--os-c ; f 0v Signature(s): rv~~ Address: f~S3~ f~~;/ak f \ • ( 1\) 12-l C o 1Yt, e l t\ N-e__ no ~ rob le-11\ • 1 Have, 1-r work <; o_ v<, lYIA~~ \ q, 5 3 :1 i>u .sen . l-cl Q ·~ 104 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on th is property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. \Ve believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: J/ffi-~µ, IYlevQ_ J N ame(s): ~/. / 1 . r-1-0 #{ A 13 E ~1<; .J}E g Signature(s): ~ e ~ Address f'?~iJS ?r:WJo 'i~ (7~ 105 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox A ve. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): ~{ C\Ce' \\ Address: \ 9::, lo 4 S" S,Cf Ct-IDC?/' ·-/j r._;-- 106 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house , the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave , have no objections to remov al of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments , if ~y: Name(s): Si gnature(s): Addre ss: -HAA.SVNO ~ t Hl!:A -ff-dlv(~R I i19 P~cV l,Atj)f) ~~A I Cr+ C[f3DJO ------ 107 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: J,i, :,..3 u.. ~ :-J.,.i...l -t~ -f'k.. j(p,,.,,µ,rt ~.A. "-?14-. {z- Ye -•-ve-v~ o W C4. t <l<. (fr;.._ -t ~ ~ -br ~ o...-rw-#l..e% -/-4rAA ;v'e-v-01~ -tr~. Y-t"~ !-( 1/vCJ froc.uivy~ U-." lu-r;;fol/vWe-{ & ~ ~ A-R--1-f!/r~. Name(s): &r~k,,'J ~·~j Signature(s): ~~ Address: /<f6-77 ~ A--v--e,,. ~)'1,\f-Or 108 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on thi s property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further~ we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and pe1mit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): ,R Pr 1 J) ll~C-i. Pr Sig nature(s): ~ . \ ,\ . ~ Y Address: j i (b D f ?t 5 l o C e.J0v Suv'\. "'tl? J°' I U,,-I c::'.) ro--:}o 109 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three larg e oak trees that are native to California. We b el ieve the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to remov al of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this prope rty as propos ed b y the Kempers. C omments, if any: Name(s): DAJ-..J \ Cc s rh J '11-- Signature(s): J!}~~~ l~~ ~ Address: l s 1G 5 /he 1?b· l€° S'T SJ~,//. ~'109 fJ CA c1 ) o-ro 110 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l -0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): Si gnature( s): Address: I 2-4 C 0 111 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: ----(" Name(s): J ~Pv\l\ Signatll!e(sf ( 112 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value . Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): :Toh~ 1-\ · ~Jw'\ & t-\"',e SigIIBture(s): ~/:!:_. Address: I 3.2.1> /3-evw'((.k. St. s~o"', c°' ~']o 113 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to rep lace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, i f any: Name(s): lS> ,r-' Q'\, V\ ~ ~J\ ~ e,~, .o_ U-9'-' l--<--~ Signature(s): K f\/v-<-{~ Address: ] 'G b C\ -:z f'a,, ':;-() o LQ'\cA O C \ C,t °'ii.,070 )o-,..J"n....,'for <~ J J 114 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21 -0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value . Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): Signature(s): Address : 115 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this prope1ty will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: 116 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with ~arge oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan AD R21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: ,4-s \c.nt j ~ Name(s): J3 ~an.a?~ Signature(s): Address: 117 Petition in support of Design Planning Applications #ADR21-0004 and ARB21-0011 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers' have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We further understand that the city Planning Division staff have recommended that the request to remove the tree be denied and that the application to build the house be denied. If the plan is not recommended for approval by the city staff, the Kempers will appeal the staff decision to the Planning Commission. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree and urge the Planning Commission to approve the Kemper appeal and permit the construction of a new modem home as proposed on this property. Name Signature Address: 118 Petition in support of Design Planning Applications #ADR21-0004 and ARB21-0011 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers' have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We further understand that the city Planning Division staff have recommended that the request to remove the tree be denied and that the application to build the house be denied. If the plan is not recommended for approval by the city staff, the Kempers will appeal the staff decision to the Planning Commission. We believe the proposed house with the addition o f new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree and urge the Planning Commission to approve the Kemper appeal and permit the construction of a new modem home as proposed on this property. Address: t/e 119 Petition in support of Design Planning Applications #ADR21 -0004 and ARB21-0011 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers' have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that ar e native to California. We further understand that the city Planning Division staff have recommended that the request to remove the tree be denied and that the application to build the house be denied. If the plan is not recommended for approval by the city staff, the Kempers will appeal the staff decision to the Planning Commission. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree and urge the Planning Commission to approve the Kemper appeal and permit the construction of a new modem home as proposed on this property. Name Address: 120 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and pe1mit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: ~u~J !vtvk!( Name(s): Signature(s): ~ /~ Address: / JJ G 1 J O e VOV1 .4 ve . 121 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 185 80 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): (v ] 1-4(-{(-·S(-/ (\ 11::HTfi' Signature(s): I~ jVLJ?J-IA.... Address: 1 ~(3~ Cox A-v, ,, C HH 41 rt /\1 EH7/l- c/J(!>--fl 1 . M e!J-&A_ 122 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan AD R2 l -0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments , if any: Name(s): Signature(s): ~~ ~ Address: 1 J'd9 gee L(/llK;_ <:: 1 ~ ro~1-C/1-<t so10 123 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 B yron and Kim K emper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox A ve. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers hav e proposed to replace this tree w ith three large oak trees that are native to California. W e believe the propo sed house with the addition of new oak trees will re sult in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and v alue. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 185 80 Co x Ave, hav e no objections t o removal of the catalpa tre e. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this p roperty a s proposed by the Kempers. V) Comments, if any: ;q \/ o; cl l,J I \ 0 (_ f I , ( Q 5 J, ~ /q )/)/"} I YJ_j. \ I I L., I'' ,,..., 6. S v r4., /) V r e ~ V C. r .:'('7 I c.. Ct I)' ~ N ame(s): c_ (_,.J y-·r,'.J B i;J'J Signature(s): ~ 7 Address : / 2 ;S iO j:J t:t: S t?o C ' -e Y ,r D Sc. V'q foJ.'\ 1 5 o 7cJ C'i 15 124 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California . . We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): Addres s: 125 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kirn Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan AD R21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kernpers. Comments, if any: N arne( s): , J 2l h V\,~ b VJ, (__.e?--· Signature(s): tJ\.;tffi~ I Address: I 6,hbD C !J K l}:)e -;5~CCjRt., C fl CJ Sb) c) 126 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this prope1ty as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): !'lo lea ,!)cz ?ad l, k,;.s. I,.""',,., . o,Lp, h-,;; S1gnatnre(s): ~ ~ Address: l r]S b ~ Co r, q vG. SA rz?Eo Crl 9 St::f-0 l)_sft 127 COVER LETTER SENT WITH PETITIONS TO NEIGHBORS    April 22, 2021    Dear Neighbor,    My wife and I will be your new neighbors at 18580 Cox Avenue and are asking for your  help in getting approval for our plans to build a new house.       We are both retired professors from the University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign and  would like to retire to Saratoga to be near relatives and be a part of your wonderful  community. We purchased the Cox Ave. property with a 70 year old house over a year ago and  spent a year designing our final dream retirement home.   Unfortunately, a tree would be in the  middle of the master bedroom extending into the kitchen.  City planning staff have refused to  approve removal of the tree and have ruled that we must redesign our house around the tree, a  costly process.  We plan to appeal this decision at the May 12 Planning Commission meeting    The tree is a common ordinary large catalpa tree, not a native California tree, not a  heritage tree, and without historical or cultural significance.  More important are its age and  location.  Its age is about equal to the average lifespan of catalpa trees and it probably has  limited remaining years, only 10 to 20, a fraction of the life of the new house.  Its location in the  center of property and the required 18 foot protected area around the tree would require a  strangely configured, poorly designed house around the tree, a far cry from our dream house.   In replacement of the tree, we propose to plant three large native California oak trees that will  grace the property for many, many years, perhaps more than 100.      The story poles are up if you would like take a look at the property.  We think our new  home and landscaping plan will be very attractive, greatly improve the Cox Ave. property, and  generally increase property values of the neighborhood.  If you agree with us that the city  position simply defies common sense, we would greatly appreciate it if you would please sign  the enclosed petition and mail it in the stamped return envelope provided by April 30.     We are very disappointed with the city staff’s decision and any support you can provide   would be very helpful. Thank you in advance. We look forward to being your neighbors in the  near future.    Sincerely,        Byron Kemper    Kim J. Kemper  128 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree . We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2I-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers . Comments, if any: p (&Jlt).;.e_ (~lot~ ~~, ~ Sl~ Name(s): Signature(s): Address: 129 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and K im Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Av e. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have propo sed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a v ery substantial improv ement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned , neighbors to 18580 Cox Av e , have no objections to remo val of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Nam e (s ): ,::;t)\) ~ R l 1 'f \.A-z)JJ T:>/11- Si g nature (s): i\J-~<el 1 Address: fJ \ V r-0 i T A. G U-f:f.lrt ~~~1 ~~ 130 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California . . We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR2 l-0004 and permit the construction of a new modern home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments, if any: Name(s): t hr,5 ~ue-i( ~ Signature(s): ~ ~ i-l S.~ K,~vdA. ~~~ Address: I ~ '3 t L{ 1)4~0 ~stc.dev s~+v-jC\.., CA q<;o10 131 Petition in support of Design Planning Application #ADR21-0004 Byron and Kim Kemper are proposing to build a new one-story home at 18580 Cox Ave. In order to build the proposed house, the large catalpa tree on this property will need to be removed. We understand that the Kempers have proposed to replace this tree with three large oak trees that are native to California. We believe the proposed house with the addition of new oak trees will result in a very substantial improvement in our neighborhood environment and value. Further, we the undersigned, neighbors to 18580 Cox Ave, have no objections to removal of the catalpa tree. We urge the Planning Commission to approve Plan ADR21-0004 and permit the construction of a new modem home on this property as proposed by the Kempers. Comments , if any: Name(s):&nJrt'A., /<. /3/a.J_ Signature(s)~~d_ Addres s: /8~3~ Rtseo B.elf o Sara.fo50..1 CA qS(J7/J 132 1 Frances Reed From:noreply@civicplus.com Sent:Friday, May 7, 2021 3:03 PM To:Sunil Ahuja; Clinton Brownley; Anjali Kausar; Razi Mohiuddin; Herman Zheng; Jonathan Choi; Cheriel Jensen; Debbie Pedro; Debbie Bretschneider; Frances Reed Subject:Online Form Submittal: Planning Commission Comments Form CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Planning Commission Comments Form Your Name LORI Ellingboe Phone Number  Email Address  Comments I am a neighbor of the property at 18580 Cox which is petitioning to remove five trees. There is one very large "skyline" tree which you can see from Paseo Lado which I agree should NOT be allowed to be removed. I will try to attend the virtual site visit, though the time isn't listed in the mailing I received. I don't yet have enough information to have an opinion on the second and third trees whose removal has been denied. My preference at this point is to follow the City Arborist recommendation. I will send a second Form to the City if the site visit changes my opinion. All trees on the property were present when the neighbor acquired this particular piece of land, and the possibility of needing to "design around" the trees would have been a self evident possibility. Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser. Attachment 7 133 May 4, 2021  Saratoga Planning Commission   Dear Commission Members:  It is our understanding that the Planning Commission staff is forwarding our Application ADR21‐ 004 to construct a new home at 18580 Cox Ave to the Planning Commission for review with a  recommendation to deny based on the City Arborist’s findings.  Our response strongly opposing  this recommendation is attached. Submitted separately are 32 copies of a petition signed by 40  neighbors living near Cox Ave. supporting our application.   I hope you have had time to read  the petitions and the insightful comments.  My wife and I are both retired Professors from  the Physiology Department at the University of  Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign.  I retired about 10  years ago and my wife retired at the end of last  year.  We looked toward California, and  particularly the Saratoga area, for retirement  since our daughters are in California and my  wife’s sister lives in Saratoga.  Also, we are  familiar with this area since I received my  doctorate degree at Stanford and my wife did  postdoctoral studies there as well. We thought  Saratoga itself was outside our budget, but the  Cox Ave. property came available and with a  little stretch of our budget, we could afford it, amazingly enough a few minutes’ walk from our  relative’s new house now under construction.  With great excitement and anticipation, we  spent the next year designing our final dream retirement home, leading to the planning  application you are considering today.    To summarize our response, we hope to have an opportunity to convert a property in relatively  poor condition with a tear‐down house into a property we and the city can be proud of.  For us,  it is the opportunity to build our final dream retirement home in a wonderful community near  relatives.  For the city, it is an opportunity to substantially increase the value and esthetic  beauty of a city property. Unfortunately, for this to happen, a large catalpa tree would need to  be removed. The footprint of the tree encompasses the master bedroom, bathroom, and  closet, and extends into the kitchen and family room. We have proposed to replace the tree  with three large native California oak trees. The tree in question is a fairly common ordinary  tree that is not native to California and is near the end of the average lifespan of catalpa trees.   Because of its center location on the lot, there is no feasible alternative to retain the tree and  Photo from a recent visit to the Missouri  Botanical Gardens where we are members.  Attachment 8 134 redesign a house comparable in design, value, or space utilization to our proposed house. In  fact, only an oddly configured, strangely designed house would be possible, missing essential  features.   All proposals have disadvantages and advantages.  Removal of the tree is an  unfortunate disadvantage, but approval of the proposed plan will lead to a highly attractive  property with a well‐designed modern home and great landscaping designed by one of the  most creative landscapers in the Bay Area. In 20 years, the catalpa tree will likely be gone  whether or not the plan is approved, but if approved, the newly planted trees will be rapidly  approaching maturity and will comprise a private property treescape that we think the City, the  City Arborist, our neighbors, and we all would be proud of.  In our view, our plan is a win‐win  proposal for both the City and us. I hope you agree and approve the proposed plans so we can  proceed with the business of following our dreams.     Thank you for your considerations.    Sincerely,          Byron Kemper    Kim J. Kemper                                          135           Response to recommendation for denial of application ADR21‐004    Our application is being denied because the city arborist did not approve the request to remove  a catalpa tree, which is required to build the proposed house.  Instead, the city arborist argued  that the same size house could be accommodated on the property and demanded that the  house be redesigned by extending it along the left side of the property.  The cost of simply  preparing a new design plan would be at least $25,000.  While the initial Memo#1 indicated  three trees that could not be removed, subsequently, the city arborist focused only on the  catalpa tree so this response addresses only that tree.  The other two trees included a coastal  oak, which we offered to move, but the city arborist indicated that it “wouldn’t be worth  moving”, and we are planting a replacement coastal oak in any case.  The third tree is a Siberian  elm, which could be retained without interfering with the proposed house, but is considered a  noxious weed plant in some Midwestern states and without redeeming value in the Arborist’s  report.     Below we provide what we believe  are compelling arguments that it is  not feasible to build a redesigned  house as an alternative and that the  tree in question has no remarkable  traits that justify its preservation.     Significance and condition of the  catalpa tree: There have been many  “protected” trees that have been  approved by the city for removal  because of encroachment of a  proposed structure and in this case it  is unclear what the remarkable  characteristics of this tree are. The  tree is a common ordinary large  catalpa tree with an appraised value  of $7200.  It is not a native California  tree, not a heritage tree, and without  historical or cultural significance.  It is  not a majestic tree and in fact, while  Fig. 1.  Picture of the catalpa tree from the Arborist’s report  (page 15).  The red circles indicate areas of dead branches.   Note the undesirable multi‐trunk structure and odd leaning  canopy over the present house.  136 the health is good, the structure, form and overall condition is only fair in the judgement of a  professional arborist (see arborist’s report). For overall condition, “Fair = Reduced vigor,  damage, dieback, or pest problems, at least one significant structural problem or multiple  moderate defects requiring treatment. Major asymmetry or deviation from the species normal  habit, function and aesthetics compromised”.   An important consideration is the age of the  tree. Catalpa trees have an average lifespan of 60 to 70 years.  The tree in question is next to a  70 year old house and probably about 70 years old.  Its age, thus, is about equal to the average  lifespan of catalpa trees and it probably has limited remaining years, perhaps 10 to 20, only a  fraction of the life of the new house that would be strangely designed around the tree.  The  tree is likely already in decline based on the many dead terminal branches on the tree  illustrated in Fig. 1 (red circles).  Note also the multiple large limbs near the bottom of the tree  which are undesirable traits that weaken the tree and the odd canopy that arches over the  present house.  Overall, the condition of the tree is at best fair, it is near the end of its natural  lifespan, and it has no remarkable traits to justify its retention. In contrast, we propose to plant  three large native California oak trees as replacements that will be available for enjoyment of  your children, grandchildren, their children, and many more generations.      Location of the catalpa: The most critical problem with the tree  is its location. As can be seen from Fig. 2, the tree is in the right  center of the usable portion of the lot.  The black circle indicates  the mandated 18 ft protection area around the tree with the  white circle the trunk of the tree. The footprint of the tree is  entirely within the master bedroom, bathroom, and closet, and  extends into the kitchen of the proposed house and overlaps  part of the family room and deck.  It location, not only is  incompatible with our proposed house, but would be a  detriment to any development of the property.    The city arborist requested that we redesign the house by  extending it along the left side to construct a similar sized house  as illustrated in Fig. 3.  Stating the obvious, houses of the same  square feet are not necessarily equal.  It is technically feasible  to redesign a house of the same square feet around the tree,  but only in the strictest interpretation of the meaning of  feasibility and requiring omission of a critical feature.   The first issue is the odd configuration of the house.  The  extended portion of the house is only 38 ft wide, which destroys  the symmetry of the house and makes it very difficult to design  this area with bedrooms and a great hall in any effective use of the space. Such an oddly  configured house would reduce the value of the property substantially, compared the house we  propose.  Given that just the busy nature of Cox Ave reduced the value of this property by  about $200,000 compared to nearby properties, a reasonable estimate would be a 5% to 10% Set BackSet Back Set Back Set BackFig. 2. Schematic showing  the footprint of the catalpa  tree with the mandated 18  ft protected area (black)  superimposed on the  proposed house with the  required setbacks (gray).   137 reduction or $150,000 to $300,000 for a property with a newly constructed house.  In short, it is  not feasible to build a redesigned house that is comparable in value, space utilization, and  architectural attractiveness.  The second issue is that a redesigned house retaining the  tree is possible in the usable space, only if the deck is eliminated  (Fig. 3).  The deck is a central feature of the proposed house.   We love to be outside and the deck will allow us to take  advantage of the mild California climate, in contrast to our  Midwestern climate. In the proposed house, the location of the  deck provides privacy from both sides and in summer, the house  provide shade on the deck in the morning and late afternoon.   In the redesigned house there is no desirable location for a deck  within the useable area and in any case it would be exposed  providing no privacy or protection from the sun.  There is,  therefore, simply no feasible alternative to our proposed house  that retains all its essential features if the catalpa tree is not  removed.   The third issue is related to our enjoyment of the  property.  Cox Avenue is a very busy street so leisure time  will be restricted to the backyard.  A redesigned house  around the tree encroaches substantially on the backyard  area which will limit space for general enjoyment and for  planting ornamental trees and fruit trees, particularly  citrus and other fruit trees that we Midwesterners await  with great anticipation.  So there is no question that a  redesigned house would substantially reduce our  enjoyment of the property outside the house and limit our  ability to take advantage of the unique California experience we are so looking forward to.  Clearly, our enjoyment of the property would be dramatically and negatively impacted if we are  forced to live in a redesigned house as the city is mandating rather than our dream home.     Environmental Concerns: We propose to plant three large native oak trees to replace the  catalpa tree.  A recurring theme of the comments of the neighbors in their petitions is the  importance of restoring the native relationships in urban settings.  As you can see from these  petitions, several neighbors living near Cox Ave expressed strong support for our proposal to  replace a non‐native tree with three large native oak trees, which will also greatly improve their  neighborhood environment and property values.  To quote one “Native trees make a significant  contribution to specialized food relationships that determine the stability and complexity of the  local food webs that support animal diversity.”  For what it is worth in water challenged  California, a catalpa tree consumes a moderate amount of water in the Saratoga area, while the  native oak tree consumption of water is very low (Water Use Classification of Landscape  Fig. 3. Schematic drawing as in  Fig. 2.  The footprint of a  redesigned house (pink) of similar  size to the proposed house is  shown.  Note the odd  configuration and the lack of  space for a deck and in any case  the deck would be exposed and  not provide privacy as is the case  for our proposed house.  Set BackSet Back Set Back Set Back65’ x 35’ 38’ x 42’ Deck ‐Privacy? Deck 138 Species, WUCOLS).  Further, the oak trees in its natural environment will be here for many,  many years, while the catalpa has a limited future.   Clearly, a property with native oak trees as  we propose is vastly superior to one retaining the catalpa tree.      Consideration of the City’s criteria for removal of trees:  Based on the discussion above, there  is ample justification for removal of the catalpa tree to permit construction of a new house.  Under criteria 1, encroachment on a proposed structure is to be considered and since the tree  is completely within the footprint of the house this criteria applies.  Consideration of the  condition of the tree is also within criteria 1.  The overall condition of the tree is at best fair and  combined with its lack of major significance and its limited remaining lifespan, the condition of  the tree also supports its removal under criteria 1.  Further support is provided by Criteria 9,  which defines a reasonable alternative.  Criteria 9 explicitly states conditions to be considered  for feasible alternatives, namely economic and enjoyment issues.  The location of tree would  require that the symmetry of the house be destroyed resulting a poorly designed, oddly  configured house with a reduced property value we estimate to be $150,000 to $300,000.   There are, thus, compelling economic considerations which support approval of the removal of  this tree.  With regard to “enjoyment”, as noted above, our enjoyment of this property both  inside the house and outside would be diminished. We believe that consideration of Criteria 9  provide strong additional support for approval of removal of the tree. Overall, there is ample  justification for removal of the catalpa tree based on the city’s criteria for removal of trees. This  conclusion is in accord with the judgement of a highly experienced professional arborist (see  page 7, Arborist’s Report).    Short term vs long term planning: In twenty years, in the city’s vision, you will have a very  oddly configured house and the catalpa tree is likely gone, leaving a house oddly designed and  configured around nothing. In our vision, you have a well‐designed house with beautiful  landscaping, and several majestic native California trees that are approaching maturity and  have many, many years, perhaps 100s, of life remaining.  The choice is clear in our view and  comes down to deciding between two visions for the property, the city vision or our vision; a  poorly designed house or a well‐designed dream house that maximizes the property value; a  common non‐native tree with limited years remaining or several native trees for the enjoyment  of many generations; a vision stuck in the past or a vision that looks to the future; the interests  of a tree, in this case squeezing out a few more years of life for the tree, or the interests,  enjoyment, and well‐being of human beings.    So, we hope you agree that our vision for our Cox property is vastly superior to the city vision  and are asking for you to approve our proposed plans, so we can escape the limbo we have  been trapped in for the last three months and get back to pursuing our dreams.    139 37481 Maple St Ste K Fremont CA 94536 • Tel: 650.208.5251 Email: taeho@thumase.com April 13, 2021 Building Official Community Development Department City of Saratoga, CA 95070 Re: 18580 Cox Ave. Saratoga, CA Subject: Story Pole Certificate Dear Building Official, Based on the site visit and measurement on 4/13/2021, we certify that the story pole is installed accurately in terms of location, height, and elevation as shown on the site plan. Regards, Tae-ho Um, PE.SE Enclo. Attachment 9 140 RESOLUTION NO: 21- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVING AN APPLICATION FOR DESIGN REVIEW (ADR21-0004) AND CITY ARBORIST CLEARANCE (ARB21-0011) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED AT 18580 COX AVENUE (389-13-009) WHEREAS, on January 29, 2021, applications were submitted to the City of Saratoga by Byron Kemper for Administrative Design Review and City Arborist Clearance to construct a new one story 3,537 square feet single family home which included a request to remove five protected trees. 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 May 12, 2021 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 Planning Commission finds that the application for Design Review (ADR21-0004) for a new 3,537 square foot one-story single-family residence is consistent 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 Attachment 10 141 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 2 neighborhood. In addition, the proposed materials, colors, and details enhance the architecture in a well-composed, understated manner. Section 5: The Planning Commission has reviewed the recommendations made by the City Arborist (ARB21-0011) and determined that the removal of the following five protected trees to be in conformance with the Tree Removal Criteria contained in City Code Section 15-50.080 - one 12” Ash, one 12” Privet, one 36” catalpa, one 20” coast live oak, and one 15” Siberian elm. Section 6: The City of Saratoga Planning Commission hereby approves ADR21-0004, and ARB21-0011 at 18580 Cox Avenue (APN 389-13-009), 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 12th day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ____________________________ Anjali Kausar Chair, Planning Commission 142 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 3 Exhibit 1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL ADR21-0004 / ARB21-0011 18580 COX AVENUE (APN 389-13-009) 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. 143 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 4 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. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT 5. 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. 6. The development shall be located and constructed to include those features, and only those features, as shown on the plan approved by the Planning Commission on May 12, 2021. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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. 9. 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. 144 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 5 10. All fences, walls and hedges shall conform to height requirements provided in City Code Section 15-29. 11. Front yard landscaping per the landscape plan 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. 12. 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. 13. 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. ARBORIST 14. All requirements in the City Arborist Approval Memo dated May 6, 2021 incorporated by this reference. are hereby adopted as conditions of approval and shall be implemented as part of the approved plans. FIRE DEPARTMENT 15. The owner/applicant shall comply with all Fire Department requirements for the project contained in the Santa Clara County Fire Department Approval Memo dated 02/11/2021, incorporated by this reference. ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. Applicant / Owner shall make the following improvements in the City right-of-way: a. Remove existing rolled curb along the property frontage on Cox Avenue and replace with vertical curb per city standard details. b. Install city standard driveway approach at each driveway 145 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 6 See City of Saratoga Standard Details for removal and new installation. New flow line shall conform to existing flow lines and grade. 19. Damages to driveway approach, curb and gutter, public streets, or other public improvements during construction shall be repaired prior to final inspection. 20. All new/upgraded utilities shall be installed underground. 21. 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. 22. 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). 23. All building and construction related activities shall adhere to New Development and Construction – Best Management Practices as adopted by the City for the purpose of preventing storm water pollution: • Owner shall implement construction site inspection and control to prevent construction site discharges of pollutants into the storm drains per approved Erosion Control Plan. • 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. • 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. 24. Prior to the commencement of any earthwork/grading activities, the permittee shall arrange a pre-construction meeting. The meeting shall include the City of Saratoga Grading Inspector (408-868-1201), the grading contractor, and the project Soils Engineer. The permittee or representative shall arrange the pre-construction meeting at least 48 hours prior to the start of any earthwork activities. 25. Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the LLS of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks are per the approved plans. 26. Prior to the Building final, all Public Works conditions shall be completed per approved plans. 27. Upon the completion of this project the elevation of the lowest floor including basement shall be 146 Report to the Planning Commission 18580 Cox Avenue – Application #’s ADR21-0004, ARB21-0011 May 12, 2021 Page | 7 certified by a registered professional engineer or surveyor and verified by the City's building inspector to be properly elevated. Such certification and verification shall be provided to the City’s Floodplain Administrator. BUILDING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 28. Four (4) sets of complete construction plans shall be submitted to the Building Division. These plans shall be subject to review and approval by the City prior to issuance of Zoning Clearance. The construction plans shall, at a minimum include the following: a. Architectural drawings and other plan sheets consistent with those identified as Exhibit “A” on file with the Community Development Department. b. All additional drawings, plans, maps, reports, notes, and/or materials required by the Building Division. c. This signed and dated Resolution printed onto separate construction plan pages. d. The site plan shall contain a note with the following language: “Prior to foundation inspection by the City, the Licensed Land Surveyor of record shall provide a written certification that all building setbacks comply with the Approved Plans,” which note shall represent a condition which must be satisfied to remain in compliance with this Design Review Approval. e. A final Landscape and Irrigation Plan which provides documentation showing how the project complies with applicable Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (WELO) requirements including the payment of deposit fees for the review submitted plans and water budget/usage calculations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ƒ :6ƒ (1ƒ (6ƒ :6ƒ (2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666*5281'6,7(48,72&2;3$6(2/$'23$6(235(6$'$ 127726&$/( 0 1&2168/7,1*6(59,&(6,1&5010GRAPHIC SCALE2010SCALE 1" : 10'6859(<25 667$7(0(177+,60$3&255(&7/<5(35(6(176$6859(<0$'(%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7,21,1&21)250$1&(:,7+7+(5(48,5(0(1762)7+(352)(66,21$//$1'6859(<256 $&71RKWU$86"PRELIMINARY DRAFT"157 &2817<2)6$17$&/$5$'2&80(17/27%/2&.%22.3$*(75$&7/276,=(64)((7&21&52//('&85%75(('5,3/,1( 7<3,&$/ (0*0&21&325&+3267 7<3,&$/ %5,&. &21&&85%&21&52//('&85%&21&52//('&85%*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*5281'*$=(%2*5281'*5281'+286(+286(+286(:0$&$&:9:9660+5,0&21&&21&&21&&21&&21&&21&&21&6+('*$5$*())+286())*$5$*())522)3($.7777777777':':': 38(6ƒ :6ƒ (1ƒ (6ƒ :6ƒ (2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+2+666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666*5281'6,7(48,72&2;3$6(2/$'23$6(235(6$'$ 127726&$/( 0 1&2168/7,1*6(59,&(6,1&5010GRAPHIC SCALE2010SCALE 1" : 10'6859(<25 667$7(0(177+,60$3&255(&7/<5(35(6(176$6859(<0$'(%<0(2581'(50<',5(&7,21,1&21)250$1&(:,7+7+(5(48,5(0(1762)7+(352)(66,21$//$1'6859(<256 $&71RKWU$86"PRELIMINARY DRAFT"158 159 160 161 162 163 164 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Date: May 12, 2021 Subject: Supplemental Memo # 1 – Application ADR21-0004; 18580 Cox Ave The attached are additional public comments for application ADR21-0004; 18580 Cox Ave, that was received after the publication of the packet. Attachment 1 – Public Comments 165 166 CITY OF SARATOGA Memorandum To: Saratoga Planning Commission From: Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner Date: May 12, 2021 Subject: Supplemental Memo # 2 – Application ADR21-0004; 18580 Cox Ave The attached are additional public comments for application ADR21-0004; 18580 Cox Ave, that was received after the publication of the packet. Attachment 1 – Public Comments 167 168